New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis [1] 0310481708

Citation preview

=. Sh & ofS ¥ Orn Pay,

es

DOld

“os

WAO}U] AN2

Th

a o *oSdry

tament

O

G

e7

Volume |

-alEd torr

as MSc

aN

iy

LY

WN

raed

Sat Met deka

E Dictionary of Old Testament 1 heology & International Newkx evesis Volume {

The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis EDITORIAL

BOARD

General Editor Willem A. VanGemeren Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages Trinity Evangelical Divinity School Associate Editors Dr. Tremper Longman III Professor of Old Testament

Dr. Richard D. Patterson Emeritus Professor

Westminster Theological Seminary

Liberty University

Dr. Elmer A. Martens Professor of Old Testament

Dr. Bruce K. Waltke Professor of Old Testament

Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary

Regent College

Dr. Eugene H. Merrill

Dr. John Walton

Professor of Old Testament Studies

Professor of Bible

Dallas Theological Seminary

Moody Bible Institute

Consulting Editors Dr. Robert P. Gordon Faculty of Oriental Studies University of Cambridge

Dr. J. Gordon McConville Professor of Old Testament Cheltenham and Gloucester

Dr. John E. Hartley Professor of Old Testament Azusa Pacific University

Dr. John N. Oswalt Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages

Dr. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. Professor of Old Testament and President Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary

eas MIS ECS es: Dr. Gary Smith Professor of Old Testament Bethel Theological Seminary

E Dictionary of Old lestament

= Theology & 2 Exegesis International New

Volume {

Willem A. VanGemeren General Editor

aden wate

Zondervan PublishingHouse Grand Rapids, Michigan A Division of HarperCollinsPublishers

|

New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, Volume 1 Copyright © 1997 by Willem A. VanGemeren Requests for information should be addressed to: Zondervan Publishing House Grand Rapids, Michigan 49530 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis / Willem VanGemeren, general editor. ; cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-310-48170-8 1. Bible. O. T.—Dictionaries. 2. Bible. O. T—Dictionaries—Hebrew. 3. Bible. O.T.—Theology—Dictionaries. 4. Bible. O. T—Criticism, interpretation, etc.—Dictionaries. 5. Bible. O. T—Theology—Dictionaries—Hebrew. 6. Bible. O. T.— Criticism, interpretation, etc.—Dictionaries—Hebrew.

I. VanGemeren, Willem.

BS440.N438 1996 221.3—dc20

96-15006 CIP

This edition is printed on acid-free paper and meets the American National Standards Institute Z39.48 standard All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the Holy Bible: New International Version®. NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means-electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other-except for brief quotations in printed services, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Designed and typeset by Teknia Software Printed in the United States of America 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04/DC/ 109 8.765432 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface .

vi

Contributors

ix

Abbreviations Transliterations

J li

Guide to Old Testament Theology and Exegesis . (see Table of Contents on p. 3) Lexical Articles

N to?

.

1 LD

PREFACE The editors are pleased to present The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (NIDOTTE) as a resource for teachers, ministers, and Bible students. The dictionary contains four distinct parts: the Guide to Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (vol. 1), some three thousand lexical and topical entries (vols. 1-4), an integrative cross-reference system, and extensive and useful indexes (vol. 5).

In the organization, the choice of articles, and the collaboration with several hundred authors representing a great variety of backgrounds, the editors have been united in their commitment to provide the reader with a useful reference work. The result is a dictionary that stands apart from many other dictionaries. Seven features set this dictionary apart from other theological dictionaries of the Old Testament. (1) The introductory essays open up to the reader the larger field of biblical hermeneutics and interpretation (see Introduction: A. Methodology). One will find here a framework for using the information given in the dictionary. (2) The reader will benefit from understanding the meaning of words in relation to other words (see Introduction: B. Semantic Fields and Words). Each Hebrew word is part of a larger range (semantic field). The meaning of a word in a text can be nuanced better in relation to other words. The three thousand entries cover the most common roots in the Hebrew language of the OT, as well as many common and less common words. (3) The reader can access the Hebrew words by a numbering system that bridges the use of concordance and lexicon. (4) In the topical section (vol. 4) one will find a wide range of topics (in the order of the English alphabet). These include personal and geographical names, as well as epochs, peoples, concepts, and a theology on each book of the OT. In addition, one will be able to reference the lexical volumes by some two thousand “subjects” (together with a lexical reference, including number) that open the usefulness of the lexical volumes of the dictionary to the reader (see Introduction: C. Topics). These entries are important to the understanding of the message of the OT. (5) The Index volume is intended to be a useful key to the entire set (see Introduction: D. Index). (6) Readers who look for some guidance in the use of this set of books as a key

to the interpretation of the OT will benefit from the article “Several Illustrations on Integrating the Guide With NJDOTTE in Doing Old Testament Exegesis and Theology,’ at the end of the Guide (see also “Principles for Productive Word Study”). (7) This set complements its NT counterpart, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT, edited by Colin Brown). The four main divisions of this dictionary can be used separately and in an integrated fashion. (1) The Guide can serve as a textbook in a course on hermeneutics or

exegesis, but is also part of the dictionary project. Each of the first ten articles delineates aspects of the exegetical and theological enterprise, and the last article is suggestive of ways of interacting with the Guide as well as with the lexical/topical articles. (2) The lexical articles form the substance of the dictionary. Nearly all articles include a list of entries with words that have some degree of synonymity (semantic field) that

Preface

encourages further study of these words. It is our hope that this system of cross-references as well as the common cross-references found between the articles will aid the reader in locating the appropriate entries and in creating an interest for further exploration. (3) The topical dictionary, together with the cross-references to the lexical entries and semantic fields, take up names of people and places, words, concepts, and events that help one to look at the biblical text from different perspectives. (4) The index volume (vol. 5) is a necessary supplement to the other four volumes, as it opens up all parts of the dictionary by listing Hebrew terms, biblical references, topics and concepts, and the semantic fields. For additional uses, see Introduction to the dictionary. The main concern of the editors of NIDOTTE lies with the advance of the interpretation and theological understanding of the OT as Scripture. It is our hope that the volumes of NIDOTTE will encourage the study of the OT and that the OT will maintain its place as a vital part of the Christian canon, so that the churches throughout the world will experience a renewal through the faithful teaching, preaching, and use of the OT. While the authors of the articles in NIDOTTE have made suggestive connections between the Testaments, their main concern lies with the interpretation and theological

understanding of the OT. Yet the careful reader is encouraged to make connections between the OT and NT. The connections are manifold; they are verbal, thematic, and

textual. We trust that NJIDOTTE and NIDNTT will together enhance the study and interrelationship of OT and NT As General Editor of this set, I close by expressing my gratitude to the associate editors—Tremper Longman [JI (Westminster Theological Seminary); Elmer A. Martens (Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary); Eugene H. Merrill (Dallas Theological Seminary); Richard D. Patterson (Liberty University); Bruce K. Waltke (Regent College); John H. Walton (Moody Bible Institute); the consulting editors—Robert P. Gordon (Cambridge University); John E. Hartley (Azusa Pacific University); Gerhard Hasel} (Andrews University); Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. (GordonConwell); J. Gordon McConville (Cheltenham and Gloucester); John N. Oswalt

(Asbury Theological Seminary); Gary V. Smith (Bethel Theological Seminary); the contributors, who represent more than twenty-five countries and over one hundred institutions, and who demonstrated a spirit of diligence and concern to ensure the quality and usefulness of this Dictionary, the staff at the Zondervan Publishing House—Stan Gundry for his commitment to the project’s success; Ed van der Maas for his insights and encouragement; Verlyn D. Verbrugge for his careful editing and insightful review of every article; Becky Knapp for her data entry of editorial changes; William D. Mounce and his assistant, Ed Taylor, for preparing and executing the typesetting phase; and Robert H. O'Connell, who supervised the compilation and organization of the Subject Index; my wife Evona—she processed the data into the computer, edited the manuscripts as they came from authors and editors, and was my faithful administrative

assistant;

and my

daughters

Nurit, Tamara,

and Shoshanna,

who

endured the “absence” of father and mother for many hours as we hid away in our offices. I conclude with a personal reflection. During the eight years of this project, I had a unique privilege of working with a wonderful team of gifted editors and scholars. I am most grateful for this experience. Yet, the project was not without its difficulties. From beginning to end I was reminded of the fragility of humanity. At the beginning of Vil

Preface

the project two distinguished South African scholars passed away (Dr. Charles E. Fensham and Dr. D. H. Odendaal). During the project some of my friends and contemporaries—Dr. Raymond B. Dillard (Westminster Theological Seminary) and Dr. Gerhard Hasel (Andrews University)—went to be with the Lord. In God’s providence they were prevented from finishing their articles. I greatly missed the input of Gerhard Hasel, who had begun to serve as editor. Robert Alden, Joyce Baldwin, Roland K. Harrison, and Elmer B. Smick also passed away, having left a legacy in the

articles that are incorporated in these volumes. tributors experienced death in their immediate that affected their contribution(s) in one way or May God grant his blessing on all those use this Dictionary. Deerfield, Illinois Christmas 1996

Vili

Other contributors and would-be confamily, serious illness, and tragedies another. involved in this project and on all who Willem A. VanGemeren General Editor

-

Contributors + Deceased

ABEGG, MARTIN G., JR M.Div., M.Phil., Ph.D.; Assistant Professor of Old Testament, Trinity Western University, Langley, British Columbia, Canada AITKEN, KENNETH T. B.D., Ph.D.; Lecturer in Hebrew and Semitic Languages, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland ALDEN, ROBERT L. + B.A.,M.Div., Ph.D.; Late Professor of Old Testament, Denver Seminary, Denver, Colorado, United States of America ALEXANDER, T. DESMOND B.A., Ph.D.; Lecturer in Semitic Studies, The Queen’s University of Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland ALLEN, LESLIE C. M.A., Ph.D., D.D.; Professor of Old Testament, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California, United States of America AMES, FRANK RITCHEL B.A., M.Div., M.A.L.S., Ph.D. cand.; University Librarian, Colorado Christian University, Lakewood, Colorado, United States of America ARNOLD, BILL T. B.A., M.Div., Ph.D.; Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages, Asbury Theological Seminary, Wilmore, Kentucky, United States of America AUSTEL, HERMANN J. M.Div., Ph.D.; Professor of Old Testament at Northwest Baptist Seminary, Tacoma, Washington, United States of America AVERBECK, RICHARD E. B.A., M. Div., Ph. D.; Associate Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois, United States of America BAILEY, WILMA A. B.S., M.Div., Ph.D.; Assistant Professor of Old Testament, Messiah College, Grantham, Pennsylvania, United States of America BAER, DAVID. A. B.A., M.Div., Ph.D. cand. at University of Cambridge, United Kingdom; Lecturer in Old Testament and Biblical Languages, Seminario ESEPA, San José, Costa Rica BAKER, D. W. A.B., M. of Christian Studies, M. of Phil., Ph.D.; Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages, Ashland Theological Seminary, Ashland, Ohio, United States of America

BALDWIN, JOYCE G. + B.A., B.D.; Freelance Writer, Late Principal, Trinity College, Bristol, United Kingdom BALOIAN, BRUCE E. B.A., M.Div., M.A., Ph.D.; Associate Professor, Azusa Pacific University, Azusa, California, United States of America

ix

Contributors

BECK, JOHN A. B.A., M.Div., Th.M., Ph.D. cand.; Assistant Professor of Biblical Languages, Concordia

University Wisconsin, Mequon, Wisconsin, United States of America

BEYER, BRYAN E. B.A., M. Div., Ph.D.; Academic Dean, Columbia Bible College, Columbia, South Carolina, United States of America BLOCK, DANIEL B.Ed., B.A., M.A., Ph.D.; Professor of Old Testament Interpretation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky, United States of America BOSMAN, HENDRIK L. B.A. (Hons.), D.D.; Professor of Old Testament, University of Stellenbosch,

Stellenbosch, South Africa

BRACKE, JOHN M. B.A., M.Div., D.Min., Ph.D.; Professor of Old Testament; Dean for Academic Life,

Eden Theological Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri , United States of America

BRENSINGER, TERRY L. B.A, M.Div., M.A., M.Phil., Ph.D.; Associate Professor of Biblical Studies, Messiah College, Grantham, Pennsylvania, United States of America BRISCO, THOMAS V. B.A., M.Div., Ph.D.; Associate Professor of Biblical Backgrounds and Archaeology, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas, United States of America BROOKE, GEORGE J. M.A., Ph.D.; Senior Lecturer in Intertestamental Literature, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom

BROWN, MICHAEL L. B.A., M.A., Ph.D.; Adjunct Professor of Old Testament and Jewish Studies, Regent University School of Divinity, Virginia Beach, Virginia, United States of America BURGE, GARY M. B.A., M.Div., Ph.D.; Professor of New Testament, Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois, United States of America BUTTERWORTH, GEORGE MICHAEL (MIKE) B.Sc., B.D., M. Phil., Ph.D.; Academic Dean, Oak Hill College, London, United

Kingdom CARAGOUNIS, CHRYS C. B.D., Th.D.; Associate Professor, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

CAREW, M. DOUGLAS B.S., P.G.D.E., M.Div., Ph. D. cand. at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois; Instructor at Sierra Leone Bible College, Freetown, Sierra Leone, West Africa CARPENTER, EUGENE E. A.B., M.Div., Ph.D.; Director of Graduate Studies; Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew, Bethel College, Mishawaka, Indiana, United States of America CARROLL R., M. DANIEL B.A., Th.M., Ph.D.; Professor of Old Testament, Denver Seminary, Denver, Colorado, United States of America CARTLEDGE, TONY W. B.S., M.Div., Ph.D.; Pastor, Woodhaven Baptist Church, Apex, North Carolina, United States of America

Contributors

CATHCART, K. J. M.A., Ling. Or.D., M.R.I.A.; Professor of Near Eastern Languages, University College, Dublin, Ireland CHAN, KAM-YAU ALAN M.Div.; Th.M.; Pastor of Chinese Christian Union Church, North Highland Park, Illinois, United States of America CHHETRI, CHITRA B.D., Th.M., Ph.D. cand.; Principal of Nepal Bible Ashram, Nepal CHISHOLM, ROBERT B. B.A., M.Div., Th.M., Th.D.; Professor of Old Testament Studies, Dallas Theological

Seminary; Dallas, Texas, United States of America CLARK, DAVID G. B.A., Ph.D.; Director, Graduate Studies in Religion, Professor of New Testament, Southern California College, Costa Mesa, California, United States of America

COLLINS, JACK S.B., S.M., M.Div., Ph.D.; Associate Professor of Old Testament, Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America COOK, JOHANN B.A., B.Th., M.A., D.Litt.; Associate Professor, Department of Ancient Near Eastern

Languages, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa CORNELIUS, I. D.Litt.; Senior Lecturer, Department of Ancient Near Eastern Studies, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa COTTERELL, PETER B.D., B. Sc., Ph.D., D.Uniy.; Former principal, London Bible College, London, United Kingdom; Fellow of the Institute of Linguists, Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts,

United States of America CREACH, JEROME F. D. B.A., M. Div., Th.M., Ph.D.; Assistant Professor, Barton College, Wilson, North

Carolina, United States of America DENNINGER, DAVID B.A., M.Div., Ph.D., Trinity International University, Deerfield, Illinois, United States of America DIAMOND, A. R. PETE B.S., Dip. Christian Studies, Th.M., Ph.D.; Adult Education Coordinator, All Saints By-the-Sea Episcopal Church, Santa Barbara, California, United States of America

DICKENS, OWEN P. B.A., M.A., M.Div., Ph.D.; Associate Professor of Religion, Asbury College, Wilmore, Kentucky, United States of America DOCKERY, DAVID S. B.S., M.Div., M.A., Ph.D.; President, and Professor of Christian Studies, Union University, Jackson, Tennessee, United States of America DOMERIS, WILLIAM R. B.A., M.A., Ph.D.; Senior Lecturer in Old Testament, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

DREYTZA, MANFRED D.Th.; Lecturer in Old Testament, Geistliches Riistzentrum Krelingen, Walsrode, Germany xi

Contributors i

es

DUMBRELL, WILLIAM J. B.A., M.A., B.D., M.Th., Th.D.; Senior Lecturer, Trinity Theological College, Singapore. ELLIS, ROBERT R. B.S., M.Div, Ph.D.; Associate Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew, Logsdon School of Theology, Hardin Simmons University, Abilene, Texas, United States of America ELS, P. J. J. S. M.A., Ph.D. cand., D.Th., D.Litt.; Professor of Old Testament Studies, University of the Western Cape, Bellville, South Africa ENNS, PETER B.A., M.Div., M.A., Ph.D.; Associate Professor of Old Testament, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America

FOULKES, FRANCIS M.Sc., B.A., M.A., B.D.; Formerly Warden, St. John’s College, Auckland, New Zealand

FOUTS, DAVID M. B.A., Th.M., Th.D; Associate Professor of Bible, Bryan College, Dayton, Tennessee, United States of America FREDERICKS, DANIEL C. B.A., M.Div., Ph.D.; Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs; Professor of

Biblical Studies, Belhaven College, Jackson, Mississippi, United States of America

FRETHEIM, TERENCE E. B.A., M.Div., Th.D.; Professor of Old Testament, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, Minnesota, United States of America FULLER, RUSSELL T. B.S., M.A., M.Phil., Ph.D.; Associate Professor of Biblical Studies, Mid-Continent College, Mayfield, Kentucky, United States of America

FUTATO, MARK D. B.A., M.Div., M.A., Ph.D.; Associate Professor of Old Testament, Westminster

Theological Seminary in California, Escondido, California, United States of America

GIESE, RONALD, JR B.S., M.A., Ph.D.; Associate Professor of Biblical Studies, Liberty University, Lynchburg, Virginia, United States of America GORDON, ROBERT P. M.A., Ph.D.; Regius Professor of Hebrew and Fellow of St. Catharine’s College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom GRISANTI, MICHAEL A. B.A., M.Div., Th.M., Ph.D.; Associate Professor of Old Testament at Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America HADLEY, JUDITH M.. B.A., M.A., Ph.D.; Assistant Professor of Theology and Religious Studies: Villanova University, Villanova, Pennsylvania, United States of America HAGUE, STEPHEN B.A., M.A., M.Div.; Ph.D. candidate at Bristol University and Wycliffe Hall, Bristol and Oxford, United Kingdom HALL, GARY H. B.A., M.Div., M.Th., Ph.D.; Professor of Old Testament, Lincoln Christian Seminary, Lincoln, Illinois, United States of America Xil

Contributors

HAMILTON, VICTOR P. B.A., B.D., Th.M., M.A., Ph.D.; Professor of Religion, Asbury College, Wilmore, Kentucky, United States of America

HARMAN, ALLAN M. B.A., B.D., M.Litt., Th.M., Th.D.; Professor of Old Testament, Presbyterian Theological College, Melbourne, Australia

HARRISON, ROLAND K. + B.D., Th.M., Ph.D., D.D.; Late Professor Emeritus, Wycliffe College, Toronto, Ontario, Canada HARTLEY, JOHN E. B.A., B.D., M.A., Ph.D.; Professor of Old Testament in the C. P. Haggard Graduate School of Theology, Azusa Pacific University, Azusa, California, United States of America HARVEY, JOHN E. B.A., M.C.S., Ph.D. cand. at Wycliffe College, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada HASEL, GERHARD F. + B.A., M.A., Ph.D.; Late Professor of Old Testament and Biblical Theology; Theological Seminary, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan, United States of America HAYDEN, ROY E. B.A., B.D., Th.M., M.A., Ph.D.; Professor of Old Testament, Oral Roberts University Graduate School of Theology, Tulsa, Oklahoma, United States of America HESS, RICHARD S. B.A., M.Div., Th.M., Ph.D.; Reader in Old Testament, Roehampton Institute London,

United Kingdom

HILL, ANDREW E. B.A., M.A., M.Div., Ph.D.; Professor of Old Testament, Wheaton College, Wheaton,

Illinois, United States of America

HOFFMEIER, JAMES K. B.A., M.A., Ph.D.; Professor of Old Testament and Archaeology, Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois, United States of America HOLMSTEDT, ROBERT B.A., M.A., Ph.D. cand. at University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, United States

of America

HOOKS, STEPHEN M. B.A., M.Div., Ph.D.; Professor of Biblical Studies at Atlanta Christian College, East Point, Georgia, United States of America

HORSNELL, MALCOLM J. A. B.A., B.D., Th.M., Ph.D.; Professor of Old Testament Interpretation, McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

HOSTETTER, EDWIN C. B.A., M.A.R., Ph.D.; Professor of Biblical Studies, Ecumenical Institute of Theology,

Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America HOWARD, DAVID M., JR B.S., M.A., A.M., Ph.D.; Associate Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages,

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois, United States of America Xiil

Contributors wn

ee

SS

Ee

EE OE

et

HUBBARD, ROBERT L., JR A.B., B.D., M.A., Ph.D.; Professor of Biblical Literature, North Park Theological Seminary, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America

JENSON, PHILIP P.

M.A., S.T.M., Ph.D.; Lecturer in Old Testament and Hebrew, Trinity College, Bristol, United Kingdom JOB,

JOHN B. M.A., B.D.; Former Vice-Principal and Lecturer in Old Testament at Immanuel College, Ibadan, Nigeria and at Cliff College, Calver, United Kingdom; Minister in the South Bedford and Ampthill Methodist Circuit, United Kingdom

JOHNSTON, GORDON H. B.A., Th.M., Ph.D.; Associate Professor of Old Testament Studies, Lancaster Bible College, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, United States of America JONKER, LOUIS M.A., D.Th.; Part-time Lecturer (and Minister of Religion) at University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa KAISER, WALTER C., JR B.A., B.D., M.A., Ph.D.; Colman M. Mockler Distinguished Professor of Old Testament, President-Elect, Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary, S. Hamilton, Massachusetts, United States of America

KEOWN, GERALD L. B.S., M.Div., Ph.D.; Associate Professor of Old Testament Interpretation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky, United States of America KIUCHI, NOBUYOSHI Ph.D.; Associate Professor of Old Testament, Tokyo Christian University, Chiba, Japan KLEIN, GEORGE

L.

B.A., Th.M, M.Div., M.A., Ph.D.; Professor of Old Testament and Semitics, Acting Graduate Dean, Criswell College, Dallas, Texas, United States of America KLINGBEIL, GERALD A.

B.A. Theology, B.A. Honors, M.A., D. Litt.; Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages at Universidad Peruana Unin, Lima, Peru KLINGBEIL, MARTIN

B.A., B.A. Honors, M.A., D. Litt.; Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages at Universidad Adventista Bolivia, Chochabamba, Bolivia

KONKEL, A. H.

B.R.E., M. Div., Ph.D.; Chairman of Biblical Studies, Providence Theological Seminary, Otterburne, MB, Canada

KOOPMANS, WILLIAM T.

B.A., M.Div., Th.M., Th.D.; Pastor of Cephas Christian Reformed Church, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada KRUGER, PAUL A.

D.Litt., B.Th.; Senior Lecturer, The University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, Republic of South Africa

LATOUNDJI, DAVID P.

B.A., M.Div., Th.M., M.A., Ph.D. cand. at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois, United States of America

XiV

Contributors

LONG, GARY ALAN B.A., M.A., Ph.D.; Assistant Professor of Semitic Languages and Chair, Department of Hebrew Language, Jerusalem University College, Mt. Zion Campus, Jerusalem, Israel LONG, V. PHILIPS B.A., B.S., M.Div., Ph.D.; Professor of Old Testament, Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America

LONGMAN, TREMPER, III B.A., M.Div., M.Phil, Ph.D.; Professor of Old Testament, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America LU, JEFFREY S. B.A., M.A., M.Div., Ph.D.; Adjunct Professor at Logos Evangelical Seminary (Los Angeles, California) and Assistant Pastor at the Atlanta Chinese Christian Church,

Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America LUC, ALEX T. B.Th., B.A., M.Div., M.A., Ph.D.; Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages, Columbia Biblical Seminary and Graduate School of Missions, Columbia, South Carolina, United States of America LUND,

JEROME A. B.R.E., M.Div., M.A., Ph.D.; Associate Research Scholar - Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon at Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati, Ohio, United States of America

MAGARY, DENNIS R. B.A., M.Div., M.A., Ph.D.,; Associate Professor of Old Testament and Semitic

Languages, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois, United States of America MARTENS, ELMER A. B.A., B.Ed., B.D., Ph.D.; Professor Emeritus of Old Testament, Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary, Fresno, California, United States of America

MASON, REX A. M.A., B.D., Ph.D.; Emeritus University Lecturer in Old Testament and Hebrew, Oxford

University, Oxford, United Kingdom MASSOUH, SAMIR B.A., M.A., M.Div.; Chairman, Associate Professor Department of Biblical Studies,

College of Arts and Sciences, Trinity International University, Deerfield, Illinois, United States of America MATTIES, GORDON H. B.A., M.A., Ph.D.; Associate Professor of Biblical Studies, Concord College, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada MCCANN, J. CLINTON, JR. A.B., D.Min., Th.M., Ph.D.; Evangelical Professor of Biblical Interpretation, Eden Theological Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America MCCONVILLE, J. GORDON M.A., B.D., Ph.D.; Senior Lecturer in Religious Studies; Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education, The Park, Cheltenham, United Kingdom MEIER, SAMUEL A. B.A., Th.M., Ph.D.; Associate Professor of Hebrew and Comparative Semitics, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America XV

Contributors MERRILL, EUGENE H. B.A., M.A., M.Phil., Ph.D.; Professor of Old Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas, United States of America MILLARD, ALAN M.A., M.Phil.; Rankin Professor of Hebrew and Ancient Semitic Languages, The University of Liverpool, United Kingdom MOBERLY, WALTER M.A., Ph.D., Lecturer in Theology, University of Durham, Durham, United Kingdom

MOORE, MICHAEL S. B.A., M.A., M.Div., Th.M., M.Ph., Ph.D.; Adjunct Assistant Professor of Old Testament

at Fuller Theological Seminary, Phoenix, Arizona and Preaching Minister at Tatum Boulevard Church of Christ, Phoenix, Arizona, United States of America

MOULDER, WILLIAM J. B.A., M.Div., Ph.D.; Professor of Biblical Studies, Trinity International University, Deerfield, Illinois, United States of America

NAUDE, JACOBUS (JACKIE) A. M.A., M.Th., M.A., D.Litt.; Senior Lecturer, Department of Near Eastern Studies, The University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, Republic of South Africa

NEL, PHILIP J. B.Th., D. Litt.; Professor in Semitic Languages, University of the Orange Free State, Bloemfontein, Republic of South Africa NEWMAN,

ROBERT

B.S., M.Div., S.T.M., Ph.D.; Professor of New Testament at Biblical Theological Seminary, Hatfield, Pennsylvania, United States of America

NICOLE, EMILE Doctorat d’Etat en théologie protestante; Professor of Old Testament, Faculté Libre de Thélogie Evangélique, Vaux-sur-Seine, France NIEHAUS, JEFFREY J. B.A., M.A., Ph.D., M.Div.; Professor of Old Testament, Gordon-Conwell Theological

Seminary, South Hamilton, Massachusetts, United States of America

NIXON, ROSEMARY B.D., M.A., M.Th.; Principal, Theological Institute of the Scottish Bpitccial Church, Edinburgh, Scotland NOGALSKI, JIM Th.D.; Assistant Professor of Old Testament Interpretation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY, United States.of America NOLL, STEPHEN F. B.A., M.A., Ph.D.; Associate Professor of Biblical Studies, Academic Dean, Trinity

Episcopal School for Ministry, Ambridge, Pennsylvania, United States of America NUNNALLY, W. E. B.A., M.A. (Hebrew Language); M.A. (Old Testament); M. Phil., Ph.D.; Associate

Professor of Early Judaism and Christian Origins at Central Bible College, Springfield, Missouri, United States of America

O’CONNELL, ROBERT H. B.A., Th.M., Th.D., Ph.D.; presently freelance editor and writer; formerly Associate Professor of Old Testament at Colorado Christian University, Denver, Colorado, United States of America

XVi

Contributors

O’KENNEDY, D. F. B.A., B.Th., M.Th., D.Th.; Minister at Dutch Reformed Church, Helderberg, Somerset West, and part-time lecturer, University of Stellenbosch (Faculty of Theology, Department of Old Testament) Stellenbosch, South Africa OLIVER, ANTHONY B.Th., M.A., Ph.D.; Dean Caribbean Graduate School of Theology, Kingston, Jamaica OLIVIER, J. P. J. (HANNES) M.Th., D.Litt.; Professor of Old Testament, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa OSBORNE, WILLIAM M.A., M.Phil.; Head of Department of Old Testament; Director for Postgraduate Studies, Bible College of New Zealand, Auckland, New Zealand

OSWALT, JOHN N. B.A., B.D., Th.M., M.A., Ph.D.; Ralph W. Beeson Professor of Biblical Studies, Asbury

Theological Seminary, Wilmore, Kentucky , United States of America

PAN, CHOU-WEE B.A., Ph.D.; Old Testament Lecturer, Trinity Theological College, Singapore PARK, SANG HOON Th.M., Ph.D., Senior Pastor, Seungdong Presbyterian Church, Seoul, South Korea PATTERSON, RICHARD D. A.B., M.Div., Th.M., M.A., Ph.D.; Distinquished Professor Emeritus, Liberty

University, Lynchburg, Virginia, United States of America PAUL, MAARTEN

J.

Th.D.; Teacher of Old Testament, Theologische Hogeschool “Calvijn,” Ede, and Pastor

of Hervormde Kerk, Dirksland, The Netherlands

PEELS, HENDRIK G. L. Th.D.; Professor of Old Testament, Theologische Universiteit van de Christlijke Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands PENNANT, DAVID F. M.A., B.D., Ph.D.; Former Curate-in-Charge, St. Savior’s Church, Brookwood, Woking,

Surrey, United Kingdom PHELPS, MARK ANTHONY B.A., M.T.S., M.A.; Instructor, Ozarks Technical/Community College, Springfield, Missouri, United States of America PIENAAR, DANIEL N. B.A. Honns, B.A., M.A. Phil. Licenciate; Professor, Head of the Department of Biblical

Studies, The University of the Orange Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa POWELL, TIMOTHY B.S., M.Div., Ph.D.; Adjunct Professor, Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary; Senior

Pastor, Christian Life Assembly, Fresno, California, United States of America PRICE, JAMES D. B.S., M.Div., Ph.D.; Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament, Temple Baptist Seminary,

Chattanooga, Tennessee, United States of America PROVAN, IAIN W. M.A., B.A., Ph.D.; Senior Lecturer in Hebrew and Old Testament Studies, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland XV

Contributors 8

58

PUTNAM, FREDERIC CLARKE B.S., M.Div., S.T.M., M.A., Ph.D.; Associate Professor of Old Testament, Biblical Theological Seminary, Hatfield, Pennsylvania, United States of America RASMUSSEN, CARL G. B.D., Th.M., Ph.D.; Professor of Old Testament, Bethel College, St. Paul, Minnesota, United States of America REED, STEPHEN A. M.Div., M.A., Ph.D.; Winthrop, Iowa, United States of America REID, DEBRA K. B.D., M.A., Ph.D.; Tutor in Hebrew, Old Testament and Church History at Spurgeon’s College, London, United Kingdom REIMER, DAVID B.Th., B.A., M.A., D. Phil.; Fellow and Tutor in Hebrew and Old Testament at Regent’s Park College, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom ROGERS, JR. CLEON L. B.A., Th.B., Th.M., Th.D.; Founder and Former Director of the German Theological Seminary, Giessen, Germany ROOKER, MARK B.A., Th.M., M.A., Ph.D.; Associate Professor of Old Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, North Carollina, United States of America VAN ROOY, HARRY F. | M.A., Th.B., D. Litt.; Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages at Portchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education, Potchefstroom, South Africa ROSS, ALLEN P. Th.M., Th.D., Ph.D.; Professor of Biblical Studies at Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, Ambridge, Pennsylvania:, United States of America SATTERTHWAITE, PHILIP E. B.A., M.A., Ph.D.; Affiliated Lecturer at the Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Cambridge; Research Fellow at Tyndale House, Cambridge, United Kingdom SCHIBLER, DANIEL B.A., M.A., Docteur en Etudes Orientales; Visiting Lecturer at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois; Pastor, Swiss Reformed Church, Vevey, Switzerland SCHOVILLE, KEITH N. B.A., M.A., Ph.D.; Professor Emeritus of Hebrew and Semitic Studies, University of Wisconsin, Wadicon Wisconsin, United se of America SCHULTZ, RICHARD B.A., M.Div., M.A., Ph.D.; Associate Professor of Old Testament, Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois, United States of America SEEVERS, BOYD B.A., Th.M., Ph.D. cand. at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois, United States of America SELMAN, MARTIN J. B.A., M.A., Ph.D.; Deputy Principal, Spurgeon’s College, London, United Kingdom SHEPHERD, JERRY M.A.R., Ph.D. Associate; Assistant Professor of Old Testament at Edmonton Baptist Seminary, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

XVili

Contributors SKJOLDAL, NEIL O. B.A., S.T.M., Ph.D.; Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies, Trinity International University, Miami, Florida, United States of America SMICK, ELMER B. + B.A., Th.B., S.T.M., Ph.D.; Late Professor of Old Testament, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, South Hamilton, Massachusetts, United States of America SMITH, GARY V. B.A., M.A., Ph.D., Professor of Old Testament, Bethel Theological Seminary, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America SONG, THOMAS B. Th., M. Div., Ph.D. cand. at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Ill., United States of America SOUTHWELL, PETER J. M. M.A.; Senior Tutor, Wycliffe Hall; Chaplain and Lecturer in Theology, The Queen’s College, Oxford, United Kingdom SPENDER, ROBERT D. B.A., M.A., Ph.D.; Professor of Biblical Studies, The King’s College, Briarcliff Manor, New York, United States of America SPINA FRANK ANTHONY B.A., M.Div., M.A., Ph.D.; Professor of Old Testament, Seattle Pacific University, Seattle, Washington, United States of America STALLMAN, ROBERT C. B.A., M.Div., Ph.D. cand. Westminster Theological Seminary; Assistant Professor of Bible and Theology at Central Bible College, Springfield, Missouri, United States of America STRONG, JOHN T. B.A., M.Div., M.A.R., Ph.D.; Lecturer, Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri, United States of America

STRUTHERS, GALE B. B.A., M.A., Ph.D. cand. at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois;

Instructor at Oak Hills Bible College, Bemidji, Minnesota, United States of America SWART, IGNATIUS B.A., B.A. (Hons.), M.A., B.Th., D. Phil.; Candidate at the Department of Religious Studies, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa TALLEY, DAVID B.A., M.A., Th.M., Ph.D. cand. at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois, United States of America TAYLOR, J. GLEN B.A., Th.M., Ph.D.; Associate Professor, Wycliffe College, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

TAYLOR, MARION A. B.A., M.A., M.Div., S.T.M., Ph.D.; Associate Professor of Old Testament, Wycliffe

College, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

TAYLOR, RICHARD A. B.A., M.A., Ph.D., M.A., Ph.D.; Professor of Old Testament Studies, Dallas Theological

Seminary, Dallas, Texas, United States of America

THOMPSON, DAVID L. A.B., B.D., Th.M., Ph.D.; F. M. and Ada Thompson Professor of Biblical Studies,

Asbury Theological Seminary, Wilmore, Kentucky, United States of America xix

Contributors SSS Se ee

THOMPSON, JOHN ARTHUR M.A., M.Sc., B.Ed., B.D., Ph.D.; Former Reader, University of Melbourne, Department of Middle Eastern Studies, Melbourne, Australia TOMASINO, ANTHONY B.A., M.Div., Ph.D.; Lecturer, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America TREBILCO, PAUL R. B.Sc., B.D., Ph.D.; Professor of New Testament Studies, Knox College, and Sub-Dean, Faculty of Theology, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand TSUMURA, DAVID T. B.Sc., M.Div., M.A., Ph.D.; Professor of Old Testament, Japan Bible Seminary, Hamura, Tokyo, Japan TUELL, STEVE S. B.A., M.Div., Ph.D.; Associate Professor of Religious Studies; Randolph-Macon

College, Ashland, Virginia, United States of America

VAN DAM, CORNELIS B.A., B.D., Th.M., Th.D.; Professor of Old Testament, Theological College of the Canadian Reformed Churches, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada VANGEMEREN, WILLEM

A.

B.A., B.D., M.A., Ph.D; Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages, Trinity

Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois, United States of America

VANHOOZER, KEVIN B.A., M.Div., Ph.D.; Senior Lecturer in Theology, New College, Edinburgh University,

Edinburgh, Scotland

VAN LEEUWEN, CORNELIS D.Th.; Emeritus Professor of Old Testament, State University, Utrecht, Netherlands

VAN LEEUWEN, RAYMOND C. B.A., B.D., M.A., Ph.D.; Professor of Bible and Theology, Dept. of Bible and Theology, Eastern College, St. Davids, Pennsylvania, United States of America VANNOY, J. ROBERT B.A., M. Div., S.T.M., Th.D.; Professor of Old Testament at Biblical Theological Seminary, Hatfield, Pennsylvania, United States of America

VAN PELT, MILES V. B.A., M.A; Lecturer in Greek, Gordon College, Wenham, Massachusetts, United States

of America

VAN ROOY, HARRY F. ; M.A., Th.B., D. Litt.; Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages at Portchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education, Potchefstroom, South Africa VASHOLZ, ROBERT B.A., M.A., B.D., M.A., Th.M., Th.D.; Chairman, Old Testament Department, Covenant

Theological Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America VERHOEF, PIETER A. M.A., M.Th., D.Th.; Emeritus Professor, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch,

Republic of South Africa VOS, HOWARD F. B.A., Th.M., Th.D., M.A., Ph.D.; Professor of History and Archaeology, Department Chair, The King’s College, Briarcliff Manor, New York, United States of America XX

Contributors WAKELY, ROBIN B.A., Ph.D.; Senior Lecturer in Hebrew and Old Testament Studies, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa

WALKER, LARRY L. B.A., B.D., M.A., Ph.D.; Chairman of Old Testament Department, Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages, Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, Memphis, Tennessee, United States of America

WALTKE, BRUCE K. Th.D., Ph.D.; Marshall Sheppard Professor of Biblical Studies, Regent College, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Professor of Old Testament, Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, Florida, United States of America WALTON, JOHN H. A.B., M.A., Ph.D.; Professor of Bible, Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America WAY, ROBERT J. M.A. (Univ. of St. Andrews), M.A. (Univ. of Cambridge); Minister, Headingley St. Columba United Reformed Church, Leeds, United Kingdom

WEGNER, PAUL B.A., M.Div., Th.M., Ph.D.; Associate Professor at Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America WENHAM, GORDON J. M.A., Ph.D.; Professor of Old Testament, The Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education, Cheltenham, United Kingdom WILLIAMS, TYLER F. B.A., M.Div., Ph.D. cand. at University of St. Michaels College, Wycliffe College, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada WILLIAMS, WILLIAM C. B.A., M.A., M.A. Rel., Ph.D.; Professor of Old Testament, Southern California College, Costa Mesa, California, United States of America WILLIAMSON, HUGH G. M. M.A., Ph.D., D.D., F.B.A.; Regius Professor of Hebrew, The University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

WILSON, GERALD H. B.A., M.Div., M.A., M.A., Ph.D.; Assistant to the Dean and Director of Special Programs at Western Evangelical Seminary, Portland, Oregon, United States of America WILSON, IAN B.Sc., M.Phil., M.A., Ph.D.; Clare Hall, Cambridge, United Kingdom

WILSON, MARVIN R. B.A., M.Div., M.A., Ph.D.; Harold J. Ockenga Professor of Biblical and Theological

Studies, Gordon College, Wenham, Massachusetts, United States of America

WISEMAN, D.J. M.A., D.Lit., F.B.A.; Professor Emeritus of Assyriology, The University of London, London, United Kingdom WOLF, HERBERT M. B.A., Th.M., Ph.D.; Professor of Theological Studies (Old Testament) at Wheaton College Graduate School, Wheaton, Illinois, United States of America XXx1

Contributors

WOLTERS, AL B.A., M.A., Doctorandus, Ph.D.; Professor of Biblical Studies, Redeemer College, Ancaster, Ontario, Canada

WRIGHT, CHRISTOPHER J.H. M.A., Ph.D.; Principal, Lecturer in Old Testament, All Nations Christian College, Ware, United Kingdom YAMAUCHI, EDWIN M. B.A., M.A., Ph.D.; Professor of History, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, United States

of America YARCHIN, WILLIAM S. B.A., M.A., Ph.D.; Associate Professor of Religion at Azusa Pacific University, Azusa, California, United States of America

YOUNGBLOOD, RONALD F. B.D., Ph.D.; Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew, Bethel Theological Seminary (West), San Diego, California, United States of America

YOUNGER, K. LAWSON, JR. B.A., Th.M., Ph.D.; Associate Professor Biblical Studies, LeTourneau University, Longview, Texas, United States of America

XXil

Abbreviations: General

Abbreviations General abbreviated, abbreviation

const.

construct

absolute

Copt.

Coptic

accusative

D

Deuteronomist(ic) (source/stratum)

anno Domini (after Christ)

deut.

deuteronomic

adjective (adjectival)

ne

dialect

adverb (adverbial)

disleg

ae Akkadian

diss. DSS

ancient Near East(ern)

a

Apocrypha

E

active

apocalyptic

dis legomenon (occurring twice) dissertation Dead Sea Scrolls dual

Elohist(ic) (source/ stratum)

Aquila’s Greek version

EA

(Tell) el-Amarna (Tablet)

Arabic

ed(s).

edited by, editor(s), edition(s)

©.8:

exempli gratia (for example)

Aramaic

article Assyrian

Altes (Ancien) Testament

Egyp.

Biblical Aramaic j

Feyparam Einl.

before Christ

Egyptian Egyptian Aramaic Einleitung English

before the Common Era

-

Biblical Hebrew

va ,

biblical

on

Babylonian Talmud

ET

circa (about, around)

at

Canaanite

Eth.

Ethiopic

century

etp.

etpe‘el/etpa‘al

confer (compare)

EV(V)

chapter(s)

f(f).

Christian column(s) conjecture

epistle(s)

Epigraphic South Arabic especially English translation et alii (and others)

English version(s)

folio (foliis) ({and] on the [following] page[s])

fem.

feminine

fig(s).

figure(s)

Xxill

Abbreviations: General

footnote

LH

Late Hebrew

frg(s).

fragment(s)

lit.

literal(ly)

FS

Festschrift (for)

loc. cit.

fn.

loc citato (in the place cited)

Greek

geographical name

LXX

Septuagint

Holiness Code (Lev 17-26)

Mand.

Mandean

masc.

masculine

haphel

mg.

margin

hapax legomenon (occurring once)

Midr.

Midrash (midrashic)

Mish.

Mishnah (mishnaic)

HB

Hebrew Bible

MS(S)

manuscript(s)

Heb.

Hebrew

MT

Masoretic Text

hi.

hiphil

n(n).

note(s)

hisht.

hishtaphel

NA

Neo-Assyrian

hitp.

hitpael

Nab.

Nabatean

hitpalp.

hitpalpel

n.d.

no date

hitpol.

hitpolel

NE

Near East(ern)

Hitt.

Hittite

ni.

niphal

ho.

hophal

no(s).

number(s)

idem

the same

nom(s).

noun(s)

ihe:

id est (that is)

ImpAram

Imperial Aramaic

impf.

imperfect

New Series New (Neues, Nouveau) Testament

impv.

imperative

inf.

infinitive

Old Greek (version)

intrans.

intransitive

Old Latin (version)

ipht.

iphta‘al Yahwist(ic) stratum)

obj.

(source/

object

Onk.

Onkelos (Targum)

op. cit.

opere citato (in the work cited)

Jewish Aramaic

Old Series

Jewish

oneself (in lexical definition)

Jewish Palestinian Aramaic

Old South Arabic

Judean

Old Testament

jussive

Priestly (source/stratum)

kethib

page(s)

Latin

pael

Abbreviations: General Pal.

Palestinian

parallel(s)/and parallel passages

similar(ly) sing.

singular someone (in lexical definition)

participle(s) passive peal

something (in lexical definition) —

Pentateuch

subject

Peshitta

substantive

perfect

suffix

Phoenician

Sumerian

piel

supplement(ary)

pilpel

sub verbo (under the word|[s])

plural

proper name

Symmachus’s Greek version of the OT

polel/polal

Syriac (language)

predicate

Talmud (talmudic)

proposed reading

Targum(s) (targumic)

Proto-Sinaitic

Theodotion’s Greek version of the OT

Pseudepigrapha Palestinian (Jerusalem) Talmud

tiphil

pual qere

Textus Receptus (Received Text)

gal

translation, translated (by)

Qumran literature

transitive

Rabbinic

Ugaritic

reprint(ed)

verse(s)

revised (by)

variant(s)

Tosefta

Rabbinic Hebrew

verb(s)

Rabbinic literature

Vulgate

Ras Shamra (Ugarit)

namely

Sabean (dialect of OSA)

Vetus Latina

Samaritan

versions (ancient) West

Semitic

singular

WestSem.

West Semitic XXV

Abbreviations: Symbols

Symbols II

parallel with




transformed to

4

hypothetical form

=

cross-reference (within NJDOTTE)

Hebrew number (Goodrick-Kohlenberger system) Ft ~:

Theology _ see article (x) in the fourth volume

Publications AANLM

AARSBLA

Atti dell’ Academia nazionale dei Lincei: Memorie

— American Academy of Religion/Society of Biblical Literature Abstracts

AARSR

American Academy of Religion Studies in Religion

AASOR

Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research

AB

Anchor Bible

ABD

Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman, 6 vols., New York, 1992

ABL

R. F. Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Letters, 14 vols., Chicago, 1892-1914

ABRL

Anchor Bible Reference Library

AbrN

Abr-Nahrain

AcOr

Acta orientalia

ADOG

Abhandlungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft

AEO

A. H. Gardiner, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica, 3 vols., London, 1947

AER

American Ecclesiastical Review

AF

Agyptologische Forschungen

AfO

Archiv fiir Orientforschung

AgAbh

Agyptologische Abhandlungen

AGJU

Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums

AGM

Archiv fiir Geschichte der Medizin, ed. K. Sudhoff, 20 vols., Leipzig, 1907-1928

AGMN

Sudhoffs Archiv fiir Geschichte der Medizin (und Naturwissenschaften), vols. 21- , 1929-

AHw

W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handwérterbuch, 3 vols., Wiesbaden,

1959-1981. XXV1

Abbreviations: Publications

AJBA

Australian Journal of Biblical Archaelogy

AJBI

Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute

AJSL

American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures

ALUOS

Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society

AnBib

Analecta biblica

Anclsr

R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, 2 vols., tr. J. McHugh, New York, 1961, 1965

ANEP

The Ancient Near East in Pictures, ed. J. B. Pritchard, Princeton, 1954, 1969

ANESTP

Ancient Near East: Supplementary Texts and Pictures, ed. J. B. Pritchard, Princeton, 1969

ANET

Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed.

J. B. Pritchard, Princeton, 1950, 1955”, 1969° Angelicum

Analecta orientalia Andover Newton Quarterly

Anatolian Studies

Der alte Orient Alter Orient und Altes Testament Altorientalische Bilder zum AT, ed. H. Gressmann, Berlin, 19277

American Oriental Series American Oriental Society Translation Series Altorientalische Texte zum AT, ed. H. Gressmann, Berlin, 19267

Archaeology and Old Testament Study, ed. D. W. Thomas, Oxford, 1967 A. E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C., Oxford, 1923 H. B. Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts, Baltimore, 1965

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, ed. R. H. Charles, 2 vols., Oxford, 1913; repr. 1978

Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, ed. D. D. Luckenbill, 2 vols., Chicago, 1926-1927; repr. 1968

Arbeiten zur Theologie Ancient Records of Egypt, ed. J. H. Breasted, 5 vols., Chicago, 1905-1907; repr. New York, 1962

Archives royales de Mari Archiv orientdlni Archiv fiir Religionswissenschaft XXVIi

Abbreviations: Publications

AS

D. D. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib, OIP 2, Chicago, 1924

ASG

Archiv fiir Schweizerische Geschichte

ASNU

Acta seminarii neotestamentici upsaliensis

ASOR

American Schools of Oriental Research

ASTI

Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute

ASV

American Standard Version

ATAbh

Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen

ATANT

Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments

ATAT

Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament

ATD

Das Alte Testament Deutsch

ATDA

Aramaic Texts from Deir ‘Alla, ed. J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij, DMOA 19, Leiden, 1976

ATDan

Acta theologica danica

ATR

Anglican Theological Review

AusBR

Australian Biblical Review

AuSP

G. H. Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Paldstina, 7 vols., Gutersloh, 1928-1942; repr. 1964

AUSS

Andrews University Seminary Studies

AUSSDS

Andrews University Seminary Studies: Dissertation Series

AV

Authorized (King James) Version

BA

Biblical Archaeologist

BAfO

Beihefte zur Archiv fiir Orientforschung

BAGD

W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, F. W. Danker, Greek-English

BARev

Biblical Archaeology Review

BASOR

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

BASS

Beitrage zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft

BAT

Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments

BBB

Bonner biblische Beitrage

BBC

Broadman Bible Commentary

BBET

Beitrage zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie

Lexicon of the NT, Chicago, 1957, 1979?

-

BBLAK

Beitrage zur biblischen Landes- und Altertumskunde

BBR

Bulletin for Biblical Research

BDB

F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the OT, Oxford, 1907; repr. with corrections, 1953

BDT

Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, ed. E. F. Harrison, Grand Rapids, 1960

BEATAJ

Beitraége zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des Antiken Judentums

XXVili

Abbreviations: Publications

BeO

Bibbia e oriente

BethM

Beth Miqra

BETL

Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium

BETS

Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society

BEUP

Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, ed. H. V. Hilprecht; Series A, Cuneiform Texts, Philadelphia 1893-1914

BEvT

Beitrage zur evangelischen Theologie

BFT

Biblical Foundations in Theology

BGBE

Beitrage zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese

BHEAT

Bulletin d’ histoire et d’exégése de |’Ancien Testament

BHH

Biblisch-historisches Handwérterbuch, ed. B. Reicke and L. Rost, 3 vols., Géttingen, 1962-1966

BHK

Biblia hebraica, ed. R. Kittel, Stuttgart, 1905-1906, 1973!°

BHS

Biblia hebraica stuttgartensia, ed. K. Elliger and W. Rudolf, Stuttgart,

BHT

Beitrage zur historischen Theologie

Bib

Biblica

BibLeb

Bibel und Leben

BibOr

Biblica et orientalia

1969-1975, 1984°

BibRev

Bible Review

BibS

Biblische Studien (Freiburg, 1895-1930; Neukirchen, 1951-)

Biella

J.C. Biella, Dictionary of Old South Arabic: Sabaean Dialect, HSS 25, Chico, Calif., 1982

BIES

Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society (= Yediot)

BIFAO Bijdr

Bulletin de l’institut francais d’archéologie orientale

BIN

Babylonian Inscriptions in the Collection of James B. Nies, Yale University, New Haven, 1917-1954

BIOSCS

Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies

BJPES

Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society

BJRL

Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester

BJS

Brown Judaic Studies

BKAT

Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament

BL

H. Bauer and P. Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebrdischen Sprache, Halle, 1918-1922; repr. 1962

BL

Bibel-Lexikon, ed. H. Haag, Zurich, 1951; Einsiedeln, 19687

BN

Biblische Notizen

Bijdragen

XXIX

Abbreviations: Publications

BO

Bibliotheca orientalis

BR

Biblical Research

BRL

K. Galling, Biblisches Reallexikon, HAT

BRM

Babylonian Records in the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan, ed. A. T. Clay, New York, 1912-1923

BSac

Bibliotheca Sacra

1/1, Tiibingen, 1937, 19777

BSC

Bible Study Commentary

BT

Bible Translator

BTB

Biblical Theology Bulletin

BTGP

H.-J. Kraus, Die biblische Theologie: ihre Geschichte und Problematik, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1979

BuA

B. Meissner, Babylonien und Assyrien, 2 vols., Heidelberg, 1920, 1925

BurH

Buried History

BVC

Bible et vie chrétienne

BVSAW

Berichte tiber die Verhandlungen der saéchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig

BWANT

Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament

BWL

W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, Oxford, 1960

BZ

Biblische Zeitschrift

BZAW

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

CAD

The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Chicago, 1956-

CAH

Cambridge Ancient History, 12 vols., Cambridge, 1923-1939,

CahRB

Cahiers de la Revue biblique

CahThéol

Cahiers théologiques

CAT

Commentaire de l’ Ancien Testament

CB

Century Bible

CBC

Cambridge Bible Commentary

CBET

1961-19717, 1970-*

Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology

CBQ

Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CBQMS

Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series

CBSC

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

EC

Communicator’s Commentary

CGT€ CHALOT

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary

ChiSt XXX

A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. W. L. Holladay, Grand Rapids, 1971 Chicago Studies

Abbreviations: Publications

Cll

Corpus inscriptionum iudaicarum, Vatican City, 1936-

CIS

Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum, Paris, 1881-

CIWA

The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, ed. H. C. Rawlinson,

5 vols., London, 1861-1884, 18917; repr. 1909 CI

Concordia Journal

CIT

Canadian Journal of Theology

CML

Canaanite Myths and Legends, ed. G. R. Driver, Edinburgh, 1956; ed.

J. C. L. Gibson, 19787 ConBNT

Coniectanea biblica, New Testament Series

ConBOT

Coniectanea biblica, Old Testament Series

ConCom

Continental Commentaries

COT

Commentaar op het Oude Testament, ed. G. C. Aalders, Kampen, 1955-1957

CPLOL

J. Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament,

CRAI

Comptes rendus des séances de |’ Académie des inscriptions et belles lettres

CRINT

Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad

CTA

A. Herdner, Corpus des tablettes en cunéiformes alphabétiques

Oxford, 1968; Winona Lake, Ind., 1987?

Novum Testamentum

découvertes a Ras Shamra-Ugarit, 2 vols., Paris, 1963

CIT

Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets... in the British Museum, London, 1896-

CTJ

Calvin Theological Journal

CTM

Calwer theologische Monographien

CTM

Concordia Theological Monthly

CurTM

Currents in Theology and Mission

DB

Dictionnaire de la Bible, ed. F. Vigouroux, Paris, 5 vols., 1895-1912

DBHE

Diccionaria Biblico-Hebreo-Espanol, ed. L. Alonso-Schokel, V. Morla, and V. Collado, 12 vols., Valencia, 1990-1993

DBI

A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, ed. R. J. Coggins and J. L. Houlden, Philadelphia, 1990

DBSup

Dictionnaire de la Bible: Supplément, ed. L. Pirot et al., Paris, 1928-

DBT

X. Léon-Dufour, Dictionary of Biblical Theology, tr. P. J. Cahill and E. M. Stewart, New York, 1973? (ET of Vocabulaire de théologie

biblique, Paris, 19687) DCH

Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, ed. D. J. A. Clines, Sheffield, 1993-

DDD

Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, and P. W. van der Horst, Leiden, 1995

DHRP

Dissertationes ad historiam religionum pertinentes XXX1

Abbreviations: Publications

DISO

C.-F. Jean and J. Hoftijzer, Dictionnaire des inscriptions sémitiques de l’ouest, Leiden, 1965

DJD

Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, Oxford, 1955-

DLE

A Dictionary of Late Egyptian, ed. L. H. Lesko and B. S. Lesko, 4 vols.,

DME

A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, ed. R. O. Faulkner, Oxford, 1962

Berkeley, Calif., 1982-1989

DMOA

Documenta et monumenta orientis antiqui

DNWSI

J. Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions, 2 vols., Leiden, 1995

DOAW

Denkschriften: Osterreichischer Akademie der Wissenschaften

DOTT

Documents from Old Testament Times, ed. 1958

DSB

Daily Study Bible

DIC

Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, 15 vols., Paris, 1903-1950

DEP

Dansk teologisk tidsskrift

EAEHL

Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed.

D. W. Thomas, London,

M. Avi-Yona, 4 vols., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1975-1978

EBC

The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. F. E. Gaebelein, 12 vols., Grand Rapids, 1976-1995

EBib

Etudes bibliques

ECT

The Egyptian Coffin Texts, ed. A. de Buck and A. H. Gardiner, Chicago, 1935-1947

EDB

Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible, ed. and tr. L. F. Hartman, New York, 1963

EDNT

Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. H. Balz and G. Schneider, 3 vols., Grand Rapids, 1990- (ET of Exegetisches

Worterbuch zum NT, 3 vols. Stuttgart, 1980-1982) EDT

Evangelical Dictionary of ts 1984

EHAT

Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament

EMigr

Entsiglopedia migra ’‘it-Encyclopaedia biblica, 8 vols., Jerusalem, 1950-1982

EncBib

Encyclopaedia Biblica, ed. T. K. Cheyne, 4 vols., London, 1899-1903,

ed. W. A. Elwell, Grand Rapids,

19147; repr., 1958

EnchBib

Enchiridion biblicum

EncJud

Encyclopedia Judaica, Jerusalem, 1971-1972

EOTT

C. Westermann, Elements of Old Testament hgh Atlanta, 1982

XXXil

tr. D. W. Stott,

Abbreviations: Publications

ER

The Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Mircea Eliade, 16 vols., New York,

1987 ERE

.

Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. J. Hastings, 13 vols., New York, 1908-1927; repr., 13 vols. in 7, 1951)

» ErtTs

Erfurter theologische Studien

Erlsr

Eretz Israel

ErJb

Eranos Jahrbuch

ESE

M. Lidzbarski, Ephemeris fiir semitische Epigraphik, Giessen, 1900-1915

EstBib

Estudios biblicos

ETE

Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses

ETR

Etudes théologiques et religieuses

Even-Shoshan

A New Concordance of the Bible, ed. A. Even-Shoshan, Jerusalem,

EvK

Evangelische Kommentare

1977, 19834

EvQ

Evangelical Quarterly

EvT

Evangelische Theologie

ExpTim

Expository Times

FOTL

Forms of Old Testament Literature

FOTT

The Flowering of Old Testament Theology, ed. B. C. Ollenburger, E. A. Martens and G. F. Hasel, Sources for Biblical and Theological

Study 1, Winona Lake, Ind., 1992 FRLANT

Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments

FuF

Forschungen und Fortschritte

FzB

Forschung zur Bibel

GAG

W. von Soden, Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik, AnOr 33, Rome, 1952

GKC

Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, tr. and ed. A. E. Cowley, Oxford, 19107 (ET of W. Gesenius, Hebrdische Grammatik, ed. E. Kautzsch, Halle, 190978)

GLECS

Comptes rendus du Groupe linguistique d’ études chamito-sémitiques

GPL

Z. S. Harris,

A Grammar of the Phoenician Language, AOS 8, New

Haven, 1936; repr. 1990

GSAT

Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament

GTJ

Grace Theological Journal

Guide

Guide to Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (vol. 1 of NIDOTTE)

GVGSS

C. Brockelmann, Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, 2 vols., Berlin, 1908-1913; repr. 1961 XXXIii

Abbreviations: Publications

HAD

Hebrew and Aramaic Dictionary of the OT, ed. G. Fohrer, tr. W. Johnston, London, 1973 (ET of Hebrdisches und aramdisches Worterbuch zum AT, Berlin, 1971)

HAHAT

W. Gesenius, Hebrdisches und aramdisches Handwérterbuch iiber das Alte Testament, ed. F. Buhl, Berlin, 1915'7; ed. R. Meyer and H. Donner, 1987-'8

HAIJ

A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, ed. J. M. Miller and J. H. Hayes, Philadelphia, 1986

HALAT

Hebrdaisches und aramdisches Lexicon zum Alten Testament, ed. L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm, 5 vols., Leiden,

HALOT

The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1994- (ET of HALAT)

HAR

Hebrew Annual Review

HAT

Handbuch zum Alten Testament

HAW

E. Konig, Hebrdisches und aramdisches Worterbuch zum Alten

HBC

Harper’s Bible Commentary, ed. J. L. Mays et al., San Francisco, 1988

HBD

Harper’s Bible Dictionary, ed. P. J. Achtemeier, San Francisco, 1985

1967-1995?

Testament, Leipzig, 1910

HBT

Horizons in Biblical Theology

HDB

Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, ed. J. Hastings, 5 vols., New York, 1898-1904; repr. Peabody, Mass., 1994

HDR

Harvard Dissertations in Religion

Herm

Hermanthena

HeyJ

Heythrop Journal

HG

J. Friedrich, Die hethitischen Gesetze, DMOA

HKAT

Handkommentar zum Alten Testament

AL

E. Neufeld, The Hittite Laws, London, 1951

HNE

M. Lidzbarski, Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik, Weimar, 1898

HO

Handbuch der Orientalistik

HR

E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath, Concordance to the Septuagint and Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament, 2 vols. and supp. vol., Oxford, 1897 (vols. 1-2), 1906 (supp.); repr., 3 vols. in 2, Grand Rapids, 1983

HS

Hebrew Studies

HSAT

Die heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments, ed. E. Kautzsch and A. Bertholet, Tiibingen, 1922-19234

HSM

Harvard Semitic Monographs

HSS

Harvard Semitic Studies

XXX1V

7, Leiden, 1959

Abbreviations: Publications

HSyn

C. Brockelmann, Hebriiische Syntax, Neukirchen, 1956

HTR

Harvard Theological Review

HTS

Harvard Theological Studies

HUCA

Hebrew Union College Annual

HUCM

Monographs of the Hebrew Union College

IB

The Interpreter’s Bible, ed. G. A. Buttrick et al., 12 vols., New York, 1951-1957

IBD

The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas and N. Hillyer, 3 vols., Leicester, 1980

IBHS

B. K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Winona Lake, Ind., 1990

IBS

Irish Biblical Studies

ICC

International Critical Commentary

IDB

The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. G. A. Buttrick, 4 vols., New York, 1962

IDBSup

The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume, ed. K. Crim, Nashville, 1976

IES

Israel Exploration Journal

IH

J. de Rougé, Inscriptions hiéroglyphiques copiées en Egypte, Etudes égyptologiques 9-11, 3 vols., Paris, 1877-1879

IJH

Israelite and Judaean History, ed. J. H. Hayes and J. M. Miller, Philadelphia, 1977

ILC

J. Pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture, tr. A. Mgller (vols. 1-2) and A. I. Fausbgll (vols. 3-4), 4 vols. in 2, London, 1926, 1940; repr. 1973

(ET of Israel, vols. 1-2: Sjaeleliv og Samfundsliv; vols. 3-4: Hellighed - of Guddeomelighed, Copenhagen, 1920, 1934)

IndES

Indian Ecclesiastical Studies

Int

Interpretation

Interp

Interpretation

IOS

Israel Oriental Studies

IOSOT

The International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament

IOT

R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, Grand Rapids, 1969

IOTS

B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, Philadelphia, 1979

IPN

M. Noth, Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der

gemeinsemitischen Namengebung, BWANT 3/10, Stuttgart, 1928; repr., Hildesheim, 1980

IRT

Issues in Religion and Theology XXXV

Abbreviations: Publications

ISBE

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. G. W. Bromiley,

4 vols., Grand Rapids, 1979-19887 International Theological Commentary Trish Theological Quarterly Journal of the American Academy of Religion

JANESCU

Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University

JAOS

Journal of the American Oriental Society

JAOSSup

Supplement to the Journal of the American Oriental Society

JARG

Jahrbuch fiir Anthropoologie und Religionsgeschichte

JASA

Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation

Jastrow

M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, 2 vols., New York,

1886-1903 JB

Jerusalem Bible

JBC

The Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. R. E. Brown et al., 2 vols. in 1, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1968

JBL JBO JBR JCS JEA JEOL

Journal of Biblical Literature Jewish Bible Quarterly (1989-) (formerly Dor leDor [1972-1989])

Journal of Bible and Religion Journal of Cuneiform Studies Journal of Egyptian Archaeology

Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap “Ex oriente lux ”

JES

Journal of Ecumenical Studies

JETS.

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

JewEnc

The Jewish Encyclopedia, ed. 1. Singer, 12 vols., New York, 1901-1906

JFSR

Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion

JHNES

Johns Hopkins Near Eastern Studies

JIS

Journal of Jewish Studies

JMEOS

Journal of the Manchester Egyptian and Oriental Society

JNES

Journal of Near Eastern Studies

JNSL

Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages

JPOS

Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society

JPSV

Jewish Publication Society Version

JOR

Jewish Quarterly Review

JQRMS JR

Jewish Quarterly Review Monograph Series Journal of Religion

JSem

Journal for Semitics

XXXVI

Abbreviations: Publications

ISI

Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period

JSNT

Journal for the Study of the New Testament

JSOT

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

JSOTSup

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series

JSP

Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

JSS

Journal of Semitic Studies

JSSR

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion Journal for Theology and the Church

Journal of Theological Studies Journal of Transactions of the Victoria Institute Judaica: Beitrdge zum Verstdndnis... H. Donner and W. Rollig, Kanaandische und aramdische Inschriften,

3 vols., Wiesbaden, 1967-19697

E. Ebeling, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur juristischen Inhalts, WVWDOG 50, Leipzig, 1927 E. Ebeling, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religidsen Inhalts, WVDOG 28, Leipzig, 1915Kommentar zum Alten Testament

O. Schroeder, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur verschiedenen Inhalts, WVDOG 35, Leipzig, 1920 L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti libros,

2 vols., Leiden, 19587 Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, ed. E. Schrader, 6 vols., Berlin, 1889-1915

Kommentare und Beitrage zum Alten und Neuen Testament

see KB see HALAT Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazkéi, WVDOG 82-86, 89-90, Leipzig, 1916-

30, 36, 68-70, 72, 73, 77-80,

K. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, tr. J. Martin et al., 25 vols., Edinburgh, 1857-1878; repr. 10 vols., Grand Rapids, 1973 (ET of Biblischer Kommentar tiber das AT,

15 vols., Leipzig, 1861-1870, 1862-18757)

Kerygma und Dogma

KEHAT

Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament, ed. O. F. Fritzsche, 17 vols., Leipzig, 1838-1862

KHAT

Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament

King James (Authorized) Version XXXVii

Abbreviations: Publications

KlSchr

Kleine Schriften (A. Alt, 3 vols., Munich, 1953-1959, 1964?: O. Eissfeldt, 6 vols., Tiibingen, 1962-1979; K. Elliger, Munich, 1966)

KP

E. H. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel, Grand Rapids, 1987

Knox Preaching Guides K. G. Kuhn, Konkordanz zu den Qumrantexten, Gottingen, 1960 A. Alt, Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 3 vols.,

Munich, 1953-1959, 1964? Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit, I, ed. M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartin, AOAT 24, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1976 Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament, ed. E. Schrader, Berlin,

1903? Lange Commentaries Linguistica biblica Layman’s Bible Commentaries

Library of Biblical Interpretation Lesonénu

W. Helck and E. Otto, Lexikon der Agyptologie, Wiesbaden, 1972C. Brockelmann, Lexicon Syriacum, Berlin, 1895; Halle, 19687 F. Zorell, Lexicon hebraicum et aramaicum Veteris Testamenti, Rome,

1946-1954, 1962? A. Dillmann, Lexicon linguae aethiopicae, Leipzig, 1865 E. Vogt, Lexicon linguae aramaicae Veteris Testamenti documentis antiquis illustratum, Rome, 1971

Lutheran Quarterly

Lutherische Rundschau

LS

Louvain Studies

LSS

Leipziger semitistische Studien

LTK

Lexicon fiir Theologie und Kirche, ed. J. G. Herder, second series, 10

vols., Freiburg, i.B., 1957-1965

LTP LUA MAL MAOG

Laval théologique et philosophique

McCQ

McCormick Quarterly

MDB MdD MDP

Le monde de la Bible

XXXVili

Lunds universitets arsskrift C. Saporetti, The Middle Assyrian Laws, Malibu, Calif., 1984

Mitteilungen der altorientalischen Gesellschaft

E. S. Drower and R. Macuch, A Mandaic Dictionary, Oxford, 1963

Mémoires de la délégation en Perse

Abbreviations: Publications

MedHab

Medinet Habu, Epigraphic Expedition, OIP 8, Chicago, 1930; OIP 9, 1932:

MEOL

Mededelingen en Verhandelingen van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap “Ex oriente lux”

MGWJ

Monatsschrift fiir Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums

Moscati

S. Moscati, An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of Semitic Languages, Wiesbaden, 1969

MSL

Materialen zum sumerischen Lexikon, Rome, 1937-

MTZ

Miinchener theologische Zeitschrift

Mus

Muséon: Revue d’ études orientales

MVAG

Mitteilungen der vorderasiatisch-aégyptischen Gesellschaft

NAB

New American Bible

NAC

New American Commentary

NASB

New American Standard Bible

NAWG

Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen

NBC

The New Bible Commentary, ed. D. Guthrie and J. A. Motyer, London, 1970

NBD

The New Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas, London, 19827

NCB(C)

New Century Bible (Commentary)

NEB

New English Bible

NedTT

Nederlands theologisch tijdschrift

NERTROT

Near Eastern Religious Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. W. Beyerlin, Philadelphia, 1978 (ET of Religiongeschichtliches Textbuch zum AT, Grundrisse zum AT 1, Gottingen, 1975)

NFT

New Frontiers in Theology

NGTT

Nederduits gereformeerde teologiese tydskrif

NICNT

New International Commentary on the

NICOT

New International Commentary on the Old Testament

NIDBA

New Testament

The New International Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology, ed. E. M. Blaiklock and R. K. Harrison, Grand Rapids, 1983

NIDNTT

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. C. Brown, 4 vols., Grand Rapids, 1975-1978 (ET of Theologisches Begriffslexicon zum NT, ed. L. Coenen et al., 4 vols., Wuppertal,

1965-1971) NIDOTTE

The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (the present work)

NIV

New International Version

NIVEC

The NIV Exhaustive Concordance, ed. E. W. Goodrick and

J. R. Kohlenberger III, Grand Rapids, 1990 XXXIX

Abbreviations: Publications

NJBC

The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. R. E. Brown et al., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1990

NJPSV

New Jewish Publication Society Version

NKJV

New King James Version

NKZ

Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift

NorTT

Norsk teologisk tidsskrift

NovT

Novum Testamentum

NRSV

New Revised Standard Version

NRT

Nouvelle revue théologique

NTD

Das Neue Testament Deutsch

NTOA

Novum Testamentum et orbis antiquus

NTS

New Testament Studies

OBL

Orientalia et biblica lovaniensia

OBO

Orbis biblicus et orientalis

OBT

Overtures to Biblical Theology

OECT

Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts

OED

The Oxford English Dictionary

OIP

Oriental Institute Publications

OLP

Orientalia lovaniensia periodica Orientalistische Literaturzeitung

Oudheidkundige Mededeelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden Orientalia Oriens antiquus

Old Testament Essays

Old Testament Guides Old Testament Library Old Testament Message: A Biblical-Theological Commentary Oudtestamentische Studién

G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, tr. D. M. G. Stalker, 2 vols., New York, 1962, 1965 (ET of Theologie des ATs, Einfuhrung in die evangelische Theologie 1, 2 vols., Munich, 1957, 1960) B.S. Childs, Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context, London, 1985

W. Zimmerli, Old Testament Theology in Outline, tr. D. E. Green, Atlanta, 1978 (ET of Grundriss der alttestamentlichen Theologie,

Theologische Wissenschaft 3, Stuttgart, 1972) OTWSA

Die Ou Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap in Suid Afrika

Abbreviations: Publications

PAAJR

Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research

Palache

J. L. Palache, Semantic Notes on the Hebrew Lexicon, tr. and ed. R. J. Z.

Werblowsky, Leiden, 1959 Peake

Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, ed. M. Black and H. H. Rowley,

PEQ PJ

Palestine Exploration Quarterly

New York, 19627

Paldstina-Jahrbuch Patrologia Latina, ed. J.-P. Migne, 221 vols., Paris, 1841-1864 J. K. Stark, Personal Names in Palmyrene Inscriptions, Oxford, 1971

De Prediking van het Oude Testament Peoples of Old Testament Times, ed. D.

J. Wiseman, Oxford, 1973

Peoples of the Old Testament World, ed. A. E. Hoerth, G. L. Mattingley, and E. M. Yamauchi, Grand Rapids, 1994 J. Friedrich and W. Rollig, Phonizisch-punische Grammatik, AnOr 46,

Rome, 1970? Le Palais royal d’Ugarit, ed. C. F.-A. Schaeffer and J. Nougayrol, Paris, 1956Princeton Seminary Bulletin Perkins (School of Theology) Journal Princeton Theological Review Pretoria Theological Studies F. Grondahl, Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit, Rome, 1967

K. Sethe, Die altdgyptischen Pyramidentexte, 4 vols., Leipzig, 1908-1922 Quaestiones disputatae, ed. K. Rabner and H. Schlier, Freiburg, i.B., 1958-; Eng. ed., New York, 1961-

Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine Quarterly Journal for Reflection on Ministry Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale Reallexikon fiir Antike und Christentum, ed. T. Klauser, 10 vols.,

Stuttgart, 1950-1978 Records of the Ancient Near East

H. Bonnet, Reallexikon der dgyptischen Religionsgeschichte, Berlin, 1952 Revue archéologique

Revue biblique Realencyklopddie fiir protestantische Theologie und Kirche, ed. A. Hauck, Leipzig, 1896-1913

Revised English Bible xhi

Abbreviations: Publications

RECA

Real-Encyclopddie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, ed., A. Pauly, 6 vols., Stuttgart, 1839; ed. G. Wissowa et al., first series, 24 vols., 1894-1963; second series, 10 vols., 1914-1972; supplements,

16 vols., 1903-1980 RechBib

Recherches bibliques

REg

Revue d’égyptologie

REJ

Revue des études juives

RelS

Religious Studies

RES

Répertoire d’épigraphie sémitique

ResQ

Restoration Quarterly

RevExp

Review and Expositor

RevistB

Revista biblica

RevQ

Revue de Qumran

RevScRel

Revue de sciences religieuses

RevSém

Revue sémitique

RGG

Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, H. Gunkel and L. Zscharnack, 5 vols., Tiibingen, 1927-19317; ed. K. Galling, 7 vols.,

1957-1965°

RHLR

Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses

RHPR

Revue da’histoire et de philosophie religieuses

RHR

Revue de l’histoire des religions

RLA

Reallexikon der Assyriologie, ed. G. Ebeling and B. Meissner, Berlin, 1, 1932; 2, 1938; 3, 1957-1971; 4, 1972-1975; 5, 1976-1980; 6, 1980-1983; 7, 1987-1990

RR RSO RSP

Review of Religion

Rivista degli studi orientali Ras Shamra Parallels: The Texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible, ed. L. R. Fisher, vols. 1-2, AnOr 49-50, 1972, 1975; ed. S. Rummel, vol. 3, AnOr 51, 1981

RSR

Recherches de science religieuse

RSV

Revised Standard Version

RTL RTR RV

Revue théologique de Louvain

RVV

Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten

SAHG

A. Falkenstein and W. von Soden, Sumerische und akkadische Hymnen und Gebete, Zurich, 1953

SANT SAOC

Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament

xii

Reformed Theological Review

Revised Version

Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization

Abbreviations: Publications

SAT

Die Schriften des Alten Testaments in Auswahl, tr. and ed. H. Gunkel et al., Géttingen, 1909-1915, 1920-19257

SBB

Stuttgarter biblische Beitrige

SBLDS

Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series

SBLMS

Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series

SBM

Stuttgarter biblische Monographien

SBS

Stuttgarter Bibelstudien

SBT

Studies in Biblical Theology

ScrHier

Scripta Hierosolymitana

Scrip

Scriptura

SDIOAP

Studia et documenta ad iura orientis antiqui pertinentia

SE

Studia Evangelica 1, 2, 3, etc. (= TU 73, 1959; 87, 1964; 88, 1964; etc.)

SEA

Svensk exegetisk arsbok

SEAJT

South East Asia Journal of Theology

Sem

Semitica

Seux

J. M. Seux, Epithétes royales akkadiennes et sumériennes, Paris, 1967

SGL

A. Falkenstein, Sumerische Gétterlieder, Heidelberg, 1959

SGV

Sammlung gemeinverstaéndlicher Vortraége und Schriften aus dem Gebiet der Theologie und Religionsgeschichte

SJ

Studia judaica

SJLA

Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity

SJOT

Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament

SIT

Scottish Journal of Theology

SNovT

Supplements to Novum Testamentum

SNumen

Supplements to

SOTBT

Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology

Numen

SPIB

Scripta pontificii instituti biblici

SR

Studies in Religion/Sciences religieuses

SSN

Studia semitica neerlandica

SSS

Semitic Study Series

ST

Studia theologica

STA

Svensk teologisk arsskrift

STDJ

Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah

STK

Svensk teologisk kvartalskrift

Str-B

H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum NT aus Talmud und Midrasch, 6 vols., Munich, 1922-1961 xliii

Abbreviations: Publications

STT

The Sultantepe Tablets, vol. 1, ed. O. R. Gurney and J. J. Finkelstein, London, 1957; vol. 2, ed. O. R. Gurney and P. Hulin, London, 1964

StudBib

Studia biblica

StudBT

Studia biblica et theologica

StudOr

Studia orientalia

SUNT

Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments

SVT

Supplements to Vetus Testamentum

SVTP

Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigrapha

SWBA

Social World of Biblical Antiquity

SWIT

Southwestern Journal of Theology

Syria

Syria: Revue d’art oriental et d’archéologie

TAPA

Transactions of the American Philological Association

TArb

Theologische Arbeiten

TBT

The Bible Today

TBii

Theologische Biicherei

TEE

Textes cunéiformes du Musée du Louvre

TDNT

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, tr. and ed. G. W. Bromiley, 10 vols., Grand Rapids, 1964-1976 (ET of Theologisches Woérterbuch zum NT, 10 vols.,

Stuttgart, 1933-1979)

TDOT

Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren, and H.-J. Fabry, tr. J. T. Willis, Grand Rapids, 1974(ET of TWAT)

TEH

Theologische Existenz Heute

TEV

Today’s English Version

TGI

K. Galling, Textbuch zur Geschichte Israels, Tiibingen, 1950, 1968°

TGUOS

Transactions of the Glasgow University Oriental Society

THAT

Theologisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament, ed. E. Jenni and C. Westermann, 2 vols., Munich, 1971, 1976

Them

Themelios

ThStud

Theologische Studién

TigrWb

E. Littmann and M. Hofner, Wérterbuch der Tigre-Sprache, Wiesbaden, 1962

TLZ

Theologische Literaturzeitung

:

TNT

G. E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, 1974

Torch

Torch Bible Commentaries

TOT

W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, tr. J. A. Baker, 2 vols., Philadelphia, 1961, 1967 (ET of Theologie des AT, 3 vols., Leipzig,

1933-1939; 3 vols. in 2, Stuttgart, 1957-19617)

xliv

Abbreviations: Publications

TOTC

Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries

TPQ

Theologisch-praktische Quartalschrift

LBS:

H.-J. Kraus, Theologie der Psalmen, BKAT 15/3, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1979

TQ TRE

Theologische Quartalschrift

TREg

P. Lacau, Textes religieux égyptiens, part 1, Paris, 1910

Trin]

Trinity Journal

Theologische Realenzyklopddie, ed. G. Krause and G. Miiller, Berlin, 1977-

TRu

Theologische Rundschau

TSSI

Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, ed. J. C. L. Gibson, 3 vols., London, 1971-1982

TToday

Theology Today

TTS

Trierer theologische Studien

FIZ

Trierer theologische Zeitschrift

TU

Texte und Untersuchungen

TV

Theologische Versuche

TViat

Theologia viatorum

TWAT

Theologisches Worterbuch zum Alten Testament, ed. G. J. Botterweck,

H. Ringgren, and H.-J. Fabry, 8 vols., Stuttgart, 1970-1995 TWBB TWOT

A Theological Wordbook of the Bible, ed. A. Richardson, London, 1950

Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. L. Harris et al., 2 vols., Chicago, 1980

TynBul

Tyndale Bulletin

TZ UAA UCPNES

Theologische Zeitschrift

UE UF

Urkunden des dgyptischen Altertums, ed. G. Steindorff, Leipzig, 1903-

University of California Publications in Near Eastern Studies Ur Excavations, ed. C. L. Woolley, London, 1927-

Ugarit-Forschungen Union Seminary Quarterly Review C. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook, AnOr 38, Rome, 1965

VASKMB

Uppsala universitetsarsskrift Vorderasiatische Bibliothek, 7 vols., Leipzig, 1907-1916 Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmdler der koniglichen Museen zu Berlin, ed. O. Schroeder, Leipzig, 1907-

VDI

Vestnik drevnej Istorii

VE

Vox evangelica

VF

Verkiindigung und Forschung xlv

Abbreviations: Publications

VT

Vetus Testamentum

WbAS

A. Erman and H. Grapow, Wérterbuch der dgyptischen Sprache, 5 vols., Berlin, 1926-1931; repr. 1963

WBC

Word Biblical Commentary

WbMyth

Worterbuch der Mythologie, ed. H. W. Haussig, Stuttgart, 1961-

WC

Westminster Commentaries

WD

Wort und Dienst

WEC

Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary

Wehr

H. Wehr, A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, ed. J. M. Cowan,

Ithaca, 1961, 1976° WE

Wege der Forschung

Whitaker

R. E. Whitaker,

A Concordance of the Ugaritic Literature, Cambridge,

Mass., 1972

WMANT

Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament

wo

Die Welt des Orients

WIJ

Westminster Theological Journal

J. Levy, (Neuhebrdisches und chalddisches) Worterbuch tiber die Talmudim und Midraschim, 4 vols., Leipzig, 1876-1889; Berlin, 1924?:

repr. 1963

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament J. Aistleitner, Worterbuch der ugaritischen Sprache, BVSAW 106/3, 1963, 19744

Wissenschaftliche Verdffentlichungen der deutschen Orientgesellschaf Word and World

Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift (der Karl-Marx-Universitat, Leipzig/der Wilhelm-Pieck-Universitat, Rostock)

Yale Judaica Series Yale Oriental Series, Babylonian Texts

Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie

Zeitschrift fiir Althebraistik Zeitschrift fiir dgyptische Sprache und Mishite Runde Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Ziircher Bibelkommentare Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenléndischen Gesellschaft Zeitschrift des deutschen Paléstina-Vereins Zeitschrift fiir evangelische Ethik xlvi

Abbreviations: Old and New Testament

ZKT

Zeitschrift fiir katholische Theologie

ZNW

Zeitschrift fiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

Zorell

F. Zorell, Lexicon hebraicum et aramaicum Veteris Testamenti, Rome,

eZPEB

The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. M. C. Tenney, 5 vols., Grand Rapids, 1975

1946-1954, 1962?

ZRGG

Zeitschrift fiir Religions und Geistesgeschichte

ZTK

Zeitschrift fiir Theologie und Kirche

Old Testament and New Testament Gen

Job

Hab

1 Thess

Exod

Ps

Zeph

2 Thess

Lev

Prov

Hag

1 Tim

Num

Eccl

Zech

2 Tim

Deut

S of Songs

Mal

Titus

Josh

Isa

Matt

Philem

Judg

Jer

Mark

Heb

Ruth

Lam

Luke

James

1 Sam

Ezek

John

1 Peter

2 Sam

Dan

Acts

Zreten

1 Kgs

Hos

Rom

1 John

2 Kgs

Joel

1 Cor

2 John

1 Chron

Amos

2 Cor

3 John

2 Chron

Obad

Gal

Jude

Ezra

Jon

Eph

Rev

Neh

Mic

Phil

Esth

Nah

Col

Apocrypha 1 Esdr

1 Esdras

2 Esdr

2 Esdras

Tob

Tobit

Jdt

Judith

Add Esth

Additions to Esther

Wisd

Wisdom of Solomon

xl vii

Abbreviations: Apocrypha Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)

Sir Bar

Baruch

Epiver.

Epistle (Letter) of Jeremiah

S of Three

Song of the Three Young Men

Sus

Susanna

Bel

Bel and the Dragon

Pr Man

Prayer of Manasseh

1 Macc

1 Maccabees

2 Macc

2 Maccabees

Pseudepigrapha Adam and Eve

Life of Adam and Eve

As. Mos.

Assumption of Moses

Asc. Isa.

Ascension of Isaiah

2 Bar.

2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch

3 Bar.

3 (Greek Apocalypse of) Baruch

I En.

1 (Ethiopic) Enoch

2 En.

2 (Slavonic) Enoch

3 En.

3 (Hebrew) Enoch

Ep. Arist.

Epistle of Aristeas

4 Ezra

4 Ezra

Jub.

Jubilees

3 Macc.

3 Maccabees

4 Macc.

4 Maccabees

Mart. Isa.

Martyrdom of Isaiah

Pss. Sol.

Psalms of Solomon

Sib. Or.

Sibylline Oracles

Tle Par,

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

T. Reub.

Testament of Reuben”

T. Sim.

Testament of Simeon

T. Levi

Testament of Levi

T. Jud.

Testament of Judah

IL TKS

Testament of Issachar

T. Zeb.

Testament of Zebulun

T. Dan

Testament of Dan

T. Naph.

Testament of Naphtali

xlvili

Abbreviations: Dead Sea Scrolls

T. Gad

Testament of Gad

T. Ash.

Testament of Asher

L, Jos.

Testament of Joseph

T. Benj.

Testament of Benjamin

Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Texts Initial Arabic numeral indicates cave number; Q=Qumran; p=pesher (commentary) CD

Cairo (Genizah text of the) Damascus (Document)

Hev

Nahal Hever texts

8HevXIl gr

Greek Scroll of the Minor Prophets from Nahal Hever

Mas

Masada texts

MasShirShabb

Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice or Angelic Liturgy from Masada

Mird

Khirbet Mird texts

Mur 1934s

Wadi Murabba‘at texts Prayer for the Feast of Weeks (Fragment of Liturgical Prayer Scroll = 1Q Prayers)

1QapGen

Genesis Apocryphon

1QDM (or 1Q22)

Sayings of Moses

1QH

Thanksgiving Hymns

1QIsa*

First copy of Isaiah

1QIsa>

Second copy of Isaiah

1QM

War Scroll

1QpHab

Pesher on Habakkuk

1QpMic

Pesher on Micah

1QpPs

Pesher on Psalms

1QS

Manual of Discipline / Rule of the Community

3QInv (or 3Q15)

Copper (Treasure) Scroll

4QFlor

Florilegium (Eschatological Midrashim)

4QPBless

Patriarchal Blessings

4Qpls givd.c.d

Copies of the Pesher on Isaiah

4QpNah

Pesher on Nahum

4QpPs37

Pesher on Ps 37

4QSam?>“

Copies of Samuel

4QTestim

Testimonia text

6QD (or 6Q15)

Fragments of the Damascus Document xlix

Abbreviations: Ancient Authorities

11QPs*DavComp

_ Apocryphal Psalms. (Prose Supplement)

11QtgJob

Targum to Job

11QTemple*®

Temple Scroll

For further sigla, see J. A. Fitzmeyer, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Major Publications and Tools for Study, SBL Sources for Biblical Study 20, Atlanta, 1990

Ancient Authorities Ant.

Antquities of the Jews, by Flavius

Josephus

Eccl. Hist.

Ecclesiastical History, by Eusebius

Nat. Hist.

Natural History, by Pliny

Wars

Wars of the Jews, by Flavius Josephus

Transliterations

Transliterations Hebrew and Aramaic

8 =’

1

=

w

>]

=k

v

Seog

ep

a= b

i oe

oa

Ban

A=

Mis ih

ae

=

3s

Soir

ays

PP

(a

P

=q

9

T=d

op

w= § gpa

Sir A = 8s c) . = y an No distinction is made between the bgdkpt with or without the dagesh lene. Compare: 171M = tora NVM = hatt6rad WIN = toraté

Vowels i=

a

a

_€

=

a

a

So

=a

hee

=p

_.

cea

é

a

=

Aas

“(if vocal)

ee

=

1

Py

=Y

7

Met

aAke

Pe

a0

Bi

Pist

te.

Other semitic languages: Transliterations follow standard practice.

Greek Oe=—— Bs.

Gd 2b

Lee” Veer

Wi ©

== =

ps: Oo

no ol

= =

eu ol

ne nk HX nch a au

VS

=.

U1

OF

goa ie

ov =

ou

Gee

ie

Sos Ces ‘Salta Nn = Ga = ees

.id Te es @ th |

Orsay tT = ae 6,Cs-{ea ls —

0 —p 2 S At

Veo VK = Vee = w=. G1 =. av =

Q

=

Koo

OK

o

=

ph

ae

=

ai

1

arent,

eden

|

Vai)

Ch

&0

=

eu

o

=

y=

8

a O

li

stems A aR wanda -

i

'

~

Fa

Oe

eee eek ="

i=

Ma

“ dbq (stick, cling, cleave, pursue, # 1815; dabégq, cleaving, attached to, holding fast to, #1816); > hesed II (loyalty, faithfulness, goodness, # 2876; hasid, faithful,

pious, # 2883)

The word dbg overlaps the fields of Love, Faithfulness, and Pursuit: Pursuit:

> dbg (stick, cling, cleave, pursue, # 1815; dabéq, cleaving, attached

to, holding fast to, #1816);

> dig (set on fire, burn, hotly pursue, # 1944;

Guide dallegqet, inflammation, # 1945); > rdp (be behind, pursue, persecute, # 8103;

murdap, persecution, # 5284)

The lexeme rhm brings together Love and Compassion: Compassion, comfort, consolation: > hws (pity, look upon with compassion or regret, # 2571); > hml (spare, have compassion, # 2798; hemld, compassion,

mercy,

#2799;

humld,

compassion,

#2800;

mahmdl,

yearning,

#4720);

> ma“dannim (dainties, comfort, delight, #5052); > nhm (be sorry, comfort, have compassion, repent, #5714; ndham, pity, compassion, #5716; nehamd, comfort, #5717; nihiimim, consolation, comfort, #5719; tanhiimét/tanhimim, consolation, # 9487/9488); > ‘gm (have pity, # 6327); > rhm (love, have compassion, #8163; rahiim, compassionate, #8157; rehem, womb, #8167;

rah“mim, compassion, #8171; rah“mani, compassionate, # 8172); > ta“niig (comfort, delight, enjoyment, # 9503) See the Index of Semantic Fields in the Index volume for some two thousand fields and for further directions.

2. The Numbering System The reader will receive further help in locating the entry in the lexical portion by number. While Strong’s numbering has become standard, it was decided to adopt the numbering system of the Exhaustive Concordance of the NIV, edited by Edward W. Goodrick and John R. Kohlenberger III (Zondervan, 1990 = NIVEC). This system of numbering is more in touch with the existence of homonyms, as is found in up-to-date Hebrew lexicons. Where the author disagrees with the existence of a homonym or where he prefers to acknowledge the existence thereof, one will generally find only a number that is the most appropriate. For example, both prr I (break, # 7296) and prr II (shatter, # 7297) are located under # 7296, even though in this case we allowed for a separate entry prr II (shatter, # 7297) and added a cross-reference back to the article on pre Ah: A suffix after the number may indicate either that the word is covered separately from several angles or that the NJVEC did not recognize the difference between the meanings. One will find r‘h I (feed, graze, shepherd, rule, # 8286) developed under two entries: r‘h I (feed, graze, shepherd, rule, # 8286) and rd ‘eh (shepherd, # 8286a).

Similarly, the nom. md‘éd has two entries: appointed time (# 4595a) and meeting place, assembly, Tent of Meeting (# 4595b). Similarly, rwm (be high, exalted, proud, # 8123) is treated separately from rdmém (exalt, #8123a) and rémam (praise, # 8123b). The distinction is based on the inflection of the vb. and, consequently, the

meaning of these forms, not on the existence of a separate homonym. The root yrg, however, has two homonymous forms: yrq I (spit, spew, # 3762a) and yrq II (be green, # 3762b). Sometimes, one will see verbs that appear to be unrelated in meaning and have a separate number in NIVEC in one article. For example, the entry rwh (# 8118) combines two separate meanings, rwh A (q. become wide or spacious; pu. be spacious; # 8118) and rwh B (hi. smell; # 8193). The numbering system enhances the usefulness of the dictionary among students of the OT who are not so familiar with the Heb. language. They may also benefit

9

Guide

from The NIV Hebrew-English Concordance to the Old Testament (ed. John R. Kohlenberger III and James A. Swanson, 1997). This volume lists the Hebrew words together with the number identification and the translation(s) as given in the NIV. Those who are more familiar with Strong’s numbering system will find a conversion chart to the NJVEC numbering in the index volume.

3. General Structure of the Lexical Entries (a) Box with NIVEC number and lexical entry, followed by lexical definition(s). This information is mainly for orientation to the potential meaning(s) of the word(s). The lexical meaning(s) given is/are suggestive and need(s) to be modified by the textual and discourse meaning (see Peter Cotterell, “Linguistics, Meaning, Semantics, and

Discourse Analysis,” section 4, p.143).

oe powerless, (# 1930).

Eos

55- (dil I), q. be small, unimportant (# 1937);

55 (dal II), nom./adj. mean, scanty, helpless, insignificant, dejected (# 1924); nen (dalla II), nom. the unimportant

(b) ANE. The purpose of this entry is to help some readers with etymological connections. There is a danger in providing this information because of the widespread abuse of etymologies (see Cotterell for a discussion on the etymological fallacy [“Linguistics, Meaning, Semantics, and Discourse analysis,” section 1b, p. 149). Neverthe-

less, the cognate material is relevant both in understanding the extent of semantic fields and in defining the meaning of hapax legomena (hapleg.) or the existence of homonymous forms or of idioms. The ANE literature provides a fertile area for literary analysis as well as for the study of connections between Heb. and its broader cultural milieu in the ANE. For an example, see the entry on kprI (cover, paint, smear, atone, appease, # 4105). (c) OT: The meaning and usage of the word(s). Words are treated in various ways. Most authors begin with the verbal form and treat the derived form(s) separately. Their task is “to clarify the theological meaning, paying attention to specific contexts (canonical and literary) and to the broad range of OT literature.” In addition to the consideration of theological meaning, many authors present exegetical possibilities and issues inherent in the OT text, because they were encouraged to present alternatives: “Where marked differences of opinion exist, contributors should aim at fairness and at factuality. The articles should not avoid textual, historical, and interpretive difficulties” (from the instructions to contributors).

(d) P-B [LXX/Q/NT]. The reader may find the usage of the word in postbiblical Heb. writings (Qumran and rabbinic), the translation(s) of a Heb. word into the Greek

Septuagint (helpful for connections with the NT and with NIDNTT), as well as a reflection on the usage of a word in the NT. (e) Semantic fields. We have provided one or more fields to which the word belongs. The data are intentionally shorter than those found in the index volume (Index of Semantic Fields). The semantic field may help the reader locate other words that may have a bearing on defining the meaning of words. This information is useful and linguistically necessary as the meaning of a word can be better understood by relating 10

Guide

it to and contrasting it with other words. While we have provided synonyms in the semantic field entry, the reader can find antonyms in the article proper, in the OT text (where synonyms and antonyms are often collocated), or in entries that are in opposition to the field (see Index of Semantic Fields). For example, the entry “good” has “bad” as its opposite, but the meaning of “good” or “bad” will be different in the Heb. language than what may be connoted in English. Compare: Good: > twb (be good, do well, act rightly, # 3201; tdb I, good, # 3202; t6b I, good, #3202; rib, goodness, # 3206; 16b4, goodness, # 3208; ytb, be good, do well, # 3512; métab, best, choice, # 4774) Bad, vicious, wicked: ~ zmm (plan, purpose, plan evil, # 2372; zimmé I, plan, foul deed, #2365; m°zimmd, consideration, plan, evil plan, plot, #4659);

> kilay (scoundrel, # 3964); > ‘wl I (act wrongly, # 6401; ‘awel, wrong, injustice, #6404; ‘awwal, transgressor, criminal, #6405; ‘awl@/‘dld, perversity, wickedness, # 6406); > sdh I (act intentionally, # 7399; s°diyyd, intentional, malice, # 7402); > r“ I (be bad, injure, # 8317; méra‘, atrocity, #5334; ra‘, evil, # 8273b; roa‘, perverseness, malice, #8278; ra‘d I, harm, wickedness,

misery,

# 8288);

~ rs‘ (act wickedly, unrighteously,

be guilty, pronounce

guilty, # 8399; mirSa‘at, wicked, wicked woman, # 5360; rea‘, wickedness, evil, unrighteousness, #8400; rasa‘, evil person, wicked, unjust, wrong, # 8401; ri§‘a, guilt, wickedness, evil, # 8402)

(f) Bibliography. Authors of longer entries generally provide readers with a bibliography for further reading. These are often referred to the article in an abbreviated form. At times, references to other works are located in the article proper.

C. Topics Included in volume 4 of NIDOTTE is a large section on topics with proper names (personal and geographical), the theology of each book of the OT, historical epochs (e.g., Kingdom of Judah, Exile, Intertestamental Period), peoples of the OT, extrabiblical literature (e.g., Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha), as well as concepts (e.g., Retribution). The approach to each topic varies according to the nature of the subject. There

is generally a similar structure in the entries that pertain to the theology of an OT book: A. Historical Context; B. Literary Structure; C. Theological Themes; D. Canonical

Context. Whereas sections A and D are sometimes omitted, one can be sure that all contributors delineate the literary structure and theological themes and thereby make a contribution in keeping with the methodological concerns expressed above. To further integrate the topics with the lexical volume, cross-references to topics and individual words are provided. At the conclusion of an article, one may find (a) cross-reference(s) to (a) semantic field(s) related to the subject. However, no attempt was made to cover all the potential topics, because this would duplicate the lexical articles. Instead, one will find alphanumeric references to the lexical entries, such as: Adultery > 5537 (n’p, commit adultery, idolatry)

Arm > 2432 (z°réa‘, arm)

11

Guide Beard

~ 2417 (zaqan, beard)

For ways of integrating this volume with the lexical portion of NIDOTTE, see the article, “Several Illustrations on Integrating the Guide with NJDOTTE in Doing Old Testament Exegesis and Theology” (in the Guide, p. 206). D. Index

The index volume (Volume 5) is designed to be a useful complement to the set. Of course, for those who merely wish to use the Dictionary as a dictionary, it may be enough just to turn either to the English entries or to the Heb. entries as they are alphabetized in this volume. But for those who wish to consult NJDOTTE for its exegesis of a particular passage, the Index of Biblical References will prove indispensable. The user may find several locations in NIDOTTE where the same passage has been discussed or explained differently by several contributors. This diversity greatly enhances the value of the Dictionary as a reference work. The Index of Semantic Fields is designed to be a helpful means of finding entries that convey words that may be semantically related (see discussion under B. above). The listing of about two thousand fields is not intended to be a complete thesaurus of the Heb. language, but it provides a convenient way of finding groups of Heb. words that are collocated in the Heb. text or are conceptually interrelated through the use of English words. with similar meaning. For example, a search for “barren” reveals the following entry:

Barren,

childless,

miscarriage:

~~ galmiid

(barren,

#1678);

(still-born child, miscarriage, #5878); — ‘agar (barren, childless, > “rir? (childless, #6884); — 5kl (be bereaved, bereavement, # 8897; 5°k6dl, bereavement, # 8890; Sakkiil, bereaved, # 8891; Sakil, # 8892; Sikkulim, childlessness, bereavement, # 8898); > Adoption:

~ népel #6829); miscarry, bereaved, Theology

However, if the word “barren” does not come to one’s mind, one could consult “‘child-

less” and find a similar entry: Childless:

> ‘agar (barren, childless, #6829);

— ‘“rir? (childless,

# 6884);

> Skl (be bereaved, bereavement, miscarry, #8897; 5°k6l, bereavement, # 8890; Sakkiil, bereaved, # 8891; Sakiil, bereaved, # 8892; Sikkulim, childless-

ness, bereavement, # 8898); > Adoption: Theology Furthermore, a word such as the one mentioned first, ‘@qar (barren, childless, # 6829),

may suggest the field “barrenness” or other fields, such as “miscarriage” or “bereavement.” In many cases similar to this, one will be able to move associatively from concept to concept.

Another way of assessing the Index of Semantic Fields is through the short listing of the semantic field that appears under each entry of the lexical and/or topical dictionary articles of N/IDOTTE. For example, the entry of Xkl (be bereaved, bereave-

ment, miscarry, # 8897) has a brief listing of semantically related words: Barren, childless, miscarriage: ~ galmiid (barren, #1678); > népel (still-born child, miscarriage, #5878); — ‘agar (barren, childless, # 6829);

12

Guide > ‘“rirt (childless, # 8897)

#6884);

— Skl

(be bereaved,

bereavement,

miscarry,

This short listing may prompt one either to consult the more comprehensive Index of Semantic Fields or simply to turn to the some of the words in the short listing. Further, many semantically related fields can be found in the topical dictionary contained in Volume 4. Here one will find articles on persons, events, and concepts,

together with cross-references to words in the lexical volumes. For example, under “Childless,” one will find the following reference: > 6829 (‘aqdr, barren, childless). Sometimes this process is reversible, in that the Index of Semantic Fields also makes

reference to a relevant subject among the topical dictionary articles in Volume 4, by adding a reference in bold print, e.g., > Adoption: Theology (the reference to “Theology” after the colon refers the reader to the fourth volume; even though theology is found throughout the set, we have used this designation to distinguish this volume from the lexically oriented volumes). See also the directions in the Index of Semantic Fields. The use of the other indexes opens up other avenues of approach. The Index of Hebrew Words organizes alphanumerically the lexical entries in the order of the Heb. alphabet—it is arranged numerically and alphabetically (in the order of the Heb. alphabet) for easy access to all students of the OT. The Index of Subjects covers the conceptual content of NIDOTTE in the order of the English alphabet. Every effort has been made to provide a well-organized and useful index. For those who are looking for theological information, there may be no better approach than that of consulting the Index of Subjects. This index is a map to the vast knowledge contained within the four volumes of N/DOTTE. It catalogs the conceptual content by using English main headings and subheadings arranged alphabetically. Every effort has been made to provide a well-organized and accessible index. This index is designed with a wide range of users in mind, listing countless subjects with volume and page locators that indicate where those subjects can be found. It lists hundreds of synonyms by which someone might want to locate a subject in NIDOTTE and gives cross-references to main headings and subheadings of the index where the locators are listed.

13

Guide

INTRODUCTION: HERMENEUTICS, TEXT, AND BIBLICAL THEOLOGY How does the ancient text (the Bible) make an impact on our modern theological mind-set? Is theology a separate discipline from biblical interpretation? Many interpreters are highly skeptical of the truth claims of the Bible as well as of its use in shaping the way in which we interact with “the modern world.” Vanhoozer posits that since Jesus Christ is “the Word incarnate,” words are God’s means

of sanctioning a

truthful way of life, politics, and values. Deconstruction and postmodernity notwithstanding, the student of the ancient text must learn to let the text speak meaningfully to a new context.

The ancient text has inherent problems. The obstacles to understanding are many. Some are textual (see the article on textual criticism by Bruce Waltke). Others are cultural (historical, social situation, language, and literature). Yet all the issues are in the words of the text. N/DOTTE is a means of listening to words. However, instead of aiming at the interpretation of individual words (for the dangers inherent in word studies, see also the essays by Cotterell and Walton), the interpreter learns to look at the “discourse” as a basic level for interpretation and for practice. Modern linguistics—especially semantics (theory of meaning, a branch of linguistics) —is a corrective to the openness in interpretation of the text, because it seeks to answer relevant questions, such as: What is the nature of human language? How do we communicate and process the information we receive? What are the proper ways of listening to the Bible? The Old Testament also requires familiarity with its varied literary genres (see the essays by Longman and Satterthwaite) and encourages the integration of language with literature and of literature with history (see the essays by Merrill and Long).

These are the issues with which Kevin Vanhoozer deals in the essay below. His engagement with the philosophy and history that shape one’s interpretation, though somewhat complex, is fascinating. In this essay you will discover how difficult the art of interpretation is. Further, he will open up the vista of the integration of language and literature with theology.

Vanhoozer concludes that the interpreter can have confidence in hearing the truth claims of the Bible. After all, the text (sola Scriptura) is sufficient for salvation

and for living to God’s glory. This text is not only sufficient, it is the totality of God’s revelation in “written form” (tota Scriptura). However, more than hearing these

claims, the interpreter will come to know God. Here is the theological dimension of the interpretive process (see the essays by Martens and Schultz). This essay is in keeping with the purpose of this dictionary. NIDOTTE is more than a collection of essays and articles on Hebrew words and Old Testament concepts. Each volume in this set is intended to bring the student of the Word closer to God and to hearing his claims on one’s life. In the process of interpretation, the readers undergo several shifts. They undergo changes in their perception of the text, of themselves, of God, and, consequently, of the world. In the light of this concern, you will discover that Vanhoozer’s essay is provocative in calling forth a generation of disciples. (WVG)

14

Guide

1. LANGUAGE, LITERATURE, HERMENEUTICS, AND BIBLICAL THEOLOGY: WHAT ’S THEOLOGICAL ABOUT A THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY?

“I am not yet so lost in lexicography, as to forget that words are the daughters of the earth, and that things are the sons of heaven. Lan-

guage is only the instrument of science, and words are but the signs of ideas: I wish, however, that the instrument might be less apt to decay, and that signs might be permanent, like the things which they denote. —Samuel Johnson, “Preface” to Dictionary of the English Language (1775)

Why should anyone consult a dictionary of OT terms, or even NT terms for that matter, in order to do Christian theology? Can words—daughters of the earth, according to Samuel Johnson—speak of things (the “sons of heaven”), not to mention God and the Son of God? The dictionary definition of “definition” lists “the statement of the meaning of a word or the nature of a thing,” and “the degree of distinctness in outline of an object or image” as possible meanings.! Definitions mark out the boundary or limits of something. Yet this definition raises two fundamental problems for the project of a theological dictionary: (1) Are definitions about words or the world? That is, do dictionaries talk only about language, or do they give us insight into the nature of reality as well? (2) What actually defines or gives a word its determinate meaning? Do words have a natural sense, or a supernatural sense imposed by God? Is meaning a matter of individual decision (“When J use a word ... it means just what I choose it to mean”—Humpty-Dumpty’) or of social convention? And are definitions forever, or do they change? As Samuel Johnson knew all too well, words and meanings alike change over time: Words strain, Crack and sometimes break, under the burden, Under the tension, slip, slide, perish,

Decay with imprecision, will not stay in place, Will not stay still. (T. S. Eliot, Four Quartets, “Burnt Norton”) The purpose of this article is to survey some of the leading ways in which language and literature have been thought to serve either as an access or as an impediment to talking about God. Is language the antechamber or prison-house of theology, its handmaid or its warden? Can any language—prophetic, Pauline, pietistic, or philosophical—ultimately achieve transcendence and so speak of something other than itself? These fundamental questions about the language of theology lead to questions about the theology of language. For questions about meaning and interpretation are themselves implicitly theological, and sometimes explicitly so. Is language a human construct or a gift of God? Is language basically an instrument the human creature uses to cope with its environment, or is it a means for interacting with what is other than

itself? To some extent, the way one answers this question bears on how one conceives the relation between language and reality. 15

Guide

I begin with a survey of some important theories about words and their meaning, from Plato to postmodernity, and of how they have proven influential in biblical and theological studies. I then make good on my twofold claim that theology is largely a matter of language and language largely a matter of theology. Next I trace the fate of meaning by considering ever more complex levels of language: words, sentences, and literary texts. I suggest that meaning and interpretation are most properly located on the level of the sentence and the text, for meaning is less a matter of words in the abstract than of words put to certain kinds of use. Hermeneutics, I shall contend, seeks

the meaning of communicative action, and for this we need to look at language as discourse—as something said to someone about something. I then look, in the following section, at the ways in which the Bible says something about God through its many kinds of literature. Finally, I examine how an integrated hermeneutics of the Bible’s language and literature can be theologically fruitful. While language and literature in general raise implicitly theological questions, the language and literature of the Bible make explicit theological claims—claims about God as well as claims on the reader. A dictionary of OT terms and themes provides an important service in aiding contemporary interpreters in achieving biblical literacy and canonical competence. The Christian theologian is one who has learned his or her craft through an apprenticeship to biblical literature. In learning what to say of God when, the biblical interpreter gains theological competence—not only theoretical knowledge of God (epistémé), but a practical wisdom (phronesis) that can be applied to new situations as well.’ Dictionaries, far from being dull records of past communicative action, thus serve a more dynamic purpose, namely, of informing contemporary speech and thought about God. Biblical interpretation ultimately leads not only to biblical theology, but to systematic and practical theology too.

A. On the Very Idea of a Dictionary Definition: From Cratylus to Cupitt 1. Word and thing. Premodernity and the imitation of the world. (a) Plato’s Cratylus—on philology and philosophy. Many of Plato’s philosophical dialogues take the form of a search for definitions: What is justice? What is knowledge? What is goodness? In one of his lesser known dialogues, the Cratylus, Plato treats the nature of meaning and language. The three participants in the dialogue—Hermogenes, Cratylus, and Socrates—each represent different positions, positions that anticipate, often in extraordinary fashion, theories about language that have been, and continue to be, influential in ancient, modern, and postmodern times. For instance,

Socrates’ speculations about etymologies bears a certain resemblance to how the Biblical Theology Movement of the 1940s and 1950s interpreted biblical words. Similarly, the figure of Cratylus, after whom the dialogue takes its name, is a precursor of sorts to certain postmodern themes.

The main issue at stake in the Cratylus is whether or not we can speak truly: Do words give us knowledge of the world? Just what is the relation between philology (the study of words) and philosophy (the study of reality)? Hermogenes (a disciple of the Sophists) argues that names are conventional; like the names of slaves, they may be given or changed at one’s pleasure. As such, words are unreliable guides to the nature of things, for there is no necessary connection between a word and the thing it names. 16

Guide

As we shall see, this position foreshadows Saussure’s linguistics, a theory that has come to dominate much twentieth-century thinking about words.

The figure of Cratylus is less straightforward. He holds that a name is either a true name, the perfect expression of a thing, or else it is a mere inarticulate sound, not a name at all. Cratylus neatly encapsulates both the modern emphasis on meaning as reference and the postmodern emphasis on the indeterminacy of meaning. Cratylus thus resembles the skeptic who has such high requirements as to what counts as knowledge that nothing can meet it.t According to Aristotle, Cratylus was a follower of Heraclitus, the philosopher who said that one cannot step into the same river twice and who believed that change is the fundamental reality. From Heraclitus’s notion that “all is flux,” Cratylus concludes that one ought not to say anything, but only point with one’s finger, since no true statement can be made about what is always changing. Cratylus is more pessimistic than Samuel Johnson: Whereas Johnson bemoans the impermanence of signs, Cratylus ascribes the same transitoriness to things in themselves. On the one hand, then, Cratylus espouses, if only for the sake of argument, the belief that everything has a right name of its own, fixed (made determinate) by nature. On the other hand, because he apparently maintains that nature is constantly in flux, no true names can be given; neither the world nor language is determinate. It is to counter such skepticism that Socrates enters the discussion.” He first points out that if names are only conventional and if there are different conventions for different people, then people name things differently. But do the things to which the names refer differ as well? In other words, is what is in the world a matter of conven-

tion too? Socrates is unable to conceive of this—he did not have the advantage of reading Derrida or Foucault—and argues that things cannot be relative to individuals. The things of which we speak therefore have their own proper essence, and the successful speaker is the one who speaks of things “naturally.” In other words, when we name things, we are also defining their natures. Who is able to do this? He who knows “how to put the true natural name of each thing into sounds and syllables, and to make and give all names with a view to the ideal name.”© The business of a name is to express a nature. One might here cite 1 Sam 25:25 (RSV) in support: “He is just like his name—his name is Nabal [Fool], and folly goes with him.”

Most of the dialogue is devoted to Socrates’ exploration of Cratylus’s suggestion that a word names a thing. Dictionary definitions are not only about words but about the world. Indeed, in another dialogue Socrates asks: “Do you think anybody understands the word for anything, if he doesn’t know the thing, what it is?””’ Plato evi-

dently finds it difficult to distinguish the definition of a word from the definition of a thing. But how is it that words are the “proper names” for things? Here Socrates launches into what at times appears to be a tongue-in-cheek attempt to answer this question by means of an appeal to etymologies. A name is considered appropriate if its root meaning, its etymology, says something about the nature of the thing named. For instance, the etymology of the Greek term for “understanding” (synesis) means “to go along with.” Understanding is thus a matter of “following” an argument or a story. The etymology of the term, its constituent parts, defines the nature of the thing (e.g., understanding) itself. There is not much that separates Socrates’ use of etymologies from many theological dictionaries, and much preaching besides. 17

Guide

Once names have been analyzed into their constituent parts, however, the task remains to analyze the parts, for otherwise one falls into an infinite regress. Socrates, consistently enough, maintains that the parts of words—the consonants and vowels—are themselves imitations of things. “R,” for example, expresses rapidity and motion, for “the tongue was most agitated and least at rest in the pronunciation of this letter.”® And “I” expresses liquidity, because its pronunciation requires the tongue to slip. Thus, in the Eng. word “roll,” we are to think of liquid motion or of rapid slipping (the “o,” of course, represents the circular nature of the rapid motion!). Socrates’ serious philological point, and it is a brilliant one, is that language is imitative sound. Resemblance of sounds to things is the first principle of language. Socrates confesses to no little doubt as to the correctness of his theory, but what

are the alternatives? If one rejects the imitation theory, the only alternatives are to appeal to the “Deus ex machina” (i.e., the gods gave the first names) or to the “veil of antiquity” (i.e., we don’t know who gave things their names). Plato is clearly unhappy with either alternative, for each requires him to acknowledge that he has no reason to

believe that we can speak truly (e.g., according to a thing’s nature). At the same time, Socrates is aware that names can be wrongly given; one might call a tomato a vegetable rather than a fruit. There is a distinction, then, between a name and the thing itself.

Here Socrates grants Hermogenes’s point, that naming is, at least in part, a matter of convention. After all, “tomato” does not really sound like a tomato, nor is there anything in its etymology that requires it to be linked with a glossy red fruit that grows on a vine. It is because there is unlikeness, as well as likeness, to things that requires a combination of nature and convention in naming. This is particularly true of numbers. The names of numbers do not resemble them. Socrates concedes this point reluctantly; one gains the distinct impression that Plato would be happier if language worked exclusively by imitation of nature, as this would fit in better with his theory of the Forms, according to which things on earth imitate eternal Ideas. To his credit, however, we find Plato at the end of the Cratylus suggesting that it is dangerous to try to find philosophy in words (e.g., etymologies). One cannot argue from name to nature, from philology to philosophy, from morphology to metaphysics: “He who follows names in the search after things, and analyses their meaning, is in great danger of being deceived.”? We can only trust names to reveal the nature of things if names are God-given, but Socrates finds little way of making sense of this suggestion. On this account, how could one account for the variety of languages and for the fact that the meanings of words change over time? Better by far to view meaning as a joint product of natural imitation and social convention.

(b) Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine. Augustine, the most important biblical interpreter in the early church, held a view of language that owed much to Plato. In his Confessions, Augustine recalls how his parents taught him to speak. “When they named some object, and accordingly moved towards something, I saw this and I grasped that the thing was called by the sound they uttered. Thus, as I heard words repeatedly used in their proper places in various sentences, I gradually learnt to understand what objects they signified.”!° This is a classic exposition of the “meaning as reference” theory. On this view, the meaning of a word is the object for which it stands. “All doctrine concerns either things or signs, but things are learned by signs.”!! Some things, however, signify other things. This accords with Plato, for whom earthly things 18

Guide

are but pale imitations of eternal Ideas. Things are nevertheless learned by signs, and this includes things spoken of in Scripture. However, the relation between sign and thing may be obscured because some signs are ambiguous. Augustine contrasts literal signs, which designate the things to which they refer directly, with figurative signs, which occur “when the thing which we designate by a literal sign is used to signify something else.”!? The literal meaning is often the least interesting, the least edifying, and the least theologically significant meaning. Literalistic interpretation often leads to poor results: When that which is said figuratively is taken as though it were literal, it is understood carnally. . . . There is a miserable servitude of the

spirit in this habit of taking signs for things, so that one is not able to raise the eye of the mind above things that are corporeal and created to

drink in eternal light.!° In other words, interpretation is carnal when one fails to see that the thing signified by a sign is itself a sign of something higher. To read spiritually is to recognize that the things referred to by the literal sense themselves refer to something higher, namely, the things of God. Ambrose had freed Augustine from his difficulties with the OT by showing that many of its stories, while distinctly unedifying on the literal level, carried a higher, spiritual meaning. In an allegory, one thing is said but another meant. The early Christians applied this method of interpretation to the OT; on this level, the Law and the Prophets refer to

Christ. Augustine’s rule for deciding when to take a passage literally and when figuratively was brilliant in its simplicity: “Whatever appears in the divine Word that does not literally pertain to virtuous behavior or to the truth of faith you must take to be figurative.”!* If a literal reading fosters neither the love of God nor the love of neighbor,

then one must choose the spiritual interpretation that does. Multiple readings are not dangerous so long as none of them contradicts the rule of faith, hope, and love. Augustine later came to interpret 2 Cor 3:6, “the letter kills, the spirit gives life,” differently: The law kills the soul unless the Spirit regenerates and enables it to love God. However, Augustine gives to this principle of the priority of grace a hermeneutic application as well: Words will convey their true meaning only as God himself illumines the heart and mind. In contemporary times this has become the insight that one can only read the Bible aright if one reads as an active participant in the Christian community (i.e., in the life of the church, and only then in the life of God). What should be noted is the essentially Platonist theory of meaning that underlies Augustine’s theory: As words signify things, so things signify higher things. Augustine’s penchant for spiritual meanings and the general medieval tendency towards allegorical interpretation still work within a largely Platonic view of the language-world relation, where signs imitate things, and earthly things imitate heavenly Forms. Plato and Augustine serve as excellent illustrations of my working hypothesis that theories of interpretation presuppose theories of how God, world, and language are all interrelated. Such an integration between words and worldviews is as true of modern and postmodern theories as it is of the premodern theories we have just surveyed. I thus turn now to consider the language-world relation in modern biblical studies.

19

Guide

2. Word and thought. Modernity and the turn to the subject. In modern thinking about language, explanations of how language speaks truly have recourse to the mind rather than the world. It was Immanuel Kant who revolutionized philosophy by insisting that the mind does not know the world directly but supplies the categories and concepts that shape experience and so make reality determinate. Kant’s so-called “Copernican Revolution” reversed the traditional relation between ideas and objects in the world. The mind, Kant argued, plays an active role in the language-world relation, contributing the structure to human experience. Words express thoughts. This “turn to the subject” implied that language expresses an individual’s experience of the world rather than the world itself. What words represent in the first instance is not the world itself, nor Plato’s eternal ideas, but rather human

ideas or subjectivity. Words are signs not of things but of thoughts.!° The legacy of Kant’s revolution was that subsequent thinkers became trapped by what appeared to be an insoluble dilemma: Either language is subjective, eclipsing the world, or objective, eclipsing the subject. (a) Frege and the Biblical Theology Movement. In a famous article entitled “On Sense and Reference,” Gottlob Frege distinguished “sense,” what someone says, from

“reference,” that about which one says something.!° The sense is the ideal object, the idea one has in mind; the referent is the real object in the world that the sense or idea represents. The logic of interpretation is clear: One has first to determine the sense of a word or sentence before then going on to determine whether it refers to something real (i.e., whether it is true or false). The same referent may have a connotations, but a sentence should refer to only one object. (i) “Sense” and “reference.” Frege’s distinction highlights which modern philosophy of language has tended to go. What calls attention to the intentionality of the speaker or author and to

number of senses or

the two directions in Frege called “sense” what he or she had in

mind. “Reference,” by contrast, calls attention to the external objects in the world

towards which one’s mind may be directed. Accordingly, language was thought to express thoughts and events—the meaning of a word is the state of affairs that it represents. Samuel Johnson speaks for modernity when he says that words are the signs of ideas (e.g., mental representations). The language of the Bible is now used as (1) direct evidence for reconstructing the mentality of the authors and (2) as indirect evidence for reconstructing what actually happened in history. As Hans Frei has observed, however, meaning in both instances is still associated with reference: reference to what the writers had in mind or reference to what happened “behind” the text. Language is still a matter of naming and representation, only now what is “imitated” in words are internal thoughts and external (earthly) states of affairs. Language thus performs an essentially

informative function.

(ii) Theology as etymology? It was the Biblical Theology Movement in particular that became preoccupied with the notion that dictionaries and word studies provided a privileged access to the distinctive mentality and concepts of the biblical authors. The Biblical Theology Movement gave theological privilege to “sense.”!” Some suggested that the very structure of Heb. syntax expresses a peculiarly Heb. mentality: The structure of the Heb. language was taken as evidence of Heb. patterns of thought, including thought about God. On the basis of differences in syntax and grammar, for instance, Greek thought was said to be static and abstract in contrast to the

20

Guide

dynamic and concrete thought of the Jew. It was then suggested that the theology of the Bible pictured a more dynamic sense of time, of history, and of divine activity than in Greek thought. In other words, it became fashionable to read theology off of etymolo-

gies and syntax.!8

.

Biblical scholars were particularly tempted by etymological analyses because Semitic languages, including Heb., are built around usually three consonants that serve as the root of a family of related words (e.g., in Arab., the root SLM is common to salam, peace; islam, submission; and muslim, one who submits). Moreover, the conso-

nantal script in which Heb. is written also calls attention to a word’s root. An eighteenth-century philologist, A. Schultens, suggested that the Heb. word hé¥ia’ (save, help) is derived from an Arab. word meaning give room to. He then moved, mistakenly, from Barr’s point of view, from word to concept by arguing that salvation consequently carries with it some connotation of spaciousness. Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, perhaps the greatest scholarly product of the Biblical Theology Movement, had a profound impact on modern theology, at least until James Barr published his scathing critique, The Semantics of Biblical Language, in 1961. Barr showed that a word’s etymology may or may not affect its meaning in a particular instance. Much more important is the immediate context in which a word is used. Only careful contextual study will prove whether words of the same consonantal family always carry a “root meaning.” David Kelsey concurs: “In ordinary discourse, surely, a word does not have one structure of systematically interrelated senses that goes with the word in every context of use.”?? One cannot move smoothly from a study of the various words for “to save” to a discussion of “the biblical concept of salvation,” for instance. Moreover, some words (e.g., tomato) have

no significant etymology. Others have etymologies that explain how terms were once used but have nothing to do with the meaning of a term today (e.g., nice). In general, Barr cautioned against identifying the various uses of a word with its root meaning (the “word-concept fallacy”). Barr correctly observed that the new content in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures was expressed at the level of the sentence, rather than the sign (e.g., the individual words) or the syntactical structure (e.g., the language as a whole). Barr’s critique of the Biblical Theology Movement represents modernity’s attack on the premodern penchant to move from language to reality too fast. Barr insists that language only refers to the world as mediated through the mind. There can be no linguistic shortcut to God that bypasses historical criticism and authorial intention. Barr writes: “Modern biblical theology in its fear and dislike of the ‘proposition’ as the basis of religious truth has often simply adopted in its place the smaller linguistic unit of the word, and has then been forced to overload the word with meaning in order

to relate it to the ‘inner world of thought.’”! (b) Old Vienna and Old Princeton: Wittgenstein and Warfield. Kant’s turn to the subject has produced mixed results in modern biblical scholarship. On the one hand, as we have seen, modern biblical critics have redirected their attention to the

mentality of the human authors and to “what it meant.” Meaning is still reference, though now the reference to the world is always indirect, that is, through the mind of the author. For other modern scholars, however, the turn to the subject constitutes a

dangerous turn towards subjectivity. Modernity is a victim of its own position: To con-

21

Guide

ceive of the language-world relation with the categories of objectivity and subjectivity is to be doomed always to be veering between the one pole and the other. Does language represent the self’s thought (subjectivity) or the world itself (objectivity)? James Barr is typical of much modern biblical criticism in his insistence that one only reaches the objective (what actually happened) through the subjective (what it meant). Not all biblical critics, or philosophers for that matter, however, have been as sanguine about

making the mind and its thought-forms the source of the world’s determinations. (i) Interpretation and logical positivism. Ludwig Wittgenstein’s early philosophy of language is an outstanding example of modernity’s quest for objectivity. Wittgenstein, together with Bertrand Russell, a colleague at Cambridge, was concerned to render ordinary language less misleading. Like other modern thinkers, Wittgenstein was under the impression that the job of a word was to name a thing, and that the chief occupation of sentences must be to picture states of affairs. Why cannot all language be as clear as the language of logic and mathematics, he wondered. Why indeed? Upheld by this ideal of a formal language that would perfectly mirror the world, Wittgenstein argued that every proposition corresponds to a basic fact in the

world. A fact is a state of affairs, and a state of affairs is a combination of objects.? The world is made up of the sum total of facts. Wittgenstein’s basic insight is that language pictures facts. If the picture agrees with reality, then it is true.?? As to thought, it is a logical picture of facts, and a proposition is an expression of a thought. The purpose of language is to formulate true propositions, that is, to paint a verbal picture of or to represent the world.*4 Meaning is a matter of reference, but for Wittgenstein reference must always be to a factual state of affairs: “A name means an object. The object

is its meaning.”*° Wittgenstein’s early philosophy of language has been called “logical atomism” to highlight the central place he accords to propositions that picture basic facts. An object is like an “atom.” What is “logical” is the ordering of objects and names. A true proposition thus pictures a state of affairs, that is, a set of objects and their arrangement (e.g., “The book is on the table’). Wittgenstein wrote his Tractatus in Austria during World War I. Soon after, a group of philosophers in Vienna seized upon Wittgenstein’s work and used it as a basis for a whole philosophy—Logical Positivism. According to this philosophy, the nature of language itself rendered metaphysics—the study of ultimate reality—logically impossible. As Wittgenstein had shown, language referred only to states of affairs in the world. Metaphysics attempts to go beyond experience. But if language cannot speak of that which exceeds experience, then metaphysics, strictly speaking, has literally nothing to say. Accordingly, the Vienna Circle formulated the “Verifiability Criterion of Meaning.” Reference now becomes a criterion for meaning: Unless we can show how and to what we refer, what we say is meaningless. For a sentence to be meaningful, it must be possible, at least in principle, to verify it—to check it against experience. The world is limited to what we can sense (empiricism), and language is rendered clearer by means of logic—hence the name Logical Positivism. Meaning is swallowed up by empirical reference. We are still working with a picture theory of language, only now what language imitates can never be heavenly realities, as Plato thought, but only what can be verified and falsified by science.2° As we shall see, Wittgenstein later came to be his own harshest critic, rejecting his attempt to clarify 22

Guide

ordinary language and coming to see instead that ordinary language has its own kind of logic. (ii) Interpretation and biblical positivism? At first blush, it may seem odd to pair Old Princeton—the thought of such theologians as Benjamin Warfield and Charles Hodge—with Old Vienna and logical positivism. However, both James Barr and David Kelsey have accused the Princetonians (and implicitly, several generations of conservative biblical scholars as well) of succumbing to a kind of “biblical atomism” or “biblical positivism.”?’ Barr and Kelsey suggest that the Princetonians unwittingly held to a distinctly modern philosophy of language, namely, one that privileges meaning as reference, and this despite their high view of biblical authority and their antimodernist polemic. According to Barr, a theory of meaning as reference is presupposed every time the biblical narratives are read as history. Barr says that evangelicals tend to assume that the meaning of the biblical narrative lies in historical events. It is hermeneutically unwarranted, however, to insist that all biblical sentences must convey information.

Barr believes that it is inerrancy that forces evangelicals to assume that every biblical statement corresponds to some “fact” in the world. I suggest, against Barr, that it is not the doctrine of inerrancy so much as a modernist philosophy of language that equates meaning with reference that does so. It is a theory of meaning as reference, not of biblical truth, that ultimately leads the Princetonians to privilege the proof-texting method. A proof text is simply a “biblical atom’”—a proposition that pictures a fact. With regard to theology and the interpretation of Scripture, then, the Princetonians resembled the logical positivists, though their primary source of data was not empirical experience but biblical propositions. As Hodge stated: “The Bible is to the

theologian what nature is to the man of science. It is his storehouse of facts.”° Warfield, similarly, interpreted the Bible as a verbal means of access to the facts of

Christianity: “What Christianity consists in is facts that are doctrines, and doctrines that are facts.”*? Both Hodge and Warfield believed that God had so constituted the mind so as to enable it to apprehend the facts as they are.*? Hodge considers theology a science because it examines biblical facts and arranges them in a logical order. To be precise, theology is an inductive science that aspires to the same kind of objectivity as that found in the natural sciences. The man of science, be he physicist or theologian, must assume the trustworthiness of his sense perceptions and the trustworthiness of his mental operations. Lastly, the inductive approach derives principles (theories) from the facts and does not impose them upon the facts. Hodge assumes, in short, that interpretation is not necessary; it is enough to observe and deduce. The Princetonians differed, of course, from the members of the

Vienna Circle in their conception of reality; for Warfield and Hodge language can refer to the supernatural as well as the natural. But in their attitude towards language and meaning, Princeton and Vienna concur: The meaning of language is the facts to which they refer. 3. Word and sign. Postmodernity and the indeterminacy of meaning. With the advent of postmodernity we have perhaps to speak of the turn away from the subject and of the turn towards language. For according to a number of postmodern thinkers, what gives rise to definitions and determinate reality is not the world itself, nor the subject who assigns names, but rather language itself. It is language

23

Guide

that shapes both the world and our thought about the world. Language is less a mirror than a screen that pictures reality, not in the sense of representing it but rather of inventing it. (a) Derrida’s poststructuralism. Deconstruction,

a movement associated with

Jacques Derrida, is perhaps the most significant of the postmodern approaches to language and theology. In order to make sense of Derrida and deconstruction, we have first to discuss the structuralist approach to language. As we have seen, for both the Platonists and propositionalists, truth is a matter

of correspondence to the real. Language is true when it faithfully represents the real—either the Idea (for Plato) or the empirical (for the positivist). The Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure worked out a very different account of language. He saw a word as a sign that means what it means not because it represents an object, but because it differs from other signs. For example: “hot” means what it means because it differs from “lot,” “cot,” or “dot,” as well as from “cold,” “lukewarm,” and “tepid.” Unlike

Plato, who saw sounds imitating things, Saussure suggested that what makes a sign determinate is its place in a system of signs. A word does not resemble anything else but another word. The few, mostly minor, exceptions prove the rule. Words acquire meaning not by representing things but by differing from other words. Meaning is thus a matter of absences rather than presences, of arbitrary conventions rather than natural imitations. And, most important, what a person can say (parole) is limited, perhaps even determined by, the possibilities of the language system (/angue) in which one works. The way to study language, according to Saussure, is to examine the structure of the language system. The actual use of language in the world (parole) is eclipsed by the world of language alone (Jangue). Language here swallows up both mind and world. Derrida’s poststructuralism takes Saussure’s insights into language one step further—a step that unfortunately leads one to the brink of an abyss, if not actually over it. While agreeing that language is made up of differences between signifiers, Derrida rejects Saussure’s idea that these differences can be contained in a system. Not only is meaning a function of differences, it is also deferred, because the play of signifiers never comes to an end. Signs refer to signs refer to signs, ad infinitum. Signs never do come to rest, never do cast anchor onto the real world. On the contrary, lan-

guage is an ever-changing social construct that forcefully imposes different determinations onto the world, which has no more definition than a blank slate.

There is a certain despair of language in much postmodern thought. According to the poststructuralist, one can only stabilize sense and fix reference by an illegitimate use of force that imposes a sense of closure on language, which language, by its very nature, inherently resists. Derrida criticizes all attempts to bring the play of language to a halt. He calls the attempt to find some stable reference point outside of language “logocentrism.”

Platonism

and positivism,

despite their vast differences,

share an

underlying logocentrism, insofar as each position tries to ground language in the world.*! Deconstruction is an attempt to display the groundlessness of language. It is the undoing of the covenant between language and reality that has characterized Western philosophy’s belief that we can speak the truth. on Derrida’s philosophy is significantly informed by literary criticism. Literary critics view the language-world relation quite differently from historians and tradi24

Guide

tional philosophers. For Erich Auerbach, for instance, the meaning of a literary work is not that to which it refers.°? Rather, a literary work creates its own world; a story is its

own meaning. Form and content are inseparable. Without the story, one simply does not have the meaning of, say, Henry James’ novel Portrait of a Lady. More significantly, one does not have the referent, the lady mentioned in the title, without the story. She simply does not exist apart from the whole story. In Derrida’s terms, all we have are such “texts.” All uses of language, not only the poetic, are similarly textual. For Derrida, both the world and the mind are ineradicably textual, that is, structured by lan-

guage, which is to say by an arbitrary set of social conventions. Whereas modern thinkers like Descartes began philosophy in human consciousness (“I think, therefore I am’’), Derrida claims that consciousness itself is structured by language. Though we may think that we use words to express thoughts, Derrida maintains that the way we think is determined by the language we use. Writing (by which he means the system of language) precedes speech (by which he means a person’s conscious use of language). If language is a product of social forces and political power that imposes ideologies (e.g.,; systems of hierarchically organized distinctions) onto ultimately unknowable things, then perhaps Cratylus was right: We may as well point at things rather than try to speak of them. Even worse, if language is no longer an adequate medium of communication, human intercourse may degenerate into the making of inarticulate gestures—either threatening or defensive—as persons seek to negotiate a common world without the benefit of common words. For the postmodern poststructuralist, language is less a neutral medium of thought than thought’s hostile and polluted environment. (b) Don Cupitt’s aesthetic antirealism. Increasingly, biblical scholars and theologians are showing every sign of accepting postmodernity’s view of the language-world relation.*? The operative term now is neither imitation nor information, but indeterminacy. If words do not have a determinate meaning, however, the very idea of a definition is called into question. Don Cupitt is one such theologian who rejects both fixed definitions and fixed essences in the name of creative indeterminacy. We simply have no access to a world of timeless essences, he says. Like other intellectual disciplines—such as physics, psychoanalysis, and literary criticism—theology too must begin to dismantle its object of study. Of course, from another angle, undoing may look like a process of continual redoing. And this is precisely what Cupitt thinks theology should be about: reinventing faith for our time, engaging in make-believe. Words, says Cupitt, do not hook up to things. Words refer to other words and in this way generate a meaningful world. In other words, what gives reality shape or determinate meaning are the distinctions we draw and articulate in words. In Welsh, for instance, the color spectrum is divided up differently than in English. The color glas (blue) includes elements that in English would be called green or gray. In learning its native language the child learns a set of differentiating concepts that identify not given entities but socially constructed signifieds.** Whereas for Plato words imitate things, one might say that for the postmodernist, things imitate words. The postmodernist does not believe in a “super-language”’ that gives us the true story. Indeed, Francois Lyotard defines the postmodern condition in terms of an “incredulity towards metanarratives.”*> That is, the postmodern thinker no longer believes that we can attain a perspective outside of and above language from which we can then

aD

Guide ee eS ee

meer

check to see if our language really does correspond to the way things are or not. Reality is merely “the sum of all that our language makes generally accessible and discuss-

able.”%6

For Cupitt, the way forward for theology is to accept that its language is essentially aesthetic and creative. Instead of trying to speak truly, we should be more concerned with speaking creatively, in ways that make human experience meaningful. Theology’s task is to develop symbols and metaphors that will enable us to dwell meaningfully in the world. Cupitt neatly reverses Hodge: Theories invent facts and impose forms upon them. We have no access to the world as it is apart from some language or other. To inhabit a language is to abandon all attempts to attain a God’s-eye

point of view. Again, it is not that words imitate the world, but that the world imitates words. Socrates’ notion that sounds imitate things, which Cupitt dubs the “bow-wow

theory” of language, got it backwards: “Words shape the way we see the world, we ca the world has shaped our words. In reality, language determines perception.” B. God, Language, and Literary Theory: What’s Theological About Language and Hermeneutics? 1. The fundamental issue: realism and nonrealism. Ought language represent reality? Can it? Questions about language and meaning are inextricably tied up with larger philosophical and theological issues. What dictionaries were thought to be and do has changed over time. In the ancient world, the

dictionary gave insight not only into language but ultimately into things themselves, not only spoken and written words but the real world. For both Plato and Augustine, language is true when it imitates the world. In more modern times, words give us insight into what people are feeling and thinking, into an individual’s mind.*® Henceforth, philosophers would guard against mistaking the linguistic description for the thing itself. With postmodernity’s turn towards language, the gap between language and world becomes an unbridgeable “ugly ditch”: The dictionary tells us not how language represents the world or human thought, but rather how language shapes and determines human thinking, and thus what we take to be the world.*” Language is less a window onto the world or a mirror of the soul than it is a system that shapes both the world and subjectivity. The disappearance of the third-person-masculine singular pronoun as a term for humanity in general is not only a lexical but a political event. Our brief survey confirms the thesis that the various methods of biblical interpretation are compelling for those who practice them because of the underlying worldview that they presuppose.*? One’s understanding of the relation between language and reality ultimately involves theological assumptions. This brings us back to my initial twofold claim, namely, that theology has to do with language and that language has to do with theology. Let us return to the idea of a definition. To define something is to determine what something is: its nature, character, and outline. In its ocular sense, “definition” has to do with clarity, with the distinctness of an object or image. But a word can have a clear definition only if the thing in the world that it names has a determinate nature. The alternative would lead to Cratylus’ position: If things do not have a fixed nature, definitions are no good; we could only point with our fingers at the flux. Two larger questions, therefore, haunt our discussion of language: (1) Are things in the world

26

Guide

determinate? (2) If reality is determinate, what makes it so? What stamps a determinate

nature onto things so that language can speak truly of them? Is it God, human subjectivity (€.g., reason), social convention, or perhaps artistic creation (e.g., language)? Does the world (and God) have a fixed character, or do human speakers differentiate

the world (and God) by inventing linguistic distinctions? To repeat my thesis: Views of language presuppose views of God (or of God’s absence). In the premodern world, the nature of reality was fixed and revealed by God. In early modern philosophy, reality was thought to have an eternal order that was knowable by reason. In later modern philosophy, Kant suggested that what reason knows is its own workings on experience, not the world itself. In our postmodern context, the tendency is to radicalize Kant’s insight and to follow Nietzsche by saying that we can never get beyond our languages to an extralinguistic reality. The challenge today is to explain how language can be used to talk truly about reality. Today little is taken as “given,” since everything is thought to be constructed—“‘graven.” The world—the sum total of “natural” kinds and “natural” orders, not to mention the explicitly cultural ones—is now thought to be a product of our language systems. Instead of language mirroring the way things are, the world is rather like a blank screen onto which language projects its system of distinctions. Nonrealism—the position that there is no such thing as a real world independent of language—takes an implicitly theological (or rather, countertheological) position. According to the nonrealist, not only is there no God’s-eye point of view, but God is absent. That is, there is no reference point from which to make true distinctions and

definitions. For the nonrealist, the world simply does not exist independent of our linguistic representations of it. This is the sense in which one must understand Derrida’s maxim: “There is nothing outside the text.” There is, in other words, no determinate

reality that stands “over against” our language systems. Cupitt readily acknowledges the consequences of the notion that thought is radically dependent on, perhaps even determined by, language. He calls his position “semiotic materialism,” to underline his thesis that language is a mind-shaping and world-creating social force.*! Cupitt’s view of language is consistent with his nonrealist faith: “‘Reality’ ?—feelings fixed by conventional noises, and systematized.’*? Being postmodern means facing up to the fact that language is free-floating, grounded neither in the world, nor in reason, nor in revelation. It means facing up to the arbitrariness of all our

talk, including our God-talk. For the nonrealist, God has no being or definition apart from the language we use to speak of him. Nonrealists thus think of meaning the way Feuerbach thought of God: Both meaning and God are merely projections of language. Cupitt, mindful of the creative nature of language, thus calls for Christians to reinvent faith for their time, to formulate new images and metaphors for talking about God, that is, about our highest human aspirations. The crisis and confusion in contem-

porary theories of language, literature, and interpretation is directly related to the crisis in contemporary theology. Why is theological nonrealism a threat? Because it means that there is no extralinguistic reality—-God—that can serve as a criterion and check for what we say and do in the name of God. The word “God” is the ultimate designer label, the supreme sanction for moral values and political programs. It is precisely because the word “God” is so powerful that theology is necessary—to make sure that talk of

27

Guide

God corresponds to the way God really is as revealed in the event of Jesus Christ as attested in the Scriptures. 2. Language and theology: the analogy of being and the analogy offaith. As John Macquarrie reminds us, “Theology is language,” inasmuch as theology

is “reasoned talk about God.’’4+ But how can language have to do with God? For much

of its history, theology’s primary concern has been with its own possibility, with how its words are related to an original Word of God. Two examples of how views of language and views of God are mutually supportive must suffice. Each tries to take account of the fundamental problems of presence and absence—of how human words can refer to God truly and of how the reality of God ultimately transcends human language. (a) Thomas Aquinas and the analogy of being. Twelfth-century theologians were among the most sophisticated with regard to their understanding of the relation of language to theology. Their primary problem was how human words could signify God. As G. R. Evans observes: “Unless we can show that what we are saying has some meaning in connection with God, or that it refers to him in some way, we cannot be

sure that we are saying anything about God at all. We may be talking about an imaginary being.”* If language is humanly devised, a system of social conventions, as many of the medieval theologians believed, how can it refer to God?

When we say “God is good,” does “good” mean the same as it means when applied to creatures (in which case God loses his transcendence and is reduced to an earthly object), or does it mean something entirely different (in which case we do not know what it means)? Thomas Aquinas evades this either-or and suggests that some words may be used analogically of God.*° If a thing can be a sign for God, there must be some similarity between the thing and God. If there were not, then how could, say,

fatherhood or kingship be meaningful terms to ascribe to God? Language about things may be applied analogously to God insofar as the created things share certain qualities (e.g., perfections such as goodness, justice, beauty, etc.) with their Creator, though only to a lesser degree. Aquinas’s view of language thus relies on a picture of how God is related to the world. God is present in the world as the source of Being.*’ Aquinas claims, reasonably enough, that we can only speak of God as we know him, but then he goes on to say that “we know him from creatures.’’4 God is the ground of being, the source of all that is. God is the reference point for all that is. He is the transcendent Presence and perfection that creaturely things analogically (and thus imperfectly) represent. Aquinas states: “When we say God is good or wise we do not simply mean that he causes wisdom or goodness, but that he possesses these perfections transcendently.”4? The confidence that language may refer analogically to God is based on the analogy of being that posits a similarity between creaturely reality and the Creator. What creatures and Creator share is Being, though God is the highest Being, endowed with all the perfections

of Being, and has Being in and of himself.°° “Good” has the meaning it has only

because there is an extralinguistic reference point (viz., the goodness of God) that fixes language (viz., the term “good’’). The analogy of being thus accords with a natural theology that maintains that we can say true things about God on the basis of our experi-

ence of and reflection about nature.>! 28

Guide (b) Karl Barth and the analogy of faith. Karl Barth conceives of the presence of God very differently from Aquinas and thus provides another instructive example of how one’s view of God and one’s view of language each have a bearing on the other. Barth rejects the analogia entis as a massive theological error. Natural theology implies that God is in fundamental continuity with the world and so denies the “wholly otherness” of God. Barth’s dialectical theology, on the other hand, affirms an “infini-

tive qualitative difference” between God in heaven and eternity on the one hand and humanity on earth and in time on the other. But if God is wholly other than the world, how then can human language speak of God truly? Barth’s short answer is: It cannot. Left to its own devices, human language can speak only of the world. Dialectical theology prevents any illegitimate or premature synthesis of God and humanity from the human side. However, there is nothing to stop human language from revealing God from God’s side. Barth’s dialectical theology therefore recognizes an analogia fidei (analogy of faith)—an analogy “from above,” initiated by divine grace. Only in this way sie God remain God (e.g., the wholly other) as well as the referent of human words. Barth’s dialectical theology appears to lead to two incompatible views of human language. On the one hand, human talk about God, like justification by works, degenerates into a hopeless human activity—the meaningless play of signifiers. Barth accepts the Kantian point that concepts, or in this case language, always intrude on the relation between the human knower and the object of knowledge. If left to its own devices, Barth seems to imply, language is as the poststructuralists conceive it—an indeterminate play of signs. Only by God can God be known. Only in the act of revelation do the words of Scripture disclose the Word of God. For Barth, human words only refer to God when God in his revelation uses them to do so.>? Only by reading in faith, through an analogia fidei, can we follow the biblical word from sense, from what it says, to referent, to what it is about.

The goal of biblical interpretation for Barth is to discern the Word in the words. “Without revelation there can only be semantic agnosticism—for all acts of signification make arbitrary connection between words and what is.”>+ God’s language, on the other hand, is wholly adequate to its object. Without divine activity, however, the process of interpreting the Scriptures is short-circuited. “That human language can become a bearer of divine revelation is a divine possibility, not a human possibility.”>° Exegetical labor alone cannot catch the sacred fish. Successful reference—the disclosure of the Word by the words—is ultimately God’s own achievement in the interpreter. If there is revelation—successful reference to the Word—it is not a function of the Bible’s language so much as an event of divine grace. Barth’s view of God thus gives rise to a particular view of language and interpretation: the analogia fidei. The theological motive behind Barth’s refusal of the analogy of being is his concern to forestall any kind of linguistic natural theology. God would not be God if he could be the referent of human discourse or if he could simply be read off of the biblical texts. As wholly other, God is hidden in his revealedness;

only in this way can God be Lord of the process of revelation. The unresolved question for Barth concerns the status of the economy of signification (viz., language): Is it a God-given gift, or a sinful postlapsarian product that has nothing to do with God? Is language human or divine in origin? Barth seems to be saying both: Language is 3:3

Guide

socially constructed and divinely elected, both arbitrary and adequate in relation to the reality of God. Behind Barth’s view of language lies his view of God as dialectially present: hidden to reason, revealed to faith. Both Barth and Aquinas seek a view of language that does justice to divine immanence (presence) and transcendence (absence) alike. For Aquinas, however, God’s presence is the stable ground of Creation, whereas for Barth, God’s presence is more dynamically conceived, a revealing presence only to

an active faith.~° 3. Literary theory as a theology? Is hermeneutics without theological presuppositions possible? Whereas Bultmann argued that exegetical work always involves presuppositions, I would go further and claim that our hermeneutical theories themselves are dependent on theologies (or atheologies). If I am right, then we should expect to find some sort of correlation between various theological positions (e.g., classical theism or natural theology, dialectical theology, pantheism, etc.) on the one hand, and various approaches to interpretation (e.g., feminism, historicism, deconstruction, etc.) on the other. I turn to post-

structuralist literary theory as the chief exhibit in defense of this working hypothesis. (a) The death of the author. Deconstruction, it has been said, is the death of God

put into hermeneutics.*’ For Derrida, presence—the presence of meaning, an author, God—is always illusory, an effect or projection of writing. Without an Author, the world has no fixed meaning; without the author, the text has no fixed meaning. God’s

death in the nineteenth century precipitated the author’s death in the twentieth century—a similarly theological event. “Both deaths attest to a departure of belief in authority, presence, intention, omniscience and creativity.”°® Derrida and other deconstructionists celebrate the death of the author as a counter-theological event which frees the reader for creative play.°” To declare the author dead is to abandon the search for a stable home for linguistic meaning. For Barthes and Foucault, the death of the author means that there is nothing outside the play of writing that guarantees determinate sense or that our words refer to the world. The turn to language involves a turn away from the subject: The author’s consciousness is no longer thought to be able to control the sense and reference of his words. Consequently, the author has lost all “authority”—the ability to say of x that it is y, the power of say-so. With the death of the author comes the birth of the reader. Readers benefit from the power vacuum that follows from the author’s absence. It is the reader’s will-to-power that bestows meaning on texts. Derrida agrees with Nietzsche: If God (stable meaning) does not exist, it would be necessary to invent him (it). This is precisely the role of the reader: to create meaning out of a sea of indeterminate signs. Atheism thus leads to nonrealism in literary theory and philosophy alike. In much literary theory, God, self, and world are all alike reduced to modes of textuality.© In Derrida’s words: “There is nothing outside the text.”°! (b) Hermeneutics or grammatology? Derrida, to his credit, acknowledges the tie between hermeneutics and theology. “The sign and divinity have the same place and time of birth. The age of the sign is essentially theological.”® The sign is theological insofar as it is taken to represent presence, that is, insofar as it is a sign of an extralinguistic reality that transcends it. Meaning, and hermeneutics in general, is theological insofar as it refers to the belief that there is something in what we say, that is, if it refers

30

Guide

to the belief that our God-talk is not merely talk about talk but talk about God. Derrida,

however, pits grammatology over against hermeneutics. Grammatology is the “science of writing,” that is, the study of signs in their material and differential relation to one another rather than of the relation between signs and things or thoughts. It is the dream of hermeneutics that meaning (the transcendental signified) will somehow be made present through the process of deciphering signs. Grammatology is to language as atheism is to religion; it reminds us that there is only writing, only absence, only signs referring to other signs—never voice, presence, or the fullness of being. George Steiner, another literary critic, agrees that meaning is ultimately a theological affair yet claims, against Derrida, that the actual practice of speaking and writing necessarily presupposes a belief in meaning: “Any coherent account of the capacity of human speech to communicate meaning and feeling is, in the final analysis, underwritten by the assumption of God’s presence.” Steiner admits that the sense of an other’s “real presence” in language may be only a rhetorical flourish, as the deconstructionists say, rather than “a piece of theology,” but any significant encounter with the text as other must make a wager of faith in transcendence.™ Interpretation is “theological” for Steiner because he believes that there is something that transcends the play of signs in language. The alternative for Steiner is a “deconstructionist and postmodernity counter-theology of absence,” where the reader discovers only herself.®°

C. Biblical Exegesis, Theology, and Hermeneutics: What Are We Interpreting? What precisely are we after as linguists or interpreters? “Meaning” is too glib an answer, for what is the meaning of meaning? Krister Stendahl drew what has become a celebrated distinction between “what it meant” and “what it means” in order to distinguish the respective tasks of biblical and systematic theology.® It is the role of the biblical theologian to describe “what it meant” for the original authors and readers. The systematic theologian’s job is to find a suitable language and conceptuality to explain “what it means” in a manner faithful to the text and intelligible to contemporary culture. But what, we may ask Stendahl, is “it”? Is “it” a word, and meaning its definition, perhaps the thing it refers to? This, by and large, was the answer of premodern biblical scholars. Subsequent suggestions for what we are trying to describe include the things referred to historically, the things referred to allegorically, and the thoughts of the original authors. To ask what interpreters are after is thus to raise two questions: “What is meaning?” and “Of what precisely are we asking the question of meaning?” 1. From semiotics to semantics. What has emerged from our survey of views of language—from premodern imitation theories through the modern focus on language as information about empirical or subjective reality to the postmodern emphasis on indeterminacy—is that the object of study has been, for the most part, either isolated words or the language system as a whole. Interpretation has gravitated more towards signs and systems of signs than sentences, towards langue rather than parole. To put it yet another way: To this point we have been examining semiotics rather than semantics. We have seen the importance accorded to signs as imitations of things, of signs as expressions of thought, and of signs as constituent elements in what is ultimately an arbitrary language system. And whether the emphasis was on words as imitative, informative, or indeterminate, all the theorists assumed that the major task of language was to refer to the world. Where theorists differed was over whether they thought language 31

Guide

was up to its task. To generalize, the question of reference (ideal, historical, indetermi-

nate) has swallowed up the question of meaning. What is conspicuous by its absence is any study of signs as used by human beings in particular contexts to accomplish specific tasks. (a) Langue/parole; sign/sentence; semiotics/semantics. “For me, the distinction

between semantics and semiotics is the key to the whole problem of language.”°’ I am inclined to agree with Ricoeur.

While

semiotics

(the science of signs or semeia)

focuses on linguistic rules and conventions, semantics examines

linguistic perfor-

mance and intentions. For semiotics, meaning is a matter of the relations between signs

with the system of langue. One may, of course, study words or texts as elements in a structure of language. Similarly, one may study language systems as a whole in relation to the social and political systems of which they are a part. The study of signs and codes (langue), however, effectively ignores the speaking subject and the act of communication. Semiotics studies language as constituting a self-contained world of its own. On this view, systems of language perform an ideological function insofar as they shape how people will differentiate and experience the extralinguistic world. Language, far from being a neutral instrument for naming the world, is instead an indispensable instrument of indoctrination. In learning a language a speaker also learns a system of differences and distinctions—an ideology. (b) Parole/sentences/semantics. According to Ricoeur, speech—in particular, the sentence—introduces a level of complexity and uniqueness that cannot be described by semiotics. He sees semiotics and semantics “as the two sciences which correspond to the two kinds of units characteristic of language, the sign and the sentence.”©8 The sentence is not merely a larger sign but a distinct entity, requiring new methods of description. A sentence, composed of at least a name and a vb., connects words in a synthesis that displays a new level of complexity and requires a new and higher level of description than the semiotic. Though one can analyze a sentence and break it down into its constituent parts, a sentence “is a whole irreducible to the sum of

its parts.”© Ricoeur defines semantics as “the science of the sentence.” 2. Language and literature: the covenant of discourse. As the function of words in premodernity and modernity has been to (a) name things or (b) stand for or label thoughts, so the sentence has been thought to function as a pictorial representation of a state of affairs. A picture of language as composed of signs rather than sentences has held us captive. To focus on the semantics of sentences, however, is to create a new picture of language as “discourse”—as something someone says to someone about something. To conceive of language and literature as discourse is to view speech and text as the communicative acts of communicative agents.’° John Fiske defines language as a means of communication, of “social interaction through

messages.””/!

(a) Language as discourse: an interaction theory. Ludwig Wittgenstein was one of the first philosophers to free himself from the picture of language as a means of referring to objects in the world. Wittgenstein came to see that language can be used for many different purposes and that there are a variety of different “fits” between word and world. J. L. Austin similarly believed that the task of the philosopher was not to improve upon ordinary language by showing how it corresponded to the world so

32

Guide

much as to understand how it performed many other tasks as well.’* Austin discovered that the situation in which language was used was every bit as important as the words themselves. Discourse has to do with the actual use of words, with words in action. For the

sake of analysis, we may distinguish four levels of communicative action. (i) Locutionary. While language systems are merely virtual, discourse pertains to an actual use of words. The locutionary act refers to the act of saying something.” (ii) Illocutionary. Sentences, besides saying something (e.g., identifying and predicating), also do something (e.g., warn, assert, promise, etc.). The illocutionary act refers to what we do when we say something.” It is the illocutionary aspect of discourse that semiotics overlooks, to damaging effect. For it is the illocution that makes a set of words into a particular type of communicative action (e.g., an assertion, a question, a warning, a command, etc.). The words “It’s hot,” alone, are indeterminate; it is not clear what illocutionary

act is being performed, be it assertion, or warning, or promise. The words alone cannot render the meaning determinate; the interpreter needs contextual clues before deciding what it means. (i11) Perlocutionary. This dimension of communicative action refers to what a speaker brings about by saying something. For instance, by asserting something, a speaker may also persuade. (iv) Interlocutionary. Discourse is always addressed to someone. Every illocutionary act is a kind of invitation to which the reader or listener is invited to respond (e.g., by assent, by action, by further discourse, etc.). Thanks to discourse, we are able to communicate meaning to one another. The interlocutionary aspect of discourse reminds us that language is ultimately a medium for interpersonal interaction. It follows from the nature of discourse that language is both a means for relating to other persons and a means for relating to one’s world. To speak is to incur certain privileges as well as responsibilities vis-a-vis one’s hearers and the world. To view language as discourse is to see it as a medium for personal interaction. Speech or parole, unlike langue, cannot be dissociated from its speaker. Take, for example, a promise. Here the speaker explicitly implicates herself in what she says. As J. L. Austin puts it: “Our word is our bond.””> There is, I believe, a similarly “covenantal” aspect in all discourse. As agents of communicative action, authors are tied to their texts and responsible for what they say. Words are instruments of communicative interaction. Some communicative interactions concern the way the world is or the way the speaker feels. Others pertain to the speaker’s wishes or requests. Still others have to do with the actions and promises of God. In all cases, our word is our bond: an intersubjective bond between speakers and an objective bond between language and reality. (i) Conventions and intentions. Meaning, as a function of the process of communicative interaction, involves both intentions and conventions.

On the one hand,

speakers cannot simply make their words mean what they want them to mean through a sovereign intention. In this sense, the poststructuralists are right to call attention to the fact that language precedes speech. Yet the mere existence of langue does not condemn its speakers to some kind of linguistic determinism, for the speaker is able to put the language system to different kinds of use. By invoking particular conventions, speakers intend to communicate something and to make sure that their intention will be recognized by others. The communicative agent intends to reach understanding through the use of linguistic conventions. Discourse is thus an intersubjective phenom-

33

Guide iva ae Wow oe ee SS

enon that requires both subjective intentions and public (“objective”) conventions. By invoking a particular linguistic or literary convention, an author enacts his or her intention and so renders it public, a legitimate object of understanding.’ (ii) Understanding or explanation? In the nineteenth century, Wilhelm Dilthey developed a distinctive method for the human as over against the natural sciences.’’ The latter, he argued, seek explanations while the former seek understanding. Explanation works with universal laws and is well-suited to studying the natural world. Understanding, on the other hand, is the attempt to grasp the significance of human experience and action, that is, the life of an individual. Dilthey believed hermeneutics to be concerned with grasping the meaning, not the cause, of human action via its expression in history: Both the deeds and the discourse of the past call for understanding. Dilthey himself believed that the aim of the human sciences was to recover the mind of the author, his or her psychic life. But this is to search for some meaning behind the discourse. A better goal for interpretation is to seek the meaning of, not the motive behind, the discourse. Understanding a discourse means grasping the meaning of the whole considered as a communicative act. To understand a discourse is to apprehend both its propositional content (e.g., the matter) as well as its illocutionary force (e.g., the energy). The illocutionary act is the touchstone, the aspect that breathes semantic life into what otherwise would be a lifeless chain of signifiers. It is the illocutionary level that distinguishes discourse from signs and language systems. Understanding is essentially the recognition of one’s illocutionary act. To understand discourse is to grasp the nature and content of a communicative act, and this can only be done when the illocutionary intent is recognized. Understanding discourse is, I suggest, the proper aim of interpretation, for only on this level do we achieve understanding of the discourse as a whole as opposed to knowledge of its elementary parts. What effect does the newer picture of language as discourse have on the role of a dictionary? If language is discourse, then dictionaries are best viewed as descriptions of discourse, that is, as records of linguistic usage. A good dictionary usually lists several entries for well-known words and is a good source of information for how words are, and have been, habitually used. Dictionaries cannot, of course, anticipate how

words will be used in the future. (iii) Divine speech acts. If, as I have claimed, theology informs views of lan-

guage and hermeneutics, what theology informs the present discussion of language as communicative interaction (e.g., discourse)? This is a perfectly appropriate question. The short answer is “evangelical” theology, where evangelical stands for theology oriented to “good news”—news of divine action on behalf of the world. The gospel concerns the communication of what has happened in the event of Jesus Christ. Accordingly, the theology behind my view of language and interpretation is a theology of communicative interaction. God’s Word is something that God says, something that

God does, and something that God is. The God of the Christian Scriptures and Christian faith is the kind of God that can enter into relation with human beings through Incarnation and through verbal communicative action.’’ Moreover, the God portrayed in the Scriptures has given to humans the dignity of communicative agency and communicative responsibility. Consequently, meaning is first and foremost something persons do.

34

Guide

(b) Literature as discourse: the meaning of texts. The text is an extended and

unified discourse, fixed by writing. As such, it is a complex whole, admitting of many kinds of investigation. Literary texts “are best viewed as actions performed on a variety of levels for our contemplation.”’? Texts are speech acts of a higher order. They have mass (e.g., subject matter) and energy (e.g., illocutionary force). Like sentences, texts call for semantics, not just semiotics. As an extended and unified discourse, a text calls

for understanding, not merely analysis. One cannot say that one has understood a biblical text, for instance, when one has parsed every word or even after one has analyzed the overall structure. On the contrary, understanding is only achieved when one interprets a text as a communicative act and receives the message that the author has transmitted for our consideration. What, for instance, is Paul doing in his letter to Ephesians? Several possible answers come to mind: putting words together, dictating a letter, addressing the Ephesians, sending greetings, reflecting on the significance of the event of Jesus Christ. A historical approach that examines the situation behind the text could do justice to some aspects of the communicative action but not others. A semiological approach could do justice to others. If used exclusively, however, a semiotic study of Ephesians would not merely explain but explain away, as all reductionistic theories always tend to do. Much to be preferred is a description that incorporates the semiotic but then go on to do justice to the semantic. For one cannot describe an action simply by describing its components parts. It is one thing to describe an action as moving one’s finger or producing sounds, and another to describe the moving of one’s fingers as performing a Beethoven piano sonata. One cannot correctly understand a person’s bodily movements (or words) without reference to an agent’s intentions. What we are ultimately trying to understand as biblical interpreters, I would contend, is the intention enacted in the

text—the sense and significance of a communicative act.®° D. Interpreting Scripture: The Semantics of Biblical Literature In the sixteenth century, renewed interest in the Bible’s original languages contributed to the Reformation. At the end of the twentieth century, we are on the verge of

a similar recovery, not of the languages but of the literature of the Bible. An appreciation of the biblical texts as forms of extended discourse makes two important contributions to biblical interpretation. It encourages us to treat biblical texts as certain kinds of literary wholes (viz., genres). It also requires us to treat the literary form more seriously, as the only access to the text’s content. To claim that the proper object of interpretation is neither individual words nor atomic proof texts but rather discourse is to imply that biblical exegetes and theologians should attend to the whole text as a unified though extended piece of discourse.*! 1. Literary whole and context: sola scriptura as a hermeneutical principle. To say that language and literature are forms of discourse does not solve all interpretive problems. What, for instance, of the problem of indeterminacy of meaning? It is one thing to say that meaning is communicative action, quite another to determine what kind of communicative act has been performed. As with langue, so with parole: The general principle is that context disambiguates. We know what sense to make of “‘he’s hot” once we are clear about the context: Is he lying on a bed in a hospital, in the midst of a family argument, or playing a great game of tennis? The situation of a discourse provides important interpretive clues.

35

Guide

But if the meaning of texts depends on their contexts, have we not simply pushed the problem of semantic indeterminacy back one step, for who determines the relevant context, and how? Derrida and other deconstructionist critics argue for a pluralism of meanings precisely because texts have as many contexts as they have readers.82 The search for determinate textual meaning thus appears to founder on the question of context. Which contexts makes texts determinate? How large a context must we establish in order to interpret a text correctly? In reply to these questions, I contend that the most important context for understanding biblical discourse is its literary (e.g., generic) and canonical context. (a) The issue: sola scriptura and hermeneutical sufficiency. “The infallible rule

of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself.”*? The question is whether, and to what extent, the interpreter must have recourse to extrabiblical information in order to interpret Scripture correctly. What is at stake is not so much the material sufficiency of Scripture (e.g., does the Bible contain all things necessary for salvation?) but rather

what one could call the hermeneutical sufficiency of Scripture.*4 According to the framers of the Westminster Confession of Faith, Scripture itself is the best context for interpreting Scripture. In modernity and postmodernity alike, however, interpreters have tended to provide Scripture with extrabiblical interpretive contexts. (i) The reconstructed historical context. In his magisterial study of biblical hermeneutics in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Hans Frei documents the loss

of the literal sense of Scripture in modern historical criticism.®° Under the influence of an antisupernaturalistic bias, many modern critics distinguished between the biblical accounts and “what actually happened.” The effect of this critical distinction was to pry apart the story from its meaning, the sense of the text from its historical reference. Henceforth biblical interpretation meant reading the text in light of extrabiblical information, which was thought to be more reliable. This led, ironically, to a confusion

between the biblical text itself and what lay behind it. Thus, the meaning of a biblical text was thought to be its historical reference (e.g., the events to which it refers), and

the prime interpretive context, the critically reconstructed original situation.2° Such was the “great reversal” that took place, according to Frei, in modernity: “Interpretation was a matter of fitting the biblical story into another world with another story

rather than incorporating that world into the biblical story.”8’ Frei particularly objects to historical criticism’s relative neglect of the most important context for determining meaning, namely, the form of the text itself.

(ii) The context of the reader. A second mode of hermeneutical insufficiency is characteristic of postmodern approaches to the Bible. We can read Exodus in its original historical context (insofar as this can be established), or we can read it in the con-

temporary context of Latin America or South Africa, of feminist or womanist experience, of the poor (and the wealthy). According to the hermeneutical nonrealist, however, there is no communicative perspective in the text itself; this is projected onto the text by the reader. For all intents and purposes, therefore, it is the reader’s aims and interests that control the process of textual interpretation. The immediacy and intensity of the contemporary context overpowers and overshadows the voice of the text.88 Like historical criticism, then, reader-oriented criticism makes sense of the biblical text only

by first placing the text in an extrabiblical context. Neither approach allows the text to make sense on its own terms.

36

Guide

(b) Sola scriptura; tota scriptura. The purpose of context is to disambiguate textual meaning. Is there a sense in which Scripture may serve not only as its own interpreter, but also as its own context?

(i) The literary context. The immediate literary context of a biblical text has the advantage of being both available and fixed. One does not have to search for the literary context behind the text, as it were. The text itself is its own best context for interpretation. Indeed, could it be that a text might only yield its meaning—its sense and its reference—on its own terms? The biblical text itself is probably the best evidence even for reconstructing the situation behind the text. The literary context is not only necessary but often sufficient for the purposes of interpretation if it enables one to answer the question, “What is the author doing here?” In other words, the contexts relevant for

the purposes of interpretation are those that enable the interpreter to describe the nature of the communicative action under consideration (e.g., “he’s prophesying”; “he’s telling a story”; “he’s composing a love song,” etc.). Conversely, the most spectacular errors in interpretation are those that miss the prime communicative function. For instance, those who read Gulliver’s Travels as a children’s story miss the (primary) aspect of political satire. Similarly, those that read the book of Jonah as a story about a

great fish miss the (primary?) aspect of prophetic satire.*? (ii) The narrative context. Hans Frei argues that the biblical narratives make sense on their own terms. That is, they provide all the information and clues that the interpreter needs in order to follow the story. For Frei, the meaning of the biblical story is the story itself, not some history behind the story. Furthermore, we cannot gain the message of the story apart from the story’s form; the medium is the message. That is, the meaning of the story is held within the story world, the sum total of characters and events that figure in the story. There is no gap between the story and its meaning. Following the biblical narratives is more than a matter of appreciating the story on its own terms, however. It involves reading one’s own world (or story) in light of the story world of the biblical text. Frei calls this interpretive approach “intratextual”: “Intratextual theology redescribes reality within the scriptural framework rather than translating Scripture into extrascriptural categories. It is the text, so to speak, which absorbs the world, rather than the world the text.”?° Meir Sternberg argues similarly that the OT narratives are interpretive frameworks that draw the reader and the reader’s world into the world of the text.?! (iii) The canonical context. “Scripture interprets Scripture.” How large is a literary context? On the one hand, there are sixty-six books, or literary wholes, in the Bible. On the other hand, the scope of the biblical story reaches back to the beginning of time and stretches forward to its conclusion. In the Gospels, the story of Jesus is a kind of retelling of the story of Israel.”* The rest of the NT examines the story of Jesus as the story of the church, and of the whole cosmos. Because of its peculiar subject matter, the acts of the one Creator-Covenant God, the biblical narratives take on the status of a unified metanarrative. That means that the individual biblical stories have to be interpreted in light of the set of stories taken together. The literary whole I now have in mind is, of course, the Christian canon.?* Childs argues that the canon provides the appropriate context for biblical interpretation. Indeed, in his commentary on Exodus he

devotes a section to analyzing the material in light of its NT context.”4

57.

Guide 2. Literary whole and content: genre as object and form of understanding.

“Every piece of writing is a kind of something.””° It may be that the best way to

do justice to the principle that “Scripture interprets Scripture” is to focus not simply on the literary context of Scripture but in particular on the distinctive way in which the

Bible’s message is mediated by its literary forms.”°

(a) The centrality of literary genre. A genre is a literary kind (“genus”), a conventional and repeatable pattern of written discourse.?’ Genre thus refers to discourse of a higher order: to communicative practices rather than to communicative acts: “A practice is any form of socially established cooperative human activity that is complex and internally coherent ... and is done to some end.’”’® To write in a certain genre, one might say, is to engage in a form of rule-governed social practice. If understanding is a matter of recognizing the nature of communicative action (e.g., what it is), and if the

literary context is the best clue to the meaning of the text as a whole, then identifying a text’s genre is of the utmost importance: “Our stance about the literary genre of the book determines our entire interpretation of the book.””? Our decision as to a text’s genre determines how we read it: Do we read it as history or fiction, as prophecy or apocalyptic, as seriously intended or ironic? In what follows I will present genres as communicative strategies for using words to interact with other people and to engage reality.

(i) Form and meaning: following conventional rules. First, genres use words to create larger verbal forms. E. D. Hirsch compares literary genres to games: “Coming to

understand the meaning of an utterance is like learning the rules of a game.”! This is also the metaphor that Wittgenstein chose when he revised his earlier position on language and interpretation. Each genre has its own rules for making sense. A reader will achieve understanding only if he grasps the kind of game the text is playing. It is not enough to know the meaning of individual words; one must have some sense of the illocutionary point of the whole discourse. If the reader is not playing the same game, if, say, history is read as if it were myth, then the result is misunderstanding. A generically correct reading is one that follows the formal rules or conventions that make a communicative act one kind of thing rather than another. Genre thus acts as a bridge between the author’s interpretive framework and that of the reader. For communication to be successful, for meaning to be disambiguated, the generic context must be shared. (ii) Form and function: following conversations. Second, genres create literary form in order to facilitate social interaction. Language, as we have seen, is an instrument for interpersonal interaction. Speech and writing are the chief means of interpersonal

interaction

known

to

humanity.!0!

In

his

Philosophical

Investigations,

Wittgenstein denies that any one “language game” (e.g., referring) represents the essence of language. On the contrary, there are as many ways of using language as there are human activities, and many of these activities have developed their own rules for using language, not to mention their own distinct vocabulary. Wittgenstein compared words to tools: “Think of the tools in a tool-box: there is a hammer, pliers, a saw, a screw-driver, a rule, a glue-pot, nails and screws.

The function of words

are as

diverse as the function of these objects.”!° If words are like tools, then genres may be thought of as the projects on which these tools are put to work. “Picturing reality” is only one such project among many others. 38

Guide

Genres facilitate interpersonal interaction by offering relatively stable types of communication. They are distinguished according to their prime communicative function (e.g., love song, prophecy, history, apocalyptic). They offer the reader an interpretive framework with which to process their particular content. Once one knows that one is listening to sports commentators rather than political commentators, it is easier

to follow their respective discourse. Interpreting genre thus requires a certain sensitivity to the social situations in which particular forms of language (and literature) are employed.

(iii) Rationality and reference: following routes to the real. Lastly, literary genres are adapted not only to serve particular social functions but also to engage with and think certain aspects of reality more than others. Literary genres are not only communicative but cognitive strategies. Each genre constitutes a distinct mode of cognition, a unique form for thinking about (and experiencing) the world in ways that, without it, would not be possible. This insight exposes the shortcomings of the proof-texting method; biblical texts yield not only propositional information, but ways of seeing and processing information. Literary genres are verbal maps, each with its own “key” and “scale.” The “key” tells you what a piece of discourse is about. Just as there are different kinds of maps—of roads, of geological characteristics, of historical

incidents, of the stars—so different literary genres select and attend to various features of reality more than others.!3 Similarly, every literary genre has its own “scale” or manner of fitting words to the world. The aim of history, for instance, is to make our

words fit or correspond to the world, viz., the past; the aim of utopias is to make the world fit or correspond to our words. The point is that words do not naturally refer to reality in uniform fashion. Rather, every genre has its own conventions and strategies for relating to the real. (b) The centrality of narrative. Among the various genres in Scripture, none illustrates the significance of literary form better than narrative. Narrative is an indispensable cognitive instrument for learning about the world, the identity of Jesus Christ, and our own identity as Christians. (i) With regard to the world, what we know, by and large, is not a set of discrete propositions or items of knowledge, but particulars that form part of a larger story. This is as true of science as of theology. Our theories are not abstract views from nowhere, but concrete views from where we are in our particular histories and traditions. Theories are stories that cultures believe in. According to N. T. Wright, knowledge occurs “when people find things that fit with the particular story or (more likely) stories to which they are accustomed to give allegiance.”!™ Stories, in other words, provide an indispensable interpretive framework through which we view the world, ourselves, and God. When a story claims to make sense of all others stories and the whole of reality, it becomes a “metanarrative.” (ii) According to Frei, the Gospels are neither straightforward histories or myths but rather “realistic narratives” whose intent is to render the identity of Jesus by relating what he did and what happened to him. The meaning of a realistic narrative is “in large part a function of the interaction of character and circumstances.”!° Who Jesus is inseparable from his actions and his passion. In other words, without the narra-

tive we would not be able to identify Jesus. The meaning is inextricably tied up with the story form itself: “not illustrated (as though it were an intellectually presubsisting 39

Guide

or preconceived archetype or ideal essence) but constituted through the mutual, specific determination of agents, speech, social context, and circumstances that form the

indispensable narrative web.”’!°° Only the Gospel narratives can render Jesus’ specific

uniqueness as a person, for personal identity, enacted over time, bears the shape of a narrative. (iii) Narrative has to do with interpretation, lastly, insofar as the biblical story can clash with and subsequently transform those stories that readers may prefer to tell about themselves. Biblical interpretation is ultimately a dangerous enterprise, to the extent that readers risk having their own identities challenged by what they read. This critique of one’s old understanding is the condition for a new understanding of God, the world, and oneself. For the Christian interpreter is the one who reads the story of

Israel, and especially the story of Jesus, as his or her own story, that is, as constitutive of his or her own identity. The apostle Paul understood himself in the light of the story of Jesus: “I have been crucified with Christ” (Gal 2:20). The Bible calls, similarly, not

only for understanding but for personal appropriation on the part of interpreters. In other words, Scripture calls for intratextual interpretation, where the interpreter’s world is itself interpreted in terms of the biblical text, as part of the biblical story. What is ultimately at stake in biblical interpretation is not simply the meaning of the text, but the identity of the interpreter. E. Sacra Littera, Sacra Pagina, and Sacra Doctrina: From Dictionary to Theology The trajectory of interpretation, and of this essay, is from the letter through literature to doctrine (and life). But what precisely is the relation between philology, the study of words, and theology, the study of God? Just what is the connection between the sacred letter, the sacred page, and sacred doctrine? |. Literacy and the “sacred letter.” Throughout this essay I have assumed that biblical interpreters should strive for literacy rather than letterism. What is interesting theologically happens on the level not of the letter, nor of the word, but rather of the whole text. In other words, it is not the

word or the concept alone, but the word/concept as used in the context of the literary whole that is the object of understanding. The general thrust of most contemporary lin-

guistics has been to demythologize etymologies. The letter has lost its sacred aura.!°7 Does my argument render the notion of a theological dictionary contradictory? Not at all. On the contrary, I have argued that language is a God-given human capacity that enables complex communicative competence and interaction. The task of the biblical interpreter is not to define individual terms but rather to achieve biblical literacy, by which I mean not simply the ability to read and write, but above all the ability to follow a text. Literacy in this sense refers to a certain body of background information, a certain set of skills, and to an inclination on the part of the reader to recover, respect,

and respond to a text’s communicative intention. Biblical literacy thus refers to everything that the Christian reader needs to know and to do in order to follow the text from page to practice. One important ingredient in this task is to know how biblical words were habitually used in their particular historical, literary, canonical, and narrative contexts. Another, equally important aspect of the interpretive task, however, is to become familiar with the rules governing larger forms of biblical discourse, with the diverse generic practices that comprise the Old and New Testaments. 2. Sense, meaning, and the “sacred page.”

40

Guide

If theology cannot be squeezed out of sacred letters, what about the “sacred page”? In medieval theology, to be a theologian was to be a master of the sacred page. Thomas

Aquinas, for instance, affirmed the content of the Bible as the place where

sacred teaching was to be found. He could thus speak of sacra scriptura and sacra doctrina interchangeably.'°° According to modern biblical scholars, however, theology may not simply be “read off” of the Bible, as though one could simply take over biblical words today and be saying the same thing: “Theology is no longer simply biblical

interpretation.” !°?What then is the role of the sacred page? (a) The page as collection of propositions. The sacred page should not be confused with a reference book or a compendium of theology, that is, with a collection of theological propositions. Nor should sacred doctrine be confused with the attempt to substitute clearly formulated propositions for the metaphors, stories, and other literary forms in Scripture. This would be to confuse the Bible’s meaning with its (ideal or historical) reference. The sacred page is not a blank space on which inerrant propositions are arbitrarily parked, nor is it merely grist for the propositional mill. The page, far from being a place on which to paste proof texts or deduce propositions, is rather the context in which a group of sentences make sense as a whole. It is important to bear in mind that the propositional function of language (e.g., to make statements) is only one of many uses to which language can be put.!!° One of the functions of genre is to provide a clue as to what illocutionary force a given proposition bears (e.g., is it part of a story, a parable, a warning, a question, etc.). Only when one first determines the sense of a sentence can one then go on to inquire after its truth. The sacred page may or may not be a page of information; that depends on the kind of book of which the page is a part. According to Bernard Ramm: “Much harm has been done to Scripture by those within and without the Church by assuming that all statements in the Bible are on the same logical level, on which level they are either true or false.”!!! (b) The page as pedagogue. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching ... and training in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16). I do not wish to deny that the sacred page contains sacred teaching, that is, true information about God and God’s actions in history. I do, however, wish to call attention to the significance of other uses

of biblical language and literature. For to equate the sacred page with propositional information is to subscribe to a picture theory of meaning that ultimately reduces the many ways in which Scripture is profitable to one. Whereas the “meaning as reference” approach focuses on the teaching or propositional aspect of Scripture, I believe that “meaning as communicative action” better shows how the Bible can also be profitable for “training in righteousness.” (i) Technology and the sacred page: savoir. Words are instruments of communicative action. To focus on the nature of the instruments rather than what they are being used for, however, is to lose the forest for the trees. Interpretation is neither a

matter of mere technical information about the text (e.g., textual criticism) nor even of the propositional information a text conveys. Interpretation is about following texts, and this involves practical know-how too. How do we learn to follow or understand communicative action? It is just here that the notion of genre as a communicative practice is significant. One masters a practice by learning its implicit rules, and one learns the rules by participating in the practice (e.g., by engaging in a certain kind of language or literature game). 4]

Guide

(ii) Sanctification and the sacred page: connaitre.

“I would far rather feel

remorse than know how to define it.”!!* Biblical interpretation is a matter of participat-

ing in the canon’s communicative practices to the point of grasping not only the conventions, but the point of the text. To take biblical narrative as an example: It is not enough simply to know about the conventions that narrative employs. Understanding biblical narrative means being able to dwell in what Ricoeur calls “the world of the text,” and to read one’s own life in terms of the biblical story. A text is not understood

until its discourse is appropriated.!!* The understanding reader must expose himself-or herself to the effects of the text. To use C. S. Lewis’s well-known distinction: The

reader must not only “see” but “taste” the meaning of the text.!!4 Understanding is short-circuited when the interpreter achieves only seeing or apprehension (1.e., savoir, or “objective knowledge about”) rather than tasting and appropriation (i.e., connaitre, or “knowledge by personal acquaintance’’). What is theologically normative in Scripture are not the words, nor even isolated proof texts, but the various rules for conceiving and speaking about God embedded in biblical genres. Each of the biblical genres engages with and leads us to divine reality, albeit in different ways. The task of biblical theology is to make clear how the various literary forms in the Bible are ways of seeing, and tasting, the reality of God. The Bible, as a collection of books, functions as a pedagogue that teaches us not only what to say about God, but when and where to say it, and under what conditions.

Knowing how to use ordinary words so that they say something true about God is to be “wise in speech.” Christian thinkers today achieve theological wisdom when they have been trained in the school of Scriptures and when they learn the grammar of faith—what is appropriate to say about God in various literary and historical situations. Theological concepts are learned by participating in the Bible’s diverse communicative practices. We learn to think about the end of history, for example, thanks to biblical apocalyptic. For the Christian, Scripture is the school in which we learn to use terms like God, sin, and justification correctly. To the extent that we participate in this use, the Bible effectively educates our thoughts and feelings about God. It is not only narrative, but ultimately all the biblical genres that come

to absorb us. The sense of the

sacred page, if followed, should lead to the sanctification of the reader.!!5 3. Reference, truth, and “sacred doctrine.”

To return to Cratylus’ original question: Do words give us knowledge of the world and the real? Can we talk about God truly? (a) Reference: to the real and to the reader.

(i) To God. Though I have argued that meaning is not simply a matter of reference, it does not follow that language cannot refer to God truly. However, what is primarily true of God are not isolated words or concepts as representations of things or thoughts, but rather sentences and discourses that serve as larger-scale models for interpreting reality.'!° A theological concept is not a word or thought that pictures God, but rather a mental skill that makes explicit what is implicit in the way God is represented in a particular literary genre. A theological concept, in other words, is a way of thinking that is learned through an apprenticeship to biblical literature. To take a simple example: We learn the meaning of “the right arm of God” not by analyzing the etymology of the words but by becoming sensitive to the metaphorical force of the phrase and to the generic contexts in which it is used. When theological concepts are

42

Guide abstracted from the canonical forms of discourse that generate them, they tend to lose

the specificity of their biblical meaning. It follows that our systems of theology must remain tied to the biblical texts.

To be tied to the text need not imply that “there is nothing outside of the text.” To say that reference to God is always through some metaphor or genre is not to deny that such language really refers to God. If the sacred page is indeed the location of the sacred teaching, we must affirm the language of the Bible to be true. The theological view of language for which I have argued holds that language is a God-given instrument that enables interpersonal interaction and engages with reality. I contend, with George Steiner, that God ultimately underwrites language’s ability to transcend itself, to speak of what is more than language. At the same time, we must acknowledge that what we find on the sacred page is often metaphors and other kinds of nonpropositional discourse (as well as a good number of propositions). Both metaphors and literary genres are cognitive instruments that help us to discover the real. Every genre refers and predicates, but not in the same way. Metaphors and genres are nevertheless real-

ity-depicting.!'’ The many forms of language and literature are the condition for helping us to see aspects of reality that would otherwise go unnoticed. The biblical text is the primary location of truth for Christians; the sacred page is the sacred teaching. But what doctrines there are in Scripture do not always take propositional form—in some case, the story is the doctrine, and the task of the theolo-

gian is to render conceptually explicit the understanding that is implicit in the narrative form. There is no unmediated access to the activity of God in ancient Israel or to the activity of God in Jesus Christ. In order to have meaning and reference, we cannot go around the text, only through it. I therefore agree with Francis Watson, who argues for an “intratextual realism,” which, in his words, “would understand the biblical text as

referring beyond itself to extra-textual theological reality, while at the same time regarding that reality as accessible to us only in textual form.”!!® (ii) To us. There is another kind of reference that should not be overlooked. What we discover in interpreting Scripture is that the interpreter is included in the Bible’s claims and references, and this in two ways. On the one hand, the world of which the Bible speaks is our world. We, like Paul, are living “between the times,” in

the eschatologically charged interval between the first and second comings of Jesus Christ. On the other hand, the claims that the Bible makes are often claims that impinge upon ourselves as readers. That is, the Bible is a text that demands considerable reader response: The interpreter must not only respect the author’s intentions and literary conventions, but respond to the issue of the text as well. What is being interpreted in the process of biblical interpretation is not only the text (by the reader) but also the reader (by the text). (b) Understanding as discipleship: biblical truth and practical wisdom. (i) Canonical competence. Language, I have claimed, is a God-given capacity. Part of what it means to be in the image of God is to enjoy the capacity of verbal interaction. What Noam Chomsky attributes to an innate human capacity—the ability to generate intelligible sentences—is from a Christian perspective a gracious privilege and responsibility: the dignity of communicative agency. To be a responsible biblical interpreter is to have achieved what we might term “canonical competence”—a familiarity with the different ways in which the Bible names and speaks of God.!!° “Canon43

Guide

ical competence” signifies the ability to relate biblical sentences vis-a-vis external reality and the social world as their authors intended: to grasp the illocutionary point of warnings as warnings, of promises as promises, of truth claims as truth claims, of his-

tories as histories. Canonical competence refers, in short, to the reader’s ability to follow the text from sense to reference. This is the first service of a theological dictionary: to help readers to become biblically literate and canonically competent. (ii) Theological interpretation as practical wisdom. Literary styles also lead to styles of life. The forms of biblical discourse generate not only ways of seeing but also ways of being in the world. Following the biblical text ultimately requires of the interpreter a willingness to continue the semantic itineraries of the text: to appropriate and apply biblical meaning to oneself. Biblical interpretation, at its best, therefore yields not only theoretical knowledge but also practical wisdom. A theological dictionary provides training in how to speak, and act, biblically. Furthermore, the competent interpreter will know how to go on speaking about God in new contexts. The competent interpreter will know how to continue the semantic itineraries of the biblical genres and apply their ways of seeing and being in the world to the present. For instance, one who is competent in biblical narrative will know how to continue the

story in to the contemporary context. In providing definitions—guides to the use of words in particular contexts—then, dictionaries provide guidance to faith, thought, and life as well. Interpreters who allow their speech to be instructed by the communicative acts of the Scriptures will learn to continue the semantic itineraries of the biblical texts into their own times. This suggests that the ultimate function of a good theological dictionary is not only to provide mere information, but also to aid in the formation of faithful and competent disciples. ENDNOTES

1

The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 8th ed., 1990, 304.

2

L. Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass, in The Philosopher’s Alice, ed. Peter Heath, 1974,

3

I here draw on three kinds of knowledge distinguished by Aristotle in his Nichomachean Ethics, Bk. VI. Biblical interpretation, I suggest, most closely resembles neither epistémé (e.g., knowledge of the eternal and necessary), nor techné (e.g., knowledge of how to make things), but rather phronesis (e.g., knowledge of what to do in or make of particular situa-

4

Cratylus represents the situation after modernity: The postmodern person accepts modernity’s high requirements for what counts as knowledge—namely, Cartesian certainty or foundationalism—then denies that such foundations exist.

>

The character of Socrates is something of an enigma in this dialogue. It is not entirely clear at the end with whom he agrees, nor exactly what his position is. Some Plato scholars have suggested that much of what Socrates says is satirical; he ridicules the position that one can philosophize by doing etymology.

193;

tions).

Cratylus, in The Dialogues of Plato, tr. Benjamin Jowett, 18923, 1:238. Plato, Theaetetus 147b. Cratylus, 372.

Ibid., 383.

\o D Cony

Guide

10

Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 1.8. Wittgenstein cites this passage in the opening pages of his Philosophical Investigations and comments that Augustine gives us a particular picture of the essence of human language. On Wittgenstein’s own position, see below.

11 12 13 14 15

Augustine, On Christian Doctrine; 1.2.2.

Ibid., 2.10.15. Ibid., 3.5.9. Ibid., 3.10.14. James Barr notes the corresponding trend in biblical studies to focus on the mind of the writers, on the authorial intentions. This eventually led to critics distinguishing between the mental representation of a series of events—the biblical accounts—on the one hand, and the results of historical reconstruction of what actually happened, on the other. See Barr, The Bible in the Modern World, 1973, 91-3.

16 17

18 19 20 Ae 22 DE 24 25 26

ih, 28

PS) 30

31

32

Gottlob Frege’s “On Sense and Reference,” tr. Max Black, in Translation from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, 1970, 56-78. Cf. Barr: “We today in general do not move directly from biblical texts to external referents, but from biblical texts to the theological intentions of the writers and only from there indirectly to external referents,” The Bible in the Modern World, 175. David Kelsey calls this “biblical concept theology,” in his The Uses of Scripture in Recent Theology, 1975, 24. See esp. ch. 1, “Doctrine and Concept.” Etymologies are given even in the Bible to make certain theological points, e.g., Matt 1:21 (lit.), ““and his name shall be called Emmanuel’ (which means, God with us).” Kelsey, The Uses of Scripture, 27. James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, 246. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1961, 2.01.

Ibids 220. See Anthony Kenny, Wittgenstein, 1973, ch. 4 (“The Picture Theory of a Proposition’). Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 3.203. On logical atomism and logical positivism, see J. O.Urmson, Philosophical Analysis: Its Development Between the Two World Wars, 1956, and William P. Alston, Philosophy of Language, 1964 (ch. 4). Kelsey, in his study of Warfield’s use of Scripture, comments that what Warfield calls “biblical theology” is instead a kind of “biblical positivism” (Uses of Scripture, 23). Charles Hodge, Systematic Théology, 1873, 1:10. For a fuller and perhaps more subtle account of the Princetonians, see David Wells, ed., Reformed Theology in America, 1985, chs. 2-3. Benjamin B. Warfield, “The Right of Systematic Theology,” in Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield, 1970, 2:234. W. Andrew Hoffecker observes that though Warfield was a persistent critic of modernity, “his own view of using ‘facts’—both rational facts to demonstrate God’s existence ... and biblical facts to arrive at a sound theology—sounds even more modern” (“Benjamin B. Warfield,” in Reformed Theology in America, 79). Don Cupitt (see below) associates the view that the world has a determinate extralinguistic structure that can be formulated in language with Calvinism and labels it “Protestant commonsense realism” (The Long-Legged Fly, 1987, 163). See Erich Auerbach, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature, 1953.

45

Guide ee Se ee eS

Bo 34 35 36 3h) 38

39

40 4]

42 43

44 45

SS

ee

For a recent example of this trend, see The Postmodern Bible, The Bible and Culture Collective, 1995. I owe this particular example to Catherine Belsey, Critical Practice, 1980, 44.

Francois Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition, 1984. Don Cupitt, The Last Philosophy, 1995, 44. Cupitt, The Long-legged Fly, 57. The British empiricists, such as John Locke and David Hume, thought of ideas as representations or impressions of experience. Words on this view represent thought or experience rather than things, as in Plato and premodernity. This position is particularly associated with Michel Foucault, who argues that language, a social force, is the power of determinacy that creates the categories with which we interpret the world and human experience. For another demonstration of this thesis, see Edgar V. McKnight, Post-Modern Use of the Bible: The Emergence of Reader-Oriented Criticism, 1988. Cupitt is equally happy with “linguistic naturalism” as a description of his position he Last Philosophy, 38). Ibid., 44. See L. Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity (German edition, 1841), tr. George Eliot,

1989. John Macquarrie, “Systematic Theology,” ANew Handbook of Christian Theology, 1992, 470. G. R. Evans, Old Arts and New Theology: The Beginnings of Theology as an Academic Discipline, 1980, 108.

46 47

48 49 50

51

See his Summa Theologica, I, Q. 13.

Aristotle’s study of the various uses of the verb “to be” (undertaken as part of his analysis of the concept “substance” in his Metaphysics) laid the groundwork for the medieval notion of the “analogy of being” (analogia entis). See Aristotle, Metaphysics 1016b6-10. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 1a. 13.2.

Ibid., la. 13.7. “Ontotheology” is connected to the analogy of being insofar as it is the attempt to think the God of the Bible in terms of Greek metaphysics. See Brian D. Ingriffia’s Postmodern Theory and Biblical Theology (CUP, 1995) for a critique of ontotheology. Ingriffia argues that ontotheology is a philosophical construction and calls instead for a return to biblical theology—not the God of abstract speculation but the God of revelation and action in history. Aquinas was well aware of the discontinuities between God and his creatures as well. Some of the things we say about God we say by way of negation: for instance, God isnot finite (infinite), not changeable (immutable). The idea that God cannot be understood in

52

53

human categories led some patristic and medieval thinkers to do negative or apophatic theology. Pseudo-Dionysius, an anonymous writer probably dating from the sixth century, argued that God’s names are only provisional: God is beyond all human names and categories, For a fuller treatment of Barth’s dialectical view of revelation as both a “veiling” and an “unveiling” of God by God, see Bruce McCormack, Karl Barth’s Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology: Its Genesis and Development 1909-1936, 1995, 269-73. According to G. Ward, Barth here offers a restatement of the “meaning as divine use” idea

that we first saw adumbrated, and rejected, in Cratylus. In Barth’s case, of course, revela-

46

Guide

tion is a trinitarian act, involving the Son as content and the Spirit as the “Lord of the hearing” of revelation.

54 55 56

57

G. Ward, Barth, Derrida and the Language of Theology, 1995, 29. McCormack, Barth’s Dialectical Theology, 271.

On Ward’s reading, Barth’s view of language resembles Derrida’s: “It is Barth’s insight into the dialectical necessity of assuming that words name while also countering such an assumption that draws his theological work into the orbit of postmodern debates” (Barth, Derrida, and the Language of Theology, 5). To be exact, Mark Taylor writes that “deconstruction is the ‘hermeneutic’ of the death of God” (Erring: A Postmodern A/theology, 1984, 6).

58 59

S. Burke, The Death and Return of the Author, 1992, 22.

60

D. Dawson, Literary Theory, 1995, 11. Dawson helpfully discusses how both Christian theology and literary theory develop the themes of spirit, body, and text. Or, there is “no outside-text” (il n’y a pas de hors-texte); Derrida, Of Grammatology (tr. G. Spivak), 1976, 158. Ibid., 14.

See also M. Foucault, “What Is an Author,” in Language, Counter-Memory Practice, 1977, and R. Barthes, “The Death of the Author,” in Jmage-Music-Text, 1977.

61

62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70

George Steiner, Real Presences, 1989, 3.

Ricoeur’s philosophical hermeneutics similarly relies on the notion of a wager that the text mediates meaning to the reader. See, for example, his Symbolism of Evil, 355. Steiner, Real Presences, 122.

Krister Stendahl, “Biblical Theology, Contemporary,” in /DB, 1:418-32. P. Ricoeur, Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning, 1976, 8. Ibid., 7. Ibid., 7. For a helpful study of signs and sentences in the context of communication studies, see J. Fiske, Introduction to Communication Studies, 2d ed. 1990.

71 72 73 74

75 76

A communicative action is

action oriented to achieving understanding. Ibid., 2. See J. L. Austin, How to Do Things With Words, 1961. The locutionary aspect of meaning corresponds to langue, that is, to the range of possible sense a term could have at a given point in the history of a language. Whereas Austin and Wittgenstein believed there were countless ways of using language, John Searle proposes a comprehensive fivefold typology of the basic things we do with language: “We tell people how things are, we try to get them to do things, we commit ourselves to doing things, we express our feelings and attitudes and we bring about changes through our utterances” (Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts, CUP, 1979, 29). See also J. Searle, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, 1969. Austin, How to Do Things With Words, 10. Ben F. Meyer agrees that the object of interpretation is the intended sense of the text. Meyer, however, is more careful than E. D. Hirsch to distinguish the purpose the author may have had in writing (which lies behind the text) and the intention of the author intrinsic to or enacted in the text. See Meyer, Critical Realism and the New Testament, 1989, ch.

2, esp. 36-41.

47

Guide 77 78

79

80 81

82

83 84 85

On the significance of Dilthey for hermeneutics, see P. Ricoeur, Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences: Essays on Language, Action and Interpretation, 1981, chs. 2, 3. For a fuller treatment of this theology and how it funds both a doctrine of Scripture and theological anthropology, see my “God’s Mighty Speech Acts: The Doctrine of Scripture Today” (in A Pathway into the Holy Scripture 1994, 143-97), and “Stories of the Self: Human Being, Individual and Social” (in The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine, forthcoming). C. Altieri, Act and Quality: A Theory of Literary Meaning and Humanistic Understanding, 1981, 10. Ricoeur, however, speaks of the “semantic autonomy” of the text, by which he means that the author’s intention and the textual meaning cease to coincide. On the other hand, he is unwilling to cancel out the main features of discourse (e.g., that it is said by someone to someone about something) for fear that texts would be reduced to natural objects (Interpretation Theory, 29). For a more complete analysis of levels of interpretive description, see my Is There a Meaning in This Text? ch. 6. W. Jeanrond coins the phrase “text linguistics” to argue that the text should be the “basic linguistic unit.” See his Text and Interpretation as Categories of Theological Thinking,

1988, 75. For Derrida, a text is never a totality (e.g., a closed and complete whole), but is rather constitutionally open (e.g., indeterminate). An interpretation is, therefore, not so much the exposition of a system as it is an indispensable supplement to a text. On the key notion of supplement in Derrida, see his Of Grammatology, 141-64. Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.9. I owe this point to Tim Ward, one of my doctoral students. Hans Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics, 1974.

86 87 88 89

90

Frei is clear that these interpretive moves were not made in a theological vacuum. On the contrary, biblical criticism flourished in the context either of Deism or naturalism—anything but a supernaturalism that affirmed divine action in history. Frei, Eclipse, 130.

In my /s There a Meaning in This Text, ch. 7, |explore the role of the Holy Spirit in giving interpreters ears to hear the text’s voice rather than their own. Several OT commentators have noted the high degree of irony and humor in the book of Jonah (see, for instance, J. C. Holbert, “‘Deliverance Belongs to Yahweh!”: Satire in the Book of Jonah”, JSOT 21, 1981, 59-81). What is being ridiculed is Jonah’s egocentric (read “ethnocentric’”’) attitude with regard to the love of God. Jonah mistakenly thinks that God’s love is primarily for the Jews. To his chagrin, Jonah is the only character that turns out not to have repented by the end of the book. This wording is George Lindbeck’s, a colleague of Frei’s, but it well captures the spirit of Frei’s proposal (Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine, 1984, 118).

91

92

Neither Frei nor Sternberg deny the historical intent of much biblical narrative, only that the Bible’s historical reference should be understood in the context of modern, rather than biblical, historiography. See M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading, 1987. Matthew highlights the parallels between Jesus’ story and that of Moses (e.g., the flight into Egypt, the Law on the mountain). The other Evangelists show that Jesus is the Servant

48

Guide of the Lord who takes up the unfinished task of Israel and fulfills the three offices—prophet, priest, and king—that constituted Israel as the people of God.

03

94

B. Childs argues that the literal sense of a text is the sense it has in its canonical context (B.

S. Childs, “The Sensus Literalis of Scripture: An Ancient and Modern Problem,” in Beitrdge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie, 1977, 80-93. See B. S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical Theological Commentary, OTL, 1974. Childs believes that the biblical texts display a peculiar “canonical intentionality,” by which he means they were intentionally shaped in such a way so as to function as normative Scripture for later generations (Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments, 1992, 70-79).

95 96

J. B. Gabel and C. B. Wheeler, The Bible As Literature, 1986, 16.

G. Berkouwer observes that “a serious attempt to do justice to literary types was motivated by the desire to deal correctly with the sui ipsius interpres (‘its own interpreter’) (Holy Scripture, 1975, 131).

97 98 99

See J. L. Bailey, “Genre Analysis,” in Hearing the New Testament, 1995, 197-221. D. Kelsey, paraphrasing a definition given in Alistair MacIntyre’s After Virtue (1981), in To Understand God Truly: What’s Theological About a Theological School, 1992, 118. B. Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 1970, 145. Similarly, E. D. Hirsch states that

verbal meaning is always genre-bound. Hirsch defines genre as the “controlling idea of the whole,” an idea that governs our idea as to what a text is (Validity in Interpretation, 1967, TED), 100 101

102 103

Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation, 70. See M. Bakhtin, “The Problem of Speech Genres,” in M. Bakhtin, Speech Genres & Other

Late Essays, tr. V. W. McGee, 1986. L. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, 1967, I, § 11. The biblical narrative maps out divine action in history; biblical law maps out God’s will for human behavior; biblical prophecy maps out the privileges and responsibilities of God’s covenant people; biblical wisdom maps out how persons are to fit into God’s created order, etc.

104 105

106 107

108 109 110 111 12 L13 114 115

N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, 1992, 37.

Frei, Eclipse, 280. See also Frei’s The Identity of Jesus Christ: The Hermeneutical Bases of Dogmatic Theology, 1975. Frei, Eclipse, 280. Even metaphors, according to Ricoeur, are a matter not of “deviant naming” but rather of a semantic tension within sentences. For his criticism of the “names theory” of metaphor, see Ricoeur, The Rule of Metaphor, 1978. See, for instance, Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Q. | art. 2.

R. Morgan, “Biblical Theology,” inA Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, 87. I elsewhere speak of the tendency to overlook literary form in one’s zeal to obtain the teaching as the “propositional heresy” (“Semantics of Biblical Literature,” 72). B. Ramm, Special Revelation and the Word of God, 1968, 68.

Thomas a Kempis, Of the Imitation of Christ, 1.1.3. See Ricoeur, Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences, ch. 8. C. S. Lewis, “Myth Became Fact,” in God in the Dock, 1985.

In French, sens means both “meaning” and “direction.” Ricoeur can thus speak of a “semantic itinerary” and call for readers to continue a text’s trajectory of meaning.

49

Guide

117

Ihave elsewhere discussed the way language refers to the reality of God in terms of “rendering.” See my “From Canon to Concept: ‘Same’ and ‘Other’ in the Relation Between Biblical and Systematic Theology,” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 12, 1994, 96-124, esp. 123. See J. M. Soskice, Metaphor and Religious Language, 1985, 148-61.

118

FE. Watson, Text, Church, and World, 1994, 224-25.

119

Again, this kind of knowledge is personal—a knowledge won by acquaintance and appropriation (connaitre). It is also practical, like Aristotle’ sphronesis—a knowledge of what to do and how to act in a particular (literary, in this case) situation.

116

BIBLIOGRAPHY

J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, 1961, 246; B. S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testament, 1991; H. Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics,

1974; J. Green, ed., Hearing the New Testament: Strate-

gies for Interpretation, 1995; W. Jeanrond, Text and Interpretation as Categories of Theological Thinking, 1988; G. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 1991; P. Ricoeur, Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning, 1976; M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 1987; A. Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics, 1991; K. J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, the Reader,

and the Morality of Literary Knowledge, forthcoming; G. Ward, Barth, Derrida and the Language of Theology, 1995, 29; F. Watson, Text, Church and World: Biblical Interpretation in Theological Perspective, 1994; N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, 1992, Silk Kevin Vanhoozer

50

Guide PART I: THE RELIABILITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT TEXT

Vanhoozer has argued that the “Text” is the basis for developing a view of God, one’s self, and the world. Hence, the interpreter needs to

know the nature of the Text that is the basis for interpretation. In this essay Bruce Waltke expertly leads the reader into the craft of the textual critic. The critic is a person who evaluates the present Hebrew text in the light of many ancient texts (Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, etc.). He also affirms that the ancient Text is reliable, in spite of the “fragility” of the process in which ancient texts have come down to us. He evaluates the scribal practices and some of the ways in which errors could have crept into the text. It is amazing that the present text is highly reliable and that the changes, proposed by a consensus of the critical students of the Bible, have little bearing on the life and practice of the church. This is more than coincidence. It is evidence of the providential work of the Spirit of God. (WVG) 2. TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AND ITS RELATION TO EXEGESIS AND THEOLOGY

A. The Task of OT Textual Criticism: Its Importance and Method There is always a need in humanities for critics to restore original texts, be they of Homer or Shakespeare, or of Moses or Isaiah. Many texts of the OT, however, were composed over centuries, and not just by an original author, so that it is too simplistic to say that OT textual criticism aims to recover the original text of the OT. Rather, as we shall argue, “original text” in the OT refers to the text-type that lies behind the MT, the received text. The reconstruction of earlier editions of portions of the OT is the task of literary criticism, not of textual criticism.

Textual criticism is necessary because there is no error-free MS. (Even in BHS, the current standard representation of the MT text, printing errors can be found.) Variants occur frequently in the medieval MSS of the MT tradition, but they are minuscule compared to those found in the Dead Sea Scrolls [DSS]. In fact, the further back we go

in the textual lineage the greater the textual differences. Before the text was fixed at ca. AD 100, it was copied and recopied through many centuries by scribes of varying capabilities and of different philosophies, giving rise to varying readings and recensions (i.e., distinct text types). The restoration of the original OT text is foundational to the exegetical task and to theological reflection. For instance, whether the book of Proverbs teaches immortal-

ity depends in part on deciding between textual variants in Prov 14:32b. Basing itself on MT, the NIV renders, “even in [their] death (b°m6t6) the righteous have a refuge,” a rendering that entails the doctrine of immortality for the righteous. The NRSV, how-

ever, basing itself on the LXX, translates, “the righteous find a refuge in their integrity (b°tumm6),” a reading that does not teach that doctrine. The consonants of the MT are bmtw, and those of the (assumed) Vorlage (i.e., the retroverted text lying before a translator) behind the LXX were btmw. The slight difference due to metathesis of m and t, however, profoundly affects the exegesis of that text and the theology of the book.

StL

Guide

To restore the original text the critic must know the history of its witnesses and of scribal practices, and must have exegetical competence. In this essay we will consider each of these respectively. The LXX, however, is such an important witness that we treat it separately. A knowledge of the text’s history will explain the varying characteristics of the textual witnesses and why we opt for the restoring of the original text behind the MT against other literary editions of OT portions, such as the difference between the MT Pentateuch versus the Samaritan Pentateuch and of the MT Jeremiah versus the Septuagint Jeremiah. We conclude the article with reflections on the reliability of the OT text. B. History of the Text and Its Witnesses Because of the varying fortunes of the tion about it, its history may be analyzed into tive formative period for the production of OT the Ten Commandments (ca. 1400 BC or ca. Exodus)

to Nehemiah’s

Library

OT text and of our sources of informasix distinct periods: (1) The determinatexts extended from the composition of 1250 BC, depending on the date of the

(ca. 400 BC), when,

according

to 2 Macc

2:13,

Nehemiah founded a library and “gathered together the books about the kings and prophets, and the books of David, and letters of kings about sacred gifts,” or even to

the late fourth century, if one opts for that date for the composition of the book of Chronicles. (2) The canon and text remained open from Nehemiah’s library to when the canon was stabilized (ca. 100 BC). (3) At least two centuries elapsed between the

fixing of the OT canon and the fixing of its text, now sometimes called “the Proto-MT” (ca. AD 100). (4) The labors of the Masoretes (AD 600-AD 1000), who based their work on the Proto-MT, came to a conclusion ca. AD 1000, when the Masorete, Aaron Ben Asher, produced the authoritative Masoretic text, as recognized already on the frontispiece of the Leningrad Codex (AD 1009) (see below). (5) The medieval MSS of

the MT were produced between AD 1000 and the invention of printing (ca. AD 1500). (6) The Great Rabbinic Bible (ca. 1525) became the standard text of the MT until 1936,

when P. Kahle got back to the Ben Asher text by basing the third edition of BH on the Leningrad MS B 19° (L). Since the variants that came into the text after AD 1000 are

relatively insignificant, we will not discuss the last two periods. N. Sarna (“Bible Text”) superbly summarized the history of the printed Hebrew Bible. 1. From the Ten Commandments to Nehemiah’s Library. We have virtually no external, extant data regarding the OT text during its most formative period, aside from two recently discovered silver amulets, about the size of a “cigarette butt,” containing the priestly benediction (Num 6:24-26) (ca. 600 BC). From internal notices within the

OT and from our knowledge of the way ancient Near Eastern literature was composed, we can infer that during this era earlier pieces of canonical literature were collected into developing books. For example, the Bible presents the Ten Commandments as the first piece of canonical literature (i.e., literature inspired by God and recognized as such by the faithful) (Exod 20:1-19; cf. Deut 5:6-27). To this original core the Book of the Covenant, mediated by Moses, was added (Exod 20:22-23:33), and to this still

other pieces were added to make up the book of Exodus. We do not know how or when the book of Exodus took its final shape. In a roughly comparable way isolated hymns were collected into books, and these in turn edited to form the book of Psalms. The same dynamic processes were involved in the composition of other books of the Bible. From data within the Bible and from knowledge of ancient Near Eastern scribal prac52

Guide

tices we can infer that during the formation of the OT books, there was a tendency both

to preserve and to revise earlier texts. (a) The tendency to preserve the text. Elsewhere we argued (JBHS, 16-17:

The very fact that the Scripture persistently survived the most deleterious conditions throughout its long history demonstrates that indefatigable scribes insisted on its preservation. The books were copied by hand for generations on highly perishable papyrus and animal skins in the relatively damp, hostile climate of Palestine... Moreover, the prospects for the survival of texts were uncertain in a land that served as a bridge for armies in unceasing contention between the continents of Africa and Asia—a land whose people were the object of plunderers in their early history and of captors in their later history. That no other Israelite writings, such as the Book of Yashar (e.g., 2 Sam 1:18) or the Diaries of the Kings (e.g., 2 Chr 16:11), survive from this period indirectly suggests the determination of the scribes to preserve the books that became canonical. The foes of Hebrew Scripture sometimes included audiences who sought to kill its authors and destroy their works (cf. Jeremiah 36). From the time of their composition, however, they captured the hearts, minds, and loyalties of the faithful in Israel who

kept them safe often at risk to themselves. Such people must have insisted on the accurate transmission of the text. In addition, both the Bible itself (Deut 31:9ff; Josh 24:25, 26;

1 Sam 10:25; etc.) and the literature of the ANE show that at the time of the earliest biblical compositions a mindset favoring canonicity existed. This mindset must have fostered a concern for care and accuracy in transmitting the sacred writings. For example, a Hittite treaty (of the Late Bronze Age), closely resembling parts of the Torah, contains this explicit threat: “Whoever ... breaks [this tablet] or causes anyone to change the wording of the tablet—... may the gods, the lords of the oath, blot you out.” Undoubtedly this psychology was a factor in inhibiting Israelite scribes from multiplying variants of the texts.

Moreover, scribal practices throughout the ANE reflect a conservative attitude. W. F. Albright noted, “The prolonged and intimate study of the many scores of thousands of pertinent documents from the ancient Near East proves that sacred and profane documents were copied with greater care than is true of scribal copying in Graeco-Roman times. (b) Tendency to revise the text. We also argued:

On the other hand, scribes, aiming to teach the people by disseminating an understandable text, felt free to revise the script, orthography (i.e., spelling), and grammar, according to the conventions of their own times. Albright said, “A principle which must never be lost sight of in dealing with documents of the ancient Near East is that instead of leav-

53

Guide

ing obvious archaisms in spelling and grammar, the scribes generally revised ancient literary and other documents periodically....” (BHS) Moreover, the many differences between synoptic portions of the OT show that authors and/or scribes, “the authorized revisers of the text” at this time, felt free to edit

earlier works into new, mutually independent, literary achievements (cf. 2 Sam 22 = Ps 18; 2 Kgs 18:13-20:19 = Isa 36-39; 2 Kgs 24:18-25:30 = Jer 52; Isa 2:2-4 = Mic 4:1-3; Ps 14 = 53; 40:14-18 = 70; 57:8-12 = 108:2-6; 60:7-14 = 108:7-14; Ps 96 = 1 Chron 16:23-33; Ps 106:1, 47-48 = 1 Chron 16:34-36; and the parallels between

Samuel-Kings and Chronicles). Literary critics, not textual critics, should concern themselves with the differences between these portions of the OT. (c) Need to emend the text. Accidental textual errors, however, probably corrupted the text during this formative period. In cases where none of the transmitted variants satisfies exegetical expectations, text critics propose a textual emendation (a conjectured variant based on the known variants). The DSS have now validated this procedure in certain instances. F. M. Cross (“Problems of Method,” 37) comments: “No headier feeling can be experienced by a humanistic scholar, perhaps, than that which comes when an original reading, won by his brilliant emendation, is subsequently confirmed in a newly-found MS.” The confusion in Ezek 3:12 of the similarly formed consonants k and m in the preexilic angular script offers a good illustration of the need for emendation (Kennedy, An Aid to the Textual Amendment, 83-84). All texts: brwk kbwd-yhwh mmqwmw “May the glory of YHWH be praised in (sic!) his dwelling place” (cf.

NIV). Emendation: brw[m] kbwd-yhwh mmqwmw

“As the glory of YHWH arose from its place” (cf. NRSV). “Be praised,” brwk, is attested in all textual witnesses. However, the phrase is unique, awkward, and contextless. Text critics salvage the line by emending brwk to brwm, “when [it] arose.” The emendation nicely satisfies exegetical expectations, Heb. syntax, and the context of the verse (cf. Ezek 10:4, 15-18).

Scholars associated with HUBP and the United Bible Societies Hebrew Old Testament Text Critical Project disallow conjectured emendations. Their stance serves as a healthy corrective away from the extremes of Duhm and the “eccentricity in the later work of Cheyne” (Jellicoe, 320). However, it is too extreme. J. M. Sprinkle (JETS, 28, 1985, 469) complained: “What we as students of the Hebrew Bible actually want ... is not a later stage of the text but the original.” 2. From 400 BC to 150 BC. (a) An open canon. Though we possess a good knowledge of the OT’s theology, we do not know when or where the OT books were first published or precisely how they gained admission into the select group of writings we call the OT. We do know, however, that by the time of the NT the OT canon was closed (Bruce, 28). Jesus and the apostles held the same OT in hand that Protestants do today. Beckwith (165) argues convincingly that Judas Maccabeus, at a date around 164 BC, gave the OT canon its final shape. The Qumran scrolls, however, reflect a Jewish community that embraced a somewhat different canon, at least to judge from the absence of Esther among them and from the slightly different shape of 11QPs* as compared with the MT (Sanders,

ZAW 65, 1964, 57-75). 54

Guide

(b) During these two and a half centuries there was also a tendency both to preserve and to revise the text. We can now sketch the history of the text for this period on the basis of the DSS and the LXX (ca. 250 BC to 150 BC). (i) The DSS. By the techniques of paleography, numismatics, and archaeology

the DSS are dated from the middle of the third century BC to the revolt of Bar-Kochba (AD 132-35). Most MSS were found in the eleven mountain caves just west of Khirbet

Qumran. These caves yielded some 800 scrolls of all the books of the HB except Esther. The other principal sites, Nahal Hever and Wadi Murabba‘at, yielded texts mostly from the early second century AD. Scrolls were also found at Masada, which fell to the Romans in AD 70. (ii) The LXX. According to the pseudepigraphic Letter of Aristeas (ca. 130 BC), the Pentateuch was translated into G at ca. 285 BC by seventy-two translators (hence its title, Septuagint). This tradition was later expanded to include all the OT books translated into G. The question of an original LXX. P. Kahle argued that a great number of independent G translations existed for all the books and that the LXX as we know it now was a creation of the church. We have argued (EBC 1.220-21) that studies by Margolis on Joshua and Montgomery on Daniel, as well as the realization that recensional activities to conform the OG to the Proto-MT, which had given the illusion that all these variants could not go back to one original, have led to a widening consensus that agrees with Lagarde’s view that all the Greek MSS go back to one textual tradition. Character of the LXX. It is impossible to speak generally of the character of the LXX because it is not a uniform translation. Rather, different translators with varying

capabilities and philosophies of translation rendered assorted portions of the OT. Elsewhere this writer collected the conclusions of scholars about these translations: Swete [drew the conclusion] that the majority of the translators learned Hebrew in Egypt from imperfectly instructed teachers, and Barr ... that these translators invented vowels for the unpointed text.... Except in passages such as Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 32, 33, the Pentateuch is on the whole a close and serviceable translation of a smoothed Hebrew recension. The Psalter is tolerably well done, though Ervin concluded that the theology of Hellenistic Judaism left its mark on it. About Isaiah, Seeligman concluded, “The great majority of the inconsistencies here discussed must be imputed to the translator’s unconstrained and carefree working method, and to a conscious preference for the introduction of variations.” He added, “We shall not, however, do the translator

any injustice by not rating his knowledge of grammar and syntax very highly.” Regarding Hosea, Nyberg found that “it is overly composed of gross misunderstandings, unfortunate readings and superficial lexical definitions which often are simply forced conformity to similar Aramaic cognates. Helplessness and arbitrary choice are the characteristic traits of this interpretation.” Albrektson said of Lamentations: “LXX, then, is

not a good translation in this book. But this does not mean that it is not valuable for textual criticism. On the contrary, its literal character often allows us to establish with tolerable certainty the underlying Hebrew text. It is clearly based on a text which was in all essentials identical

55

Guide

with the consonants of the MT; indeed the passages where it may have contained a variant are notably few.” Gerleman said of Job that the translator interprets the text as well as he can, and, with the help of his imagination, attempts to give an intelligible meaning to the original, which he does not understand. He added that the many deviations between the Hebrew and the Greek translations of Job are not the result of an essential difference between the original of the LXX and our Hebrew text. They have come about in the course of translation when the translator has not mastered the difficulties of the original. Swete concluded, “The reader of the Septuagint must expect to find large number of actual blunders, due in part perhaps to a faulty archetype, but chiefly to the misreading or misunderstanding of the archetype by the translators.... (“Textual Criticism,” 221-22) Gerleman (85-86) evaluated the LXX of Zephaniah thus: “The Vorlage of the

Greek translator was not identical with the consonantal text of the MT but close to it... The translator is very free in his interpretation of the MT. His work points to an innumerable number of wrong vocalizations, unfortunate divisions of the text, and superfi-

cial lexical definitions.... Finally, it seems fairly clear that the capabilities of the translator were not always up to mastering certain words and expressions that are difficult to translate.” This writer (Micah, 1993, 597) reached independently a similar conclusion for

Micah as Nyberg had for Hosea and Gerleman for Zephaniah. This is not surprising, for J. Ziegler (“Die Einheit der Septaginta’”) demonstrated the unity of the Septuagint in the Minor Prophets. It is well known that the LXX translator of Proverbs was influenced by Greek ethical thought, especially Stoic, along with early Jewish midrashic tradition, and that he modified a number of proverbs and made additions (Gerleman, OTS, 15-27; Jelli-

coe, 68, 317-18). Barr (158) says of this translation: “In fact the term ‘free,’ as applied to a translation like the Greek Proverbs, must mean something considerably different

from what we mean when we speak of ‘free translation’ in a modern context.... For a translator like that of Proverbs free technique meant ... that after having translated some elements in the text in a rather ‘literal’ way, he could then break loose from liter-

ality and complete the sentence with a composition so loosely related to the original that it might equally be considered as an original composition rather than a renderbeycern On the other hand, this writer also noted (EBC, 1:222): “The LXX of Samuel, parts of Kings, and Ezekiel is of special value because the text preserved by the Masoretes of these books suffered more than usual from corrupting influences. With regard to the chronology from Omri to Jehu, Shenkel concluded that the OG, represented in several MSS, preserves the original chronology better than the recensional developments, represented in the majority of MSS.

(c) Tendency to preserve striking similarity with the MT. scribes to preserve faithfully the time of these scrolls. The many 56

the text. Some of the oldest MSS of the DSS show a Their silent testimony shouts out the achievement of OT text. This text-type undoubtedly existed before the archaic forms within the MT confirm the inference.

Guide

The studies of M. Martin show that the DSS reveal a conservative scribal tendency to follow the exemplar both in text and form. (d) Tendency to revise the text. Though the author of 1 Macc (ca. 125 BC), for

example, recognized that prophecy had ceased in Israel years before his time (cf. 1 Macc 9:27), the text of the OT was still open during this period. Scribes of this era were still the authorized revisers of the text, not just copyists. They continued to expand portions of the OT and to alter it to such an extent that their productions might equally be considered as distinct literary editions rather than as copies. In addition, they continued to revise older texts philologically to make them more intelligible to later generations. As a result of their literary achievements the line between literary criticism and textual criticism has become attenuated. The texts of some portions of the OT have come down to us in two forms, attested in both the DSS and the LXX. There is, for instance, a short form of Jeremiah preserved in AQJer® and in the LXX, and a long

form preserved in 4QJer* and the MT. In the following example the additions in the long text are noted with italics: This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, said to me: “I will break the yoke of the king of Babylon. Within two years I will bring back to this place all the articles of the house of the LORD that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon removed from this place and took to Babylon, and Jeconiah son of Jehoiakim king of Judah and all the exiles from Judah who went to Babylon, I am going to bring back to this place,” declares the LORD (Jer 28:1-4a; 35:1-4a). One is reminded of the editorial comment in Jeremiah 36:32:

So Jeremiah took another scroll and gave it to the scribe Baruch son of Neriah, and as Jeremiah dictated, Baruch wrote on it all the words

of the scroll that Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire. And many similar words were added to them. E. Tov (Textual Criticism, 314-49) established on the basis of the ancient texts and versions the existence of two editions of Joshua (1986), 1 Sam 16-18 (1985), Ezekiel (1986), and Proverbs (1990). The different literary editions of Daniel and Esther are

well known. This scribal practice is entirely consistent with known practices of composing books in the ANE. From cuneiform texts (ca. 2000 BC) to Tatian’s Diatessaron (ca. AD 200) one can observe that ANE literatures were composed by supplementing earlier editions of a text with later materials (see Tigay, cf. R. P. Gordon, 57-69). We drew the conclusion elsewhere (ABD, 5.938f.) that the major contribution of the Samaritan Pentateuch [SP] to biblical studies is to literary criticism, not of textual crit-

icism. For example, it involves the insertion of material from Deuteronomy into Exodus and the extensive repetition of other texts. The scribal editors not only effected literary changes, they also altered the text for both philological and theological reasons. We noted elsewhere (JBHS, 19): They modernized it by replacing archaic Hebrew forms and constructions with forms and constructions of a later age. They also smoothed out the text by replacing rare constructions with more freSt

Guide Deen ee ee eee a

quently occurring constructions, and they supplemented and clarified the text by the insertion of additions and the interpolation of glosses from parallel passages. In addition, they substituted euphemisms for vulgarities, altered the names of false gods, removed the phrases that refer to cursing God, and safeguarded the sacred divine name or tetragrammaton (YHWH), occasionally by substituting forms in the consonantal text. Philological alterations were already taking place at the time of Malachi, the last representative of mainstream OT prophecy. The book of Chronicles in its synoptic parallels with the Pentateuch and Former Prophets as preserved in MT exhibits similar revisions (Kropat). Ezra-Nehemiah explicitly states that as Ezra read from the book of the Law of God, he made it clear and gave the meaning so that the people could understand what was being read (Neh 8:8).

3. From 150 BC to AD 135. The bulk of the DSS belong to the period between the closing of the canon and the closing of its text. During this time, the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) began a life of its own. (a) Samaritan Pentateuch. At ca. 110 BC scribes of the Samaritans, a sect similar to the Jews apart from its worship on Mount Gerizim instead of at Jerusalem (John 4:19-22), adopted and adapted a distinct recension of the text attested as early as the Chronicler to constitute the SP. They probably accepted only the Pent as their canon because

OT’s

second division, the Prophets,

and its third, the Writings,

celebrate

Jerusalem. (b) Tendency to preserve the text. In addition to the evidence adduced above for the tendency to conserve the text, there is a Talmudic notice that the scribes attempted to keep the text “correct” (b. Ned 37b-38a). Moreover, the MT itself preserves the following remnants of scribal concern with preserving the text, probably from this era: (i) the fifteen extraordinary points either to condemn the Hebrew letters as spurious or to draw attention to some peculiar text feature; (ii) the four suspended letters to indicate

intentional scribal change or scribal error due to a faulty distinction of gutturals; and (ili) the nine inverted nuns apparently to mark verses thought to have been transposed (E. Tov, ABD, 6:397). (c) Tendency to revise the text. On the other hand, the text was not fixed, and continued to be revised. E. Tov (Textual Criticism, 114-17) classifies the DSS into five different text-types.

(i) There are the Proto-Masoretic texts, which others call “the rabbinic text,” during this period. About 60 percent of the scrolls belong to this type and may reflect its authoritative status (Textual Criticism, 115). (ii) The Pre-Samaritan text scrolls have the characteristic features of the SP, aside from the thin layer of ideological and phonological changes the Samaritans added. Basing himself on Gesenius (1815), the first to classify the variants between SP and MT in a thorough and convincing way, the present writer (ABD 5:936-38) hoped to demonstrate from recent philological and textual research that the SP presents a secondarily modernized, smoothed over, and expanded text. The theological changes imposed on this text, though thin, are significant. For example, the Samaritans were able to make the worship on Mount Gerizim the tenth commandment by combining the first two commandments into one and by inserting texts about Mount Gerizim (Deut

58

Guide

11:29a; 27:2b-3a; 28:4-7; cf. also 11:30) after Exod 20:17, numbering the material

from Deut 28:4-7 and 11:30 as the tenth commandment. (iii) About 5 percent of the DSS are Septuagintal in character. Some DSS scrolls, most notably Jeremiah (4QJ er), bear a strong resemblance to the LXX’s Vor-

lage.

(iv) The many non-aligned DSS are not exclusively close to any one of the types mentioned so far. Tov (Textual Criticism, 116) explains: “They agree, sometimes insignificantly, with MT against the other texts, or with SP and/or LXX against the other texts, but the non-aligned texts also disagree with the other texts to the same extent. They furthermore contain readings not known from one of the other texts.” (v) Tov (Textual Criticism, 114) identifies a group of texts that reflect a distinctive Qumran practice with regard to orthography (i.e., spelling, similar to “favor” versus “favour’), morphology, and a free approach to the biblical text visible in content adaptations, in frequent errors, in numerous corrections, and sometimes in negligent script. Tov thinks that only these scrolls were produced in Qumran. These variant recensions also find parallels in Jewish and Christian literature originating during the time in question, such as the book of Jubilees (either early or late postexilic) and, most importantly, the NT (AD 50-90). For example, Stephen’s sermon (Acts 7) and Hebrews are based on the pre-Samaritan recension. The fall of the Second Temple (ca. AD 70), the debate between Jews and Chris-

tians, and Hillel’s rules of hermeneutics all contributed to producing a stable text by about AD 100. The Nahal Hever and Mur DSS, which date between AD 100 and AD 135, attest the Proto-MT.

4. From AD 135 to AD 1000. (a) Other early versions. From ca. AD 100 to ca. AD 500 the official Aram. Targums (Tg.), the Syriac Peshitta (Syr.), various recensions of the LXX, and the Latin Vulgate (Vg.) were produced. They all have as their common denominator the Proto-MT and so are not as useful witnesses to the early stages of the still open text as are the DSS and the LXX. We need note only here that the Syr. has been influenced both by the LXX and the Tg. Nevertheless, each of these versions sometimes contains an original (i.e., an uncorrupted) reading. (i) Targum means specifically a translation into Aram. When knowledge of Hebrew decreased among the Jewish people during the postexilic period, targums were created orally and later committed to writing. The targum fragments found at Qumran show that both free and literal targums were made. Scholars are divided about their dates (first to fifth century AD) and their places of origin (Babylon or Palestine). These more or less paraphrastic targums are of more value for understanding the way Jewish people understood their OT than for textual criticism. For example, the Tg. of Isa 52:13 reads: “Behold, my servant, the Messiah.” (ii) Early recensions of the LXX. Some scribes deliberately revised the original LXX, known as the Old Greek (OG), according to the Proto-MT. Prior to Origen (AD 200), who brought this process to completion in his famous Hexapla, Aquila (AD 125), Symmachus (AD 180), and Theodotion (180) revised the OG and/or earlier recensions of it according to this principle. A Greek scroll of the Minor Prophets recovered at Nahal Hever shows that this process had already begun by the middle of the first century BC. Its distinctive translation techniques enabled scholars to link it up with other

5)

Guide texts bearing witness to an early stage of the OG. Justin Martyr in his Dialogue complains against the Jew Trypho about the attitude the rabbinate had taken toward the LXX in order to remove an essential arm from the Christian apologist. Barthélemy who brilliantly edited this text, showed that Justin forced himself to use this revision in order to be acceptable to his adversaries. (iii) Vulgate. Pope Damasus I commissioned Jerome (Hieronymus, AD 345-420) to produce a uniform and reliable Latin Bible. Jerome based his original translation of the Psalms (Psalterium Romanum) on the Vetus Latina, viz., Old Latin texts based largely on the LXX. His second translation of the Psalms was based on the Hexapla (Psalterium Gallicanum). Dissatisfied with these translations, Jerome finally

translated The Vulgate (“the common one’’) from, as he put it, “the original truth of the Hebrew text.” However, the Vg. includes the Gallican Psalter. (b) The MT. The Masoretes (AD 600-1000) were groups of Jewish families who produced the final form of the OT text. They added four features to the inherited Proto-MT. (i) They “hedged in” the consonantal text with a Masorah, consisting of scribal notes in the margin with instructions to ensure its precise transmission. Scribal precision in transmitting the consonants before the Masoretes is reflected in the Talmud. R. Ishmael cautioned: “My son, be careful, because your work is the work of heaven; should you omit (even) one letter or add (even) one letter, the whole world would be destroyed” (b. Sota 2a) (cited by Tov, Textual Criticism, 33).

(ii) They added vowel points above and below the consonants to preserve as perfectly as possible the accompanying tradition of pronunciation. These points supplemented the early consonants (’, h, w, and y), known as the matres lectionis (“mothers of reading’’), which were used to mark vowels in the prevocalized stage of the text. A Talmudic anecdote illustrates an acute awareness of the importance of an accurate oral tradition. David reprimanded Joab when he killed only the men of Amalek and not the “remembrance” (zéker) of them. Joab defended himself, noting his teacher taught him to read: “all their males” (zakar). Joab subsequently drew his sword against his teacher who had taught him incorrectly (b. Bathra 21a-b). A complex body of evidence indicates the MT could not, in any serious or systematic way, represent a reconstruction or faking of the vocalization. Among other things we argued (/BHS, 28): On the whole the grammar [which depends heavily on vocalization] of the MT admirably fits the framework of Semitic philology, and this fact certifies the work of the Masoretes. When in the 1930s Paul Kahle announced his theory that the Masoretes made massive innovations, Gotthelf Bergstrasser sarcastically observed that they must have read Carl Brockelmann’s comparative Semitic grammar to have come up with forms so thoroughly in line with historical reconstructions. J. Barr (Comparative Semitic Philology and the Text of the Old Testament, 213) demonstrates that the Masoretes were preservers of the oral tradition, not innovators like the LXX translators, by contrasting Jerome’s earlier version of the Psalter, based on the LXX, and his later one, 102:23-24a[24-25a] are:

60

based

on

the Hebrew.

The

consonants

of Ps

Guide

‘nh bdrk khw [Qere khy] qsr ymy: ’mr ’ly The LXX and the Gallican Psalter read this as:

‘anah[ti] b°derek koh6é qoser yamay ’*mor ’élay “He replied to him in the way of his force; the fewness of my days report to me” (no major Eng. version). The MT and Psalter, “Juxta Hebraeos,” however, vocalize:

‘innah badderek kohi qissar yamay: ’dmar ’élt “He broke the strength on the way, he cut short my days. I said, My God ...” (cf. Eng. versions). (iii) The Masoretes added a system of conjunctive and disjunctive accent signs to mark the chant or music (Haik-Vantoura). These diacritical marks serve to beautify, to add dignity, to denote the stress of the word, which can be as meaningful as the dif-

ference between English “pre-sént” and “‘prés-ent,” and, most importantly, to denote the syntactical relationship of words. It makes some difference where one places the accents in Isa 40:3: The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ... (KJV). A voice of one calling: “In the desert prepare ...” (NIV). Here, too, the Masoretes are preservers, not innovators, unlike the LXX, whose

translators seem to have been flying by the seat of their pants. Revell (181) suggests that the punctuation was the first feature after the consonantal text to become stabilized in the Jewish biblical tradition. (iv) The Masoretes also added various paratextual elements—the verse and paragraph divisions and ancient textual corrections. Its variants known as Kethiv [K] (the consonants of the Proto-MT) and Qere [Q] (the text they read aloud) are most important among these last-named. At first the Q readings were optional corrections of the text, but by the time of the Masoretes they became obligatory. We already noted a preferred Q reading in Ps 102:23[24]. However, sometimes the K is preferred. Prov 17:27b K ( + the LXX, Syr., Vg.) reads w°gar-riah, “and cool of spirit,” but Q (+ Tg.) reads y°gar-riiah, “precious of spirit,” which was variously and dubiously understood to mean “heavy in spirit” (Tg.), “sparing of words” (Rashi), “of worthy bearing” (Saadia) (cited by Toy, 353). Both K and Q are hapleg. K now finds support from the Egyptian side. Grollenberg (42-43) showed that the Egyptians used “hot” and “cold” in a metaphorical sense for two distinct personality types. The title page of L, the diplomatic text of BHK and BHS, reads: “Samuel Jacob

copied, vowel-pointed and Masoretically annotated this Codex of the Sacred Scripture from the correct MSS which the teacher Aaron b. Moses Ben-Asher redacted (his rest is in Paradise!) and which constitutes an exceedingly accurate Exemplar.” In fact, however, L probably contains too many corrections and errors to have served as a synagogue scroll. Conclusion. In the light of this history we can now restrict the aim of OT text criticism to that of recovering the original text that lies behind the Proto-MT recension.

The witnesses show such diverse text-types for some portions of the OT, like Joshua, Proverbs, and Esther, that they are best regarded as either distinct, literary stages in the development of the text or as distinct compositions. Tov (Textual Criticism, 177) sum-

marizes: “The differences between the textual witnesses show that a few books and parts of books were once circulated in different formulations representing different lit61

Guide

erary stages, as a rule one after the other, but possibly also parallel to each other.” In Tov’s view the text critic ought to reconstruct the edition represented in the Proto-MT. Socio-religious and historical reasons validate his view. That recension became the authoritative text both within Judaism and the church. Tov argues this case for Judaism, but he failed to note that both Origen and Jerome, the two most formative OT text critics in church history, also established the MT recension for the church. Our English versions are based on it. “This history,” we said (1994, 175-76), “should not be under-

estimated in deciding the question, ‘What is the original text?’ The MT inherently commended itself to both the synagogue and the church. As the canon of the OT emerged in the historical process, so also the MT surfaced as the best text of that canon.” Childs (96-97) reached a similar conclusion. We do not agree with the theory of Ackroyd and of Sanders (“Text and Canon,” 5-29) that the different recensions enjoy equal canonical status. That view is unsatisfying from both a theologian’s and historian’s point of view. A serious theologian will want to know whether or not the Tenth Commandment prescribes worship on Mount Gerizim, and a resolute historian needs to know whether the biblical historian recorded

in Exod 12:40 that Israel spent 430 years before the Exodus in just Egypt (MT) or in Egypt and Canaan (LXX, SP). Both theology and history demand the critic decide upon an original text. C. The Practice of Textual Criticism Text critics traditionally distinguish between external criticism (i.e., the evaluation of the textual witnesses), and internal criticism (i.e., the transcriptional and intrin-

sic probability of the readings themselves). For the former critics need to know the history of the witnesses; for the latter, the kinds of errors scribes made along with a sensitivity to exegetical expectations. 1. External criticism. Before critics can evaluate the variants, however, they

must first be collected and collated. Unfortunately the apparatus in BHS still swarms with errors of commission and omission. True variants, we said, are restricted to those

that pertain to the editing of Proto-MT, not to the literary achievements of earlier scribes. For example, the shorter readings of Jeremiah should be passed over. This also applies to Joshua. Compare these variants of the MT and the LXX in Josh 1:1. MT reads ’hry mwt msh ‘bd yhwh, “After the death of Moses servant of YHWH,” but LXX read ’hry mwt msh, “After the death of Moses.” The MT of Josh 1 has more than twelve additional words or phrases that are not found in the LXX, and the LXX rendering of Joshua is about 4-5 percent shorter than the MT. Plausibly the LXX reflects an earlier, shorter stage of the text and in this case should be ignored. Radically dissimilar to his NT counterpart, the OT text critic does not prefer the earlier and shorter read-

ings! In fact, he turns them over to the literary critic. 2. Intrinsic criticism. (a) Unintentional errors. Following are a few illustrations of some kinds of unintentional scribal errors. In each case we retrovert the LXX to its

Hebrew Vorlage.

(1) Confusion of consonants. Scribes confused b/k, b/m, b/n, g/w, g/y, d/r, h/h, w/z, w/y, w/r, kin, m/s, and ‘/s. Javan’s sons are called ddnym (“Dodanim’) in Gen 10:4 of MT and rdnym in Gen 10:4 of SP, LXX and in 1 Chron 1:7 of MT.

(ii) Haplography (“writing once’) as a result of homoioteleuton (i.e., words with similar endings) or homoioarcton (words with similar beginnings). MT for Gen 62

Guide

47:16 reads: w’tnh lkm bmqnykm, “I will give you for your cattle” (cf. KJV), but SP and LXX read w’tnh lkm lhm bmgqnykm, “I will give you bread for your cattle” (cf. NIV, NRSV). The scribe may have skipped /hm, bread, not only because of words with similar beginnings and endings but because of the similar sound of k and h. (iii) Metathesis (the accidental exchange or transposition of two adjacent letters within a word). The MT of Deut 31:1 reads wylk mxh, “and Moses went” (cf. NIV), but

4QDeut” and the LXX, wykl mh, “and Moses finished” (cf. NRSV). (iv) Different concepts of word and verse division. The MT of Hos 6:5 reads wmsptyk ’wr ys’, “and your judgments, light goes forth” (cf. KJV, NASB), but the LXX reads wmSpty k’wr ys’, “and my judgments went forth as light” (cf. NIV, NRSV). (v) Dittography (“writing twice”’). Isa 30:30 in the MT, LXX, Tg., Syr., and Vg. all read whimy‘ yhwh, “and YHWH will cause to be heard,” but 1QIs* reads whimy ‘ hSmy‘ yhwh, “and YHWH will cause to be heard, to be heard.” (vi) Doublets (conflation of two or more readings). MT of 2 Kgs 19:9 reads wySb wyslh ml’kym, “and he again sent messengers,” and the MT of its synoptic parallel in Isa 37:9 reads wySm‘ wySlh ml’kym, “and when he heard it, he sent messengers.” The LXX and 1QIs* of Isa 37:9 read wySm‘ wySb wySlh ml’ kym, “and when he heard it, he again sent messengers.” (b) Intentional changes. Following are a few illustrations of some kinds of intentional scribal changes in the text. (i) Linguistic changes. Scribes sometimes modernized archaic features of a verse. In Num 15:35 the SP replaces the old infinitive absolute construction of the MT (ragom) for probably the imperative, rigmu, stone. (ii) Contextual changes. In Gen 2:2, according to the MT, the Tg., and the Vg., God completed his work on the seventh day, but according to the SP, the LXX, and the

Syr., he finished on the sixth day to avoid making it appear that God worked on the Sabbath. (iii) Euphemistic changes. In Gen 50:3 the SP changes ‘l-brky ywsp, “upon the knees of Joseph,” into ‘l-bymy ywsp, “in the days of Joseph,” because it seemed improper that Joseph’s grandchildren should be born upon his knees. (iv) Theological changes. We have already noted how SP altered the Ten Commandments. Better known are the changes of early names with the theophoric element ba‘al, lord, by the derogatory element, boSet, shame (cf. 1 Chron 8:33 and 2 Sam 2:8). On the whole, however, theological changes are rare in the MT. G. R Driver (153) noted: “Theological glosses are surprisingly few, and most are enshrined in the tigquné sop*rim, which are corrections of the text aimed chiefly at softening anthropomorphisms and eliminating the attribution of any sort of impropriety to God.”

D. Textual Criticism and Exegesis Variants often impact the exegesis of the text and ultimately, to a greater or lesser extent, OT theology. At the same time, however, the critic must decide between them on the basis of exegetical expectations. The basic canon for deciding between variants is: That reading is preferable which would have been more likely to give rise to the others. To say this another way: The variant that cannot be explained away is more probably the original. To apply this canon effectively demands extensive knowledge of the textual witnesses, scribal practices, exegetical factors, and also common sense. P. K. McCarter (22-24) wisely coun-

63

Guide

sels the text critic to: (1) keep a clear image of the scribe in mind; (2) look first for the unconscious error; (3) know the personalities of your witnesses; (4) treat each case as if it were unique. Regarding the last he cites Housman’s memorable metaphor: “A textual critic engaged upon his business is not at all like Newton investigating the motion

of the planets; he is much more like a dog hunting fleas.... They require to be treated as individuals; and every problem which presents itself to the textual critic must be regarded as possibly unique.” Let us illustrate the practice of textual criticism by returning to the metathesis in Prov 14:32b: w°hdseh b°mété saddig, “the righteous is hdseh in his death” (MT) versus whoseh b®tummé saddiq, “the righteous is hdseh in his blamelessness.” The key to deciding the original text lies in a correct understanding of the q. part. of hsh. The lexeme occurs 37x and always with the meaning “to seek refuge,” never “to have a refuge” (pace NIV) nor “‘to find a refuge” (pace NRSV). Thirty-four times, not counting Prov 14:32b, it is used with reference to taking refuge in God or under the shadow of his wings (cf. Prov 30:5). The two exceptions are Isa 14:32 and 30:2. In 14:32 the afflicted take refuge in Zion, a surrogate for God; in 30:2 Isaiah gives the expression an exceptional meaning because he uses sarcasm: lahsdt b°sél misrayim, “to take refuge in the shadow of Egypt!” His intended meaning is that the Jerusalemites should have sought refuge in the Lord. The q. part. of hsh or the occurrence of hsh in a relative clause denotes a devout worshiper, “one who seeks refuge in Yahweh.” One other time

beside Prov 14:32b the q. part. is used absolutely: “[Show the wonder of your love], O Savior of those who take refuge (m6Sia“ hésim)” (Ps 17:7). NIV here rightly glosses, “Savior of those who take refuge in you.” Gamberoni (TDOT 5:71) agrees that the q. part. has the same “religio-ethical” sense in Prov 14:32b as in Ps 17:7. O. Ploeger (176) and A. Meinhold (Die Sprueche) independently also reached the conclusion that YHWH is the unstated object of hdseh in Prov 14:32b. W. McKane (475), citing A. Barucq (Le livre des proverbes), recognizes this as the meaning of the MT. The LXX, NIV, NRSV, however, misunderstood

the term. The unequivocal meaning of hoseh, however, nicely satisfies the exegetical expectation of “in his death,” but not of “in his righteousness.” McKane rejects the MT because, as he says, “I do not believe that the sentence originally asserted this [a belief in the after-life].” He follows the LXX

and renders: “But he who relies on his own

piety is a righteous man.” His interpretation, however, violates both the lexical expectations of this word and the exegetical expectation of the book as a whole. Proverbs consistently encourages faith in the Lord (cf. 3:5; 22:19), never faith in one’s own piety. In sum, the exegetical expectations of hsh and of the book favor the MT, suggesting that the corruption occurred in the LXX tradition. In this treatment we have focused on scholarly competence. Exegetical competence also entails spiritual virtues, as we have argued elsewhere (“Exegesis and the Spiritual Life’). E. The Reliability of the OT Text In the light of the OT text’s complex history and the welter of conflicting readings in its textual witnesses, can the church still believe in an infallible OT? Can it still

confess with the Westminster divines: “by His singular care and providence” the text has been “kept pure in all ages” (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:8). We argue that

64

Guide

in fact this history of the text and its witness and other reasons give the church good reason to continue to confess ex animo both the reliability of the OT text and its purity. 1. In every era there was a strong tendency to preserve the text, as argued above. 2. The antiquity of the MT can be inferred from both the DSS and from comparative Sem. grammar. There is a continuous witness to the received text-type that lies behind some of the oldest biblical MSS at Qumran and the whole versional tradition (apart from some portions of OG) that stretches from ca. AD 100 to the most modern translations into Eng. and a host of other modern languages and dialects. Moreover, the grammar of this text-type admirably fits the framework of ancient Semitic philology. In fact, it accurately preserves hapleg. such as gar-ruah, cool of spirit, even though they were not understood later on in the text’s transmission. 3. The MT recension can be distinguished from the scribal activity that in effect produced other literary editions of OT materials. If the church confesses that the Holy Spirit superintended the selection of books that comprise the canon of the OT, why should it not confess that the Holy Spirit also superintended the selection of the MT recension? To be sure, the NT authors exhibit the Septuagintal and pre-Samaritan recensions and unique readings, but they also had a freedom in citing noncanonical, religious literature. Even though the canon was closed, they felt free to cite noncanonical literature for theological reasons. How much more should we expect them to use texts freely before the text was finalized? 4. One needs to keep the data in perspective. A quick count of the textual variants in BHS shows that on average for every ten words there is a textual note. The humanists that produced its text-critical notes for recovering an original eclectic text imply that 90 percent of the text in hand is unquestioned. Textual criticism focuses on the problem readings, not on uncontested readings, giving a sense of disproportion to the amount of contaminated text. 5. The significance of these variants must be kept in view. In this essay we featured significant variants to make our points, but in truth most variants, including the 10 percent collated in BHS, are insignificant and do not affect doctrine. Most textcritical work is boring because the differences are inconsequential. If we restrict ourselves to the MT recension, D. Stuart (98) rightly observes: “It is fair to say that the verses, chapters, and books of the Bible would read largely the same, and would leave

the same impression with the reader, even if one adopted virtually every possible alternative reading to those now serving as the basis for current English translations.” Even if we accepted the earlier and/or other literary editions of portions of the OT, no doctrinal statement within the Protestant tradition would be affected. S. Talmon (Textual Study of the Bible, 326) notes regarding the variants both within and between textual traditions:

The scope of variation within all textual traditions is relatively restricted. Major divergences which intrinsically affect the sense are extremely rare. A collation of variants extant, based on the synoptic study of the material available, either by a comparison of parallel passages within one Version, or of the major Versions with each other, results in the conclusion that the ancient authors, compilers, tradents and

scribes enjoyed what may be termed a controlled freedom of textual variation.

65

Guide oo

a

ale

el

6. Paradoxically, the variety of texts bear witness to an original text. Even in those portions of the OT that have been preserved in different literary editions there is still a relatively large consensus and close genetic relation among the MSS. This is best explained by a schema that commences with an Ur-text. Within the MT tradition, of course, there is a much greater agreement and closer genetic connection. The variants within this tradition point unmistakably to an original text from which they sprang. With respect to this agreement Harris (88-89) provides an apt illustration of the reliability of the text, in spite of there being no perfect witness to it. He notes how the loss or destruction of the standard yard at the Smithsonian Institution would not enormously affect the practice of measurement in the United States, for a comparison of the multitudinous copies of that yard would lead us to something very close to the original standard. 7. The correctibility of the text must also be kept in view. Normally an error in the transcriptional process is subject to human correction. In the same way that an average reader can normally correct errors in a book or manuscript, the text critic can correct a textual error in the OT. A good exegete can reduce the number of problematic readings considerably. Moreover, we are the heirs of the work of many competent text critics. Just as electrical engineers can remove unwanted static from a telecommunication signal, so text critics can remove scribal corruptions by their knowledge of the text’s history and character and by their exegetical expectations. 8. The variants in the NT are similar to those found in the DSS. Our Lord and his apostles confronted OT variants qualitatively similar to the ones that confront us, yet they did not hesitate to rely on the authority of Scripture. These difference did not prevent Jesus from saying that Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35), nor Paul from confessing that “all Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Tim 3:16). Why should the contemporary church, which is built upon Christ and his apostles, hesitate any more than they to confess the reliability and inspiration of Scripture? 9. The variants in the DSS are not qualitatively different from those already known. The Westminster divines knew the variants in the Samaritan Pentateuch and the ancient versions, which are qualitatively the same as those in the DSS, and yet did not hesitate to confess their conviction that the same Spirit who inspired the OT also preserved it. There are no new data to change the confession. 10. The preserved OT achieves the work of the Holy Spirit. Paul says: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16-17). The OT we have in hand does just that. BIBLIOGRAPHY P. R. Ackroyd, “An Authoritative Version of the Bible?” ExpTim 85, 1973, 374-77; A. Barucq, Le livre des proverbes, 1964; D. Barthélemy, “Redecouverts d’un chainon manguant de |’histoire de la LXX,” RB 60, 1958, 18-29; J. Barr, “B’RS-MOLIS: Prov X1.31, 1 Pet IV.18,” JSS 20, 1975, 149-64; R. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism, 1985; E. Brotzman, OT Textual Criticism, 1994; F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, 1988; B. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament As Scripture, 1979; F. M.

Cross, “Problems of Method in the Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible,” The Critical Study of Sacred Texts, ed. by W. D. O’ Flaherty, 1979; F. M. Cross and S. Talmon, (eds.), Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, 1975; F. E. Deist, Witnesses to the Old Testament: Introducing Old

66

Guide Testament Textual Criticism, 1988; G. R. Driver, “Glosses in the Hebrew Text of the OT,” L’AT et l’orient, Orientalia et Biblical Loveaniensia 1, 1957; G. Gerleman, Zephanja textkritisch und

literarisch untersucht, 1942; idem, “The Septuagint Proverbs as a Hellenistic Document,” OTS 8, 1950, 15-27; idem, Studies in the Septuagint, LUA NF 52, 3, 1956; R. P. Gordon, “Compositions, Conflation and the Pentateuch,” JSOT 51, 1991, 57-69; L. Grollenberg, “A propos de Prov. VIIL6 et XVII,27,” RB 59, 1962, 42-43; R. L. Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible,

1957; S. Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study, 1968; J. Kennedy, An Aid to the Textual Amendment of the Old Testament, 1928; R. W. Klein, Textual Criticism of the OT: From the Septuagint to Qumran,

1974; A. Kropat, Die Syntax des Autors der Chronik verglichen mit der

seiner Quellen: Ein Beitrag zur historischen Syntax des Hebrdischen, BZAW

16, 1909; M. Mar-

tin, The Scribal Character of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1958; P. Kyle McCarter, Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible, 1988; W. McKane, Proverbs, OTL, 1970; A. Mein-

hold, Die Sprueche,

Zuercher Bibelkommentare, 1991; A. Millard, “In Praise of Ancient Scribes,” BA 45, 1982, 143-53; R. Nicole, “The Nature of Inerrancy,” Inerrancy and Common Sense [ICS], eds. R. R. Nicole & J. Ramsey Michaels, 1980, 71-95; O. Ploeger, Sprueche Salo-

mos, BKAT, 1984; E. J. Revell, “Biblical Punctuation and Chant in the Second Temple Period,” JSJ 7, 1976, 181; B. R. Roberts, The Old Testament Text and Versions, 1951; J. A. Sanders, “Text and Canon: Concepts and Methods,” JBL 98, 5-29; idem, “Two Non-canonical Psalms in

11QPs*,” ZAW 65, 1964, 57-75; N. Sarna, “Bible Text,” EJ 4, 1971, 831-35; J. D. Shenkel, Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings, 1968; D. Stuart, “Inerrancy and Textual Criticism,” JCS, 97-117; J. H. Tigay, ed., Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, 1976; E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research, 1981; idem, “A Modern Textual Outlook Based on the Qumran Scrolls,” HUCA, 53, 1982, 11-27; idem, “The Growth of the Book of Joshua in the Light of the Evidence of the LXX Translation,” in Studies in the Bible: 1986, ScrHier 31, 1986, 321-39; idem, “The Composition of 1 Samuel

16-18 in the

Light of the Septuagint Version,” Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, 1976, 97-130; idem, “Recensional Differences between the MT and LXX of Ezekiel,” ETL 62, 1986, 89-101; idem,

“Recensional Differences Between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint of Proverbs,” Of Scribes and Scrolls: Presented to John Strugnell, ed. by H. W. Attridge, J. J. Collins, T. H. Tobin, 1990, 43-56; idem, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 1992; S. Haik- Vantoura, The

Music of the Bible Revealed, 1991; B. K. Waltke, “Prolegomena to the Samaritan Pentateuch,” Ph.D. Dis. Harvard University, 1965; idem, “The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Text of the Old Testament, in New Perspectives on the Old Testament, ed. by J. B. Payne, 1970, 212-39; idem, “The Textual Criticism of the Old Testament,” EBC 1, 1979, 210-28; idem, “Aims of Textual Criticism,” WTJ, 51, 1989, 93-108; idem, “Samaritan Pentateuch,” ABD, 5, 1992, 932-40; idem,

“Micah,” The Minor Prophets, ed. by T. E. McComiskey, 2, 1993, 591-764; idem, “Exegesis and the Spiritual Life: Theology As Spiritual Formation,” Crux 30, 1994, 28-35; idem, “Old Testament Textual Criticism,” Foundations for Biblical Interpretation, ed. by D. S. Dockery, K. A. Mathews, R. B. Sloan, 1994, 156-86; J. Ziegler, “Die Einheit der Septuaginta zum Zw6lfprophetenbuch,” Verzeichnis der Vorlesungen an der Staatlichen Akademie zu Braunsberg, 1934-35,

1-16. Bruce K. Waltke

67

Guide

PART II: HISTORY, THEOLOGY, AND HERMENEUTICS The following two essays on biblical history by Eugene Merrill and V. Phillips Long are complementary. On the one hand, H. Merrill explores the theological dimension of OT texts. He raises and answers the question of how biblical history has a theological aspect. This exercise is in keeping with Vanhoozer’s theological concern. The OT is relevant in that it does not just present history or a historical framework. Regrettably, this is often the way the OT is presented, as one learns a list of the kings of Israel and Judah in chronological sequence. Merrill takes the position that the historical material is presented in literary categories for the purpose of showing God’s ways in human affairs. This story forms a part with the NT story as an unfolding of the history of redemption.

On the other hand, Long opens up the hermeneutical issue of how one interprets historical texts. He challenges the readers to evaluate the options and to make informed decisions on how they listen to the text. The end result is surprising. Such a reading will enhance a reimaging of Israel’s sacred history that combines historical facts with a literary (imaginative) framework provided by the biblical text. (WVG) 3. OLD TESTAMENT

HISTORY: A THEOLOGICAL

PERSPECTIVE

Students of the OT even superficially in touch with biblical theology are well aware of the sometimes uneasy coexistence of history and theology as components of that discipline. The perceptions of the relationship of the two run the gamut from an absolute bifurcation that views them as mutually exclusive to a coincidence obliterating any distinction (Deist, 23-28). Basic questions relative to this problem are: (1) Is the OT a history book? (2) Is it a theological compendium? (3) Is it perhaps somewhat a melding of the two, a history of Israel’s religion? (4) Is it a Heilsgeschichte, an interpreted recital of Israel’s faith, the underlying factual data of which may or may not be in line with the confession of what happened or even important to it? The answers to these and similar questions are essential to the resolution of the tension precipitated by the history/theology interpenetration.

A. The Nature of the OT: Theology, Not History A confessional stance that views the OT as revelation must logically conclude that at its core it is a set of theological texts. Notwithstanding other critical and literary analyses, it presents itself as an expression of the mind and purposes of God, who, through its multifaceted witness, has spoken of himself and his works. Even those with other presuppositions as to the character of the Bible must concede that the OT’s own consistent portrayal of itself is that it is the conveyor of transcendent truth. It is a word from and about God either in fact or in ancient Israel’s perception. To say this is to say nothing about the forms in which the theological message is cast, i.e., the literary garb that clothes the body of truth; or the strategy employed by the ancient authors and compilers of the texts, i.e., whether it is propositional, categorical, or (historical) narrative. Such matters must be decided on literary-critical and form-critical grounds. What is important to note here is that a theological message 68

Guide

need not be wedded to a “theological text,” if there be such a thing. Theology has to do with the content of the communication, literature and strategy with its form. 1. The relationship of history to theology. The objective reader of the OT comes away from the text with the overwhelming impression that he or she has been reading history. To be sure, it may be unfamiliar history and history couched in and intermingled with literary forms that seem alien to “normal” historiography, but it is history nevertheless. Those familiar with the fact that history writing can be done in almost unlimited ways have an even stronger impression that the Old Testament is professing at least to be rehearsing and interpreting historical events. However, experienced students of history are quick to sense that there is a fundamental difference between the OT as reportorial history and as ideology cast in somewhat an historiographical form. Forms resembling myth, legend, saga, aetiology, and the like offer clues to suggest that the history narrated in the OT is one that must be defined in a highly nuanced way. The term narrated is perhaps the best way to characterize the overall flow of the biblical account regardless of the technical labels applied to the units forming its building blocks (Barr, 1976, 266-67). If the OT is anything, it is a story or collection of stories with discernible characters, plots, themes, crises, resolutions, and other elements

familiar to this kind of literature. But specifically, it is story in the service of history or, more simply, narrated history. This is much in line with ANE and classical models, which, contrary to most modern conventions, not only do not view history and story as

antithetical but rather as naturally and necessarily complementary (Millard, 47-50). If biography is the story of a single life, history is the story of many lives, even national and international in scale. When this understanding of OT history is applied to the matter of the relationship of history to theology, it becomes clear that the OT is narrated or “historicized” theology. To refer again to the definitions of biography and history as stories of individuals and groups of individuals respectively, one might speak of theology as the story or even “history” of God. That is, God has revealed himself in creation, event,

and dialogue (word) in such a way as to constitute a story, one that gives the OT such a unique historiographical shape because it is written from his perspective and designed according to his objectives. One’s underlying assumptions about the OT will, of course, dictate his historiosophical conclusions about the storyline of the narrative and, indeed, the very facticity of the events purported to have occurred. Is the OT an account of history as God preordained (or at least permitted) it (theology), or is it merely the account by an ancient people of their own attempts to recover and interpret events that profoundly shaped their lives and their understanding of God (theologizing)? These questions touch upon the fundamental nature of the theological enterprise. 2. The historical nature of biblical theology. If history and theology are inextricable, how does this interrelationship work itself out in practical, formal terms? The response lies in recalling again that the historical framework and development of the OT message is that of narrative, the telling of stories each of which is a subset of The Story, the self-disclosure of Yahweh through his works and words. One looks in the OT, therefore, for the elements of story—for beginnings, plot, development, emphases, climax, and conclusion. But precisely because theology is the story of God—with all that implies—it is a story that leads pedagogically to decision and commitment. Its purpose is more than merely to provide information about God; it is designed also to

69

Guide

communicate clearly the human predicament and how that predicament can be resolved by the (re)establishment of a redemptive, divine-human relationship (VanGemeren, 31-34).

If the story as a whole is to be taken seriously as portraying facts, the persons and events to which it attests must also be taken seriously. That is, it must be seen as a

true story, a narrative not only reflecting perception about events but one that recounts with accuracy and integrity the events as they actually happened. This does not mean

that the “facts” lie before us unfiltered and without nuance, of course, but it does and

must mean, if it is theology, that the facts conform to reality; i.e., that they are “true facts” (V. Long, 98-99, 191-93). In many instances, however, the facts are such as to be known only to God and to be communicated only by revelation. Others are gleaned from private or personal settings, in some extreme cases only from privileged conversations or even thought. These come to be part of the story either by their being shared by the participants or by what critics call “narrator omniscience” (Alter, 157). Clues usually exist to determine when such a device is being employed so that the reader can know to what extent such scenes can be judged to reflect actuality or only a set of circumstances likely to produce the event as recorded. The theological usefulness of reconstructed events, conversation, or thoughts is, of course, a matter of some debate. But when even these are set

within a theological setting that regards the whole text in some sense as being revelatory, the problems are greatly alleviated.

These theoretical and epistemological issues aside, that of the nature of the history upon which the theology is based yet remains and must be addressed, if only briefly. Following a period in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century of skeptical criticism in which the OT was divested of virtually any historical credibility, a reaction took place, especially with Gerhard von Rad, that attempted to rehabilitate the OT historically and theologically by asserting that Israel’s faith was rooted and grounded in historical event (von Rad, 1984, 168-71). This retrieved a sense of the historical underpinnings of biblical theology and gave rise to a renewed appreciation of the OT as a witness to God’s activity in time and space. However, history to von Rad and his school was redefined to mean the account of the past as reconstructed and interpreted by Israel’s traditionists. While appealing, therefore, to the OT as a record of God’s saving acts (Heilsgeschichte), these scholars were suggesting that record can never be a witness to events as they actually happened but only to their meaning. That is, the ancient tradents mined from their past certain events or stories of events; reflected upon their theological implications; and then reshaped, embellished, and otherwise sacralized them as they transmitted them to later

generations. The result of such a process, it was maintained, was the hammering out of a body of truth confessed in credal form but shorn of any claim to absolute historical facticity. History, then, exists in the OT at two levels; that which actually occurred (von Rad’s critical minimum) and that which Israel confessed as the basis of its existence and witness (his theological maximum) (von Rad, 1962, 108). This is not the place to enter the debate over the kind of history that constitutes the marrow of OT theology. Suffice it to say that a view of history that requires each interpreter to decide for himself what could or could not or what did or did not occur

70

Guide

opens itself to a radical subjectivism that divests the OT of any genuine historical and theological authority. 3. The characteristics of OT history. Granted that the OT is fundamentally a history—albeit one designed to advance theological purposes—it is still apparent that it is history writing almost sui generis in its subject matter, its literary vehicles, and its unique predilections. The following list of characteristics, while not exhaustive, will help to establish the observations just made. (a) The history of the OT is overwhelmingly narrative in expression. From beginning to end the dealings of God with humankind, their response to him, and their interrelationships at both individual and corporate levels appear in story form. Even so-called legal texts, paraeneses, and prophetic addresses are lodged in narrative contexts as justifications of, explanations for, or reactions to certain events of the story. The Psalms and Wisdom literature may not be so easily explained in these terms, but many Psalms titles and headings of Wisdom passages suggest a sensitivity on the part of authors and/or compilers to root these texts within some kind of historico-narrative setting. And though there are many stories, the reader of the whole OT corpus comes away with the distinct impression that they are all part of one story, one overriding message that may, indeed, be told with enormous complexity. (b) The history of the OT is biographical. We have argued that the story of the OT is one related from God’s viewpoint, not humanity’s, and that this is one of its distinguishing characteristics as history. But ironically enough, the record is relatively absent of any story about God. That is, he is the principal actor—the protagonist—but he always tells the story about himself through the lives and lips of his people. One learns about God primarily as one observes God in events and persons. The theocentricity of the Bible is ultimately observable in its anthropocentricity. This leads to the observation that the stories of the OT, i.e., its history, are

essentially biographies. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Genesis, where the mighty cultures and empires of the Mesopotamian and Egyptian worlds are eclipsed by the poignant and intensely personal accounts of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. To a lesser extent this focus on individuals pervades the remainder of the OT record. Even in the years of the monarchy the attention is not so much on the nations of Israel and Judah (to say nothing of those of the larger world) but on kings and prophets. A remarkable example of this is the preoccupation in the books of Kings with Elijah and Elisha, whose exploits dominate fourteen chapters out of a total of forty-seven. (c) The history of the OT is tendentious. A justified criticism of all historiography is that it is inescapably biased. Any historian, no matter how resolute his determination otherwise, views the past and interprets his sources through the lenses of his own training, experiences, presuppositions, and prejudices. There is no such thing as “objective” history writing, so that there can be no such thing as a neutral portrayal of the past. The past comes to us as much as an expression of opinion or propaganda as it does a set of unsullied facts. In reality, then, there is no hope of perfectly equating historical data with the events they purport to relate. To some extent, then, the heilsgeschichtliche school is correct in asserting that

the OT is more an interpretation of history than a scientific attempt to reconstruct history as it actually occurred. Where this school is often wrong is in the extent to which it suggests this “mythologizing” has occurred and in the implied assertion that interpretawl

Guide

tion of event is necessarily divergent from or even contradictory to the actual facts of the event. There is no reason in principle to insist that historical occurrences cannot coincide with the way they are narrated or even understood (Goldingay, 1972, 87-91). In the case of the OT, an admittedly tendentious composition, theological concerns outweigh historical ones—but not to the point of vitiating the historical truth claims of the text. Dissonance (if any) between events and their meaning(s) is confined to matters of viewpoint, emphasis, and significance. Whether it is the viewpoint of God or only a human being that is asserted dictates the emphasis to be given to an episode and surely is decisive in determining its theological significance. (d) The history of the OT is theocentric. The idiosyncratic approach to history in the OT derives directly from its confession that it is the Word of God, not the words of human beings, and therefore it finds its point of departure, its thematic unity, and its

ultimate resolution in him. One may challenge the proposition that Scripture is in fact revelation, of course, but it is impossible to scout its unambiguous self-attestation to

that effect. Regardless of any particular critical assessment, the OT reads as an outpouring of the heart of God, the benevolent Creator of all things, who, through history and word, is undertaking the mighty redemptive work of restoring all things to his dominion. The creation, especially humankind, is certainly not peripheral to the story, but neither can it usurp the narrative’s own center, which is God himself.

(e) The history of the OT is selective (Halpern, 6-7). Inherent to its theocentricity is the absence in it of any other primary pole of reference. If the biblical story is indeed the story of God, events, no matter how important otherwise, that do not contribute to the central message are ignored, even those that find lavish exposure in the “press” of the ANE world. Similarly, what appear to be incidents unworthy of inclusion in any history, especially one of such brief compass as the OT, are sometimes related in painstaking detail. When either is the case, perceptive analysis of the accounts against the backdrop of the Bible’s own central concerns makes crystal clear the methodological rationale: Only that which contributes to the story of God, i.e., to the theological intention of the text, is worthy of comment. Thus, whole centuries can

be bypassed (e.g., the approximately 335 years between Jacob’s death and Moses’ birth) or long chapters can be devoted to a relatively brief period of time (e.g., the forty years covered by Exod 12 through Deut, 125 chapters!). What happened in Hyksos Egypt was of enormous significance to world history of that period but it mattered little to the salvific story. On the other hand, the Exodus deliverance, the forming of the cov-

enant relationship at Sinai, the giving of its stipulations, and the providential care of Israel in the desert—all these, though of no concern to the empires of the world, were

crucial to the working out of sacred history. Theological history speaks loud and clear, then, by what it does not recount as well as by what it does. There are, of course, instances where the same events are attested to in both the

OT and ANE texts. These provide opportunities to see not only complementary accounts at best but also clashing and contradictory ideologies at worst. One notable example is the story of Sennacherib’s siege of Jerusalem in 701 BC, a siege that, according to the OT version, was lifted when Yahweh sent his angel to devastate the

Assyrian army (2 Kgs 18:13-19:37). Sennacherib’s scribes note only that the siege was undertaken—its outcome is not reported except for Hezekiah’s payment of tribute (Luckenbill, 33-34). There is enough agreement between the two accounts to guarantee 72

Guide

the historicity of the event but enough difference to show considerable divergence of interpretation as to causes and outcomes. The disposition of the scholar will inevitably determine the version he or she finds more credible in every such instance. (f) OT history is professedly historiographic (Smend, 54-55). The tendentious, selective nature of a text by itself cannot preclude either its historicity or its claims to be history writing. Other disqualifications must be sought if one is interested in justifying such conclusions. The credibility of the OT as a historical account also must not rise or fall on the issue of whether it conforms to certain norms created by modern scholars as to what historiography must be or do. This is particularly the case where the Bible is disbarred from that arena of history because of its overtly theological spirit, and, more precisely, because of its inclusion of supernatural events as part of the historical fabric. This is not the place to argue the plausibility and historical verifiability of miracles or even to address their almost routine appearance in the OT as factual data. The point is, they do appear that way, and so the question that must be asked is whether or not historiography can be compatible with the transcendent. More bluntly, can the existence of God and his supernatural interventions into human affairs qualify as the stuff of history? Most historians will likely respond that historical accounts are reliable only to the extent that they comport with reality, that is, with experienced reality. As soon as they move into the realm of the unique, the unrepeated (or unrepeatable), especially the metaphysical, they surrender any claim to historicity (Collingwood, 135-39). While response to that line of thinking is inappropriate here, it must be stressed that there is a difference between historicity and the literary forms in which history writing is done. Whether or not the OT accounts can and must be believed, there can be no doubt what-

soever that their authors or compilers intend them to be and that they write of them according to acceptable literary standards of historiography. (g) OT history is consistently contextual. It is the nature of most approaches to theology to be abstract and existential, but this is decidedly not true of biblical theology, which, almost by definition, is a discipline tied to historical movement and development. Such theology, then, presupposes a history in the normal sense of that form, a history that is consistent with its own set of data and that finds lodging in and reference to the larger world of its particular interest. The OT is a prime example of history writing thus understood, for its authors betray a pervasive interest in their own past and that of their forebears, as well as a constant awareness of their immediate and more remote

environment. A few examples must suffice. The deut. historian, recounting the construction of Solomon’s temple, dates its commencement to Solomon’s fourth year, which he further identifies as the 480th year since the Exodus (1 Kgs 6:1). By such information he not only forges theological links between the Mosaic and Davidic eras but provides a clue as to his sense of historical continuity and connectedness. The Exodus itself is said to have occurred 430 years after Jacob’s descent to Egypt with his family. In fact, the author is careful to note that “‘at the end of the 430 years, to the very day, all the LORD’s divisions left Egypt” (Exod 12:41, emphasis mine). In this manner he secures the Exodus as an event rooted in real time and also establishes another linkage, this between

the patriarchs and the promise on the one hand, and the deliverance of the nation as ful73

Guide

fillment on the other (cf. Gen 15:13-14). Also, from the early period is the almost enigmatic reference to the building of Hebron “seven years before Zoan in Egypt” (Num 13:22). The identification

of Zoan

with Tanis, which

many

scholars

believe

was

founded ca. 1730 BC, provides a rather precise date for the construction of Hebron as a city (de Vaux, 258-59). More important for the OT as history is the remarkable interest the tradition shows in places and events that were known in the ANE world, the facts of which could be validated, and the desire to embed the salvific history in the historical milieu of which it was a part. The records of later OT history are without parallel in ANE texts in respect to their preoccupation with contextualization. From the division of the kingdom of Israel in 931 BC to the deportation of the northern kingdom in 722 BC, the historians monotonously belabor the chronological and regal interconnections between Israel and Judah. And throughout the record are references to Egypt, Assyria, and other foreign powers and their role in the history of God’s own people. Such references intensify after 722 and especially after 586, the year of Jerusalem’s fall and the beginning of the Babylonian exile proper. Now appear such connections as Jehoiachin’s thirty-seventh year of exile and Evil-Merodach’s first year as king (2 Kgs 25:27), Zedekiah’s tenth year and Nebuchadnezzar’s eighteenth (Jer 32:1), and the second year of Darius and the resumption of temple construction under the prophet Haggai (Hag 1:1). Clearly, Israel’s history from beginning to end is marked by all the characteristics of careful, contextualized historical scholarship. (h) OT history is interpretive. This observation is akin to the point made above that the biblical account is tendentious and selective, for a text communicates its mean-

ing almost as much by its silence as it does by what it articulates. Here, however, the focus is on specific clues that indicate authorial assessment, reaction, or interpretation

of what has happened or what has been said. Much of the Mosaic material is interlaced with this kind of material, most especially Deut with its constant paraenetic appeals and its exhortations to act on covenant expectations. The more obviously historiographic books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah are replete with examples of editorial asides concerning the persons and events of history they have dutifully recorded. The author of Samuel, for example, informs his readers that in his own time, as opposed to the days of Samuel the prophet, conveyors of revelation were called “prophets,” whereas earlier they were known as “seers” (1 Sam 9:9). Or he explains Israel’s military difficulties in contending with the Philistines as being at least partially the superiority of the latter in the development of iron technology (13:19-22). Even the apparently laconic observation that “in the spring, at the time when kings go off to war, ... David remained in Jerusalem” (2 Sam 11:1) is fraught with overtones of theological interpretation, for the narrator is clearly standing in judgment on David’s (in)action and hinting that what he did was wrong and would bring disastrous consequences. The best-known critique is that of the so-called deut. iibihians who, after looking back at Israel’s history from the vantage point of her collapse in 722 BC, draws theological conclusions as to its causes and effects (2 Kgs 17). He states rather forthrightly that “the king of Assyria captured Samaria and deported the Israelites to Assyria” (v. 6) and then makes the dogmatic assertion that “all this took place because the Israelites had sinned against the LorD their God” (v. 7). There follows then a 74

Guide

lengthy litany of specifics, which, interestingly, traces the entire history of the nation in the span of seventeen verses (vv. 7-23). These verses are more than a mere recapitulation of that 700-year period—they are a sermon reflecting on it and attempting to draw lessons from it. They form part of that inescapable thread of interpretation that is woven into the fabric of the historical story of the OT. B. The Structure of the OT As a Historical Record Having addressed somewhat theoretical issues about history and theology and the characteristics of OT history, it is important now to look at the record in its canonical shape in order to determine (1) what pattern, if any, informs the presentation of the narrative, and (2) what significance attaches to each section and to the whole viewed

collectively. 1. The focal point of OT history: The Plains of Moab. An ordinary reading of the OT leads naturally to the view that the story begins with Genesis. And such a view is correct insofar as the present order of the account is concerned; but when one examines the question of the Sitz im Leben that elicited Genesis as well as the rest of the Torah (and the entire OT, for that matter), one quickly comes to a radically different

conclusion. The Bible’s own perspective is that Israel possessed little or no literature it considered religiously authoritative (revelatory) prior to Moses’ having composed the Pentateuch, an accomplishment completed just before his death in Moab (Deut 1:1-8; 31:24-29). Admittedly, the tradition nowhere explicitly asserts Mosaic authorship of Genesis or even Leviticus, but it does attest clearly to his having written parts or all of Exod (17:14; 24:4, 7; 34:27), Num (33:1-2), and Deut (31:9, 11). And, of course, this was the

unanimous precritical opinion expressed by the remainder of the OT (Josh 1:8; 8:31; 1 Kgs 2:3; 2 Kgs 14:6; 21:8; Ezra 6:18; Neh 13:1), postbiblical Jewish tradition (Baba bathra 14b-15a; Josephus, Ad Apionem 1:8), and the NT (Matt 19:8; John 5:46-47;

7:19; Acts 3:22). The universally recognized unity of the Pentateuch from earliest times also argues presumptively for the antiquity of the Bible’s own witness to the role of Moses as author/compiler of the entire collection (Dillard and Longman, 37). Granting this construal, the occasion calling forth the inscripturation of the ancient Hebrew tradition immediately becomes clear. The audience before Moses had witnessed the mighty acts of God at Sinai, and many of the elders among them had actually participated in the most significant of all—the Exodus and the forging of the Sinai covenant relationship with Yahweh. They had all heard of the promises to their patriarchal ancestors, particularly those having to do with the land of Canaan, the very land they could see to the west, across the Jordan. How much they knew about the remote past is, of course, unknown. It is inconceivable that they were bereft of all his-

torical resources, even written texts, but it is fruitless to speculate as to the nature and extent of these. The immediate situation demanded certain clarifications and responses by Moses. He, Israel’s theocratic leader for forty years, was denied access to the Promised Land. Under what circumstances, then, were they authorized to proceed further? Even under Joshua’s command, what possible political, moral, or even theological justification did they have for crossing the river, dismantling the Canaanite fortifications, conquering the settlements, and slaughtering men, women, and children? These and other questions must have been troubling indeed.

PS

Guide

Faced with these issues, Moses undertook to provide a fully comprehensive account of his people—who they were, whence they came, how they related to the nations of the world, and, most important, what role they were to play in the design of Yahweh

their God. He had elected, redeemed, and made covenant with them—this

they knew—but what did it all mean in light of a universal, overarching purpose? A canonical response is to be seen in the Torah, the massive composition that provided Israel with a raison d’étre and, incidentally almost, with a context broad enough to include Creation, the Fall, the Flood, and the dispersion of the human race. It was out

of these universal events and concerns that Israel had sprung precisely to address redemptively the implications of world history. It might be said, then, that the OT historical account began in Moab on the eve of the conquest of Canaan (Merrill, 21-25). 2. Exodus-Numbers: The constitution of a nation. From Moses’ perspective the most pressing need was to provide a review of the nation’s recent past, that commencing with their sojourn in Egypt and subsequent departure. Such a suggestion can by no means be based on textual data, for the record is silent as to precisely when Moses

composed his history and in what order. Theologically and logically the case can be made that matters of immediate concern would first be addressed and then those more remote (Gen). Deut, it seems, would have completed the collection, serving as it did as

both a summation and a prospective. Num 33:1-4, the preface to an itinerary beginning with the Exodus and ending in the plains of Moab (vv. 5-49), states that “at the LORD’s command Moses recorded the stages in their journey” (v. 2). The tradition thus asserts that either Moses kept records throughout the course of events, which he then collected into the present account (Exod 12:37-Num 33:49), or he composed the account de novo on the basis of his recollections (Ashley, 623; Budd, 351-52). The former is, of course, more likely. By “stages of the journey” is meant more than a jejune listing of sites. It is clearly a way of referring to the whole course of history associated with these places. Not to be overlooked is the reference to Aaron’s death in “the fortieth year after the Israelites

came out of Egypt” (Num 33:38). This presupposes that the written history as represented in the tradition was completed near the very end of Moses’ life. The beginning of the itinerary is not coterminous with the beginning of Israel’s history but only with that part of it that followed the Exodus. But that was a crucial historical juncture, not just because of the unparalleled event of the Exodus deliverance itself, but because it marked the transition from Israel’s being a rather loosely defined people to their being a bona fide nation. The act of national formation was the contract made at Sinai, to be sure, but Exodus redemption was essential to the process leading up to that status. On the other hand, being merely a people did not suggest something less than a historical reality. Many (if not most) nations have a prenational stage in which various social, political, and ethnic elements coalesce for whatever reason into entities designated as kingdoms, nations, states, or the like. There was thus a clear understanding by

Israel of its prenational character as a people—one in bondage to a superpower, to be sure—and even of its ancient roots in a line of patriarchal ancestors. According to their commonly held tradition, fleshed out now by Moses in writing for perhaps the first time, Israel consisted of descendants of twelve sons of Jacob, a man whose name was changed to the eponymous surrogate Israel (Exod 1:1-7). Jacob

76

Guide

himself sprang from Abraham, the recipient of Yahweh’s elective, covenant grace and the true founder of the nation. Exod, Lev, and Num regularly refer back to this ances-

tral origination of the nation with the intention of demonstrating that Israel was not an ad hoc, spontaneous generation from disparate folk but rather was the national embodiment of promises made to common forefathers (Exod 2:24; 3:6, 15, 16; 4:5; 6:3, 8; 32:13; 33:1; Lev 26:42; Num 32:11).

Within the Exod-Num corpus itself, the hinge of history revolves around the Sinai covenant (brit, > # 1382). All that leads up to it (Exod 1-18) is preparatory to it

and all that follows it (Exod 25-Num 36) is in consequence of it. Nowhere is the theological shaping of Israel’s history more clear than here, for the making of covenant, unwitnessed by the nations of earth and hence unimportant to them, became the controlling feature and factor in Israel’s historical and even eschatological life. At Sinai her course was set as the servant people whose deliverance from Egypt was precisely for the purpose of entering into the privileges and responsibilities of covenant relationship. Adherence to or defection from its terms would determine Israel’s future destiny as a nation, a point made most emphatically in Lev 26:3-45. 3. Genesis: The history of Israel’s origins. Critical scholarship—even that which is open to the possibility of historical nuclei in Exod-Num—is nearly universally in opposition to the description of Gen as history. Beginning with Gunkel it has become fashionable to speak of the various elements of the book as myth, saga, legend,

novella, and almost anything else but history (Coats, passim). It is likewise a dogma of some recent scholarship that Moses had nothing to do with the composition of Gen but that, in fact, it is primarily the product of the creative pen of Israel’s great postexilic theologian, the Yahwist (Van Seters, 1992, 332).

This critical construct of the creation of Gen as literature and its historical authenticity is, of course, at variance with the Bible’s own witness, the only voice to

which theologians should give heed if they wish to understand Israel’s own portrayal of her faith. That witness (implicitly) and later Jewish-Christian tradition (explicitly) concur that Moses was responsible for that great foundational text of the Pentateuch. We must still see how that text contributes to the theological character of OT history. As suggested above, the OT picture is that of Moses, east of Canaan, burdened to communicate to his people in a permanent form a message by which they could understand who they were, how they originated, and what purpose they were to serve - as the covenant people of Yahweh. This required a sketch of their history to that point, first as a people delivered from Egyptian bondage to become at Sinai a covenant nation, and second as descendants of a common father who found themselves in Egypt in the first place. What was required next was a narrative linkage between themselves and those ancestors of ancient times. That narrative is Gen (> Genesis: Theology). The tradition is silent as to how Moses (or any author) gained access to the events of that pre-Mosaic era, though perhaps terms such as t6/édét might suggest written texts (cf. NIV account(s]; Gen 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, 9; 37:2) (Harrison, 547-51). But this is not important to the Bible’s viewpoint, for the real issue is how Gen functions as a prolegomenon to Israel’s history. That it did so is clear from internal biblical evidence, such

as the already adduced references in Exod-Num to the patriarchs and the promises made to them that constituted Israel’s historical and theological underpinnings. 77

Guide

Another linkage and beginning of Exod 50:26; Exod 1:6). Thus begins (“the Israelites

is the overlapping information of the end of Gen (50:22-26) (1:1-7), especially the blunt statement “and Joseph died” (Gen one era ends (“he was placed in a coffin in Egypt’) and another were fruitful and multiplied greatly and became exceedingly

numerous,” Exod 1:7).

Gen as history takes the form of an alternating pattern of enlargement and constriction. It begins with the original couple, Adam and Eve, whose offspring proliferate to the point that “men began to increase in number on the earth” (Gen 6:1). The judgment of the Flood reduces this number to eight—Noah, his wife, their three sons, and

their wives (7:13). Again there is expansion as the descendants of Noah’s sons become “nations spread out over the earth” (10:32). The next constriction is not of a physical kind—one that reduced the human race to a biological handful—but a remnant of a theological character. Out of all the peoples and nations of the earth, a single man is called to be the progenitor of a new line, a seed that would issue into a great redemptive force designed to bless humanity by effecting reconciliation between God and his fallen creation (12:1-3). Like a new Adam or a second Noah this man, Abraham, launched once more the process of enlargement, one that in time resulted in the extravagant language of Exod 1:7: “the land [of Egypt] was filled with them.” Israel at Moab must be instructed as to this course of events, this history that accounted for who they, the “exceedingly numerous” multitude, really were. They must understand that they were not just an accident of history, one nation among many others, but that they were, in a sense, the very axis of history. The history of the pre-Abrahamic world led to him and that of the post-Abrahamic world led to them. At once an awesome privilege and an onerous responsibility, their role, Moses taught, was to be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod 19:6), a people whose very existence and whose claims to the land of Canaan found justification in all the elective choices that were so clearly laid out in the Gen history. 4, Deuteronomy: The paradigm of Israel’s history. It is commonplace in modern OT scholarship to date the book of Deut in its present form to the exilic or even postexilic period, while conceding that it existed in a recension known as the “Book of the Law” somewhat earlier than the reign of King Josiah (ca. 650 BC; cf. 2 Kgs 22-23). But the view also prevails that Deut provides the ideological framework or touchstone against which the deut. history was composed. This collection, Joshua-2 Kings, is thus construed to be a history of Israel from Moses to King Jehoiachin, whose guiding editorial principle is the degree to which the nation did or did not conform to the deut. covenant mandates (Nicholson, 1967, 121-24).

A problem immediately presents itself here in that it is difficult to see how Israel could have been expected to live by deut. requirements in a time earlier than the composition of the book. Furthermore, how can the deut. history realistically portray Israel’s past as one whose ebb and flow was indicative of the extent to which it conformed to as yet unwritten covenant principles? The usual resolution is to suggest (a) that the deut. tradition might greatly antedate its enshrinement in texts—even going back in nucleus to Moses himself—and (b) that the historical account of deut. history is a “theologized” version; i.e., one that is aware of the facts of Israel’s history but that feels free to relate and interpret those facts so as to bring them into line with cause-and-effect nexus (Van Seters, 1983, 228, 360-61). When Israel was obedient to

78

Guide the Mosaic covenant stipulations, she was blessed; when she disobeyed, she experienced its curses. Further attention to the Deut-deut. history relationship follows in the

next section. Next to Leviticus, perhaps, Deut is the least overtly historiographical writing in the Pentateuch (+ Deuteronomy: Theology). From one perspective, it is essentially a collection of sermons and other addresses by Moses who, nearing his time of death, has an intense desire to rehearse Yahweh’s covenant faithfulness to Israel in the past and to prepare them for the life to come in Canaan. The text, therefore, is peppered with warning, exhortation, praise, blame, encouragement, and threat. But modern scholarship also recognizes another way of assessing Deut: It is a massive covenant document. Without entering into the debate as to the precise cultural milieu reflected by the form and content of the book, it is safe to say that most scholars identify Deut as a composition at least loosely modeled after a suzerain-vassal treaty text. It clearly contains all the elements attested to by that genre. Different from these models, however, are the persistent historical currents that

flow through the book of Deut. This is in addition to the first four chapters, which, as a discrete element of a covenant text, may be called the “historical prologue” and therefore are patently historical in literary form. Other instances of historical reflection are found in 5:1-5, 22-33; 9:7-10:11; 23:3-8; 24:9; 25:17-19; 26:5b-9; 29:2-9; 32:6-18, 50-52. And, of course, the book concludes with the narrative of Moses’ death and burial (34:1-8), an historical vignette.

The purpose of the historical references in Deut is primarily pedagogical: The Israel of the present and future should learn from the Israel of the past. The historian’s selective use of historical episodes provides helpful insight into the theological appropriation of history. Thus, when Moses announces covenant renewal, he refers back to

the earlier occasion of covenant-making at Sinai in order to make appropriate comparisons and contrasts (Deut 5:1-5). When he attempts to prepare the people for the Conquest (9:1-5), he reminds them of how disobedient they had been in the past, particularly in the incident of the golden calf, and what disastrous results ensued (9:7-10:11). Finally, he exhorts them to keep covenant on the basis of God’s faithfulness to them in the Exodus and the desert sojourn (29:2-9). Even a static covenant relationship, then, issues from historical encounters and must be lived out in historical

experience. 5. Joshua-2 Kings: An assessment of Israel’s historical and theological experience. We noted in the previous section that the OT books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel,

and Kings have come to be known as the deut. history because they appear to narrate Israel’s history in terms of its conformity to or rejection of the covenant ideals of Deut (> Deuteronomistic Theology: Theology). One may question the critical presuppositions that gave rise to this approach, but that these books reflect deut. concerns can hardly be doubted. In fact, such a relationship provides prima facie evidence for the Bible’s own witness as to the authorship and provenance of Deut. That is, the chronological and theological priority of Deut is exactly what one would expect if indeed deut. history already posits a deut. frame of reference (McConville, 73-78). To return to the issue at hand—the deut. history as a theological history—there are numerous references in the material suggestive of its character as such. Never is

there good, objective reason for doubting the truth claims of the text, even when it 72

Guide

rehearses the supernatural acts of Joshua, Elijah, or Elisha, but neither can one claim

that it is ordinary historiography. It is historical narrative of a highly selective, tendentious, and interpretive nature, designed not merely to recount events but to explain them as part of a larger pattern of divine design and intention. Nowhere is this seen better than in the lengthy observation by the historian as to the decline and fall of the northern kingdom Israel in 722 BC. After recounting the reign of the last king, Hoshea (2 Kgs 17:1-6), he goes on to comment on the disastrous end of this reign by linking it to the inevitable consequences of centuries of covenant infidelity (vv. 7-23). “All this [the Assyrian deportation of Israel] took place,” the historian-theologian says, “because the Israelites had sinned against the LORD their God, who had brought them up out of Egypt from under the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt” (v. 7). Reaching back even before the founding of the monarchy, he speaks of Israel’s worship of the gods of Canaan as the epitome of that sin against Yahweh (v. 8). This same historian, or others like him, had to this point laboriously reviewed the details of Israel’s history, but here in this summation all else is sublimated to the

essential point that it was the sin of theological treason that ultimately called down the holy wrath of Yahweh. One cannot escape the impression that the entire record, then, was shaped with this central focus in view. Indeed, a close reading of the entire deuteronomistic history can lead to no other conclusion. It is history and it is to be believed, but it is history that ignores everything that does not contribute to the central idea of covenant violation as well as history that concentrates on precisely those events that illustrate that rebellion. Careful comparison between Deut and the deuteronomistic history compels the reader to conclude that the history of Israel is the sorry recital of a systematic disregard of the covenant requirements so emphatically outlined by Moses. This could be shown throughout the corpus were space to permit, but it will be helpful to see how this summation section in 2 Kings conclusively demonstrates this assertion. The theologian introduces his explanation for Israel’s judgment by saying that Israel had “sinned against the LORD” and had “worshiped other gods” (2 Kgs 17:7) (Hobbs, 226-27). This strikes at the heart of the deut. covenant principle that “you shall have no other gods before me” (Deut 5:7). That this covenant violation is central in this indictment is clear from the statement that follows: “[Israel] followed the practices [lit. statutes] of the nations the LORD had driven out before them” (2 Kgs 17:8). Having abandoned the covenant demands of Deut, they entered into covenant with the gods of Canaan. This was reflected by the proliferation of worship centers they installed (2 Kgs 17:9-11), contrary to the insistence that Yahweh be worshiped in one central sanctuary only (Deut 12:1-14). And the symbols of paganism they erected—sacred stones and Asherah poles (2 Kgs 17:10)—are precisely the objects that were to be demolished (Deut 12:3). These were the accouterments of idolatry, the attempt to concretize the

invisible forces of nature. This was taboo to Israel (5:8-10; 7:25-26) but tragically was practiced by her throughout the course of her preexilic history. The litany of the theological interpretation of Israel’s history concludes as it began: with the observation that Israel “forsook all the commands of the LORD their God” (2 Kgs 17:16; cf. v. 7). This is illustrated by seven specific violations: (a) they made two calf idols (v. 16; cf. Exod 32:4; 1 Kgs 12:28-29); (b) they created an Asherah

80

Guide

pole (v. 16; cf. 1 Kgs 14:15, 23); (c) they “bowed down to the starry hosts” (v. 16; cf. Deut 17:2-5); (d) they worshiped Baal (v. 16; cf. 1 Kgs 16:31); (e) they sacrificed their children in the fire (v. 17; cf. Deut 12:31; 2 Kgs 16:3); (f) they practiced divination and sorcery (v. 17; cf. Deut 18:10-12; 1 Sam 28:3-7); and (g) “they sold themselves to do evil in the eyes of the LORD” (v. 17; cf. 1 Kgs 21:20). This last statement encapsulates the whole period of the deut. history and is a fit way of interpreting the spirit of those

times. 6. Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah: History from a postexilic perspective. Spatial and chronological distance have a way of bringing refined, renewed, and perhaps even contradictory ways of perceiving persons and events. The American Revolution is understood in different ways by modern British historians on the one hand and colonial American eyewitnesses on the other. The same “facts” often yield different meanings to different persons at different times. A superficial reading of the OT suggests that the deuteronomistic history of Israel, completed no later than 560 BC, is fundamentally dissimilar to the account of that history recorded by the Chronicler at 400 BC or a little later. The records of Ezra-Nehemiah, touching on events from ca. 540-430 BC, reflect essentially the view-

point, concerns, and subject matter of the Chronicler for that same period of time. That there are some factual differences cannot be denied, though they are far fewer and of lesser consequence that some scholars would make them out to be (> Chronicles: Theology). Most of the variances between the two great histories have to do with selection of data; i.e., what is included and what is omitted (McKenzie,

71-73). It is well known that the Chronicler refrains from discussing in detail the affairs of the northern kingdom, being concerned almost exclusively with Judah as his point of departure. But even there, he overlooks events that tend to discredit the Davidic dynasty, going so far as to ignore completely David’s adultery and other foibles of royal family life that play such a major role in the deut. history. (~ Deuteronomistic Theology) On the other hand, the Chronicler provides enormous detail concerning the Davidic covenant and its ramifications for Israel’s cultus and history (~ David: Theology). Like the deut. historian, he is careful to view history as a reflex of covenant fidel-

ity (or lack thereof), but not with respect to the Sinai covenant. Rather, he bypasses that in the interest of focusing on the Zion theology that springs from Yahweh’s election of an eternal royal house, that of David and his descendants. The books of Kings also view David favorably as the standard against whom all subsequent kings must be judged, but they lack the cultic interest of Chronicles. And it is David at worship who dominates the account. Almost summarily the Chronicler describes David’s rise to power (1 Chron 11-14) so that he might present David as the builder of the place of worship and the organizer of its services and personnel (chs. 15-17, 22-29). Though he could not build the temple itself, the king made all the arrangements for Solomon to do so. The Chronicler then becomes almost totally preoccupied with the cultic aspect of Solomon’s reign, just as he had with the reign of David (2 Chron 1-7; only chs. 8-9 deal with other matters). The remainder of the history reflects the same emphases. While most of the

major events attested to by the deuteronomistic historian are at least briefly cited by the

Chronicler, the latter gives inordinate space to the godly reigns of Jehoshaphat (“he

81

Guide

walked in the ways his father David had followed,” 2 Chron 17:3), four chapters (chs. 17-20); of Hezekiah (“‘he did what was right . . . as his father David had done,” 29:2),

four chapters (chs. 29-32); and of Josiah (“he did what was right . . . and walked in the ways of his father David,” 34:2), two chapters (chs. 34-35). In each case, the kings and

their reigns are celebrated not because of political or cultural achievements but because they brought reformation and restoration to the covenant principles to which David had been called (cf. 17:3-6; 31:20-21; 34:2, 33).

From a strategic standpoint, it was important for the Chronicler to cast his historical account as he did because he (and Ezra and Nehemiah as well) composed his

work long after the Davidic monarchy was a practical reality. History must henceforth be understood as a process leading to a new age, one made possible by the liberating decree of Cyrus (2 Chron 36:22-23) and the rebuilding of the ruined temple and hopes of God’s people (Ezra 1:1-4; 3:8-13; 5:1-5; Neh 9). The theological Tendenz of such accounts of history is unmistakable. 7. The Prophets: Interactions with history. According to the Jewish canonical tradition, the books Joshua through Kings were known as the Former Prophets and Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and The Twelve, the Latter Prophets. This insightful analysis

already recognized not only that prophets were important characters in the former collection, but that they were very much involved in its composition. That is, the so-called deuteronomistic history is a prophetic interpretation of Israel’s past. Whether this view of authorship is correct cannot be determined beyond a doubt. There is no doubt, however, that the canonical prophets, those whose writings

are preserved in the sacred texts, were very much men of their times, who frequently shaped their messages around the historical circumstances of their own age. In doing so they themselves became historians for their interpretations of the nation’s past became part of the stuff of our own understanding of Israel’s history (Laato, 282-86). It is possible here to look briefly at only selected instances in which Israel’s prophets demonstrate historical concern and offer theological reaction to that concern. The great prophet Isaiah, like most of the others, links his life and ministry to the reigns of the kings with whom he was a contemporary (Isa 1:1; > Isaiah: Theology). Like others also, he makes of the present a culminating explanation of the past, that is, its logical and theological outcome, but he also uses the present as a launching pad for the projectile of eschatological hope and expectation. Like the deuteronomistic historian and the Chronicler he rehearses Israel’s past as a means of accounting for present circumstances. In parabolic language, for example, he describes Israel as a vineyard planted and tended by a loving farmer who, when he looked for grapes, found only bad fruit (Isa 5:1-3). The corruption of Israel was the inevitable outcome of her failure to match Yahweh’s covenant expectations (vv. 4-7). Jeremiah, using another metaphor, traces Israel’s history back to the Exodus (> Jeremiah: Theology). From that time and all through the period of the desert and occupation of the land of milk and honey they “came and defiled my land and made my inheritance detestable” (Jer 2:7). That sordid history had become periodized in Jeremiah’s time, and Yahweh described its essence as: “My people have committed two sins: They have forsaken me, the spring of living water, and have dug their own cisterns, broken cisterns that cannot hold water” (2:13). This is the great theme of the OT history of Israel: They had forgotten Yahweh and gone after other gods. 82

Guide

Ezekiel narrates in great detail the story of two daughters, Oholah and Oholibah, who, though harlotrous in Egypt, became the wives of Yahweh (Ezek 23:1-49; > Ezekiel: Theology). Oholah (“her tent”), says Yahweh, was Samaria, and Oholibah (“my tent is in her”) was Jerusalem ‘(v. 4). Before long Oholah revealed her true char-

acter and reverted to prostitution to the Assyrians, who, far from pandering to her, took her into bloody exile. But Oholibah turned out even worse. She plied her trade not only with Assyria but Babylonia as well. The result was the same, betrayal and deportation—a process that had already begun but that would intensify until it was complete (v. 29). The meaning of the allegory surfaces in vv. 37-38: Israel has committed adultery and has desecrated the sanctuary and Sabbath of Yahweh. This, of course, is another way of referring to covenant disloyalty, the predominant motif of the Old Testament historical record as a whole. A final example must suffice, that in Hosea, in which Yahweh speaks, as he did

in Ezekiel, of having brought his people out of Egypt in order to make a covenant with them (Hos 11:1-4; > Hosea: Theology). This time Israel is a son, a beloved (i.e., elected) one, who, though so richly endowed, violated every overture and expression of divine affection. The result would be an inevitable Assyrian conquest and dispersion (v. 5), though not with irremedial and permanent consequences (vv. 8-11). Hosea, like

Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and many other prophets, understood the salient points of their nation’s history well. But more important, he was adept at drawing from it its true significance and implication; that is, he could properly theologize it. 8. The Writings: Interaction with Yahweh and with the historical community. By “Writings” in this context is meant the Psalms and Wisdom literature, all of which share in common the idea of response as opposed to “normal” revelation. Though open to the criticism of being too facile or even too misleading a distinction, what is being suggested is that these texts are the expression of human feelings, worship, and philosophizings rather than vehicles of immediate divine revelation. This, we suggest, by no means diminishes their quality or character as Scripture. Among other things this distinction connotes, it allows these writings to be perceived more clearly as theology in the abstract or systematic sense. It records the thoughtful and prayerful theological constructions of its authors as they wrestle with their own experiences with God and life as well as with whatever canonical texts existed in their times. It is in this sense that we understand them to be interactions with Yahweh and with the community of faith (Westermann, 153-74; Murphy, 125-26).

Having described these compositions as “abstract,” “systematic,” or “philosophizings” does not preclude their historicality. The poets and sages alike of Israel were very much in touch with the historical roots of their culture, whether or not they always verbalized it. And their theology, when properly understood as theirs, was in line with the great themes of OT theological history. More pertinent to our purpose, however, is the writings as history texts. How do their authors contribute to the filling out of the entire historical panorama? The Psalms are particularly rich in this respect (> Psalms: Theology). In addition to information from their titles (see sec. entitled “Characteristics of Old Testament

History”), several psalms recapitulate and reinterpret brief or even rather lengthy stretches of Israel’s history. David poeticizes many of the incidents of his own eventful life, some of which appear elsewhere in the historical literature (cf. Ps 18, 32, 35, 51,

83

Guide

55, 57, 59, 60, 63). On a grander, more sweeping scale are those that use history as a frame upon which to hang theological insights and exhortations. They may even be viewed as creedal recitations of the mighty acts of God on behalf of his people. Ps 78 is a case in point. The poet begins with the Sinai covenant revelation (v. 5) and then reverts back to the Exodus redemption (vv. 12-13) as an event forgotten by Israel in her waywardness. He expatiates on the wilderness sojourn (vv. 14-42) and observes that again they disregarded the source of their blessings, the God who had devastated Egypt with plagues (vv. 43-53). He then traces Israel’s covenant disobedience through the conquest of Canaan (vv. 54-59), the era of the judges (vv. 60-66), and the election of Judah and David (vv. 67-72). Ps 105 goes back even further, to the times of the patriarchs and Yahweh’s

promise to make a nation of their descendants (vv. 6-11). Again the Exodus appears as the central event (vv. 24-38). Ps 106 harks back to the Exodus as well (vv. 6-12), but recalls more particularly Israel’s rebellions in the wilderness (vv. 13-33) and their idol-

atry and subsequent punishment in the days of the judges (vv. 34-46). Ps 135 celebrates Yahweh’s defeat of Egypt, Sihon, and Og (vv. 8-11), victories that guaranteed victory

for God’s people at all times (vv. 13-14). Finally, Ps 136, the great “Hesed-psalm,” traces Yahweh’s strong arm from Exodus to Conquest, all of which must be attributed

not to historical accident but to his covenant love (hesed). Conclusion

There is a history of theology and a theology of history, but neither of these is the proper subject matter of OT history as a theological enterprise. What must be understood is that the OT is both history and theology. Its theological nature does not Vitiate its historical credibility or conformity to actual event nor must its historical nature be allowed to deprive it of its higher dimension of interpreted event. What exists in the record is the story of God’s eternal purposes as worked out in creation, event, word, and reflection. It is not the whole story but it is the true story, one sufficient to lead to redemption and life. BIBLIOGRAPHY

R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 1981; T.R. Ashley, The Book of Numbers, NICOT, 1993; J. Barr, “Revelation Through History in the Old Testament and in Modern Theology,” Int 17,

1963, 193-205; idem, “Story and History in Old Testament Theology,” Theology Digest 24, 1976, 265-71; P. J. Budd, Numbers, 1984; R. E. Clements, “History and Theology in Biblical Narrative,” HBT 4, 1982, 45-60; G. W. Coats, Genesis, With an Introduction to Narrative Litera-

ture, FOTL 1, 1983; R. J. Coggins, “History and Story in Old Testament Study,” JSOT 11, 1979, 36-46; R. G. Collingwood, The Idea of History, 1946; R. de Vaux, The Early History of Israel, 1978; F. Deist, “The Problem of History in Old Testament Theology,” OTWSA 24, 1981, 23-39; R. B. Dillard, and T. Longman III, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 1994; J. Goldingay,

Approaches to Old Testament Interpretation, 1961; idem, ““That You May Know That Yahweh Is God’: A Study in the Relationship Between Theology and Historical Truth in the Old Testament,” TB 23, 1972, 58-93; B. Halpern, The First Historians, 1988; R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1969; T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, WBC, 1985; D. Howard, Jr. An Introduction to the Old Testament Historical Books, 1993, K. Kitchen, “Ancient Orient, ‘Deuteronomism,” and the Old Testament,” in New Perspectives on the Old Testament, J. B. Payne (ed.), 1970, 19-24; A. Laato, “History and Ideology in the Old Testament Prophetic Books,” SJOT 8, 1994,

84

Guide

267-97; B. O. Long, “Historical Narrative and the Fictionalizing Imagination,” VT 35, 1985, 405-16; V. P. Long, The Art of Biblical History, 1994; D. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib, 1924; J. G. McConville, Grace in the End: A Study in Deuteronomic Theology, 1993; S. L.

McKenzie, The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History, 1984; E. H. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel, 1987; idem, “History,” in Cracking Old Testament Codes, D. B. Sandy, J. R. Giese, eds., 1995, 89-112; A. R. Millard, “Story, History, and Theology,” in A. R. Millard, J. K. Hoffmeier, and D. W. Baker, eds., Faith, Tradition, and History: Old Testament Historiography in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context, 1994, 37-64; R. E. Murphy,

The Tree of Life: An Exploration of Biblical Wisdom Literature, 1990; E. W. Nicholson, Deuteronomy and Tradition, 1967; idem, “Story and History in the Old Testament,” in Samuel E. Balentine and John Barton, eds., Language, Theology, and the Bible, 1994, 135-50; W. Pannenberg, Revelation As History, 1968; J. H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch As Narrative,

1992; R. Smend,

“Tradition and History: A Complex Relation,” in Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament, ed. D. A. Knight, 1977, 49-68; J. Van Seters, In Search of History, 1983; idem, Prologue to History: The Yahwist As Historian in Genesis, 1992; W. VanGemeren, The Progress of Redemption, 1988; G. von Rad, OTT 1, 1962; idem, “The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Ancient Israel,” in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays, 1984, 166-204; M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic School, 1972; C. Westermann, Elements of Old Testament Theology,

1982. Eugene H. Merrill

85

Guide 4. OLD TESTAMENT

HISTORY:

A HERMENEUTICAL

PERSPECTIVE

Few areas in the landscape of contemporary OT study present such rocky terrain or are rent by such wide chasms of disagreement as is the area of the historical interpretation of the OT. So expansive is the ground that would have to be covered in order to begin to do justice to the subject, and so many are the pitfalls that would have to be avoided, that I shall have to content myself in this essay with exploring a few basic hermeneutical pathways that must be trod by any who would venture farther into the field. I will begin with some prolegomena relating to such basic questions as the relationships between OT history and the history of ancient Israel, between history and historiography, and between authority and authorship. I will then look at three requirements incumbent upon those who would involve themselves responsibly in the historical interpretation of the OT—viz., literary competence, theological comprehension, and historical criticism. Finally, I will briefly explore four basic steps that typify the work of historians as they amass and assess the available evidence and seek to synthesize their findings into a historical reconstruction that they can defend. The following may raise as many questions in the mind of the reader as it answers, but if it prompts the reader to further exploration of ancient Israelite history, then it will have succeeded, for the words of J. M. Miller written in 1985 still hold true today: “Probably there is no other area of biblical studies so obviously in need at the moment of some fresh ideas based on solid research” (1985, 23).

A. Historical Interpretation of the OT: Three Basic Relationships 1. “OT history” and “History of ancient Israel.” It is a commonplace of contemporary biblical scholarship that a distinction must be made between “OT history” on the one hand, and “the history of ancient Israel” on the other (e.g., Tsevat; Lemche).

It is assumed that the history of the people of God as recounted in the pages of the OT and the history or histories of ancient Israel as reconstructed by critical historians will differ. At one level, this assumption is unobjectionable, for it should be obvious that many different kinds of histories can be written—world histories, national histories,

personal histories, political histories, social histories, economic histories, religious histories, medical histories, criminal histories, and the list could continue (for a more

technical “checklist of historical approaches,” see Stanford, 110-13; or cf. Moulton’s discussion of types of history represented in the Bible, 244-52). So to say that histories can and do differ is to say nothing exceptional; they may simply approach their subject from different angles and with different interests in view. As F. Deist succinctly puts it, “The perspectivist nature of historical research is one of the reasons why history is not an accumulative science” (111).

The historiographical narratives of the OT are themselves “perspectivist.” One need only recall that the section of OT text often referred to by modern scholars as the deuteronomistic history (i.e., Joshua-2 Kings) is traditionally called the Former Prophets. The perspective from which OT historiography views, selects, and reports events may rightly be described as prophetic, or simply theological. The focus is on the history of God’s people, their relationship to him, and his actions and expectations for them. Commenting on “The Understanding of History in the Old Testament Prophets,” H. W. Wolff once wrote: “For the prophets, history is the goal-directed conversation of

the Lord of the future with Israel” (341). The same could also be said of the narrative

86

Guide

historians of the OT. Given the theological slant of OT historiography, it should not be expected to be either exhaustive in its historical coverage or exclusive of historical treatments from other vantage points—e.g., political, economic, or whatever. (As a brief example, one thinks of the oft-noted disparity between the brief treatment given King Omri of Israel in the OT, who is mainly noted for exceeding his predecessors in doing evil, as contrasted with the much more extensive coverage of the reign of his son Ahab, though the latter was politically no more significant than the former.) About such matters, there is little cause for disagreement. Where disagreements do arise, however, is over the nature and extent of the variance between OT history and

the history of ancient Israel. In particular, there is disagreement as to whether one should expect the distinct histories, in the end, to be complementary or contradictory. The basic question, in other words, is whether the OT can be viewed as a worthy source, even if not an exhaustive or exclusive one, for the reconstruction of the history

of ancient Israel. On this question, there is sharp disagreement among contemporary scholars. At one extreme, there are those who regard the biblical text as of little or no value for “scientific” historical reconstruction, and thus to be used with extreme cau-

tion or not at all (e.g., Garbini; Whitelam). At the other extreme, one might expect in principle to find some who view the biblical text as the only legitimate source for the history of ancient Israel and who regard all extrabiblical evidence as little more than unreliable distractions (in reality it is difficult to document such a view in print). The position taken in this essay falls somewhere between these two extremes. It assumes that the history of ancient Israel should be reconstructed from all the available evidence, whether literary or material. It further assumes that the OT, by virtue of its

extent and authority, deserves pride of place among the literary witnesses, particularly when one’s interest is in the history of the OT people of God. 2. History and historiography. To appreciate more fully the character of the OT’s presentation of the history of Israel, we must think for a moment

about what

terms such as history and historiography mean. The term history can be employed in several senses. In informal speech, it is occasionally used simply to denote the past: e.g., “That’s all history now—let’s just forget it.” In more technical discussions, the term may be used to describe both significant past events (keeping in mind that “significance” is to some degree in the eye of the beholder) and interpretive accounts, or representations, of significant past events. Thus, one may speak of both history-as-event and history-as-account (Stanford, 26-44). P. R. Davies suggests reserving the term history for the former, “the events of the past as a continuum,” and the term historiography for the latter, “the selective telling of those events” (Rogerson and Davies, 218). This useful distinction is, unfortunately, seldom maintained in practice, though context often makes clear what is meant.

While matters of definition continue to elicit debate, it is perhaps not too far off the mark to characterize historiography as a kind of verbal representational art, analogous in significant respects to, say, portraiture, which is itself a kind of visual representational art (Long, 1994, 63-68 and passim). Neither historiography nor portraiture aims at a re-presentation that is precise, exact, and exhaustive in every respect. Both require, rather, that the “referential artist” (if I may use such a term to describe both

historiographers and portraitists) first gain a vision of the subject, before beginning to write or paint. As Stanford notes, “The analogy of a work of art is appropriate partly 87

Guide oe eee

because the past is a vision. The past does not live in potsherds and documents; it lives in the human imagination” (102). When it comes to sharing the vision with others, the verbal or visual artist must make some creative decisions: What selection of details will be included? From what slant will the subject be viewed? In what style will the subject be depicted? In respect to such decisions, “one simply cannot tell fictional from historical narrative” (Sternberg, 29), any more than one can distinguish the brushstrokes of a portrait from those of a “nonhistorical’” painting. What distinguishes the two is not the presence or absence of artistry, but the sense of purpose of each and the constraints within which each works (for full discussions, see Sternberg, 23-35).

Historiography, then, like portraiture, is driven by an overarching aim to “paint a picture” that truly represents and interprets the significant features of its historical subject. Just as a portrait fails in its purpose if it does not “look like” its subject, so historiography fails in its purpose if it is not sufficiently cognizant of and constrained by “the facts” to offer a representation that “looks like” its historical subject, at least as viewed from one angle (on what is meant by “‘the facts,” see Stanford, 71-74). The factual constraint does not mean, of course, that every detail must be included, or that

each brushstroke of the verbal or visual artist must be rendered with photographic accuracy, or that other depictions, from different angles, would not be possible and

perhaps equally illuminating. 3. Authorship and authority. If, then, neither historiography nor portraiture offers exact and exhaustive representations of its subjects, on what basis are they to be trusted? The authority attributed to a written history or a portrait will, to some degree at least, be a reflection of the esteem in which the creator of the work is held. A portrait

by an obscure artist of mediocre talent may be undeserving of trust as a reliable guide to the appearance and character of the subject, but a portrait by a known master merits high respect (though, of course, respect in no way obviates the necessity and sometimes the difficulty of rightly interpreting the master’s work). As regards the respect to be given the OT in matters historical (assuming that historical truth claims have been rightly discerned), different scholars obviously hold different opinions. This is so because they hold different beliefs about the creator(s) of the work, about the authorial presence behind it. Some scholars believe the OT to be a body of ancient literature of unexceptional human origin, and therefore the respect they show to the OT’s “pictures” of Israel’s past tends, likewise, to be unexceptional; at best these scholars may see the texts as enjoying an authority ascribed to them by a community of faith, but they will not see them as possessing any inherent authority. In fact, when it comes to hard-nosed historical questions, the biblical texts are sometimes shown even less respect than other ancient documents tend to receive (Hallo, 193;

Herrmann; Yamauchi, 6). There are other scholars, however, who believe the OT texts to be of divine as well as human origin, and so they tend to accord the OT texts an authority commensurate with the respect due the texts’ ultimate author (on this point generally, see Vanhoozer). Such believing scholars, while recognizing that Israel’s past may certainly be explored from various vantage points and with various interests in mind, will view the biblical pictures as of highest authority and greatest significance, at least within the bounds of their particular focus—viz., Israel’s (theologically) meaningful past. If they are consistent, these scholars will want to bend every effort rightly to understand and

88

Guide

interpret the biblical material. And this in turn implies that they will need to take care to discover historical truth claims where they are present, refuse to assume them where they are absent, and remain tentative wherever the evidence is unclear (Long, 1994,

169-70). In most of the stories of the OT, a historiographical impulse is felt. Of the “‘historical intentionality” of the writers of the Former Prophets (Joshua-Kings) and of Chronicles, for example, B. Halpern (1987, 115-16) writes, “Based on a survey of numerous cases, my Own impression is that this was sincerely historical, authentically antiquarian: the authors were prey to bias when interpreting evidence; and they wrote the history germane to them—about Israel’s relations with YHWH and how they could be repaired. But they seem to rely on sources for their data, rather than ad hoc concoction.” Not all OT stories are histories, of course. One thinks of Nathan’s parable (2

Sam 12), Jotham’s fable (Judg 9), and the like; but in such cases, the text generally provides some indication that distinct genres have been introduced. Where the text offers no such clues, and where the evidence of the larger contexts and the flow of the narra-

tive generally suggest a historiographical purpose, this should be the interpreter’s working assumption (Long, 1994, 180-84). Other purposes may also be evident—e.g., theological/ideological or artistic/aesthetic—but these, as our portrait analogy has suggested, do not necessarily diminish but may actually augment the text’s capacity to bear witness to the past (Geller; Halpern, 1987, 111; Sternberg, 82-83).

The above considerations begin to suggest what might be required of those who wish to do responsible historical interpretation of the OT. It is to three of these requirements that we now turn.

B. Historical Interpretation of the OT: Three Requirements of the Interpreter 1. Literary competence The primary influence on Wellhausen’s reconstruction of Israelite history was, of course, the results and consequences of his literary study of the Old Testament. (Hayes, 63)

It may seem surprising to begin this section on requirements for historical interpretation with an emphasis on literary competence, but any who wish to include the OT among their sources for the history of ancient Israel or, for that matter, those who

may wish to dismiss it, must at least recognize that competent literary reading of the OT with a view to discovering its truth claims (historical or otherwise) is a necessary first step (cf. Morgan, 221-22, on R. G. Moulton’s view that literary study is “the prior task” to historical reconstruction, so that to ignore it “could lead to historical and exegetical mistakes”). By literary competence I mean a developed awareness of the conventions and workings of a given literary corpus and a consequent ability to discern what kinds of claims a given text within that corpus may be making (cf. Barton, esp. 8-19; Baron, 93). When one is learning a foreign language, one studies the grammar of that language (i.e., the linguistic principles by which it communicates) so as to increase linguistic competence and the ability rightly to interpret individual utterances. By the same token, when one’s aim is to understand individual passages of a “foreign” literary corpus such as the OT (which originated at a time and place far removed from our own), it is immensely useful to learn what one can of the “grammar” of that literature (i.e., the literary principles by which it operates). Of course, given the limited number

89

Guide

of biblical and extrabiblical texts available, consummate literary competence is an unachievable goal, but this does not mean that interpreters should despair of trying and simply read passages any way they like (cf. Sternberg, 10). Literary competence can always be improved, even if not perfected. One of the best ways to improve one’s literary competence is to read as much of the literature under consideration as possible (McCullagh, 72; Deist, 99-100 [referenc-

ing Leopold von Ranke]). For our present purposes this would mean immersing oneself first and foremost in the OT, but then also in such cognate literatures as are available from ancient Israel’s neighbors (see, e.g., Younger’s insightful study of Joshua 9-12 in the light of Assyrian, Hittite, and Egyptian conquest accounts). Back in 1965, M. Greenberg remarked on the “solid ground” that could be attained by “a study of their (Israel’s neighbors’) literary styles and habits, especially with an eye to the differences between our expectations and their performance”; he stressed that we simply “cannot have enough” of the kind of “evidence concerning the native modes of ancient writing” that such comparative studies can yield. At the time of his writing, however, Greenberg was forced to lament that “hardly a beginning [had] been made” (Greenberg, 42). Today the situation has improved, and one may benefit greatly from reading the numerous works on the poetics of biblical literature that have appeared in the last several decades. Poetics, according to A. Berlin’s simple but insightful definition, is “a grammar, as it were, of literature” (15). Thus, there can be a poetics of prose as well as poetry, and indeed of any subgenres within this broad division. Since the focus of the present essay is on the historical interpretation of the OT, those works treating biblical narrative are most pertinent (~ Narrative Criticism: The Theological Implications of Narrative Techniques, below). (In making this assertion I do not mean to suggest that other genres, such as psalmody and prophecy, are devoid of historiographical tendencies, but simply to recognize that the majority of OT texts in which a historiographical impulse is strongly felt happen to be narratives.) With respect to the relationship between literary competence and historical study, the basic point is that “a literary reading of the biblical text must precede any historical reconstruction” (Younger, “Figurative Aspect,” 157). This is so because “an increased appreciation of the literary mechanisms of a text—how a story is told—often becomes the avenue of greater insight into the theological, religious and even historical significance of the text—what the story means” (Long, 1989, 14; cf. Stanford, 137).

But here a further point must be made: True literary competence can only be built on a solid base of linguistic competence. It is in this regard that the present, multivolume work may prove particularly useful.

Let me offer one brief example. In discussions of the definitive rejection of King Saul by Samuel in 1 Sam 15, scholars have often noted an apparent contradiction between (a) the statements in vv. 11 and 35 that Yahweh is sorry (nhm) that he made

Saul king and (b) Samuel’s insistence in v. 29 that the “Glory of Israel” does not lie or change his mind (nhm). On the basis of this putative contradiction and several other features of the text, a majority of scholars have concluded that 1 Sam 15 presents an internally inconsistent account and thus cannot be trusted historically. What we have, then, is a historical judgment based on a literary judgment, which, in turn, is based ulti-

mately on a linguistic judgment. If, however, we consult the lexical entry on the root nhm in the present work, we discover that the several occurrences of nhm in 1 Sam 15 90

Guide

may simply be drawing on different connotations within the accepted range of meaning of the Heb. root. On the one hand, because of Saul’s misdeeds God regrets having installed him as king. On the other hand, God does not repent—that is, “God does not

capriciously change his intentions or ways of acting” (> nhm), and he will certainly not be deterred from a given course of action by human attempts to manipulate him. In

the case of 1 Sam 15, then, a lexical clarification alleviates what was thought to be an

internal, logical contradiction in the text and thus opens the door to a more positive literary appraisal of the story as unified and sensible and hence potentially historical, assuming that other problematic features can be successfully dealt with (this I have attempted to do elsewhere [see Long, 1993]).

2. Theological comprehension For ancient man the distinction of sacred from profane, of religious from secular, was unknown. (Millard, 1983, 42)

A second requirement for those who would interpret the OT historically is theological comprehension. Again, just as it may have seemed odd in the preceding section to highlight literary competence as a requirement for historical interpretation, so it may seem odd to stress theological comprehension as a requirement for those who would use the OT responsibly in historical reconstruction. But the fact is that in the narratives of the OT God is a central character, not only present behind the scenes but occasionally intervening directly in the action of the story—e.g., sending plagues, parting seas and rivers, destroying city walls, appearing in visions, throwing enemies into panic, protecting his people, speaking through his prophets, fulfilling their words, and so forth. In short, the God depicted in the OT is not only transcendent but is also immanent in human (historical) affairs. As G. B. Caird succinctly puts it, “the most important item in the framework within which the people of biblical times interpreted their history was the conviction that God was the Lord of history” (217-18; cf. Westermann, 210; Wolff). But herein lies a problem. The biblical conviction that God is the Lord of

history not only runs counter to aspects of the historical-critical method (as commonly understood) but also conflicts with the belief system, or worldview, of some modern

scholars. The former issue—a methodological question—will be discussed in the next section; here we must deal with the latter—a metaphysical question. In this day and age, it would be the height of hermeneutical naiveté to deny or ignore the fact that one’s background beliefs have a significant impact on how one processes and assesses data. “How a historian sees the past is only a part of how he or she sees the world” (Stanford, 96). For instance, to borrow an example from J. M. Miller (1976, 17), when King Mesha (in the so-called Moabite Stone inscription) attributes

his subjugation to and eventual deliverance from King Omri of Israel to the divine actions of the god Chemosh, few modern scholars are likely to accept Mesha’s claim at face value, for the existence of a true god Chemosh, capable of affecting the course of human history, has no place in how they see the world. Thus, in their historical reconstructions they tend to ignore Mesha’s claims and seek other, usually naturalistic, explanations for Mesha’s experience of subjugation and deliverance. It is worth noting, however, that most do not proceed to write off the entire inscription as historically worthless simply because of Mesha’s metaphysical claims. 91

Guide

The OT is filled with similar claims about the divine actions of Israel’s God, Yahweh. The question we must face, then, is this: Should these claims be dismissed in

historical reconstructions in the same way that the claims about Chemosh were? The answer, as one might expect, will vary from scholar to scholar. For instance, scholars whose metaphysical beliefs do not include the existence of a God Yahweh will need to answer in the affirmative: Yes, the claims of intervention by Yahweh in the historical process must be dismissed or reexplained. Scholars of different metaphysical persuasion may see things differently. Where all scholars should be in agreement, however, is in acknowledging (a) that the ancient claims were made, whether one regards them as delusional or not, and (b) that the claims of divine intervention are not, by themselves, grounds for dismissing the entire historical import of an ancient text, biblical or otherwise. As Millard insists, “Whether or not modern readers share the belief that supernatural powers communicated with ancient leaders and others, the statements remain, and

they remain as the contemporary origin or justification for many actions. The fact of the ancient belief has to be accepted, the words attributed to the divinity can be essential to any historical reconstruction” (1983, 44). In other words, modern scholars may find themselves metaphysically at odds

with their sources, but they must at least recognize that their misgivings arise at that level. They may not share the theological convictions of their sources, but, as the title of this section implies, they must at least show some theological comprehension of their sources. Where the biblical narratives make claims to direct divine intervention in human affairs, scholars must admit the fact of the claim itself and allow that some, then

and now, believe(d) the claims to be true. If certain scholars’ own metaphysical commitments force them to regard such claims as impossible and prompt them to propose alternative scenarios to those presented in the OT, they must acknowledge that their judgments reflect their fundamental beliefs and do not necessarily derive from an “objective” appraisal of the evidence. This is not to say, of course, that belief is everything and evidence is nothing, but rather that belief has much to do with how one views and interprets the evidence (Long, 1994, 171-76; Provan). But this raises another interesting issue. Probably only a minority of biblical

scholars would explicitly deny the existence of God, or even that God is a personal being. That is, few would wish to be characterized as non-theists or a-theists. Curiously, however, probably a majority of contemporary scholars exclude from their historical reconstructions even the possibility of divine activity. The reason for this, it seems, has more to do with methodological convention than metaphysical conviction, and so we must now turn to the question of method. 3. Historical criticism The historian of Israel is obligated to carry out his research and his reconstruction according to the rules followed by any other historian. (Ramsey, 3)

While some readers may have been surprised to hear that two requirements for the historical interpretation of the OT are literary competence and theological comprehension, surely few will be surprised that a third requirement is historical criticism. The core story of the OT presents itself as a true story, and not just in the sense that it is “true to life.” The central events of the sweep of redemptive history are presented as

2

Guide

real events that happened in the lives of real people (cf. Arnold, 99; Halpern, 1988; Licht, 212-16). Whatever artistic traits may be present in the narratives of the OT (and they are many), it remains the case that most of these narratives present themselves as more than just art for art’s sake. They present themselves not merely as realistic narratives but as referential narratives, as the verbal equivalent of portraits, not just generic paintings. Therefore, unless it can be demonstrated that this assessment of the character of the narratives is incorrect—and there are some who think so (e.g., Smelik, Thomp-

son)—then any legitimate /iterary reading must take their historical truth claims seriously, whatever one may believe about the truth value of the claims. It is necessary to acknowledge the Bible’s historical truth claims not only for literary reasons, but for theological reasons as well. For “in point of fact, the Bible consistently presents theological truth as intrinsically bound to historical events” (Arnold, 99). The religious faith propagated in the OT is dependent not simply on some “‘story world” but on the real world about which the stories are told. As noted earlier, the God of the OT is the Lord of history, and his self-disclosure and salvific actions are accomplished in both event and word (see Long, 1994, 88-119).

Because competent literary reading of the OT and circumspect theological reflection on its message both underscore the importance of history, proper interpretation of the OT must involve historical criticism. But here we encounter another problem. The historical-critical method, as developed during and after the Enlightenment, seems ill-suited to deal with the biblical (hi)story. The method is commonly understood to involve three principles: criticism (the notion that historical judgments are to

be based on a critical evaluation of evidence and should take the form of probability judgments subject to revision in the light of further evidence); analogy (the idea that normal, everyday experience provides the basis for judging the likelihood of claims about past events, so that claims of miraculous or unique events—that is, events without analogy—amust be discounted, or at least labeled unhistorical); and correlation (the view that events are interrelated with one another in a nexus of cause and effect, so that

events do not simply happen unprompted by their larger context). Given these three principles, especially the second, there appears to be, as Miller has noted, an “obvious conflict between the biblical claims regarding God’s overt and unique actions in Israel’s history on the one hand, and the presuppositions of the historical-critical method of inquiry on the other” (1976, 18).

In view of this apparent conflict, it is sometimes claimed that biblical scholars must make a choice: They can be either historians or believers, but not both (at least not at the same time). One thinks, for instance, of V. A. Harvey’s book, The Historian

and the Believer: A Confrontation Between the Modern Historian’s Principles of Judgment

and

the Christian’s

Will-to-Believe,

in which

Harvey

asserts

an

antithesis

between the “morality of historical knowledge” and the “ethic of belief’ (102-26 and passim). This antithesis is unnecessary, however, provided that the three principles of historical criticism are defined in a manner consistent with a theistic set of background beliefs. During and after the Enlightenment the thesis that “the absolute cause never disturbs the chain of secondary causes” (so Strauss, 88) achieved almost the status of an a priori principle, and so it remains among many practitioners of the historical-critical method today. The grounds for the view expressed at that time, however, were but vague generalizations about “the known and universal laws which govern the uni95

Guide verse” and “all just philosophical conceptions and all credible experience” (ibid.). In the end, the principle was little more than a positivistic belief, and one that it is logical for theists to question. (For more on the deficiencies of Enlightenment thinking generally, see Westermann.)

The fact is that metaphysical commitments (and no one is without them) play a determinative role in how the principles of criticism, analogy, and correlation are understood and applied. Those who regard the Bible as a merely human document, for instance, will typically expect the Bible to err (since “to err is human’), and so the principle of criticism may be construed in terms of systematic doubt of one’s sources. Those who regard the Bible as a divinely inspired human document (the historic Judeo-Christian perspective), will, if they are consistent, construe the principle of criticism in the more neutral sense described above—i.e., the notion that historical judgments are to be based on a critical (that is, thoughtful and analytical, though not necessarily negative) assessment of evidence. As for the principle of analogy, those who embrace a theistic metaphysic will find little reason to limit what is (historically) possible to that which finds analogy in common, everyday human experience. This does not mean, of course, that believing scholars will credulously accept every miracle report that they hear. Belief that “with God all things are possible” is a far cry from the assumption that all things are therefore probable. In assessing reports of unique or miraculous events, theists will always want to consider the quality and reliability of the source. And they will also want to bring to bear the third principle of the historicalcritical method—viz., the principle of correlation. But again, it will be important that this principle be properly defined. While many scholars wittingly or unwittingly adopt a material notion of correlation that would limit the possible causes of historical change to natural forces and human beings, theistic scholars should prefer a formal notion of correlation in which God, as a personal being, is also allowed a role in the historical process (for full discussion of these matters, see Abraham, ch. 5 and passim;

cf. Long, 1994, 108-16, 123-35). In sum, then, so long as the three principles of historical criticism are defined in keeping with a theistic set of background beliefs, there is no reason to have to choose between being a historian and a believer. As W. J. Abraham succinctly puts it, “the theologian need have no fears that the historian must pronounce his commitment to divine intervention as hostile to the critical canons of the historian’s trade” (188).

Many modern scholars, to be sure, will object to the above procedure. R. Morgan, for example, concedes that “stretching historical methods to make them speak of God ... is a common-sense response of any believer who does not acknowledge the limits set on historical method by the intellectual community of historians,” and he admits that “there is some justification for the protest that the conventions of historical method mean that it cannot handle unique events.” But Morgan nevertheless insists that these are only reasons for denying that the historical method is “the sole arbiter of truth, not for stretching and destroying the method itself.”’ He further insists that “redefining historical method to allow it to speak of God would put theology back into the ghetto from which its use of rational methods is intended to rescue it. If believers want the benefits of using public discourse in communicating the message of their scriptures they must keep its rules” (186-87). While there is some force in Morgan’s concerns, his objections raise more problems than they solve. How, for example, can theistic schol-

94

Guide

ars be expected to bear the epistemological strain of embracing, on the one hand, the historical-critical assumption that God is not active in human affairs and, on the other

hand, the biblical-theological assumption that he is? And what is the sense of insisting that believers wishing to communicate the message of their Scriptures, in which God is a major player, can only do so by first agreeing with their culture, which does not believe in God, that they will not talk about him? What message of Scripture is left? If the historical method is to be fruitfully applied to the OT—and the OT texts seem to demand a historical approach—then the way forward must lie in first taking a step backward to consider the model of reality (including metaphysical commitments) that undergirded the earlier formulations of the method. It should then be possible to adjust the historical method in such a way that it is commensurate not only with the object under investigation, the Bible, but also with the theism that probably a majority of biblical scholars continue to profess. A-theistic biblical scholars may prefer to retain the naturalistic assumptions of the historical method as commonly practiced, but they must at least admit that their preference is a matter of faith and not of science or scholarship. And for all who regard discussion of God’s role in history as irrational and irresponsible, the words of H. W. Wolff, spoken in an inaugural address in 1960, may provide a timely challenge: “It is not that belief in God supplements reason in the recognition of reality, but that it rather liberates it for an objective view of the data which are historically comparable to each other. At the same time, unbelief runs the risk of partially distorting this view and thus becoming semi-realism” (353). 4. Conclusion: On the interrelationship of the three requirements It has been argued above that responsible historical interpretation of the OT requires three things of the interpreter: literary competence, theological comprehension, and historical criticism. These three requirements are in keeping with what Sternberg describes as the three chief impulses of Scripture: “aesthetics [cf. literature], ideology [cf. theology], and history” (362, see also 1-57). As Sternberg points out, however, the question of how these three interrelate is a tricky one (41). It is common in scholarly circles to treat the literary, theological, and historical questions as separate issues. Morgan, for example, contends that “historical research and theological interpretation are in principle different tasks, done by two different interpretative communities” (184); “a historical aim or interest is naturally met by historical methods, and a literary one by methods of literary analysis. Religious and theological interests are met by theological interpretations which draw on various rational methods” (212). What is missing in such formulations, if taken at face value, is the fact that the three issues are in reality interrelated and in some sense mutually corrective (Morgan himself warns in one place of making “too sharp a division between historical and literary study” [216]). Judgments made in one area inevitably make themselves felt to a greater or lesser degree in the other areas. Often a historical judgment will depend heavily on a literary judgement, and both together may have theological implications (we need only recall Hayes’s observation, quoted above, that “the primary influence on Wellhausen’s reconstruction of Israelite history was, of course, the results and conse-

quences of his literary study of the Old Testament”). In reviewing a fairly recent, major commentary on the book of 1 Sam, R. Polzin drives home this point about the interrelationship of literary and historical questions. Having noted the apparent “paucity of solid literary-historical evidence” deriving from

95

Guide

1 Sam, he laments that “scholars who have dealt with the complicated textual and literary history of this passage generally exhibit little knowledge or awareness of how central a poetics of biblical narrative is to the recognition of, let alone the solution to, literary-historical problems.” And in response to the claim that “the narratives about Samuel, Saul and David that make up (1 and 2 Samuel) have a heterogeneous appearance even to the untrained eye,” he responds that “it may just be possible that much of the heterogeneity apparent ... ‘even to the untrained eye,’ appears heterogeneous precisely to the untrained eye” (300). Such matters will continue to be debated, but it seems fair to insist at least that

because “biblical narrative emerges as a complex, because multifunctional discourse” (Sternberg, 41), those who would approach it responsibly with historical questions in mind must meet the three requirements of literary competence, theological comprehension, and an appropriately conceived historical criticism. C. Historical Interpretation of the OT: Four Steps in the Process Having discussed three requirements of the interpreter, we may now turn our ' attention to four steps in the process of interpretation itself. Earlier in this essay I drew an analogy between historiography and portraiture. Here it may be helpful to adduce another oft-mentioned analogy—viz., that between history as a discipline and jurisprudence (cf. Halpern, 1988, 13; Ramsey, 22-23; Soggin, 20). The comparison is apt, for there are many parallels between the two fields of endeavor. Both historians and jurists, for example, are concerned to reconstruct “what happened in the past’”—not in any exhaustive sense, but in terms of “significant past events,” with “significance” being measured in terms.of the questions they are asking. Both rely on whatever verbal testimony and material evidence can be gathered. Both are concerned not only to amass all available evidence but also to assess the evidence critically and to interpret its significance with a view toward reconstructing the past. Both must strive not only to come to personal convictions about “what happened” and “what it all means” but must also seek to convince others that their reconstruction is plausible, probable, and to be

preferred over rival reconstructions. In very general terms, both can be construed as involving the following steps: (1) amass the evidence; (2) assess the evidence; (3) attempt a reconstruction; (4) advocate the reconstruction. We shall consider each of these briefly below. 1. Amass the evidence

Without evidence there can be no historical knowledge, though there can be historical guesswork. (Stanford, 56)

The first step in historical study, as in jurisprudence, is to become apprised of the evidence. In either field the evidence is generally of two types: verbal and material. During the so-called discovery period, lawyers preparing for a trial seek to collect as much pertinent verbal testimony/evidence as possible. They do this by locating and interrogating (i.e., taking a deposition from) all witnesses who may have useful information to impart. They also seek to learn of any material evidence that may have a bearing on the case (a weapon, a footprint, skid marks, etc.). Similarly, historians, dur-

ing their “discovery period,” seek to locate and “interrogate” potentially pertinent verbal (i.e., literary or epigraphic) witnesses. The verbal evidence may include biblical as well as relevant extrabiblical texts, though for some periods of Israel’s history the latter

96

Guide

are rather sparse or nonexistent (Clines, 101; Greenberg, 38; Miller, 1992, 65-66; Sog-

gin, 36). Already at this early stage, historians’ linguistic and literary competencies come into play as they “listen to” and attempt to understand the written material available to them. In one respect, however, historians are in a quite different position from lawyers, for lawyers are able to interrogate their witnesses directly, whereas historians are at best able to “listen in” on communications (of whatever genre) from a sometimes distant past. Thus, historians must often work with “unintentional” as well as “intentional evidence” in seeking to glean information relevant to the particular focus of their study (on the distinction between intentional and unintentional evidence, see Ramsey,

4). In addition to gathering verbal evidence, historians also seek to acquaint themselves with whatever material evidence time, chance, and the efforts of archaeologists

have brought to light. Today historians have the benefit not only of the kind of evidence unearthed by traditional archaeology (e.g. artifactual, architectural, stratigraphic) but also of the kind of evidence the multidisciplinary approach of the “new archaeology” produces (e.g., ecological, climatological, sociological). All of these kinds of evidence can be useful to historians seeking to reconstruct some aspect of a past event or time period. But before historians can attempt a reconstruction, there is a second step they must take. 2. Assess the evidence

Before present evidence can be used as the first link in a chain that leads into the past, an accurate description of that first link is essential. (In this respect, as in others, we cannot hope to be right about the past if we are wrong about the present.) (Stanford, 61) Merely amassing evidence does not result, without further ado, in a historical

reconstruction. Just as evidence presented in court must be carefully assessed with respect to its reliability before it can be used as part of a hypothesis about what happened, so the evidence collected by historians must be assessed, or “sifted,” as Ramsey (6-10) puts it, before it can be used in historical reconstruction.

It is inevitable, of

course, that some evaluation of the evidence will have begun already during the discovery period, but it is important that there come a time when historians, like jurists, self-consciously review the evidence and endeavor to think critically about it. As regards verbal evidence, two criteria stand out. In a court of law, the credibility of witnesses is judged (a) by whether their testimony is self-consistent and noncontradictory and (b) by whether they, the witnesses, are of reputable character. If a witness fails to tell a coherent story, falls into self-contradiction, or is out of accord with other testimony deemed to be reliable, then confidence in the veracity of the testi-

mony diminishes or vanishes. But even if the witness tells a coherent story, it still may not be believed if it can be shown that the witness’s character is not such as to instill confidence. If, on the other hand, the witness’s character is unimpeachable, then even

should the testimony seem at first confused or out of accord with other testimony, every effort will be made to come to some understanding before simply dismissing it as false or useless. In the same way, verbal (and this would include literary) evidence amassed by historians can be subjected to a two-pronged consistency/character test: (a)

Is the testimony consistent, both internally (i.e., coherent and not self-contradictory)

97

Guide

and externally (i.e., reconcilable with other verbal testimony deemed to be reliable)? and (b) Is the character of the witness such as to engender confidence in what it says? The first test raises some questions: Just what constitutes consistency in and among ancient documents? What level of internal accuracy must each display, and what level of agreement must there be between them, in order to earn our trust? Surely

no one would expect the various witnesses in a court trial to offer identical testimony—indeed, if the witnesses did, one might suspect them of conspiracy or collusion. All that one expects of truthful witnesses is that their testimony in the end be complementary, or at least not flatly contradictory. This same kind of common-sense standard should be applied to literary witnesses from antiquity, not least in the case of parallel biblical texts such as we have in the Synoptic Gospels of the NT or the synoptic histories (Samuel-Kings and Chronicles) in the OT (Long, 1994, 76-86).

But common sense alone is not enough, since what may seem sensible enough to some people living in a particular time and place may not at all seem sensible to others from a different time or place. Common sense must be augmented by sincere efforts to develop the three competencies outlined earlier in this essay. Smelik has noted, for example, that “not every literary genre will produce the same degree of historical accuracy” (5). Perhaps a better way to put this would be to say that not every literary genre attempts the same kind of historical accuracy. Thus the interpreter’s literary competence, for example, comes into play in discovering just what kind of historical truth claims a text may be making. Only when truth claims are accurately discerned can a fair assessment of a text’s truth value be made. As an illustration, consider

the fact that not every visual recording of the human head attempts the same kind of representational accuracy—a portrait seeks to capture the overall outward appearance as normally perceived, whereas a CAT scan attempts something quite different. Either might be deemed “inaccurate” if judged on the standard of the other, but both may be perfectly accurate within their own intentionality. To cite a biblical example, much is sometimes made of the “inconsistent” pictures of the Israelite conquest presented in the books of Joshua and Judges. One suspects, however, that greater sensitivity to the literary and thematic emphases of the two books would go far toward resolving the perceived difficulties (Younger, 1990; Long, 1994, 165-66). We see, then, that the first test of reliability, the consistency test, must be han-

dled with care and circumspection; hasty judgments must be avoided. The second test, the character test, brings us ultimately back to the issue of the background beliefs of the interpreter, however these may have been formed. When approaching biblical texts, some scholars will be predisposed (perhaps, but not necessarily, because of religious conviction) to assume that they are of reputable character and are generally trustworthy—though, of course, the interpreter’s understanding of them may prove itself in need of correction. Other scholars will be predisposed (again, perhaps because of their background beliefs) to assume that the texts are of questionable character and thus are not to be trusted in matters of history, at least not without external confirmation. To be

sure, scholars sometimes change their views regarding the character of the biblical texts, but given the deep level at which religious convictions operate, changes of this sort occur only in the face of a rather large body of contrary evidence. When it comes to material evidence, the assessment of reliability is based on somewhat different criteria. Before agreeing that material evidence of one sort or

98

Guide

another is “admissible,” both lawyers and historians must assure themselves that the evidence is genuine, that it has been rightly described, and that it was properly collected. Was this knife actually found at the scene of the crime, could it have been planted there, was it properly collected and marked? Was this potsherd actually found in an Iron I layer, was it properly collected and marked? Once lawyers or historians have assessed the reliability of the verbal and material evidences that they amassed during the discovery period, they may begin to try to put the pieces together into a plausible reconstruction of what happened. This brings us to the next step in the process of historical interpretation. 3. Attempt a reconstruction If history is no more than the handling of data, then it can be done by a copying clerk or a machine. But surely it is a very human activity. (Stanford, 97)

It is tempting to liken the task of historical reconstruction to the piecing together of a complex jigsaw puzzle. Each piece of evidence that has been tested and found reliable must find its place in a believable picture of what happened and why. In at least one significant respect, however, the jigsaw puzzle analogy breaks down. This is the fact that there is really only one way to put a jigsaw puzzle together, only one picture is possible, and it can be viewed from only one angle. Regardless of who is putting the puzzle together, there is only one right way to do it. Historical reconstruction, by contrast, is more complicated. As we noted earlier, historians can approach their task from various different vantage points, with various concerns in mind. Like portrait artists, to recall our earlier analogy, historians may each view their subject from a distinct perspective and under a particular light and thus paint portraits that look rather different from one another. This is not to imply that the possibilities are limitless or that just any picture will do; all good portraits must at least be compatible with one another, once the differing perspectives and styles have been taken into account. Historians, too, may approach their subjects from different angles and under different lights, and arrive at different pictures. The primary concern of some contemporary historians is to reconstruct “history from below.” Their focus is not so much on individual persons and events as it is on the general mode of life and the living conditions of a particular society or stratum of society. For their purposes, the material evidence yielded by archaeology, for example, may be more telling than literary evidence, which may speak little of the life-ways of a people in general. More traditionally, however, historians have tended to focus on specific events and individuals. For their purposes, archaeological evidence is seldom sufficient, for “although it is a good source for clarifying the material culture of times past, artifactual evidence is a very poor source of information about specific people and events” (Miller, 1987, 59). Artifacts and material remains are essentially mute. Until the archaeologist or historian begins to describe what they are, they have no voice. But in the process of description, the archaeologist is inevitably, even if unconsciously, interpreting the data. Thus, as F. Brandfon (30) has forcefully argued, it is a fallacy to assume that archaeological evidence is somehow more “objective” than other kinds of evidence. To learn about specific people and to reconstruct specific events, historians need verbal evidence.

99

Guide

It should be obvious from the above considerations that historical reconstruction is anything but automatic or mechanical.

Historical reconstruction, as Stanford

notes, is a “very human activity’: “In all these approaches, historians employ their intentions, their hopes and fears, their beliefs, their methodological, even metaphysi-

cal, principles, their grasp and use of language and of languages, their hermeneutic capacities, and so on. All these are all relevant to the major task of seeing and understanding the past, and hence making a reasonably accurate and functioning mental model of it” (96). This then is the situation. Historians have at their disposal both material evidence and verbal evidence. The significance that they assign to each will in large measure be a reflection of their particular interests, whether in the general life-ways of a people and period or in specific individuals and events that have catalyzed historical change. For the former, the material evidences are useful; for the latter, there must be

greater dependence on the verbal (i.e., literary) evidence. These two kinds of approaches, sometimes referred to as the nomothetic and the ideographic, may peacefully coexist and even at times enrich one another. As respects OT history, for example, the generalizing information provided by nomothetic studies of material evidence can often add flesh to the skeleton provided by the ideographic information derived from literary study of the texts. Problems sometimes arise, however, when scholars, who for one reason or another dismiss the OT narratives, nevertheless proceed to propound historical reconstructions involving specific events. To do this they must consciously or unconsciously import some interpretive model—sociological, ideological, religious, or whatever. And here again one can see what a very human activity historical reconstruction is. 4. Advocate the reconstruction

At the very heart of historical activity is the point where the historian, in completing the construction of the past, begins to look to the present and the future and to consider how this new-found knowledge can be shared with other people. (Stanford, 110) Like visual representational artists who, having caught a vision of their subject, work at their craft so as to share their vision with others, so historians work at their craft so as to share with others their understanding of what the past looked like. But more than that, historians, like lawyers, must advocate their reconstruction of what

happened and why. The accent at this stage is on persuasion, not proof in any absolute sense, for as McCulloch observes, “historical descriptions cannot be proved true beyond all possibility of error” (4). At best they can only be shown to be probably true, or true beyond a reasonable doubt. Here again, the individual human being, with his or her own beliefs about life, the universe, and everything, intrudes him- or herself into the question of what constitutes reasonability or probability. This means that what one person finds reasonable or persuasive, another may not. In historical advocacy, there are no knock-down arguments, nor is there a particular kind of argument that is a distinctively historical argument. Since history, like law, is a “field-encompassing-field” (Harvey, 54-59), many kinds of arguments may be used in seeking to persuade others of a particular reconstruction. As Ramsey notes, “The element which is common to all

100

Guide

the arguments of the lawyer or the historian (or anyone else) is the obligation to give reasons for his conclusions” (22). Now, one may think to ask whether advocacy, that is, the construction of an argument meant to persuade, is even necessary in some contexts. What about homogeneous communities of faith (which I would regard as an apt description not only of various religious communities, but also of some secular circles whose faith consists more

in what is denied than in what is affirmed)? Are the rigors of historical argumentation beneficial, or even necessary? I would contend that they are, if for no other reason than

the opportunity they afford for self-correction. Has my period of discovery overlooked any vital evidence? Have I properly assessed the evidence—i.e., have I properly interpreted both the material evidence and the literary evidence? Are the logical steps I take in moving from evidence to historical reconstruction valid (on the nature of argumentation, see Long, 1994, 194-98)? Is my move from the available data to a conclusion sup-

ported by adequate warrants and backing? Have I considered possible rebuttals to the logical arguments upon which my historical reconstruction rests? Am I sufficiently aware of how my background beliefs affect what I am willing to consider as warrant or backing? At all these points, the rigors of historical advocacy provide opportunities for self-correction. But this raises a larger question. While it is easy to see how I can augment my evidence base if I have overlooked something, how I can emend misinterpretations of evidence, and how I can adjust arguments if they are flawed, is there some way to correct the fundamental belief system that affects the way I see everything else? Can I do this by sheer force of will? Or must I look to some higher Author(ity)? This is a question that faces everyone interested in the historical interpretation of the OT who delves deeply enough into the hermeneutical issues involved to discover that “dominating all technical considerations of evidence, method, interpretation and construction is the individual human being” (Stanford, 96). BIBLIOGRAPHY

W. J. Abraham, Divine Revelation and the Limits of Historical Criticism, 1982; B. T. Arnold,

“The Quest for the Historical Israel Continued: A Review Article,” Ashland Theological Review 24, 1992, 92-103; S. W. Baron, The Contemporary Relevance of History: A Study of Approaches and Methods, 1986; J. Barton, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study, 1984; A. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, 1983; F. Brandfon, “The Limits of Evi-

dence: Archaeology and Objectivity,” Maarav 4/1, 1987, 5-43; G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible, 1980; D. J. A. Clines, What Does Eve Do to Help and Other Readerly Questions to the Old Testament, 1990; F. E. Deist, “Contingency, Continuity and Integrity in Historical Understanding: An Old Testament Perspective,” Scriptura S11, 1993, 99-115; G. Garbini, History and Ideology in Ancient Israel, 1988; S. A. Geller, “Through Windows and Mirrors into the Bible: History, Literature and Language in the Study of Text,” in A Sense of Text: The Art of Language in the Study of Biblical Literature, 1983, 3-40; M. Greenberg, “Response to Roland de Vaux’s ‘Method in the Study of Early Hebrew History’,” in The Bible in Modern Scholarship, 1965, 37-43; W. W. Hallo, “The Limits of Skepticism,” JAOS 110, 1990, 187-199; B. Halpern, “Biblical or Israelite History?” in The Future of Biblical Studies, 1987, 103-39;

idem, The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History, 1988; V. A. Harvey, The Historian and the Believer: A Confrontation Between the Modern Historian’s Principles of Judgment and the Christian’s Will-to-Believe, 1966; J. H. Hayes, “The History of the Study of Israelite and

101

Guide Judaean History,” in JH,

1977, 1-69; S. Herrmann, “Die Abwertung des Alten Testaments als

Geschichtsquelle: Bermerkungen zu einem geistesgeschichtlichen Problem,” in Sola Scriptura: VII. 1990, 1993, 156-65; N. P. Lemche, “Is It Still Possible to Write a History of Ancient Israel?”

SJOT 8, 1994, 165-90; J. Licht, “Biblisches Geschichtsdenken und apokalyptische Spekulation,” Judaica 46, 1990, 208-24; V. P. Long, “Interpolation or Characterization: How Are We to Understand Saul’s Two Confessions,” Presbyterion 19, 1993, 49-53; idem, The Art of Biblical

History, 1994; idem, The Reign and Rejection of King Saul: A Case for Literary and Theological Coherence, 1989; C. B. McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions, 1984; A. R. Millard, “Story, History, and Theology,” in Faith, Tradition, and History: Old Testament Historiography in Its Near Eastern Context, 1994, 37-64; idem, “The Old Testament and History: Some Considerations,” Faith and Thought 110, 1983, Bible and Its Modern Interpreters, 1985, BA 50, 1987, 55-63; idem, “Reflections ology to Do With Faith?, 1992, 60-74;

34-53; J. M. Miller, “Israelite History,” in The Hebrew 1-30; idem, “Old Testament History and Archaeology,” on the Study of Israelite History,” in What Has Archaeidem, The Old Testament and the Historian, 1976; R.

Morgan and J. Barton, Biblical Interpretation, 1988; R. G. Moulton, The Literary Study of the Bible, 1896; I. W. Provan, “Ideologies, Literary and Critical: Reflections on Recent Writing on

the History of Israel,” JBL 114, 1995, 586-606; G. W. Ramsey, The Quest for the Historical Israel: Reconstructing Israel’s Early History, 1982; J. W. Rogerson and P. R. Davies, The Old Testament World, 1989; K. A. D. Smelik, ““The Use of the Hebrew Bible as a Historical Source,”

in Converting the Past, 1992, 1-34; A. J. Soggin, AHistory of Ancient Isrnel, 1985; M. Stanford, The Nature of Historical Knowledge, 1986; M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading, 1985; T. L. Thompson, “Text, Context and Referent in Israelite Historiography,” in The Fabric of History: Text, Artifact and Israel’s Past, 1991, 65-92; M. Tsevat, “Israelite History and the Historical Books of the Old Testament,” The

Meaning of the Book of Job and Other Biblical Essays, 1980, 177-87; K. J. Vanhoozer, “The Semantics of Biblical Literature: Truth and Scripture’s Diverse Literary Forms,” in Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon, 1986, 49-104; C. Westermann, “The Old Testament’s Understanding of History in Relation to That of the Enlightenment,” in Understanding the Word: Essays in Honor of Bernhard W. Anderson, 1985, 207-19; K. W. Whitelam, “Between History and Literature: The Social Production of Israel’s Traditions of Origin,” SJOT 2, 1991, 60-74; H. W. Wolff,

“The Understanding of History in the Old Testament Prophets,” in Essays on Old Testament Interpretation, 1963 [German orig. 1960], 336-55; E. Yamauchi, “The Current State of Old Testament Historiography,” in Faith, Tradition, and History: Old Testament Historiography in Its Near Eastern Context, 1994, 1-36; K. L. Younger, “The Figurative Aspect and the Contextual Method in the Evaluation of the Solomonic Empire (1 Kings 1-11),” in The Bible in Three Dimensions,

1990, 157-75; idem, Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing, 1990.

V. Philips Long

102

EE

Guide

ae

a

a

PART III: LITERATURE, INTERPRETATION, AND THEOLOGY

The next two essays explore the world of the Bible as literature. The last twenty years has seen a flurry of scholarly and popular activity dealing with literary approaches. True, many of these have perpetuated a critical attitude to biblical literature. This does not take away from the importance of understanding the approaches to the Bible as literature. Tremper Longman III traces the background behind the paradigm shift. Further, he discusses the possibilities (“promises”) of and the problems (“pitfalls”) with the literary approach. Finally, his constructive comments on how one interprets prose and poetry open the field of literary studies to beginning, as well as advanced, students of the Bible. Philip E. Satterthwaite’s essay is narrower in scope (narrative techniques). It penetrates the techniques involved in literary analysis of narratives. See also the previous essay by V. Philips Long, in which he argues persuasively for the engagement of literary (narrative) analysis with historical interpretation. (WVG) 5. LITERARY APPROACHES AND INTERPRETATION

A. Words and Text A dictionary is a book about words. Each entry or article in the case of the present work treats a word in a discrete and isolated way. One turns to a dictionary to find out the meaning of a word. However, we are not used to encountering words in such an artificial way. Our typical experience with words is in some kind of text, written or verbal. Words occur in sentences, paragraphs, chapters, discourses, textual wholes. So what is the relationship between a word and a text? It is a dialectical relationship. Words are the building blocks of texts; texts are the place where words find their meaning. What then is the relationship between a dictionary and a text; specifically, what is the relationship between a dictionary of ancient Hebrew words and a biblical text? This relationship too is dialectical. One turns to a dictionary to get the meaning of a word. Beginning students understand the Hebrew dictionary as the source, the origin, the start of turning a mass of strange looking symbols into something real, something understandable, something

readable. But where did these meanings come from? Did they drop out of thin air? Dig under a dictionary and one will find texts. That is, scholars who write dictionaries, especially one like NJDOTTE, turn to texts to discern the semantic outlines of the words they seek to define. Of course, they cite cognates from other Semitic languages when they exist, but how does one understand the meaning of the Ugaritic, the Akkadian, the Arabic cognate? We discover the meaning of these cognate words from their occurrence within texts. Most dictionaries repress the contextual nature of their definitions because they simply list meanings and a few occurrences. There is nothing criminal in that practice, but it does give the wrong impression. NJDOTTE, because of its ambitions and scope,

103

Guide

allows more than a list of meanings. It allows discussions of words in context. Not every context to be sure, but a substantial amount of exploration is allowed as we seek to define not just a meaning of a word, something to plug into a text, but the semantic field to which the word belongs. So the meaning of a word is dialectically related to its literary contexts. Scholars create dictionary definitions from an examination of those contexts, and sophisticated users of dictionaries know that they must take the basic understanding given them by these scholars and reflect on them in their context, their literary context. As we will chronicle below, biblical studies has moved from a word-focused

approach to a text-oriented approach over the past few years. As we will see, this is really the reestablishment of a wholistic approach to texts that had been disrupted by forces of the Enlightenment—not a wholly new and modern idea, but, nonetheless, it feels like a novel development to us. This new literary approach affects the way we understand the biblical texts as a whole, and for that reason, discussion of it is relevant to include in the introduction of a

dictionary, at least one as methodologically conscious as NIDOTTE. However, as we turn for a moment to the relatively “new” discipline of the literary approach, we will see that there are vastly different ways of conceiving the literary nature of the Bible. This article serves as a guide to the chaos of claims among competing literary approaches. It also seeks to establish general parameters and guidelines of a proper literary approach that recognizes the literary text as an act of communication between an author and an audience. (See the excellent articles by P. Satterthwaite and K. Vanhoozer in this volume, both of which complement and occasionally overlap with the present article.)

B. The Beginnings of the Modern Literary Study of the Hebrew Bible In 1968 James Muilenburg, an established form critic, challenged the Society of Biblical Literature to move beyond the analysis of the prehistory of small units of text toward an appreciation and analysis of the literary style of larger sections of the Bible (1-18). While affirming the continuing importance of form criticism, he called for increased attention to the rhetorical strategy of OT books. The next few years saw a smattering of books and articles devoted to the literary analysis of the OT, but nothing resembling a movement (see L. Alonso-Schokel [1963]; D. J. A. Clines [1976; 1980]; D. M. Gunn [1978; 1980]; D. Patte and J. F. Parker [1980]; S. Bar-Efrat [1980]). The effect of these first few explorations, how-

ever, was to soften the ground for a veritable explosion of interest in the literary method that began in the early 1980s and has gained momentum ever since. The book that helped stimulate the new attention given to the literary nature of the OT was The Art of Biblical Narrative by Robert Alter. Alter, a professor of literature at Columbia University, described the nature of native Hebrew literary conventions in such a compelling way that many biblical scholars recognized that his approach gave promise for fruitful and interesting readings of the HB. Indeed, we may speculate that part of the field’s attraction to Alter’s work was that he was able to provide meaningful readings of biblical texts, while not denying the composite nature of the material. (Note his reference to the narratives of Genesis as “composite artistry,” Art of Biblical Narrative, 131-54.) While the results of historical critical study of the Bible grew meager and obscured the meaning of the final form of

104

Guide

the text, Alter’s approach used native literary conventions to give meaningful readings of whole texts. In the following years, hundreds of books and thousands of articles developed and applied the literary approach. New journals, like Semeia and Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, came into existence, and most of their articles could be described

as “literary.” Commentaries and other reference books presented literary insights on their subject matter. R. B. Dillard and T. Longman III (Jntroduction to the Old Testament, 1994), for example, have a section entitled “Literary Analysis” for every book of the OT. During this time period, every portion of the Hebrew canon has been subjected to a literary analysis. While this statement is true, it must also be remarked that some portions of the Bible received considerably more attention than others, particularly in the prose parts. While Lev and Num received only a few treatments (see W. G. Baroody and W. F. Gentrup, “Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy,” in A Complete Literary Guide to the Bible, 1993, 121-36), Gen and 1, 2 Sam, books that are

rich in literary artistry, have been the subject of many studies. Alter concentrated his attention in these books in The Art of Biblical Narrative, as has M. Sternberg in The Poetics of Biblical Narrative (1985). We also make note of J. P. Fokkelman’s important studies, Narrative Art in Genesis (1975) and Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel (1981). Alter’s specific concern was to uncover and explain native literary conventions. He states this when he says (“Response to Critics’’):

every culture, even every era in a particular culture, develops distinctive and sometimes intricate codes for telling its stories, involving everything from narrative point of view, procedures of description and characterization, the management of dialogue, to the ordering of time and the organization of plot. Alter’s approach is a type of formalism, an attempt to describe the forms or conventions of ancient Hebrew literature, whether prose or poetry. He made a significant foray into the analysis of the conventions of Hebrew poetry in his The Art of Biblical Poetry (1985). His analysis of Hebrew literature is a “close reading” of the text, an interpretive strategy often associated with the literary school called New Criticism. New Criticism was a text-centeted approach to literature that did not focus on the author or historical reference of the text. Alter agreed with historical critics that the text he was studying was the result of a historical process, but he chose to ignore the diachronic dimensions of the text. As we will see, this interpretive move has generated a controversy that continues until the present moment. Other scholars followed in Alter’s wake, many producing insightful analysis of biblical texts. Adele Berlin’s Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative explored literary conventions like plot, characterization, and point of view to see how Hebrew literature distinctively manipulated these devices. A few years later she turned her attention to poetry in The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism, continuing the work of Kugel and Alter. Kugel and Alter had earlier criticized the work of Bishop Robert Lowth, who defined Hebrew poetry with an emphasis on the synonymity of the parallel pair; they showed how the second part of a bicolon always in some sense carried for105

Guide

ward the thought of the first part. Berlin furthered this insight on a semantic level and then showed how the grammatical structure paralleled the semantic structure of the line. Alter and those following in his wake have initiated a new phase of literary study of the Bible. Their impact on the field has been huge. However, before examining what has followed their work, we need to step back to the past. As we do so, we will see that their work is not as novel as it first appears. Indeed, they are reestablishing an old synthesis. The literary approach is not really new, but has a history. C. Precursors to the Literary Approach There are ancient roots to the practice of applying literary concepts, methods, and insights to biblical narrative. Stephen Prickett has persuasively argued that the application of literary studies to the Bible is in reality a reintegration of an age-old union. At the turn of the nineteenth century there was a desire to separate theology, including biblical studies, from the more scientific study of the humanities. Specifically, Prickett cites the founding of the University of Berlin by Baron Wilhelm von Humboldt in 1809 as the moment, symbolic at least, when literary studies and biblical studies parted paths. He believes that when the biblical department was removed from the humanities, a “glacial moraine” was erected between the Bible and its literary perception. Previous to this time it was a matter of course for the Bible to be understood in literary terms. One need only appeal to the early church fathers to illustrate this claim. Augustine and Jerome were trained in classical rhetoric and poetics. As a result, they frequently applied the principles of literature that they learned in school to the study of the Bible. They often compared biblical stories and poems with ones familiar to them in classical literature. The result was, from a modern perspective, a distortion of understanding and evaluation of the biblical texts. Jerome, for example, scanned Hebrew poems and described their poetic form in labels developed for Greek and Latin poetry (see J. Kugel, 149-56). Kugel quotes Jerome as saying (159-60): What is more musical than the Psalter? Which in the manner of our Flaccus or of the Greek Pindar, now flows in iambs, now rings with

Alcaics, swells to a Sapphic measure or moves along with a half-foot? What is fairer than the hymns of Deuteronomy or Isaiah? What is more solemn

than Solomon,

what more

polished than Job? All of which

books, as Josephus and Origen write, flow in the original in hexameter and pentameter verses.

Jerome is just one example that can be multiplied throughout tian and Jewish interpretation of the Bible. The literary study part of the twentieth century is a reunion of a split that took ranted and unhealthy obsession with historical criticism of the

the history of the Chrisof the Bible in the latter place due to an unwarOT.

D. Post-Alter Literary Approaches to the Bible One of the earliest and most profound influences on the modern literary approach to the Bible, Alter’s formalism, still practiced by biblical scholars, is just one of a number of “literary approaches” found in the pages of scholarly journals and books today. Over the past two decades biblical scholars have borrowed and applied a

106

Guide

wide array of literary strategies to the task of interpreting biblical texts. As new theories arose for the study of literature in general, they were soon adopted by biblical scholars. We will now survey the most important of these theories: structuralism, reader-response, deconstruction, and current eclecticism. 1. Structuralism. Structuralism was a dominant force in the study of language, culture, and literature in the 1960s, 70s, and into the 80s (see V. S. Poythress, 221; J. Barton, 112). Today, however, structuralism as such is passé. As we will see, structur-

alism’s quasi-scientific pretensions could not stand up to deconstruction’s powerful critique. Nonetheless, since structuralist studies of biblical texts are easily found, a brief introduction to this type of thought is still important. The origins of structuralism are often associated with the linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, who turned the attention of his field to the sign nature of language. Words are signs that have no inherent connection with their references, but rather an arbitrary one assigned by convention. J. Calloud points out that meaning is differential, that is, it is “composed of differences and opposites” (55). This “first principle” of structuralism will become important as we turn later to deconstruction’s undermining of structuralism. To learn to speak a language, one learns the word-signs that habit has assigned to a thing, action, or state. In English we refer to a certain animal as a dog, whereas a German speaker would use the word Hund and someone who spoke French would call the animal chien. In typical structuralist language the word is a signifier, the animal the signified. While structuralism as a broad cultural movement began much earlier, it was not until the 1960s that it moved specifically from linguistics to literary theory. H. Felperin dates the coming of age of literary structuralism to 1966, the year in which Roland Barthes published Critique et verité (H. Felperin, 74). Here Barthes proclaimed the importance of what he called the “science of literature,” which is concerned not

with the interpretation of particular work but with “conditions of meaning.” He and others, such as Todorov, desired to describe a “grammar” of literature.

Structuralism is a quasi-scientific approach to literature. Its goal was to give literary studies a method of approaching texts that could be demonstrated and repeated. R. C. Culley summarized it by saying that structuralists “are seeking a method which is scientific in the sense that they are striving for a rigorous statement and an exacting analytical model” (R. C. Culley, “Exploring New Directions,” 1985, 174). One of the important insights that structuralism made concerning literature is that it operates by certain “conventions.” Like the syntax, grammar, and lexicon of a linguistic system, the literary conventions are underlying structures that may be discerned across literature as a whole. To become competent in a language does not mean learning every word or every possible syntactical arrangement, but it does mean learning the basic rules of the language. The same is true of literature. To be literarily competent does not mean knowing the literature exhaustively, but being aware of the major conventions, or literary devices, genres, and so forth (see the discussion in J. Culler, 9).

When this is understood as simply describing the native literary conventions of a particular culture or time, then this type of analysis is not much different from the formalism practiced by Alter. However, some structuralist analysis of narrative in the Bible is quite esoteric in a way that obscures rather than illumines the meaning of a text. At an earlier point of his career, Robert Polzin was an advocate of a structuralist

107

Guide

approach to the Hebrew Bible (see his 1977 book). Notably, he provided a structuralist analysis of the book of Job. Following the method of the famous anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss, Polzin summarizes the message of the book of Job with the following math-like formula: F,(a):F’(b)=F*(b):F*-1(y) The technical and esoteric nature of much structuralist study restricted its use and influence to a small, dedicated group of biblical scholars. But other cultural factors led to the nearly complete demise of structuralism as an intellectual framework for literary studies. This relatively optimistic method was soon to be undermined by a radical skepticism. 2. Reader-response criticism. Traditional literary criticism focused on the author as the locus of meaning. Formalism (New Criticism) and structuralism moved

the attention of the analyst to the text itself. Not surprisingly, the next big wave of literary scholarship directed its interest to the role of the reader in the interpretive process (see, for instance, W. Iser; J. P. Tompkins).

Such a shift of attention has significant impact to the goal of interpretation. An author-centered approach will study the text in the light of the author’s biography or, if the author is still living, will seek his or her validation of one’s understanding of the text. If the text is ancient and anonymous, at the very least readers can set their interpretation in its original historical context. Structuralism and formalism seek understanding of the text’s conventions and literary devices. Reader response focuses on the preunderstanding and ideology of the interpreter as it shapes the “meaning of the text.” We understand what is today called ideological interpretation as a species of reader-response interpretation. In particular, feminist (see J. Cheryl Exum, “Who’s Afraid,” 91-113), Marxist (F. Jameson; T. K. Beal), and even New Historicist (H. Aram Veeser) readings can be understood as a form of reader-response. For instance, a

feminist interpreter will read a text with a specified interest in how women are treated, ignored, or oppressed and how the text has become a tool for the suppression of women. Or perhaps a text itself subverts male dominance in ways that need to be highlighted (see the description of Alice Bach’s approach to Num 5, below). Reader-response criticism runs the spectrum. Some advocate the conservative view that highlights the importance of the reader in the interpretive process, but recognizes that the text provides a limit on the reader’s interpretation. E. V. McKnight puts it this way: “The relationship between reader as subject (acting upon the text) and the reader as object (being acted upon by the text), however, is not seen as an opposition but as two sides of the same coin. It is only as the reader is subject of text and language that the reader becomes object. It is as the reader becomes object that the fullness of the reader’s needs and desires as subject are met” (128). No one person can exhaust the meaning of a literary text, and his or her gender, race, economic status, religion, educa-

tion, and so forth will predispose that person to attend to certain aspects of a text. Others, however, encourage a more radical role of the reader. The reader actually con-

structs the meaning of the text. Later, when we describe today’s current eclecticism, we will note that this approach is generally linked with a denial of determinate meaning all together. However, before we reach that point we must pass through the skepticism of deconstruction. 3. Deconstruction. Deconstruction results from a critical reaction to structuralism, so that today few structuralists can be found even in biblical studies. Structural-

108

Guide

ism’s attempts at a scientific and objective grammar by which it might speak about literature was dealt a death blow by the critique of deconstruction, a form of thought associated with the French philosopher Jacques Derrida (1976, 1978). Structuralism focused on the relationship between a sign and that which it signified. Deconstruction questioned that relationship, noting the “slippage” between the sign and its reference, thus questioning the possibility of literary communication. At its heart, deconstruction

is a form of skepticism with philosophical

roots in Darwin,

Nietzsche, and Freud, the so-called “masters of suspicion.” (Deconstruction—Derrida in particular—is difficult to understand. Helpful sources include F. Lentricchia; J. Culler, On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism After Structuralism, 1982; C. Norris; V.B. Leitch.) At the core of deconstruction is a blatant denial of any absolute signifier,

anything outside of language itself that assures the process of literary communication. Nothing and no one, whether author, speaker, Platonic ideas, or God, is present out there to ground the meaning of a text. Attempts to assert such a ground are pilloried as logocentrism, asserting a false form of presence, that on further philosophical analysis is shown to be untenable. An important result of this is that literary texts are unstable. They may seem to have a determinate and single meaning, but when studied closely the text undermines itself, revealing that it possesses no determinate meaning at all. Indeed, perhaps not to Derrida’s liking but true nonetheless, deconstructive analysis has a predictable form. A text or author is studied. The interpreter looks for an aporia, or basic contradiction, always present in a literary work or philosophical treatise because of the slippage between a sign and signifier. Highlighting the aporia throws doubt on the text’s meaning. The intention of deconstructive interpretation, if one may use that language, is not to understand what it means, but to play with it, to

enjoy it, to celebrate its indeterminacy. This analysis has become increasingly important in biblical studies. A rather tame example is the analysis of the David and Goliath story by P. D. Miscall (47-138). He examines the traditional interpretation of 1 Sam 17, guided by the predominant narratorial voice in the text, which asserts that David was a young lad with inferior weap-

ons and armor but a strong faith, as he stood before the Goliath, the paragon of military strength and experience. David was armed only with his faith in the divine Warrior, who would fight on his behalf and give him the victory (17:45-47). Miscall, though, insists on an underlying tension in the text (an aporia). David was not so brave as he was sly in his approach to Goliath. After all, it would be the height of folly to approach Goliath as an equal. He thus resorted to subterfuge instead. Not wearing armor, David was mobile against this huge lout, and armed with a slingshot, David could stand at a distance not fearing Goliath’s blows. The end result is not

an enriched reading of the David-Goliath story, but a skepticism concerning what the text means.

E. The Current Situation Since the 1940s the field of literary studies has passed through successive new approaches to literary texts. Once the connection with authorial intention of stages was severed, the search was on for a new locus of meaning. Starting with the text (formalism/New Criticism/structuralism), attention moved to the reader (reader-response

and ideological readings) and then finally to a denial of any meaning at all. Decon-

109

Guide

struction seemed the end of the line, even though N. Royle (After Derrida, 1995) attempts to read Derrida in the light of New Historicism. Where could one turn after denying meaning? Indeed, many have gone no further. Deconstruction, while suffering serious setbacks in the late 1980s and early 1990s, still lives on. It is premature to pronounce Derrida’s thought passé, but it is no longer ruling the literary roost. Some took a turn back to history. New Historicism scorns the idea that literature is totally nonreferential. It advocates the historical setting of texts; it also insists on the textual setting of history. But, at least in biblical studies, the best adjectives to use to describe current literary practice is varied and eclectic. On the one hand, all the above mentioned methods are still used by scholars today. Though the avant garde has moved far beyond formalism, some scholars still find it productive. (Many of the essays in L. Ryken and T. Longman III may be described as formalist, describing native literary conventions to understand the meaning of the biblical book under study.) Though deconstruction has been on the rapid decline in literary theory since the revelation of Paul De Man’s early involvement in fascism, it too is still practiced by biblical scholars. The cutting edge of the field, however, is not only varied in its approach to the literary study of the Bible, it is eclectic. That is, it utilizes not one but a variety of approaches at the same time. This trend in biblical studies may be illustrated by two recent collections of writings produced by some of the most active members of the guild: The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible and Reading Between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible.

These two works contain the writings of twenty-six scholars, who may not agree in details but share a broad consensus on what a literary approach to the text means. Foundational to their approach is the assertion that the text has no determinate meaning. This belief, of course, shapes the goal of the interpretive task. If there is no meaning to be discovered in the text, then the interpreter’s job is to construct a meaning. In a postmodern world, it seems wrong, even ridiculous to believe that we can recover some hypothetical author’s meaning or even believe that the text itself contains the clues to its meaning. (Of course, postmodernism’s skepticism flows out of its denial of God. One would think that this would immediately invalidate it as a Christian worldview. However, T. J. Keegan [1-14] argues, unsuccessfully in our opinion, that

Christian scholars can still profitably use postmodern approaches.) If anything, the reader is the one who endows the text with meaning; and since readers represent diverse cultures, religions, genders, sexual preferences,

sociological,

and economic

backgrounds, how can any right-minded person insist on something so naive as a determinate meaning? =

In line with this thinking, contemporary literary approaches to biblical interpretation rests awkwardly with its denial of the determinate meaning of a biblical text. Exum

and Clines assert, and the essays in their volume illustrate, a desire to move

beyond interpretation of the text to critique of the text. They call for a method of interpretation that “challenges the world views of our literature” (14). While such a challenge seems to contradict the claim that the text has no meaning, it is nonetheless true

that most of the authors in their book feel it is their task to undermine the message of the text in the interests of their own pressing concerns. 110

Guide

Alice Bach’s essay on the Sotah (Num 5) illustrates these principles well. In the first place, she practices diverse literary methods in her study, including feminist, deconstructive, and psychoanalytic approaches. Next she constructs, supposedly from the perspective of her gender, the underlying ideology of the text. In this regard, she argues that the text, a description of a ritual to be undertaken in the case of a wife suspected of adultery, is really masking male anxieties concerning their own sexuality and is exerting a divinely sanctioned control on woman’s sexuality. She then moves beyond interpretation, or the construction of the text’s meaning, to critique, basically pointing out how bad and unjust and ridiculous the text is. In the light of the denial of determinate meaning, I am not quite sure how crestfallen Dr. Bach would be to be told that this is not what the text is about, but for those

with ears to hear, she has constructed a fancy. The text is not about sexual anxieties as such but about the importance of paternity in the fulfillment of the promise of offspring in Gen 12:1-3. The text is also not a willful disregard for women’s rights. In other words, innocent women are not being harmed as a result of male pettiness. If Professor Bach cared to enter the world of the text, she would recognize that God superintended the ritual, and innocent women would be exonerated while duplicitous women implicated. (Further, it is wrong to simply charge the Bible with a double standard. David, too, is held responsible for his adultery with Bathsheba.) While Professor Bach’s essay is illustrative of the general trends in contemporary literary studies, the most telling essay in Exum and Clines is one written by Clines himself, “A World Established on Water (Psalm 24): Reader-Response, Deconstruc-

tion and Bespoke Criticism” (79-90). In this essay, he focuses his attention on Ps 24 by subjecting it to three reading strategies listed in the subtitle to his chapter. What he does with this psalm is actually not as important or as interesting as what he seems to be advocating methodologically, especially under the name “bespoke criticism.” On the basis of the lack of meaning of biblical texts and the importance of community acceptance of interpretation, he presents himself as the “bespoke interpreter,” based on the analogy with the “bespoke tailor.” The bespoke tailor, he reminds us, cuts the cloth according to the customer’s specifications. So, he argues, since there is not determinate meaning, we should tailor our interpretations to meet the needs of the group we are addressing, those who are paying us for our wares (87).

Perhaps this is the logical route to go once one loses faith in any kind of authority of the text, any kind of determinate meaning. It is almost too easy to poke fun at such a view of interpretation, suggesting other more colorful, but less respectable analogies to someone who manipulates his or her product to bring the best price. But there are other alternatives to Clines. The first is to refuse to base one’s presuppositions on the works

of the masters

of suspicion, Marx, Darwin,

Nietzsche,

and Freud, and

instead consider building them on the authoritative text itself. The other is to acknowledge, as Clines does, the absence of meaning in the text, and then to resign oneself to silence. Perhaps I am being nostalgic for the 60s, but I find much more noble and honest existentialism’s avowal of meaninglessness followed by despair than postmodernism’s embrace of meaninglessness, followed by play and ideological manipulations of the text.

111

Guide F. Pitfalls and Promise

As we surveyed the various literary approaches to biblical interpretation, the pitfalls become obvious. Before describing a constructive literary approach to the Bible, we first want to delineate a few of the ways in which a literary approach can serve, not to illuminate, but to undermine the biblical text. (This section describes only a few fundamental problems with the literary approach to the Bible. For more, please consult T. Longman III, 1987, 47-62).

1. Pitfalls. In part, the literary approach to the Bible was a reaction to the impasse reached by historical-critical methods. Source, form, and redaction criticism, at least in the opinion of some, had reached a dead end. The viability and importance of these studies were rarely completely rejected, but the field had grown restless and desired untouched fields to plow. As a result, many scholars moved with great enthusiasm and energy to the literary study of the Bible, applying the methods and categories developed for the study of great fiction to the Bible. One of the byproducts of this approach was a disregard, and on occasion even a disavowal, of the historical or theological significance of the text. In any case the rupture between the literary and the referential (whether history or theology) is an axiom of modern literary theory. This rupture began with New Criticism. New Criticism developed as a reaction against a traditional biographical criticism that studied the life of the author more than the text itself. To a New Critic the text has a life of its own; the author is unimportant. Even if the author were around to question concerning the meaning of his work, he would simply be another interpreter. Furthermore, the literary work creates a world of its own. The reader must enter that world and not worry about how the work relates to the real world. Alter, Berlin, and others who advocate this type of literary approach to the biblical text rejected or “bracketed” the questions of origin and reference as well as the ideology of a text. Typical is D. Robertson, who said, “nothing depends on the truth or falsity of [the Bible’s] historical claims” (D. Robertson, “Literature, the Bible as,” IDBS, 548). As one might expect, recognition of the literary characteristics of the Bible has led scholars to equate the Bible and literature, with the corollary that the Bible as a literary text does not refer outside of itself and, in particular, makes no reference to his-

tory. This position leads on the part of some to a complete or substantial denial of a historical approach to the text, which most often takes the form of denying or denigrating traditional historical-critical methods. Source and form criticism in particular are attacked. The following quotation is typical of such an attitude: “Above all, we must keep in mind that the narrative is a form of representation. Abraham in Genesis is not a real person any more than the painting of an-apple is real fruit” (Berlin, 1983, 13). The result of this approach is a turning away from historical investigation of the text as impossible or irrelevant. The traditional methods of historical criticism are abandoned, radically modified, or given secondary consideration. Concern to discover the original Sitz im Leben or to discuss the tradition history of a text languishes among this new breed of scholar. This attitude understandably concerns traditional critical scholarship, so that we find among recent articles ones like Leander Keck’s “Will the Historical-Critical Method Survive?” (L. Keck, “Will the Historical-Critical Method

Survive?” in Orientation by Disorientation, ed. R. A. Spencer, 1980, 115-27). While

112

Guide

evangelicals might in some respects be glad to see the end of historical criticism, they, along with historical critics, have a high stake in the question of history. In order to counteract this negative tendency in biblical scholarship, we must recognize that the Bible, though self-conscious about its manner of telling the story of God and his people and thus literary, is vitally interested in the content of that story. The biblical historian is not creating a world in his mind, but is artfully relating what actually took place in space and time in the past. Recent work has shown encouraging signs of integrating a literary approach with confidence in the Bible’s historical reliability. (The best such work is being done by V. Philips Long, 1989 and 1994.) It is not only possible, it is necessary to integrate literary analysis with the study of history and the text’s ideology (theology). They are all aspects of the text’s act of communication. Within this understanding, an analysis of the biblical text’s literary conventions is highly illuminating. Literary analysis can distort our understanding of the message of the Bible if practiced alone; it must be part of the entire interpretive practice to be effective. Another disturbing trend is the confidence with which a number of its most able and prolific practitioners simply assume that the text has no determinate meaning. In the minds of many scholars, the author’s intention in his writing is either inaccessible or irrelevant. The text is amenable to many interpretations; its meaning is not an object to be discovered. “The goal of a postmodern scholar is not to answer the question, “What does the text mean?’ but to assist the reader to arrive at ever new meanings” (T. J. Keegan, 8). In essence, this makes the text much less important than the interpreter. It really does not matter what the text means anyway; it simply becomes the vehicle for the prejudices or biases of the reader. Such beliefs arise from a long history that casts suspicion on the possibility of competent communication. Deconstruction is the most blatant about the causes of slippage in the attempt to transform meaning from one person to another. To have such, there needs to be a Transcendental

Signifier, something or someone

outside of the

murky sea of language who assures that adequate communication takes place. But to deconstructionists there is no such thing or being; God is dead, after all, and especially

in the case of the Bible, which is supposed to be God’s Word, there is no (ultimate) Author who can anchor the meaning of a text. We are thus left to the free play of signifiers; the interpreter is now god. But that is the point the Christian questions. God is not dead. There is a Transcendent Signifier, and his name is Yahweh. He created the world by virtue of his Word; language emanates from him. That is not to say that oral or written communication is always obvious. We

know it is not. It is not even to say that the interpretation of every biblical passage is clear. The history of interpretation belies that. After all, sin has clouded the picture. Nonetheless, the basic message of the Bible is adequately communicated, so that only the most mischievous reader can miss it (Sternberg, 365-440).

2. Promise. The form of the Bible itself insists that a literary approach is legitimate and will illuminate the text for us. Careful reading of the book, when judged according to the standards of the ANE, reveals a self-consciousness not only about what it said, but how it is said. Artful presentations of historical events, prophetic utterances, and, even more clearly, hymns of praise and lament demonstrate the need

for a literary approach.

113

Guide

Those of us who live thousands of years after the completion of the Bible need to pay special attention to the literary approach because the literary conventions employed by the ancient Hebrew storytellers and poets are not necessarily the same as those that we are used to in our own culture. Thus, we must be self-conscious as we

consider the literary aspect of the biblical text. As we engage in literary analysis, we must be careful to avoid the pitfalls that are described above. Such an approach to the biblical text will not treat the literary approach as a new paradigm that totally replaces past approaches to the text, but rather will consider it a part of the historical-grammatical approach, to be used alongside historical and theological methods. Such an approach will study the conventions that the poets and storytellers used to relate to us God’s message. It is now time to move beyond description and evaluation to a presentation of a productive literary approach.

G. Literary Conventions 1. Genre. Genre may well be the literary concept most important to the interpretive task. Genres are classes of texts grouped according to similarities in structure, content, mood, or setting. Authors guide their readers about the proper way to understand their message by means of genre signals. Looking at the same issue from the perspective of the reader, we observe that genre evokes certain reading strategies. The constraints that genre places on writers and readers does not even have to occur on a conscious level. Authors want to write something like previous texts that become their model. Readers who have experience with similar sounding or looking texts know how they are intended to be understood, at least in broad terms. Thus, a text

that begins “once upon a time” will trigger an association with other works that open with the same words, and the text will be understood to be a fairy tale. Fairy tales will not be understood as works of history, but will be expected to have a moral teaching of some sort. A biblical text that is introduced by the literary term “parable” will also evoke certain expectations and reading strategies on the part of the reader. All texts evoke such reactions from interpreters. Genre, therefore, is both a literary convention as well as an important component of the literary context that must be taken into account as words are studied and dictionary meanings are derived. As important a concept as genre is, we do not have time to develop this idea extensively. (See the insightful comments on genre in K. Vanhoozer, “Language, Literature, Hermeneutics, and Biblical Theology” in the present volume.) However, for

further study the interested reader may be referred to other works by the present writer (T. Longman

II, 1987, 76-83;

1991, 3-21; L. Ryken and T. Longman

III, 363-66,

434-38, 463-64.) Since genre is a fluid concept, working at different levels of abstraction or generalization from a particular text, we could proceed from this point in a variety of ways. We could, for instance, survey the genres of the Bible by looking at history, law, wis-

dom, prophecy, gospel, epistle, and apocalyptic, but reasons of space, we chose instead to focus on a broader level and look at two genres of biblical literature and their literary conventions: prose and poetry. The OT presents the reader with two writing strategies that call for different interpretive approaches: prose and poetry. Poetry is a comparably more artificial language than prose, that is, artificial to everyday speech. It is more self-conscious 114

Guide

language, which means that more thought is put into how something is said as well as what is said. Notice that the comparison between prose and poetry is couched in quantitative and not qualitative terms. Prose and poetry are not different in kind. There are no traits that are found in the one and not the other. Poetry has an intensified and heightened use of imagery, parallelism, and other literary devices. The lack of a defining trait has led Kugel to deny the distinction between poetry and prose, but we believe his reaction to be extreme. 2. Prose and poetry. We will now proceed to define the major conventions that characterize prose and then poetry. (a) OT Prose. Prose in the Bible, as in English literature, is written in sentences, grouped in paragraphs. Most of the prose in the Bible is narrative prose. Another way to describe this is to say that the Bible is full of stories. All stories have four elements, which we will now discuss: plot, character, setting, and point of view. (i) Plot. The plot of a literary narrative is the succession of events, usually motivated by conflict, that generates suspense and leads to a conclusion. Abrams calls it a “structure of actions” (137) and points out that plot analysis is not a simple recitation of the episodes that make up a story, but happens “only when we say how this is related to that” (ibid.). In other words, the reader must decide how each part contributes to the whole. This narrative trait of plot is so pervasive that readers will automatically attribute causation between narrative episodes even if they are not explicit in the text itself. Thus, while one is analyzing narrative in the Bible, it is illuminating to describe the plot. One way of proceeding is to identify the central plot conflict of a book and then see how the different episodes of the story fit into the progression toward the resolution of the conflict. I will illustrate this by a brief look at the book of Jonah. The central conflict of the book of Jonah becomes obvious in the first three verses. God gives Jonah a command to preach in the city of Nineveh, and Jonah refuses by hopping on a boat that is sailing in the opposite direction. Jonah’s reluctance, motivated by an intense hatred of Assyria that is rooted in his ethnocentrism, is contrasted to God’s concern for his creatures in that city. Four major scenes in the book constitute the plot and correspond roughly to the four chapters of Jonah as they are divided in the English Bible (the Hebrew differs). These are Jonah’s flight from God in a boat, God’s rescue of Jonah by means of a great fish, Jonah’s preaching in Nineveh, and Jonah’s final conflict with God after God spares Nineveh. As we will see, the four episodes are easily distinguished by means of their different settings. The first episode heightens the conflict between God and Jonah and thus heightens the tension that the reader feels. Jonah is trying to get as far away from Nineveh as he possibly can. In so doing, he is attempting to flee from God as well, something that he soon finds impossible to do. God’s long arm reaches out and causes the sailors to reluctantly throw Jonah overboard. The second episode illustrates how impotent Jonah is as he stands against God and his purposes. God rescues Jonah from certain death by causing a large fish to swallow him. This fish provides Jonah with a safe, if admittedly uncomfortable, haven until

God delivers him onto the shore. Though undignified, his arrival on the shore points him toward Nineveh, and there he resignedly goes. 115

Guide The third episode shows Jonah doing God’s will. The brevity of Jonah’s sermon as reported in the book highlights his reluctance: “Forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned.” In spite of the fact that he provides no door of hope to the Ninevites, they repent and are spared. Jonah’s reaction to Nineveh’s deliverance shows that the conflict with God is not resolved. Jonah fusses and fumes over God’s deliverance of Nineveh, presumably because God shows compassion to a people who have oppressed and tormented Israel. But God has the last word. The book closes with God’s question to Jonah: “Should I not be concerned about that great city?” Although we never hear Jonah’s response, the question is rhetorical, and thus the reader is left with the obvious conclusion that God’s way of compassion and mercy is the right one, while Jonah is satirized as a narrow-minded Israelite (see below). (ii) Characters. A second important aspect of the analysis is the examination of the characters who populate a story. The close association between plot and character may be observed in the fact that it is the characters who generate the actions that make up the plot, thus leading to the famous statement from Henry James, “What is character but the determination of incident? What is incident but the illustration of character?” (quoted in S. Chatman, 112-13).

Characters are like real people in that we can know them only partially and exhaustively. Our knowledge of real people comes through our experience of in their actions and conversation. We learn about the characters of a story in the same way—by their actions and by speech (both the speeches they make and that are made about them). Our understanding of a character is controlled and mediated by the narrator, who may even be one of the characters. The narrator may choose to reveal much about a character, in which case the character is complex or round; or the narrator may

never them much those

choose to tell us very little about a character, who is therefore flat. There are even some

characters about whom we learn next to nothing. They appear to perform some specialized function in the plot and are simply agents (A. Berlin, 1983, 31-32). Other technical language that for some reason is not used as frequently in biblical studies, though it is more common in literary studies, is that of protagonist, antagonist, and foil. The protagonist is the main character of the story and the one through whose perspective we follow most of the action. The antagonist is the one who stands against the protagonist, blocking his or her desires. The foil is a character who serves as a contrast to other characters, most often the protagonist (L. Ryken, 1987, 72). Jonah is the protagonist of the OT story. We are not sympathetic toward him, even though we may identify with him. God and the Ninevites (an unlikely pair) are Jonah’s antagonists. The sailors on the boat on which Jonah tries to flee from God are a foil to Jonah, because, though they are pagans, they show respect and fear toward Jonah’s God. Jonah and God are round, complex characters, whereas the Ninevites as a whole

constitute a single “corporate” flat character, and the king of Nineveh (or even the great fish for that matter) is an agent. Since E. Auerbach (21-22) and much later Alter (1981, 114-30), the biblical narrator’s reticence about such things as character development is well documented. The biblical text does little by way of direct commentary and description of its charac-

116

Ie

Guide ee

ters. When details are given, they are therefore of special significance to the story. Thus Samson’s hair, Saul’s height, Bathsheba’s beauty, and Job’s righteousness are all crucial elements of their story. Most of our knowledge of a character comes indirectly through actions and dialogue. Biblical narrative does not speak explicitly of the characters’ personality or the motivations of their actions; therefore, the reader must enter into the process and inter-

pret the gaps of the narrative. This is not as subjective as it sounds. That David does not go out to war in the spring (2 Sam 11:1) is clearly a negative statement about the king, a fact that becomes evident because his leisurely presence in Jerusalem leads to such catastrophic consequences (chs. 11-12). Perhaps the best advice is Ryken’s when he instructs Bible readers to “simply get to know the characters as thoroughly as the details allow you to” (Ryken, 1987, 75). (iii) Setting. The setting of a story is the space in which the characters perform the actions that constitute the plot. It is important to recognize, however, that setting performs more than one function in a narrative. Much of the narrative of the Bible is highly literary prose with a historical intention. It is therefore not surprising that biblical authors give us details about a specific physical setting in biblical literature in that it imparts reality to the story. We can picture the action of the story in our minds as that action is related to well-known ancient settings. But setting contributes more to a story than providing a simple backdrop for the action. Other functions include generating the atmosphere or mood of a narrative and contributing to the story’s meaning and structure. Let me illustrate these three functions of narrative with another brief look at the book of Jonah. Although we are not told where Jonah is when he first hears the word of the Lord, we are told that he flees to the port town of Joppa. He is fleeing from Nineveh by setting sail on the Mediterranean. These locations are all historical places well known from antiquity. They are not the fabrication of the author’s imagination. Their use in the narrative implies the reality of the story.

The book of Jonah further provides illustration of the other two functions of setting—generating atmosphere and contributing to the meaning of a story. God calls Jonah to go to Nineveh, and eventually he does go there. Important to the story is the fact that Nineveh was the major city of Assyria, the ruthless nation that oppressed Israel and many other small nation states for over a century. After receiving the call to go to Nineveh, Jonah flees in the opposite direction. His westward rather than eastward direction tells the reader much about Jonah’s state of mind toward God without the need for direct authorial commentary.

Finally, in one of the most spectacular settings of any biblical story, Jonah speaks with God from the belly of a large fish in the depths of the sea. This setting shows God’s control even over the sea and its monsters, elements that are often found,

especially in poetic settings, as representative of the forces of chaos and the absence of God. By having Jonah speak to God from the belly of the fish, the biblical author makes it clear that Jonah can find no place on earth to escape God (Ps 139). We must realize that in the historical narrative that dominates the narrative genre of the Bible, the author’s choice of setting was usually restricted. Authors simply placed action where it actually occurred. Of course these authors controlled the selec117

Guide

tivity of detail in the description of settings, requiring the reader to pay close attention to these textual signals. (iv) Point of view. This last narrative trait is closely related to the presence of a narrative voice in the story. The narrator is the one who controls the story. His is the voice through whom we hear about the action and the people of the narrative. The narrator’s point of view is the perspective through which we observe and evaluate everything connected with the story. In short, the narrator is a device used by authors to shape and guide how the reader responds to the characters and events of the story. Literary critics make some basic distinctions in point of view, starting with first- and third-person narrative. In first-person narrative, the narrator is also a character in the story. This kind of narrative appears infrequently in the Bible, but it may be illustrated by parts of Nehemiah and the “we” passages in Acts. By far the most frequent type of narrative is that of the third-person narrator, whom Rhoad and Michie (3-4) insist does not figure in the events of the story. The narrator speaks in the third person; is not bound by time or space in the telling of the story; is an implied invisible presence in every scene, capable of being anywhere to recount the action; displays full omniscience by narrating the thoughts, feelings, or sensory experiences of many characters; often turns from the story to give direct asides to the reader, explaining a custom or translating a word or commenting on the story; and narrates the story from one overarching ideological point of view. As these and other authors have pointed out, such a narrative strategy gives the impression of an all-knowing mind standing behind the stories of the Bible—a mind that in the context of the canon must be associated with God himself.

Thus it is not surprising that the Bible knows nothing of the so-called unreliable narrator. In the words of Sternberg, “The Bible always tells the truth in that its narrator is absolutely and straightforwardly reliable” (52). As he goes on to note, the narrator, while telling the truth, often does not tell the whole truth, and this results in the charac-

teristic brevity of biblical narration. This narrative reticence produces gaps in the story and thus both invites the reader into a participatory role in the interpretive process and protects the mystery of God and his ways in the world. (v) Conclusion. The narratives of the Bible are thus both similar to and different from contemporary narratives. As the past few years have abundantly demonstrated, we may, as a result, benefit in our understanding of the stories of the Bible by taking a

literary approach to them. In doing so, however, we dimensions of the biblical text, notably its historical this reminder, however, it is possible to bracket purposes and to concentrate for the moment on the the individual books that make up the Bible.

must never lose sight of the other and theological significance. With those functions for pedagogical impressive narrative strategies of

(b) OT poetry. While there is overlap between ancient biblical and familiar Western poetry, there are also significant discontinuities. Each culture has its own poetic code. As a result, there are strange as well as familiar features awaiting the modern reader of the poetry of the Bible. *This section on biblical poetry is taken from Ryken and Longman, The Complete Literary Guide to the Bible, 1993, 80-91.

118

Guide

Our discussion of these traits will be in two parts. (i) We will examine the primary traits of biblical poetry—primary because they occur consistently, almost pervasively in the poetry. (ii) The secondary traits, to be discussed in the next section, are secondary only because they occur more occasionally. The distinction between primary and secondary poetic conventions is a distinction of degree and not of kind. There is no single trait or cluster of traits that defines Hebrew poetry as over against prose. This explains why it is occasionally difficult (for instance, in some passages in Hos or Jer) to categorize a text as either prose or poetry. It used to be thought that meter was such a genre-identifying trait, but we will see how meter has proved to be an elusive category in the analysis of biblical poetry.

(i) Primary traits. The most obvious trait of Hebrew poetry is its terseness. This characteristic leaps out at even the beginning reader of the Bible by virtue of formatting conventions of English translations. With few exceptions, most English translations put a single poetic colon on a line. The result is a large amount of white space on the page. The fundamental unit of Hebrew poetry is the line, not the sentence, as in prose.

The line is composed of two or more short clauses that are often called cola (sing.: colon) by biblical scholars. The most frequent line has two cola (a bicolon), each one containing three words. Lines with one colon (monocolon) or three cola (tricolon) are not unusual, nor are cola with two or four words. It is, however, very rare to find a

poetic line that consists of more than four words. That the lines are short or terse is another way of expressing the fact that Hebrew poetry, like most poetry, is compact; it says a lot using few words. This compactness is the result of four features. First, Hebrew poetry uses few conjunctions. Even the simple conjunction “and,” the direct object marker, and the relative pronoun are only rarely used and are often suspected of being late prosaic insertions (see F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, 60-66). This feature is blurred a little in English translations, which will often add

a conjunction to help the reader along. For instance, in Nah 2:5, “He summons his picked troops, yet they stumble along the way,” the conjunction “yet” is supplied and is not in the Hebrew text. The second characteristic of biblical poetry that leads to terseness is parallelism, which I will describe fully below. There is a definite tendency toward a rough isosyllablism in biblical poetry that leads to terseness in parallelism. By this I mean that cola within a parallel line will normally have an equal or near equal number of syllables. Closely related is the third source of terseness, ellipsis. Ellipsis is the tendency to drop a major element out of the second colon of a poetic line with the expectation that the reader will carry over that element from the first colon. Ellipsis (see W. G. E. Watson, 303-4) is most common with the verb and may be illustrated by Hos 5:8: “Blow the trumpet in Gibeah, the horn in Ramah.”

The last source of compact expression in the poetry of the Bible, also to be discussed fully below, is imagery. Imagery stimulates the imagination by embodying multiple meanings in concise form. An image not only triggers a train of thinking about a subject but also evokes an emotional response. 119

Guide

The second primary trait mentioned above is parallelism. The near repetition that characterizes the poetic line in Hebrew poetry has long been observed. It was named parallelism by Robert Lowth in the eighteenth century, the term borrowed from geometry to describe what he called “a certain conformation of the sentences” in which “equals refer to equals, and opposites to opposites” (Lecture III, quoted in Berlin, LOOS WL. Since Lowth, parallelism has been recognized as the most telltale feature of bib-

lical poetry. Also since Lowth, literary and biblical scholars have emphasized the equivalence between the related cola of a poetic line. This may be illustrated by C. S. Lewis’s statement about parallelism that it is “the practice of saying the same thing twice in different words” (11). While Lewis did understand the parallel line to operate

according to the principle “the same in the other,” his emphasis was on the coherence of the cola, and handbooks on biblical poetry presented an even less balanced statement on the relationship between the cola than he did. Parallelism has received intense scrutiny over the past few years from biblical and literary scholars (Kugel; Alter, 1985; Berlin, 1985; M. O’Connor; S. Geller). The

emerging consensus is that the parallel line is a more subtle literary device than previously thought. The new paradigm for understanding parallelism is development rather than equivalence. The biblical poet is doing more than saying the same thing twice. The second part always nuances the first part in some way. Kugel rightly refuses to replace Lowth’s traditional three categories of parallelism (synonymous, antithetic, synthetic) with others. He simply argues that the second colon always contributes to the thought of the first colon, as suggested by his formula “A, what is more B.” The interpreter thus must pause and meditate on a poetic line like the well-known Ps 1:1: Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked

or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers.

Isolating the verbs in their context, we clearly see a progression of thought in the way that Kugel suggests. All three verbs figuratively relate the person to evil. As he moves from “walk” to “stand” to “sit,” the psalmist imagines an ever closer relationship to evil, in other words, a more settled relation with it. In short, parallelism is based simultaneously on the logic of synonymity and the logic of progression; as we move from one line to the next, something is repeated and something is added. Parallelism is the most frequently occurring literary device in Hebrew poetry. We must keep in mind, however, that not all poetry contains parallelism and that some prose does (e.g. Gen 21:1). Furthermore, though space does not allow a detailed description, recent studies have enlarged our understanding of parallelism beyond the semantic described above and into grammatical and even phonological dimensions (see A. Berlin, 1985; A. S. Cooper). The fourth trait of Hebrew poetry mentioned above is imagery and figurative language. Imagery is not the exclusive province of poetry, but the frequency and intensity of imagery is heightened in discourse that we normally recognize as poetic. It is,

120

Guide after all, another way to write compactly as well as to increase the emotional impact of a passage. As M. H. Abrams points out, imagery is an “ambiguous” term (78). He goes on to quote C. Day Lewis, who speaks of imagery as “a picture made out of words.” Such pictures are often the result of comparison, the two most common types being metaphor and simile. Simile, on one level, is not even figurative language; it is capable of being understood on a literal level. A simile is a comparison between two things and is marked by the use of “like” or “as.” S of Songs 4:1b is a clear example: “Your hair is like a flock of goats descending from Mount Gilead.” Metaphor has long been considered the master image or even the essence of poetry by literary scholars since the time of Aristotle. Metaphor presents a stronger connection between the two objects of comparison and is truly figurative language, as in S of Songs 4:1a: “Your eyes behind your veil are doves.” Metaphor catches our attention by the disparity between the two objects and the daring suggestion of similarity, and by so doing the reader explores multiple levels of meaning and experiences the emotional overtones of metaphor. A well-known example comes from the first line of Psalm 23: “The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want.” What does it mean to compare the Lord to a shepherd? To read the image in context, we would immediately suggest that the poem speaks of God’s protection, his guidance, and his care. We would stop short, however, if we did not remember that the shepherd image was a well-used royal image in the ANE. Reading the text sympathetically, we would experience assurance and feel comfort even in the midst of danger. Metaphor and simile do not exhaust the repertory of figurative language in Hebrew. E. W. Bullinger lists hundreds of categories of figurative language. Besides metaphor and simile, Leland Ryken treats at least four figures of speech and gives examples. The first is symbol. “A symbol is a concrete image that points to or embodies other meanings” (1984, 97). Next is hyperbole, “conscious exaggeration for the sake of effect” (Ryken, 1981, 99): “With your help I can advance against a troop; with my God I can scale a wall” (Ps 18:29). Then there is personification, which attributes personality to inanimate objects. The psalmist frequently uses this poetic device in order to demonstrate that all of creation and not just human creation is dependent upon God and owes him praise: “Let the sea resound, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it” (Ps 98:7). Ryken notes that the poets of Israel use apostrophe in order to express strong emotion. Apostrophe “is direct address to something or someone absent as though the person were present and capable of listening” (Ryken, 1984, 98). He includes among his examples Ps 2:10: “Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you

rulers of the earth.” These representative figures of speech should not be taken as a mere list of categories. They are representative of the devices available to the Hebrew poet as he communicated his message with vivid freshness and concreteness. They lend richness of meaning to the poem and seek to evoke a strong emotional response from the reader. (ii) Secondary traits. Terseness, parallelism, and imagery are the three primary traits of biblical poetry. The acrostic form is a striking example of a secondary poetic device. It stands out because it is so noticeable in the original and because its existence entails an obviously artificial form of the language. An acrostic is a poem in which the first letters of successive lines form a recognizable pattern. While in some poems from 121

Guide

ancient times (such as some Babylonian poems) the name of a scribe who copied the text, or perhaps some hidden message, was spelled out in this way, the examples found in the OT all follow the order of the Hebrew alphabet. There are many examples of acrostics in the Bible. The two most famous are perhaps the so-called Giant Psalm (119), which is broken up into eight-verse stanzas by the acrostic, and the book of Lamentations. In the latter, chs. 1, 2, and 4 follow a

verse-by-verse acrostic whereas ch. 3 grasps the letters into three-verse stanzas, all three lines beginning with the relevant letter; ch. 4 is an extended acrostic, each verse

being a four-colon stanza and beginning with the relevant letter. One of the more interesting acrostic patterns is found in the first chapter of Nahum. The acrostic covers only half the alphabet and even then skips an occasional letter. Other acrostics in Hebrew occur at Psalms 9, 10, 25, 34, 37, 111, 112, 145; Prov 31:10-31. The purpose of acrostic form may only be guessed. On the one hand, it may help in the process of memorization. On the other hand, acrostics also communicate a sense of wholeness. As Watson points out, “By using every letter of the alphabet the poet was trying to ensure that his treatment of a particular topic was complete” (198). I would expand this to include the idea that an acrostic imparts a feeling of wholeness to a text. Nahum’s first chapter confirms this. This disrupted acrostic occurs in a poem that extols God as the divine Warrior, who disrupts the normal created order. Thus,

once again, form supports meaning. A somewhat neglected secondary convention of Hebrew poetry is the use of stanzas and strophes. Most studies of biblical poetry have concentrated on the level of the parallel line. Little has been done to describe rhetorical patterns that encompass the whole poem. This neglect is due mostly to uncertainty about analysis on this level. Scholars often question if broader patterns exist in biblical poems. There is no doubt that most poems are unified wholes, but the relationship between the parts is almost always described in terms of content. For instance, grief psalms share a similar structure, by which any individual psalm may be divided in separate parts. Thus Ps 69 may be described in the following way:

Invocation and Initial Plea to God for Help Complaints

Confession of Sin Further Pleas for Help Imprecation

Hymn of Praise

Each of these sections is composed of at least one and usually more than one parallel line. The question arises as to whether or not it is legitimate to call these broader groupings stanzas and/or strophes. Watson (160-200) has one of the most

Wy

Guide

extensive discussions tive as long as these poem.” Furthermore, individual poetic line

of this issue, arguing that terms are understood in as Watson also points out, are occasionally possible

the answer to this question is affirmathe broad sense as “units within the verse groupings above the level of the by means of such devices as recurrent

refrains (Ps 42-43) and acrostic patterns (Ps 119).

ay The significance of this discussion is to recognize that the reader can expect biblical poems to have a structure that goes beyond the individual line and encompasses the whole poem. This broader structure is most easily recognized on the level of content but is occasionally supported by elements of style. Finally, Hebrew poets often play on the sounds of language to achieve poetic effect. H. Conclusion

One might question the appropriateness of an article on literary analysis in the introduction of a dictionary. One would be hard pressed to find a written text that is less literary, less concerned about its verbal artistry, than a dictionary. However, in the

present case, that is not so obvious. This is not to say that special efforts were devoted to the actual writing of the entries. Only in rare cases, and mostly by accident, will an author of an article employ rhetorical strategies in the presentation of his material. However, this project is certainly among the first done by a group of scholars sensitive to the issues of the Bible as literature; it is impossible indeed to be a serious student of the Bible and not be affected by these new insights into the biblical text. Thus, as we studied a Hebrew word to write an entry, we studied it in its multiple literary contexts, taking account of the various genres in which it appeared. We tried to be sensitive to their use in parallelism, noting that parallel words were not equal in meaning, but the second somehow progressed the thought of the first. We also appreciated the metaphorical use of the word, when relevant. These and many other literary categories and insights stand behind the conclusions that are here presented in the articles to follow. BIBLIOGRAPHY

M. H. Abrams, A Glossary of Literary Terms, 1981; L. Alonso-Schokel, Estudios de Poetica Hebraea, 1963; R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 1981; idem, The Art of Biblical Poetry, 1985; idem, “A Response to Critics,” JSOT 27, 1983, 113-17; F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Hosea, 1980; E. Auerbach, Mimesis, 1953; S. Bar-Efrat, “Some Observations on the Anal-

ysis of Structure in Biblical Narrative,” VT 30, 1980, 154-73; J. Barton, Reading the Old Testament, 1984; A. Bach, “Good to the Last Drop: Viewing the Sotah (Numbers 5:11-31) As

the Glass Half Empty and Wondering How to View It Half Full,” The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible, 26-54; T. K. Beal, “Ideology and Intertextuality: Surplus of Meaning and Controlling the Means of Production,” in Reading Between the Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible, 1992, 27-40; A. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, 1983,

idem, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism, 1985; J. Calloud, “A Few Comments on Structural Semiotics: Brief Review of a Method and Some Explanations of Procedures,” Semeia 15, 1979, 50-65; S. Chatman, Story and Discourse, 1978; D. J. A. Clines, J, He, We, and They: A Literary Approach to Isaiah 53, 1976; idem, “Story and Poem: The Old Testament as Literature and Scripture,” Int 34, 1980, 115-27; A. Cooper, “Biblical Poetics: A Linguistic Approach,” 1976; J. Culler, Structuralist Poetics, 1975; J. Derrida, Of Grammatology, 1976; idem, Writings and Difference, 1978; R. B. Dillard and T. Longman III, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1994; J.

123

Guide Cheryl Exum, “Who’s Afraid of ‘The Endangered Ancestress’?” in The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible, 1993, 91-113; idem and D. J. A. Clines (eds.), The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible, 1993; H. Felperin, Beyond Deconstruction, 1985; D. N. Fewell, Reading Between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible, 1992; J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis, 1975; idem, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, 1981; S. Geller, Parallel-

ism in Early Biblical Poetry, 1979; D. M. Gunn, The Story of King David: Genre and Interpretation, 1978; idem, The Fate of King Saul, 1980; W. Iser, The Implied Reader, 1974; F. Jameson,

The Political Unconscious: Narrative As a Socially Symbolic Act, 1981; T. J. Keegan, “Biblical Criticism and the Challenge of Postmodernism,” Biblical Interpretation 3, 1995, 1-14; J. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Parallelism, 1981; V. B. Leitch, Deconstructive Criticism: An Advanced Introduction, 1983; F. Lentricchia, After the New Criticism, 1980; C. S. Lewis, Reflections on the

Psalms, 1961; V. Philips Long, The Reign and Rejection of King Saul: A Case for Literary and Theological Coherence, 1989; idem, The Art of Biblical History, 1994; T. Longman III, Literary

Approaches to Biblical Interpretation, 1987; idem, Fictional Akkadian Autobiography, 1991; E. V. McKnight, The Bible and the Reader: An Introduction to Literary Criticism, 1985; P. Miscall, The Workings of Old Testament Narrative, 1983; J. Muilenburg, “Beyond Form Criticism,” JBL, 1969, 1-18; C. Norris, Deconstruction: Theory and Practice, 1982; M. O’Connor, Hebrew. Verse

Structure, 1980; D. Patte and J. F. Parker, “A Structural Exegesis of Genesis 2 and 3,” Semeia 18, 1980, 55-75; R. Polzin, Biblical Structuralism, 1977; V. S. Poythress, “Structuralism and Biblical Studies,” JETS 21, 1978, 218-31; S. Prickett, Words and the Word: Language, Poetics and Biblical Interpretation, 1986; D. Rhoads and D. Michie, Mark As Story: The Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel, 1982; L. Ryken, How to Read the Bible as Literature, 1984; idem,

Words of Delight: A Literary Introduction to the Bible, 1987; L. Ryken and T. Longman III, A Complete Literary Guide to the Bible, 1993; M. Shapiro, The Sense of Grammar, 1983; M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 1985; T. Todorov, The Fantastic: A Structural Approach to a Literary Genre, 1981; J. P. Tompkins (ed.), Reader Response Criticism, 1980; H. Aram Veeser, The New Historicism, 1989; W. G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 1984.

Tremper Longman III

124

Guide

6. NARRATIVE CRITICISM: THE THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF NARRATIVE TECHNIQUES

The literary qualities of OT narrative have long been recognized by scholars and general readers alike. In the 1980s four books were published that marked a significant advance on previous scholarly studies of OT narrative: R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative; A. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative; M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative; S. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible. Taken together, they provide a sophisticated and wide-ranging treatment of the workings of OT narrative. I term this approach “narrative criticism.” Alter and Sternberg have since written further on this subject, and many others have followed their general approach, but I will use the four books listed above as the basis for this essay, since they provide a convenient reference point as well as being readable treatments of the topic (Sternberg’s book is, however, longer and more complex than the other three).

Narrative criticism represents only one out of many literary approaches currently being applied to OT narrative. For a sampling of some others, among them reader-response criticism, deconstruction, materialist criticism, feminist criticism, intertextual approaches, see D. N. Fewell (ed.), Reading Between Texts; J. C. Exum and D. J. A. Clines (eds.), The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible; D. M.

Gunn and D. N. Fewell, Narrative in the Hebrew Bible. Significant aspects of the work of Alter and Sternberg in particular have been criticized by scholars writing out of some of these other approaches: D. M. Gunn, “Reading Right”; B. O. Long, “The ‘New’ Biblical Poetics.” Some of these criticisms will be picked up in what follows. Narrative criticism, however, remains full of suggestive insights, particularly in the way it links narrative techniques to a worldview or theology underlying the narrative. The main thesis of narrative criticism is that OT narrative is in general written using certain recurrent literary techniques, which become apparent when one examines the following main features of OT narrative: its use of patterns of repetition and variation, its presentation of narrative events out of chronological sequence, and its selectivity in what the reader is told. Most narratives, ancient and modern, fictional and

nonfictional, display these features to some extent: In order to create a coherent narrative, one generally has to select and reorder events, and also bring out similarities and differences between them. The claim of narrative criticism is that the writers of OT narrative exploit what were in effect the requirements of their chosen literary form resourcefully and in many ways: in order to provide interpretations and evaluations of the events narrated, to characterize the human participants in these events, to create

ambiguity and suspense, and to influence the reader’s response to what is described. In what follows I will introduce these techniques more fully and then discuss their implications for OT theology. As well as working through some OT examples, I give further OT references that readers can follow up for themselves. 1. Repetition and variation; cross-textual allusion. An immediate impression for any reader is that OT narrative is at points repetitive. If we are at first tempted to dismiss this feature as a literary defect (arising, perhaps, from the vicissitudes of oral transmission, or accidentally created by the editorial combination of sources), closer examination suggests the reverse. For one thing, though there are many cases of exact

repetition, there are as many where one of the repeated elements is given in a varied

125

Guide

form. And in general, in most cases of exact or varied repetition, it is possible to argue

that we are dealing, not with a more or less accidental literary epiphenomenon, but with a deliberate authorial technique. Some of the uses of repetition in OT narrative are set out in what follows. See also the discussions of Alter (1980, 88-113) and Sternberg

(1985, 365-440). Repetition can take several forms. Individual words may be repeated so as to stress a key idea (e.g., the use of “sight,” “vision,” and “blindness” in 1 Sam 3; the use of “listen,” “obey,” “voice,” “word” in 1 Sam 15); a series of actions or words may

recur (e.g., the patterning of the days of creation in Gen 1). On a larger scale there are cases where entire incidents have a similar pattern (e.g., the account of the crossing of the Jordan in Josh 3-4 seems to be modeled on the account of the Exodus in Exod 14).

Exact or near-exact repetition can suggest such things as stability and order, inevitability, unanimity, and obedience. The patterning of the days in Gen | suggests God’s firm control over the stages of creation. In 2 Kgs 1 the message Elijah receives to take to Ahaziah is quoted three times: as given by God to Elijah (vv. 3-4); as given by Ahaziah’s messengers to Ahaziah (v. 6); as given by Elijah himself to Ahaziah (v. 16). The message is each time given in unchanged form, suggesting that for all Ahaziah’s attempts to threaten Elijah, he cannot escape the death prophesied (cf. v. 17). Finally, Num 7 is perhaps the extreme case of unvaried repetition: Only the names of the tribes and their representatives change as each tribe duly brings its offering for the tabernacle. Repetition with variation can suggest a different range of ideas: contrast or conflict, a significant development in the narrative, a climactic moment in the narrative, or

an incident that in some way overturns or parodies an earlier incident. Thus, when Elisha at 2 Kgs 2:14 parts the Jordan with his cloak, as Elijah has just done before (v. 8), this suggests both continuity (God will be with him as with Elijah) and change (Elijah has gone, and Elisha is to carry on his work). In Judg 20 the different preparations for the third day’s fighting against Benjamin suggest that it will end in victory, not defeat (compare vv. 18, 22-23, and 26-29; note also how the tone in which the Israelites address God becomes increasingly anguished as the fighting drags on without success, vv. 18, 23, 28). Readers may also like to study the repetitions and variations in the

treatment of the successive plagues in Exod 7-11. As regards overturning and parody, large sections of Judg 17-21 (which have as their theme anarchy in premonarchic Israel) can be seen as travesties of earlier narratives: the Danite destruction of Laish is a travesty of the conquest narratives in Josh (God has not commanded the destruction, the killing of the inhabitants is portrayed as an atrocity, and the Danites institute idolatrous worship in the territory they have conquered); Judg 19:15-30 reminds the reader of Sodom and Gomorrah in Gen 19:4-13, with the difference that in Judg 19 it is the Israelites who are engaging in blatant wickedness; the ambush of Gibeah in Judg 20:29-48 reminds one of the ambush against Ai in Josh 8, except that now Israelites are fighting against Israelites. In each case, comparison between Judges and the earlier narrative underscores the theme of wickedness in Israel. OT narrative seems at points explicitly to encourage this kind of cross-textual allusion. We may cite, for example, God’s self-description in Exod as “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (Exod 3:6; cf. Deut 1:8). In a similar way, the recurrent

“cyclical formulae” of Judg (3:7-11; 4:1-2; etc.) and “regnal formulae” of Kgs (1 Kgs 126

Guide

ES

SE

a

a

11:41-43, 14:19-20; etc.) can be seen, not as evidence of a stereotyping mentality, but as an invitation to the reader to compare and contrast the activities of earlier and later judges/kings, noting recurring themes and new developments. Repetition with variation can take subtle forms, particularly when it involves whole episodes. Gen 37 (the selling of Joseph into Egypt) and Gen 38 (the episode of Judah and Tamar) appear to be separate narratives; but both culminate in a scene where someone is asked to identify objects linked to goats (37:22-32, 31; 38:17-18, 25-26).

This similarity of plot suggests a pattern running through seemingly unconnected events: Gen 38 is clearly concerned with the survival of the line of one of Jacob’s sons;

but Gen 37 turns out to have been no less concerned with this theme, for it is Joseph’s presence in Egypt that will make it possible for them to survive famine. God, the narrator hints, is at work in the events of Gen 37 and 38, though in a way that will only be

clearly discernible later on (a point explicitly made at 45:5; 50:20). Compare also Gen 27 compared with 29:15-30, from which it emerges that Jacob suffers a deception just like that he perpetrated against his father; 1 Sam 24-6 (discussed by R. P. Gordon), in which the Nabal episode of ch. 25 turns out to develop the same themes that run through chs. 24 and 26, in particular the theme of David’s vindication against a hostile kingly or king-like (see 25:36) figure. All these uses of repetition may be termed forms of implicit commentary: The narrator uses repetition, variation, and patterning to emphasize points, suggests connections between events, and hints at interpretations and evaluations; but in none of the

cases discussed does he explicitly state what he thinks is going on. Instead, the reader has to compare, contrast, and interpret what the narrator has no more than suggestively juxtaposed. At many points OT narrative also provides explicit interpretations and evaluations of people, actions, and events; but it may be said that one of the most fun-

damental features of OT narrative is an apparent reticence which, when probed, resolves itself into a sharply focused, though unstated, commentary on the events narrated. See further Bar-Efrat (23-45) for a discussion of the difference between “overt”

and “covert” narrators. The frequent reticence of OT narrative does, of course, often leave more than

one interpretative option open in repetition and variation, as in other aspects of OT narrative we shall examine. While we may sometimes be confident in identifying and interpreting small- or large-scale patterns of repetition/variation (because of the number or character of similar elements, or because of other, contextual factors), on other

occasions we may be more hesitant: Is there a connection between (for example) two incidents, and, if so, what does it mean? And why these two incidents in particular? Are other connections not possible? P. D. Miscall, for example, investigates Gen-2 Kgs using a deliberately loose model of “narrative analogy.” According to him, all sorts of links may be made between all kinds of texts. The effect is to create so many intertextual interconnections that ultimately the procedure breaks down; all texts come to say much the same as other texts, and in this general indeterminacy of meaning, any attempt to trace focused implicit commentary is undermined (see also Fewell, for other

versions of this approach). These are somewhat extreme forms of the principle of repetition and variation, partly deriving from a view according to which readers (not writers) generate any meanings a text may have and hence are at liberty to compare any

127

Guide

text with any other; on this view it is scarcely relevant whether or not the writer may have had more limited cross-textual connections in mind. To many readers this approach will seem arbitrary. It must be acknowledged, however, that it has rightly identified a certain “open-endedness” in the surface of OT narrative; this can sometimes be resolved, but not always so. See, for example, the reference to the milk cows lowing as they bring the Lord’s ark to Beth Shemesh (1 Sam 6:12). Is this simply a realistic detail? Alter (1992, 101-6) wonders whether the narra-

tor means to produce a strange resonance with the narrative of the birth of Samuel: As the cows are unable to give their calves milk (hence their lowing), so Hannah, having weaned Samuel, has given him to the Lord’s service (1:24-28), a sacrifice as costly in

its own way as that which the cows endure (6:14). Does the narrator intend to suggest this train of thought? It is hard to say. The suggestive, allusive style of OT narrative does not leave every end neatly tied up. 2. Narration and dialogue. Dialogue is an important part of OT narrative (Alter, 1980, 63-87). A significant event in OT narrative is most usually presented in the form of a scene that contains spoken words. Judg 1:11-15 and 1 Kgs 9:10-14 are good examples of scenes that contain dialogue, though they could have been differently composed. Probably 75 percent of this dialogue is spoken by men or women (the remainder by God). It is in itself significant that so much space is given to human words (and thus feelings, motives, and views).

Dialogue in OT narrative has much in common with the patterns of repetition and variation discussed above. Implicit commentary is again involved, but here the issues raised are those of viewpoint, knowledge, and motive. The narrator juxtaposes spoken words of two or more characters, or spoken words and his own third-person discourse. As in most narratives, the narrator generally presents himself as reliable, able to tell the reader what is going on in various locations, and able to say what people, and even God, are thinking (Bar-Efrat, 17-23; Sternberg, 1985, 58-83). The spoken words of the human characters, in contrast, are not necessarily to be taken at face

value: Characters may be telling the truth or lying; they may say what they think, or they may hide their feelings; they may twist facts so as to influence people; their words may be colored by a particular attitude or may reveal a misunderstanding; subsequent events may put their words in a new light. Some further evaluation of spoken words is almost always necessary (Sternberg, 1985, 129-31). It is usually the reader who must make this evaluation, for the narrator is gener-

ally sparing in evaluative comment. Typically dialogue is introduced with nondirective formulae, such as “he said,” “she answered,” rather than more explicit phrases such as “he lied,” “they disagreed,” “she replied evasively,” and “they retorted contemptuously.” Falsehood, disagreement, evasion, or contempt may be present, but the reader

has to deduce this by comparing spoken word with spoken word, or with the narrator’s discourse. Hence dialogue can work on two or more levels, a bland-seeming surface parting to reveal more complex motives and attitudes in the characters and sharp comment on the part of the narrator (readers who wish to see how far this procedure can be taken may consult Sternberg’s study of Gen 23, “Double Cave, Double Talk”). OT narrative in general appears to delight in the play between viewpoints, as if to stress the bias and limitation of human perceptions. Even third-person narration, which it might be supposed gives solely the narrator’s perspective, sometimes presents

128

a

ie

ols

eg

Guide ene

events, not as they appear to the narrator, but as they are perceived by one of the characters. Such shifts of viewpoint are particularly common in descriptions of personal encounters (Exod 3:2-4; Judg 19:16-17; Ruth 3:8-9). For a discussion of this point and of the ways in which shifts of viewpoint may be marked, see Bar-Efrat, 36-39; Berlin,

59-64, 72-76. The following are examples of play between narration and dialogue. In Gen 16:4-5, Sarah’s complaint to Abraham about Hagar in v. 5 is shown to be justly founded by the narrator’s words in v. 4; the narrator supports Sarah’s claim that Hagar has despised her (though the vehemence with which she attacks Abraham is hers alone). In 50:16-17, Joseph’s brothers, fearing revenge from him, attribute to Jacob words that he is never recorded as having said, but which are at points similar to the words in which they themselves express their fear in v. 15 (v. 15, “all the wrongs we did to him”; v. 17, “the wrongs they committed in treating you so badly”). The narrator thereby suggests that they have invented the words they put into the dead Jacob’s mouth. In 1 Kgs 21:2-6 Naboth’s response to Ahab (“The LorD forbid that I should give you the inheritance of my fathers,” v. 3, repeated by the narrator in v. 4) is polemically truncated by Ahab when he reports it to Jezebel, and it becomes “I will not give you my vineyard” (v. 6), as though Naboth had refused out of unmotivated spite (Gideon similarly twists the words of the officials of Succoth in Judg 8: cf. vv. 5-6 and v. 15). In Judg 18:7-10 the narrator stresses how remote and defenseless Laish is (v. 7), but the Danite spies give an unsympathetic description that dwells on the prosperity of Laish and the ease with which it can be conquered (vv. 9-10). The spies’ viewpoint diverges yet further from the narrator’s at the end of v. 10, where they confidently state that God has given them this land, a claim that the narrator nowhere validates (cf. in this regard 17:13). See also Sternberg, 1985, 390-400, and G. W. Savran.

Sternberg and Alter view the contrast noted above between reliable narrator and unreliable characters as fundamental (e.g., Sternberg, 1985, 84-99); for them the narra-

tor’s reliability suggests God’s role as omniscient judge of human words and deeds (not least in the way in which, like God, the narrator often appears to withhold judgment). This view has been questioned. Gunn has drawn attention to seeming contradictions, that appear to undermine narratorial reliability (1990, 56-57). Further, is God always portrayed as omniscient in OT narrative? Some texts might suggest not (Gen 18:20-21; 22:12; cf. Long, 81-82). However, as Gunn and Fewell note (1993, 54), a scale in which information given by the narrator is usually more reliable than that given by the characters is a useful rule of thumb in reading OT narrative. In general, the suggestion that OT narrative style portrays human history as unfolding before the gaze of God seems a fruitful one. Dialogue is also one of the chief means of characterization in OT narrative. Typically, two characters will be contrasted in what they say, how they say it, whether

they speak at length or briefly, and the extent to which one of them dominates a dialogue. See, for example, the differing dynamics of the following dialogues: between

Jacob and Esau in Gen 25:29-34; Jacob and Laban in 31:25-44; Micah and the Danites

in Judg 18:21-26; Saul and David in 1 Sam 24:8-16; Paltiel and Abner in 2 Sam 3:13-16; Michal and David in 6:20-23; Nathan, Bathsheba, and David in 1 Kgs 1; Eli-

jah and Obadiah in 18:8-15. 3. Selectivity, dischronologous presentation. As in all narrative, so in the OT

the presentation of events is controlled by a narrator. Sometimes his presence is obvi129

Guide a EE EEE

ree

ous: He gives information in asides (Judg 20:27b-28a; 1 Sam 9:9), gives clear explanations for events (Judg 14:4; 1 Kgs 12:15), and passes unambiguous judgments on them (Judg 17:6; 2 Sam

11:27). On other occasions he is less explicit, linking events but

leaving the reader to deduce the connections between them (Gen 15:1; 2 Sam 15:1), proceeding by means of hints rather than plain statements, as in many of the examples given in the preceding sections. OT narrators are selective in what they choose to reveal: Circumstantial details are rare; topography is not described, unless important for the plot (Gen 29:2-3; 1 Sam 17:1-3); similarly with physical appearance and clothing (Gen 27:11; Judg 3:15-17; 2 Sam 13:18-19).

It is always worth asking what the narrator describes at length and what he passes over briefly: “Narrative time” (the time the narrator takes to describe each event) and “narrated time” (the length of time events are said to have taken) usually differ greatly in OT (see 2 Sam 13:23 and 38; Bar-Efrat, 141-54). An event on which

the narrator dwells for a long time is generally significant. Thus in Gen 24, the meeting between Abraham’s servant and Rebekah is told twice, and in full, to emphasize that

God’s hand can be seen in this event (see vv. 27 and 48; cf. Sternberg’s treatment of the chapter, 1985, 131-52). A variation of this technique is when the narrator builds up to a significant or climactic event simply by delaying it: Judg 20:29-41 delays the moment when the Benjaminites realize they are doomed; 1 Sam 9:1-17 delays the meeting between Saul and Samuel (cf. 2 Sam 18:19-32). Further, events are not always presented in chronological order. A piece of information relating to the past may be withheld until the point at which it is most relevant (1 Kgs 11:14-25), or when it suggests a connection between two events: In 1 Sam 23:6-14 it emerges that Abiathar brought an ephod to David after the massacre at Nob (1 Sam 22); but we only learn this when David uses it to escape from Saul, suggesting the thought that Saul’s mad violence is rebounding upon him (M. Weiss, 187-88). 4. Ambiguity; persuasion. In connection with narratorial selectivity, Sternberg speaks of the Bible’s “maneuvering between the truth and the whole truth,” noting that OT narrative can vary greatly in how much the reader is told, and what questions are left unresolved (1985, 56; cf. 163-66). There is always the possibility that a later event

will throw new light on earlier events. Men and women are sometimes portrayed in a way that leaves it unclear what is going through their minds. 2 Sam 11 is thoroughly ambiguous as to how much Uriah knows or suspects about what has been going on between David and Bathsheba and how much David suspects about what Uriah knows (Sternberg, 1985, 190-213). David’s motives in 1 Sam 18 are left opaque in contrast to Saul’s (Alter, 1980, 115-19, part of a longer treatment of the presentation of David in 1 and 2 Sam, [115-30]). And what does Bathsheba think when she enters King David’s chamber and sees Abishag ministering to him (1 Kgs 1:15)? The narrator records the detail, but does not describe Bathsheba’s feelings. More generally, the behavior of human characters is not entirely predictable: After fasting for his son’s life, David can accept his death with a resignation that startles his slaves (2 Sam 12:15-23); the “wise” Solomon can turn to folly (1 Kgs 11:1-8); the “righteous” Noah can get drunk (Gen 9:20-28); after a life full of strife and turmoil Jacob can reach a resigned and almost saintly old age (chs. 48-49); Moses dies with all his faculties intact (Deut 34:7); David dies a weak and indecisive

130

Guide

old man (1 Kgs 1). Alter is correct to speak of an “abiding mystery” in the OT’s depiction of human character (1980, 126). By presenting events selectively the narrator influences the reader’s responses. The same is true of the order in which he relates material facts. A fact revealed at a point when it does not seem relevant to the ongoing narrative (i.e., “too early” from the standpoint of strict chronology) can create suspense, because the reader views it as a loose end that must be tied up later on (Judg 4:11; cf. vv. 17-22). Because Amnon’s

motives are revealed at the beginning of 2 Sam 13 the reader fears for what will happen to Tamar and feels greater sympathy for her. On the other hand, a fact revealed “too late” may startlingly alter one’s evaluation of the narrative up to this point. In Judg 20:18-28 the narrator seems deliberately to raise the question why the Israelites are defeated by the Benjaminites on the first two days of fighting. They have enquired of the Lord beforehand and have been told to join battle; yet they are defeated. Only when they enquire for the third time are they told they will win, but no explanation is given for the previous defeats. In Judg 21, however, we see that the Israelites, previously so zealous in meting out justice to the Benjaminites, resort to all manner of compromises (compare v. 5 and wv. 11-12), casuistry (v. 16 and v. 22b), and downright illegality (vv. 21 and 23) in their efforts to ensure Benjamin’s survival. The reader now understands why the Israelites in Judg 20 suffered losses like the Benjaminites: They are equally corrupt; and the delayed revelation of this fact brings it home to the reader with particular force, strongly underscoring the theme of Israelite wickedness (cf. 21:25). See also Judg 8, where Gideon’s hot pursuit of the defeated Midianites and his ferocity towards the inhabitants of Succoth is suddenly explained when we learn that all along he has been conducting a private vendetta on behalf of his brothers (8:18-21; Sternberg, 1985, 311-12); and Gen 34, where we learn only right at the end that the Hamorites have

been holding Dinah hostage (ibid., 467-68).

There are other means by which the narrator can shape the reader’s response, ranging from the direct to the highly subtle: the use of epithets (1 Sam 25:3), the use of loaded language (2 Sam 13:14), and pseudo-objective narration (Judg 17:1-5—the writer does not express his disapproval of Micah’s household until v. 6). The uses of repetition and variation discussed above could also be included here (see further Sternberg, 1985, 445-75, and the list of such devices on pp. 475-81).

5. Theological implications. (a) God’s purposes and human understanding. Though OT narrative greatly condenses real life in its selectivity, it is in one respect completely true to life: People’s motives and the significance of events are usually not clear at the time and only become so in the light of the subsequent narrative. The characters, and more often than not the reader, have limited knowledge in comparison to that of the narrator, who controls the presentation of events. One of the effects of read-

ing OT narrative is a feeling of growing understanding as patterns become apparent and as new facts, words, and deeds emerge that throw light on what has happened so far. Explicit comment seems to be withheld so that the reader may experience this sensation of groping after comprehension, and thus, the limits of human understanding: “To make sense of the discourse is to gain a sense of being human” (Sternberg, 1985, 47). The other side of this is that OT narrative style leads the reader to sense behind the events narrated a God who evaluates human deeds and words and who is working out purposes that unfold only gradually; the narrator’s knowledge and his control of the

Ld

Guide

presentation of events seems to mirror God’s omniscience and his sovereignty over history. Some puzzles, though, are never resolved. We never learn whether Ziba or Mephibosheth is telling the truth (2 Sam 16:2-3 and 19:26-27; David’s response in 19:29 is understandable). And larger enigmas remain, even on repeated reading. Why are Isaac and Jacob chosen, and Ishmael and Esau not? How is it in Judg 21 that Israel as a whole, fully as guilty as Benjamin, escapes the severe judgment that has been carried out against Benjamin? What is God’s attitude to the things done in his name in 2 Sam 21? The narrative, like the God it portrays, is at points inscrutable, and sometimes the only knowledge yielded to readers is of the limits of their understanding. (b) Human dignity. OT narrative, however, is not solely concerned with suggesting the power of an omniscient God. Though they are always limited in knowledge and power, the men and women of OT narrative are never reduced to pawns. Much of OT narrative is taken up with depicting human words, emotions, relationships, and actions, and these, too, play their part in, and affect the course of, the unfolding story of the OT: “God’s purposes are always entrammeled in history, dependent on the acts of individual men and women for their continuing realization” (Alter, 1980, 14). Further,

men and women are characterized realistically, with great subtlety and sometimes at some length. No character who features for more than a few verses in OT is simply a cardboard cutout; there is always something more to him or her than that; and brevity can be as suggestive as prolixity in this regard (Gen 4:23-24; Judg 17:2-3; 2 Sam 6:20-23). OT narrative shows a deep interest in human personality and the interactions of men and women; more than once it suggests the unpredictable, volatile, and mysterious side of human beings. Certainly there is no oversimplification here or any attempt to present humans as mere cogs in a divine plan; rather, there is a respect for human personality that it seems natural to link with statements such as those found at Gen 1:26-27 and Ps 8:4-5. (c) Reader involvement. Finally, OT narrative seeks to involve the reader in

three main senses. First and most obvious, it is generally told in a gripping and lively way; words are not wasted, and there is plenty in the way of interesting dialogue, characterization, and suspense. Second, the devices of implicit commentary draw the reader into the (often demanding) interpretative process; it is the reader who has to note and make sense of patterns, allusions, divergences, discontinuities, and gaps that the narrator simply allows to stand in the text, and in this sense it is the reader who inter-

prets events. Third, and balancing the second point, the narrator often seems to lead the reader towards a particular evaluation of the events narrated by means of a variety of persuasive devices, both implicit and explicit. OT narrative style thus seeks to engage the reader’s interest, requires the reader’s commitment to the task of understanding the events narrated, and urges the reader towards a response, generally of faith or of ethical commitment. Though OT narrative may give the appearance of a largely neutral succession of words and events, it is, on closer examination, anything but neutral; and its

neutral-seeming surface turns out to be a way of involving readers more fully and persuading them more effectively.

To conclude: OT narrative style suggests a distinctive view of God’s dealings with human beings and seeks from its readers a response to the claims of this God. It depicts the grandeur of God’s purposes, underlines the worth of men and women made

132

Guide in God’s image, and respects its readers by seeking their active engagement in the process of interpretation. BIBLIOGRAPHY R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 1980; idem, The World of Biblical Literature, 1992; S. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 1989; A. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Nar-

rative, 1983; H. C. Brichto, Towards a Grammar of Biblical Poetics, 1992; J. C. Exum and D. J. A. Clines (eds.), The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible, 1993; D. N. Fewell ed., Reading Between Texts, 1992; R. P. Gordon, “David’s Rise and Saul’s Demise,” TB 31, 1980, 37-64; D. M. Gunn, “Reading Right” in D. J. A. Clines, S. Fowl, S. E. Porter (eds.), The Bible in Three Dimensions, 1990; D. J. A. Clines and D. N. Fewell, Narrative in the Hebrew Bible, 1993;

B. O. Long, “The ‘New’ Biblical Poetics of Alter and Sternberg,’ JSOT 51, 1991, 71-84; P. D. Miscall, The Workings of OT Narrative, 1983; G. W. Savran, Telling and Retelling, 1988; R. M. Schwartz (ed.), The Book and the Text, 1990; M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 1985; idem, “Double Cave, Double Talk: The Indirections of Biblical Dialogue” in J. P. Rosenblatt and J. C. Sitterson, (eds.), Not in Heaven, 1991, 28-57; M. Weiss, “Weiteres tiber die Bauformen des Erzahlens in der Bibel,” Bib 46, 1965, 187-88.

Philip E. Satterthwaite

133

Guide

PART IV: SEMANTICS, INTERPRETATION, AND THEOLOGY There has been much abuse in the interpretation of the Bible. Interpreters rival one another in setting forth their distinctive, and relative, understanding of the text. How can interpreters and readers of the

text develop a common set of ground rules for interpretation? What is the nature of language and of human communication? What are the principles of understanding human speech, and how do these principles extend to understanding written communication? The authors of these next two articles (Cotterell and Walton), investigate the problems in communication and set forth clear and precise steps in determining basic steps of interpretation. Insofar as there have been so many bad interpretations, and, to our chagrin, some have abused theological dictionaries,

the authors and editors of NIDOTTE want to ensure that the reader develops a basic set of rules of engaging with the text and of resisting inferior approaches. The essay by Peter Cotterell is groundbreaking work, covering the whole range of linguistics, semantics, and discourse analysis. Readers with a more pragmatic bend may want to scan this article and study carefully John Walton’s article on principles for productive word study. The title of this article is a little deceiving, because it could suggest that the author favors the older word-study approach. Instead, you will find that he, too, favors the discourse meaning of a word. (WVG)

7. LINGUISTICS, MEANING, SEMANTICS, AND DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

A. Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation 1. The nature of language. Human language is a highly sophisticated, complex, but ultimately imprecise communication system or semiotic. It has its origins in a desire, an intention, to communicate. It originates inaccessibly in a human mind. The

sociolinguist H. P. Grice would insist that text originates not in a mind but in a person, reacting against the concept of a psychological other. Spoken language is primary, an attempt to express the inaccessible intention in sound. Written language is secondary, conforming to the primary spoken form in ways specific to each particular language. Written language makes use of a more-or-less arbitrary analysis of spoken language to produce a second level system of symbols, more-or-less accurately representing the features of the primary form. A speaker produces a sequence of sounds, which is then analyzed phonetically and phonemically to identify the essential sound system, grammatically to identify what are arbitrarily labeled words, roots, and affixes, and syntactically to identify complete sequences and their constituent elements. Minimal units may then be systematically identified. Minimal units of sound are termed phonemes, minimal units of grammatical form are termed morphemes. Rather than speak of a minimal word form we speak of a lexeme, the arbitrary unit underlying, for example, such word forms as sang, sing, singer, singing. In this example, the lexeme is “sing” (see John Lyons, 101). Minimal syntactical units are syntagmemes. At these lower levels of analysis the process can claim a certain measure of objectivity. At the next, and arguably most significant level, however, the level of

134

Guide

semantics, the identification of the minimal unit, the sememe, proves to be more diffi-

cult (Robert de Beaugrande and Wolfgang Dressler, 20). Even more difficult is the process of identifying spoken text meaning through the summation of the contributions of phonemes, morphemes, syntagmemes, and sememes present in the text. More difficult again is the task of interpreting the corresponding written text. The text now is clearly largely robbed of its phonetic component, represented by arbitrary visual symbols but still in measure corresponding to the original spoken text. - Written language, in practice, involves language with two absences: the absence of the speaker and the absence of the referents. The interpretation of a written text involves some measure of dialogue with the speaker and some attempt to identify the referents. It is precisely these absences that precipitate the problem of polysemy—the range of possible meanings of the words used—in the written text. With the presence of the speaker there is experienced what has been termed a metaphysics of presence, but what might better be termed a metalinguistic of presence, providing its own bounds to polysemy. With the speaker and author removed, that is to say with a written text, a plurality of text meaning may be identified by the deprived, or, arguably, by the liberated, reader (see Anthony C. Thiselton, 83).

This process of interpreting written language is ultimately an art rather than a science, still less an exact science. We are dealing with a semiotic that we employ without, in general, being overtly aware of the code that lies behind it. We learn to employ hyperbole, litotes, and metaphor, to use rhetoric as individual devices or as sequential schemes: we learn to identify implicature, and even to create for a text an appropriate context, without consciously identifying the devices we employ. The meaning of what we receive or of what we transmit is encoded in a highly complex manner and is interpreted by reference to an intuitive awareness of the code, and not by a labored but precise evaluation of the speech units and the aggregation of units of meaning. For example, a speaker generated a sequence (or an author supposed a character to have generated a sequence) that could be represented by J am Esau your firstborn (Gen 27:19)

(or rather the Heb.

equivalent,

a further problem).

The information

recorded in this transcript is heavily edited. We do not know anything (from this text alone, although the surrounding text, the cotext, as we shall see, tells us a good deal)

about the setting in which the sequence was generated, we do not know what time of day it was, and we do not know what the person addressed was wearing; we are not told whether or not the speaker bowed, held out his hand in paralinguistic gesture, or made some other gesture, nor what his facial expression was. And yet we know from our own use of language that any of this information might be important in interpreting the sequence. Thus, in Prov 6:12-14 the worthless person is described as one who goes about “with a corrupt speech, who winks with his eyes, signals with his feet, and motions

with his finger, who plots evil with deceit in his heart.” Here are three gestures, and yet we cannot be sure of the meaning of any one of them. Prov 10:10 comments: “He who winks maliciously causes trouble, but he who boldly reproves makes peace.” The parallel and semantically determinative phrase “he who boldly reproves” has the Septuagint as its source since the corresponding Heb. text “and a chattering fool comes to ruin” appears to be unrelated to any conceivable antithesis to the significance of winking.

135

Guide

But this uncertainty leaves us without any sure guide to the significance of winking. The psalmist prays, “Let not those gloat over me who are my enemies without cause; let not those who hate me without reason maliciously wink the eye” (Ps 35:19). In contrast to the significance of contemporary Western gesture, winking in the OT culture was never mere facetiousness: winking is “always associated with sin” (> qrs, wink [# 7975]; in Semitic Ethiopian culture to wink at a woman is to invite her to have sex). Not only are we without information on gesture in the Jacob text, but we also lack information regarding the intonation pattern employed for the sequence, the medial loudness of the speech, the pitch of the speaker’s voice, or the place of stress within the sequence. This is, of course, typical of written text, typical of the two absences, of speaker and of referent. We may go further: Although the import of the sequence is quite clear, that the name of the speaker is Esau, in fact we know (either from general knowledge or from reading the cotext) that his name was not Esau. We conclude, then, that the meaning of a sequence is not, after all, merely some kind of summation of the meanings of the constituent elements that comprise the sequence. We need also to know the cotext, the total text of which the sequence is a part. That in turn requires that we identify the boundaries of the text, those limits within which we may expect to locate the clues that might serve to resolve our inescapable exegetical uncertainties, before proceeding to an analysis of any part of it. In the present example, expanding the analysis of the text into its immediate cotext shows that the speaker’s name was Jacob, and that he was presenting himself to his father as Esau, his elder brother. We are confronted here by the essential difference between a sentence and an utterance, a useful distinction that will generally be maintained in this article. A sentence has no immediate cotext and no sociological context. The sentence rendered as “I am Esau your firstborn” does mean what it appears to mean: that the speaker is someone’s firstborn son and is named Esau. The sentence may be generated by a speaker or may be written down, but there is no cotext that could bring into question the information being communicated within the limits of that sentence. An utterance has both context—the social milieu in which it is generated—and cotext, and the meaning of an utterance must be determined in the light of text, cotext, and context. That is to say, the meaning of an utterance cannot be determined merely by reference to dictionary, lexicon, thesaurus, and grammar. The possible range of meanings and the probable meaning of an ancient utterance may be ascertained through dictionary, grammar, thesaurus, lexicon, context, cotext, encyclopedia, history, geography, and a knowledge of linguistics and especially of sociolinguistics and discourse structure. Moreover, we note that each utterance, even though it may use “the same” words as another utterance, will nonetheless have a unique singular meaning because it necessarily has a unique singular context. To make the point quite clearly, if a speaker generates the utterance “That is a horse,” and someone else repeats “That is a horse,” the time context of the latter utterance is different from that of the former and that will be so even if the same speaker repeats “the same” utterance. The meaning of the second utterance must be different from that of the first utterance precisely because it follows that first utterance. The meaning of each utterance is determined from an assessment of the linguistic elements it contains, the cotext of which it is a part, and the

context within which it was generated.

136

Guide

Perhaps it should be added here, that this view of the process of the interpretation of a text is very different from Schleiermacher’s concept of a psychological absorption into the text. We are now reasonably confident that because of our prereading of texts an objective and existential re-creation of any ancient context is denied to us. However, this does not deny to us the attempt objectively to re-create that context, without attempting existentially to experience it. 2. Language: Barr’s critique. Biblical exegesis has suffered until comparatively . recently from the manner in which academic disciplines tended to be isolated from one another. In particular theologians were largely unaware of new insights into the interpretation of texts commonplace amongst secular linguists. The end of this jahiliya age of ignorance was arguably signaled to theologians by the appearance of the seminal work by James Barr, later Regius Professor of Hebrew in the University of Oxford, The Semantics of Biblical Language, 1961. In this work Barr began by acknowledging two particular features of theological language as contrasted with the language of everyday speech. First, theological language exhibits special semantic developments; words are assigned particular and technical meanings. But at the same time Barr was aware of the danger of supposing that theological language represents a unique strand of language, exempt from those generalities observed elsewhere in language. Thus, observations made of the general phenomenon of human language can with confidence be applied also to theological language. Of course, there are those semantic specializations that have parallels in such disciplines as law and philosophy, medicine, and physics. Second, Barr recognized that the interpretation of theological language and especially of biblical language must have a significant datum in the past. The process of exegesis involves not merely the interpretation of a text but the transculturation of meanings. This observation bears particularly on the fact that theological texts, far more than legal texts, are subject to attempts at exegesis by individuals who lack those skills that lay open to them the datum in the past and so supply the only reliable key to responsible exegesis. It has to be said that although the Bible may well be understandable in the main by the reasonably educated individual, there can be no expectation that any translation can be produced that makes the meaning of the original text transparent to the ploughman. Barr went further by insisting that the study of grammar, and, more particularly, the study of words, their meanings, their etymologies, their cognates in related languages, could not lead even the best of scholars into reliable exegesis without a profound understanding of the way in which language itself functions to communicate meaning.

Takamitsu Muraoka, in his seminal work Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew, published in 1985 but based on his doctoral thesis of 1969-70, warns

that “versional evidence and comparative Semitic parallels possess only secondary value” in determining the meaning of a particular text, and goes on to state that ... before pronouncing a final judgment about the emphasizing function ascribable to a certain form or structure in a given place, the text and the

wider context in which it is found must be closely examined (XVII).

The welcome caution displayed here may owe something to the earlier (p. vii) acknowledgment made to the critical reading of the manuscript by Barr. Certainly Barr

137

Guide

would approve of the principle of cotext and context representing the primary evidence for any particular interpretation of a text, with versional evidence and the evidence of cognate languages taking a secondary place. 3. Reading strategies. | lived in Ethiopia for many years and was struck by the beauty of the oleander bush. It is hardy, surviving in almost waterless conditions. It is beautiful, with a brilliant waxy red flower. It is one of the few plants that is not eaten by animals, domestic or wild. However, every part of it is highly toxic. I was warned of the danger posed to my children by having this plant growing in our gardens, and to be sure of my facts I obtained a letter from the Director of the Royal Botanical Gardens in London on the dangers of the oleander. The chemical concerned was named hydrocyanic acid, and its use in some gas chambers in the USA was noted. Examples of past incidents, going back to Hannibal, in which people died from sucking a leaf or stem, were quoted. The advice was clear (to me): The plant should not be in our gardens. My neighbor was a keen gardener, with plenty of those plants in his garden. He read the letter: “It’s not so bad after all, is it?” The “objective text” depends for its interpretation on the reader: He was anxious to preserve his garden while I was anxious to preserve my children, and our respective reading strategies enabled us to perceive “the same” text as we wished. Until the second half of the twentieth century scientists were content to allow the myth of scientific objectivity to remain as the distinctive characteristic of their researches. A similar mythological epistemology could be seen in the humanities, with both ideals arguably going back to Descartes and his concept of the human observer impacting on an essentially passive and objective world. In biblical studies the supposed scientific ideal has until recently been that pursued by scholars, so that the text has only rarely been related to the real but subjectively perceived world, either the real ancient world (except in its sterilized scholarly form) or the contemporary world into which, at least for the church, it is supposed to speak. The consequences for the church have been tragic: The discoveries of the scholars have been perceived to be irrelevant, the questions asked by the scholars have not been the questions asked by the church, and the church has turned in despair away from scholarship to charismatic but often unscholarly preachers. In Christian Bible conventions it has been customary to make use of the massacre of the Amalekites (1 Sam 15) for the sake of Samuel’s apophthegm “‘to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams” (v. 22), with no reference at all to the moral problem posed by the massacre apparently commanded by Yahweh (vv. 1-3). Similarly the Esther narrative has been expounded without any real consider-

ation of the exploitation of women, whether of Vashti or of the young women, gathered together like so many cattle, for the king’s approval. As far back as 1973 Wink called for the combining of critical textual scholarship with a recognition of biblical text as that which stands over against us and questions our beliefs and practices rather than merely reinforcing them (see Walter Wink, 32). In reading we necessarily adopt a strategy that is designed to enable us to understand the text. We make assumptions about the text—its structure and the intention of its author or editor. But these assumptions are not infrequently self-serving, aimed at ensuring that the text should confirm existing prejudices rather than challenge them. We then have a conflict between intentio operis, the intention of the discourse, and 138

Guide

intentio lectoris, the intention of the discourse as determined by the reader’s strategy. The contrast is readily seen in the oleander illustration above, but also from the account of the massacre of the Amalekites: In the interests of piety the text is not interrogated at certain points. Perhaps even more obvious is the insistence by some readers, in the interests of a teetotal conviction, that the wine produced by Jesus at Cana was unfermented wine (cf. John 2:10!). 4. Meaning. Semantics subsumes a subsidiary science concerned with text-meaning. In normal usage it would be expected that we could ask what the meaning of a text was and expect to find a generally acceptable answer. A little thought will show that this is an assumption and that in some literary forms there is explicitly nothing corresponding to a text-meaning. Anthony Thiselton (I think uniquely) has drawn attention to the Zen koan, a text-form that observes the usual grammatical and linguistic regularities but that explicitly has no text-meaning (119). The koan may be an apparently normal text, “Who is it that recites the name of the Buddha?” or it may be an apparently nonsensical but grammatical string, “The sound of one hand clapping.” The Zen master is concerned to bring the student to the point where the koan is resolved not by analysis of any kind, but by intuition. The student takes the koan and “slowly recites the words of the question and watches it as a cat watches a mouse, trying to bore deeper and deeper into it, till he reaches the point from which it comes and intuits its meaning” (Peter Harvey, An Introduction to Buddhism, 1990, 274). The postmodernist deconstructionist approach to text has clear affinities with the Zen perception of the role of language. Strings of words have apparent superficial “meanings” which, however, cloak the true function of language, which is not to com-

municate any intended meaning but to activate intuitive meaning. The meaning for one intuiter need have no relation whatever to that of another. In other words, the process

of deconstruction as exemplified in J. D. Crossan (see The Dark Interval: Towards a Theology of Story, 1975), for example, starts from the denial of embodied meaning and replaces the traditional emphasis on cognitive content with a concern for the form of the linguistic vehicle. This approach certainly serves to remedy the traditional concern with text as though it were no more (and no less) than a shopping list. It emphasizes the emotive force of text and the role of intuition in perceiving text as more than a mere summation of lexicon and grammar. But epistemologically the approach offers serious problems to those who assume that a text not only has cognitive content, but also has ethical imperatives and, still more, objective prophetic significance. Deconstruction, then, serves a positive function, liberating text from a deter-

ministic framework of abstract theory and returning it to its free function of a limited and yet indeterminate subjectivism. The problem, well perceived by many linguists, is that deconstruction linguistics tends towards nihilism, and its more radical expression in such writers as Stanley Fish and Jacques Derrida must be tempered so as to leave the reader with a text that has a real and knowable embodied meaning. At the present time we are confronted by some measure of polarization amongst linguists, with E. D. Hirsch, H. P. Grice, and Wayne Booth defending the more traditional understanding of text-meaning, and with Jacques Derrida, Paul De Man, and Stanley Fish promoting what has been described as deconstructive nihilism or (more objectively!) as Reader-Response theory. Somewhere between the two we may place

139

Guide

Wolfgang Iser’s Reception theory. For an introduction to this complex and fluid debate see Anthony Thiselton’s magisterial New Horizons in Hermeneutics, ch. 2, “What Is a

Texte

With these preliminary reflections we move to the more traditional questioning of the locus of text-meaning.

B. The Source of Meaning Amongst linguists there continues to be debate on the question of the locus of meaning in a text. There are broadly three options: that meaning lies in the text alone, that meaning lies in the intention of the author of the text, or that meaning lies in the reader of the text. It is intuitively apparent that there is a measure of truth in all three possibilities, and that alone is sufficient to warn us against any uncritical and exclusive adoption of one or other of them. 1. The objective text. The text is, of course, the objective reality, whether it is a written text or a spoken text. This is what was said or written. However, when the phrase objective reality is used, it applies solely and exclusively to the sounds used or the symbols written, and not at all to whatever meaning or intention might be supposed to lie behind the sounds or the symbols. Meaning and intention are always subjectively derived from objective text. And even here we must further modify our position since we never process the whole of any aurally perceived message, but subjectively filter out such elements as we assume to be irrelevant or unimportant. It then appears that in using a term such as objective to describe any aspect of a text, we must disassociate it from the human interpretive sequence. But it is then arguable that we do not have a text at all, nor any communication. We have only a complex pattern of air pressures or a set of written symbols but with no receiver to decode them. However, for the present we may assume, with a mental note of caution, that a written

text consists of a set of coded symbols and exists unchallenged as such. Is such a text of itself susceptible to interpretation as having a single, agreed, and identifiable meaning? If the text includes the utterance “I am Esau your firstborn,” it must certainly be distinguished from a nearby utterance, “My son ... Who is it?” But since we have already seen that the meaning of the utterance “I am Esau your firstborn” is significantly different from its apparent meaning, it is clear that reference to an utterance in isolation will not in all cases lead to a correct understanding of its meaning. Indeed the situation is sometimes made complex by the rhetorical device of ambiguity. Modern Amharic, and before it classical Ethiopic, developed an entire literary genre known as sem inna werg, “wax and gold,” in which each word, each phrase, each sequence might be seen either as (relatively valueless) wax, an external dressing, or as significant (but

indelicate or potentially politically compromising) gold, the concealed essence of word, phrase, sequence. In the cafes of Addis Ababa in the early 1960s the apparently unexceptionable “wax” toast, “Government! The government!” Mengist! Mengistu! was regularly heard. The “gold” was rather different: Mengistu Neway was recently hanged, a popular revolutionary leader of the 1960 attempt to overthrow Haile Sellassie (Donald Levine, Wax and Gold, 1965).

This at once raises a further point still vigorously debated by linguists: Is there such a thing as the correct meaning of a text? Granted that we must accept that some

140

Guide supposed interpretations of a text are simply crass, obtuse, absurd, or even impenetrable, is it possible to assert that there is a uniquely correct meaning to be assigned to it? Traditionally literary scholars have debated the meanings of their texts, separating out the “scientific,” or “standard” or “normal” use of language from the “poetic” or “emotive” use of language, classifying the poetic forms, developing principles for their interpretation, and assuming that texts using “normal” language “are in no need of such interpretive tools.” (See Stanley Fish, “Literature in the Reader,” in his Is There a Text in This Class? 1980, especially his comments on Riffaterre’s distinction between ordinary and poetic language, 59ff.) But the very concept of “scientific” or “normal” or even “normative” language must be challenged, first because there is no taxonomy that can delimit the normal, but second because the category “poetry” does not represent a boundaried class. All language, written or spoken, has a context, that context always involves individual speakers, and every speaker’s use of language, whether sending or receiving, is idiosyncratic, always consisting of an undefined and unknowable mixture of denotation and connotation. In other words, all language may be represented as a poetical or rhetorical continuum with every particular expression of language having a place somewhere along that continuum. It has to be said that no extended text (and there is no generalized means of defining the minimum level of extension required) has a single objective meaning defined by the text itself. And the reason for this is the essential imprecision of the language semiotic and its connotations, and of its function as necessarily involving multiple persons. 2. Authorial intention. If, surrendering the concept of the autonomy of the objective text, we locate meaning in the intention of the author, requiring the multiplicity of receivers to abandon their warring perceptions and submit to the author’s intention, we are confronted by a different set of problems. Perhaps the most obvious of these, in the case of biblical text, is the fact that the authors are long since dead, and

their intentions are usually not available to us. And even where the intentions are stated, they are stated as part of the text, not as a mind printout (cf. the prefaces to Luke and Acts, and 1 John 2:1, “I write this to you so that you will not sin’).

Second, we have the problem of linguistic competence to face. The readily demonstrable fact is that we may, because of linguistic incompetence, both say and write not merely what we do not intend, but the very opposite of what we intend. Lessing’s slip has become the classic example, in which Emilia’s mother is made to say, “My God! If your father knew that! How angry he was already to learn that the prince had seen you not without displeasure” (Cotterell and Turner, 58). The cotext makes it

perfectly clear that what was intended was that the prince had seen Emilia and been pleased by her, but a vigorous litotes has defeated the linguistic competence of the author. The celebrated statement in 1 Cor 14:22 may have a similar explanation: “Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers.” The immediate cotext, however, states unequivo-

cally that the unbeliever hearing tongues would think the speakers mad, but that unbelievers hearing prophecy would be convicted and would be led to worship God. There are too many negatives in the crucial statement, and J. B. Phillips in his paraphrase supplies what he considers to be the discourse meaning of the text, that glossolalia provides a sign for believers and prophecy a sign for unbelievers.” (For a discussion of the

141

Guide

significance of the omission of the second “sign for” in connection with prophecy, see D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit, 1987, ch. 4.) But already the reader has intruded into the text and has made an assumption about the intention of the author. 3. Reader-Response theory (see Jane Tompkins [ed.], 1980). Consider the narrative relating to Mephibosheth in 2 Sam 9-19. The story is part of the longer court narrative of David and Saul. Saul has died, and David asks: “Is there anyone still left of the house of Saul to whom I can show kindness for Jonathan’s sake?” (9:1). By the end of the chapter Mephibosheth has been found and is established at David’s court: “He always ate at the king’s table.” In ch. 15 David is forced to flee from Jerusalem because of a coup mounted by Absalom. He is met by Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth, who tells David that Mephibosheth has elected to stay in Jerusalem, hoping that the revolt will mean the restoration of the kingdom to Saul’s successors. David believes Ziba and rewards him with the grant of all Mephibosheth’s lands. In ch. 19 David returns to Jerusalem after the revolt. Mephibosheth meets him, and we now are told that since David left Jerusalem, he had not cared either for his person or his clothes. Ziba, he insists, had deceived him. David now decides that Mephibosheth’s lands should be equally shared between the two men. So much for the text. But how is it to be understood? What does it mean? A multitude of questions have to be considered: Was Mephibosheth being honored, or merely put into protective custody when David brought him to Jerusalem? Did Mephibosheth understand the situation? Why did he remain in Jerusalem rather than accompany David? Had he accompanied David, surely his lameness would have been a hindrance, possibly a fatal hindrance, to David. As a fellow fugitive would he, in fact,

have been more of a threat to David than as a potential rival in Jerusalem? Did Ziba tell the truth, half of the truth, or a total lie? Did David believe him . . . after all, David

sequestered Mephibosheth’s land? During David’s absence had Mephibosheth really neglected himself as the narrative says, or was this a quickly adopted subterfuge to allow him to escape from a dangerous situation? Whom did David believe? Why did he divide the land between them? Was it to save face after his earlier unjust decision? Was it because he really did not know whom to believe? Throughout the story we are given no clue at all as to the characters of Ziba or Mephibosheth. The reader today might well be inclined to take the side of the old man Mephibosheth, to see him as a man of integrity, his infirmity exploited by Ziba, and so to assign to Ziba a sneaking, sycophantic, grasping role. But there is no more evidence in support of the one view than of the other. In other words, even given an objective text, the reader must subjectively interrogate it for its meaning, at each point in the development of the story modifying any views previously held and projecting forwards to anticipated future developments. No reader who had read as far as ch. 15 could fail to anticipate a further encounter between the three protagonists, David, Ziba, and Mephibosheth, and yet there is nothing in the objective text to announce such a development. In some measure we have already brought into question the more traditional assumption that any text has a foundational meaning. Jacques Derrida’s celebrated statement that a text has no meaning represents the extreme expression of antifoundational theory. Defending his own fiercely held but perhaps less extreme antifoundationalist position, Stanley Fish (1989, 29) insists that its essence

142

Guide

is not that there are no foundations, but whatever foundations there are

(and there are always some) have been established by persuasion, that is, in the course of argument and counter-argument on the basis of examples and evidence that are themselves cultural and contextual.

In other words, any conclusions we may draw with respect to the Mephibosheth narratives will be consensus conclusions, not conclusions forced upon us by the text, and the . consensus will be determined by cultural factors and by the context within which the consensus is reached. In the same compendium of his essays, Fish discusses the effect of authority on interpretation by reference to C. S. Lewis’s well-known and, in 1942, plainly stated disapproval of the concluding books of Milton’s Paradise Lost. Such was the scholarly stature of C. S. Lewis that for some years his view of that part of Milton’s work was obediently echoed by other scholars. Today, arguably at a safe and sufficient distance from 1942, scholars are divided on the question of the literary merit of the chapters. Of course the text itself has not changed. The cultural factors and the context within which the text is discussed have changed, and it is these that have determined the interpretation of the text, not the text itself.

To take a more immediately relevant example, it has been a commonplace of NT scholarship to assign late dates to most of the books of the NT and to question their traditional authorship. In 1976 John Robinson published Redating the New Testament, in which he dated the whole of the NT before AD 70, and to drive home the lesson

appended a letter from no less a scholar than C. H. Dodd affirming: You are certainly justified in questioning the whole structure of the accepted “critical” chronology of the NT writings, which avoids putting anything earlier than 70, so that none of them are available for anything like first-generation testimony. I should agree with you that much of this late dating is quite arbitrary, even wanton, the off-spring not of any argument that can be presented, but rather of the critic’s prejudice that if he appears to assent to the traditional position of the early church he will be thought no better than a stick-in-the-mud. The whole business is due for radical re-examination (360).

Contemporary scholarship has yet to come to terms either with John Robinson, whose views could be dismissed, or with C. H. Dodd, whose views could not. The

point is, however, that the interpretation of text is not in fact determined by an objective text alone, nor by author intention alone or with text, cotext and context, but by all

of this moderated through the subjectivity of the reader and the reader’s culture and context. 4. Discourse meaning. With the debate amongst the linguists unresolved, we must still come to some conclusions about the locus of meaning in biblical text. First of all it seems that the distinction between meaning and a multiplicity of significances is still valuable. Behind the text stands an author, an editor, a redactor, with some inten-

tion lying behind the production of the text. We have no access to that intention, although an understanding of contemporary and cognate languages and cultures, of related texts, of grammar, syntax, lexicography, and possibly some knowledge of the

143

Guide

author might at least indicate what the intention was not, and might even indicate what it was. The clear overtones of a humanistic nihilism apparent in the more radical forms of Reader-Response theory are to be resisted. They appear to be designed not so much to explain texts as to dissolve significant meaning and to enthrone relativity in the person of the reader. As Thiselton (56) quotes Paul Ricoeur: Writing renders the text autonomous with respect to the intention of the author. What the text signifies no longer coincides with what the author meant. The difficulty here is first that Ricoeur does not, in fact, distinguish between meaning and significance, so that he asserts a distinction between authorial intention and meaning, and second, he appears to assert that the meaning intended by an author is necessarily different from the meaning perceived by the reader. That the intention of an author might not be perceived by a reader is admitted; to suggest that it cannot be perceived by a reader is simply perverse. To take an entirely trite example, when the author of 2 Sam 11:17 writes: “Uriah the Hittite died” or “When Uriah’s wife heard that her husband was dead, she mourned for him” (11:26), the reader does not have the meanings “Uriah died” or “Uriah’s widow mourned” excluded from the interpretive process. A text is a communicative occurrence that meets seven standards of textuality (Robert de Beaugrande and Wolfgang Dressler, 1981), and of these seven standards the

first three have particular importance: They are grammatical and syntactical cohesion, semantic coherence, and intentionality. That is to say, an author produces a communi-

cative text consisting of related strings across which there are certain constants (proforms having identifiable antecedents, for example) and with the meanings of the strings related so as to produce a topic or theme or thematic net. The reader seeks to identify the discourse meaning of the text. The term discourse meaning is particularly important. On the one hand, we seek to avoid the notion of the semantic autonomy of the text. A text cannot carry any meaning, but it does carry a meaning intended by the original speaker or author, related to the context within which it was generated and the cotext of which it is a part. On the other hand, we avoid also the complete relativity of meaning inevitable when meaning is no more than that meaning perceived by the reader, however much that meaning might appear to others to be inimical to the objective text. In approaching a text, then, we are searching first for the discourse meaning and not for the significance of the text for us. It is certainly true that in some instances we may be forever unsure of what the intended meaning was, and we may have to admit to the possibility of several distinct meanings. But again it must be emphasized that the range of possible meanings is not infinite: Uriah was dead, not attending a banquet in Jerusalem.

The issue of the locus of meaning is particularly important in the case of biblical text. Rightly or wrongly, biblical text, along with other sacred texts and most didactic and historical material, is perceived as having an external, forensic, hortatory role in relation to the reader. It is expected that the text will challenge assumptions, mores, expectations, and value systems by placing them alongside an alternative system. If the

144

Guide relativization of Reader-Response theory is accepted then, as Thiselton has pointed out (53.1): the text can never transform us and correct us “from outside.” There can be no prophetic address from beyond. This may still leave room for a measure of creativity and surprise in literary reading for in such cases it does not profoundly matter whether it is ultimately the self who brings about its own creative discoveries. But in the case of many biblical texts, theological truth claims constitute more than triggers to set self-discovery in motion (even if they are not less than this). If such concepts as “grace” or “revelation” have any currency, texts of this kind speak not from the self, but from beyond the self. The process of seeking both meaning and significance should be expected to involve some form of hermeneutical circle. See, for example, the concise description of Gadamer’s hermeneutical circle in Donald McKim (ed., 90). There is the naive

approach to the text, informed by the reader’s own preunderstanding of it. This should be expected to be followed by a dialogue with the text, in which the questions brought to the text and the presuppositions brought to the text are interrogated, modified, and reformed by the text, leading to a new approach to the same text. As with Zen Buddhism the text is first of all a text, then as the hermeneutical circle operates it is anything but a text, until finally if the circle is followed with perseverance, it becomes a text again. It is, in a term we have already employed, intuited. The process may be compared with the mathematical process of iteration, in which the solution to a problem is adduced, but with some admitted measure of imprecision, and the solution is

then fed back into the problem so that a more precise solution may be found, which in its turn can be fed into the equation. The recognition of the hermeneutical circle ought not to be seen as necessarily committing the linguist to accepting the essential subjectivity of all text, but rather to an awareness of a process by which probable interpretations of text may become more probable. 5. Speech-act theory. Language is used to send and receive information; it is propositional. But the philosopher J. L. Austin has noted in a series of important books and articles (especially How to Do Things With Words, 1962) that while an utterance might be propositional, or constative, it might also be performative. To take the most obvious example, when ministers say, “I pronounce you man and wife,” they do more than “pronounce”; new relationships are created by the utterance. The uttering of the words is clearly an act, and the act is termed a Jocution. But the uttering of the particular words has consequences, it is an act performed by the speaker in virtue of the locution, and this speech-act is termed an illocution. Ilocutionary acts include promising, a judge sentencing a criminal, a jury announcing its verdict, and apologizing. Austin proposed a third category of utterances, perlocutionary utterances, which produce an existential response such as anger or repentance in the auditor. From the above it is clear that speech-act theory is relevant for utterances but not for sentences, since in many cases the identification of a locution as being illocutionary depends on its context. The string, “I pronounce you man and wife” occurring in a grammar (“The words ‘I pronounce you man and wife’ is a sentence’’) is not illocutionary and only becomes so when used in an appropriate context.

145

Guide

The identification of illocutionary utterances is by no means easy, and the classification of such utterances is still more difficult because such utterances do not necessarily include a performative vb. (e.g., “I pronounce”; the utterance, “I'll see you tomorrow morning” is a promise, it commits me to being in a certain place at a certain time and is therefore illocutionary although it contains no performative vb.). Conversely, the presence of such a performative vb. is not necessarily an indication of illocution.

Further,

as M.

Stubbs

has

shown,

there

need

be no

illocutionary force

indicating device (IFID) present in the utterance at all (Discourse Analysis, 1983, especially ch. 8; see J. Lyons, Semantics, 1977, 16.1). The most readily recognized illocutionary utterances are those containing a first person, present, performative vb. When Yahweh says to Abraham, “T will bless you; I will make your name great” (Gen 12:2), the utterance is illocutionary: An act is performed that produces a changed situation for Abraham and his descendants. Similarly, the informative statement made by Yahweh to Rebekah is illocutionary although it contains no IFID: “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger” (25:23). In analytical terms it is the failure first of Rebekah and subsequently of Jacob to recognize the illocutionary force of these words that provides the topic holding together the subsequent Jacob discourse. Anthony Thiselton was in the forefront of theologians who recognized the significance of speech-act theory in general and the work of J. L. Austin in particular for certain aspects of biblical exegesis (see esp. ch. 8). On the one hand was the problem posed by the covenant language of the OT, and on the other was the question of the proper understanding of the NT parables. Many utterances assigned in Scripture to God or attributed to Jesus are clearly illocutionary in form or are presented as having performed irrevocable acts (see the pathetic cry of Jacob to his son Esau: “I have blessed him—and indeed he will be blessed” (Gen 27:33). Jacob was blessed not because of some “magic” that was irreversible, not because of Isaac’s superstitions, but

because Isaac had no means to “unbless” Jacob (18). Thiselton also rightly recognized the importance of distinguishing between what any given speech-act necessarily produced, and what a speech-act could be shown ontologically to have produced. And again Thiselton recognized that formal illocutionary acts depend for their validity on the authority of their author, at the same time refuting the thesis that the “power language” of the OT merely reflected the primitive animistic worldview of the Hebrew writers. Austin had himself identified what he termed felicity conditions, which must be satisfied if an illocution is to be nondefective. Felicity conditions includes sincerity in the locution, that is to say, the speaker’s intention is sincere. Insincerity, while not necessarily invalidating the illocution, at least makes it defective. The same is true of commitment to the illocution from within the speaker’s more general set of beliefs and practices. However, the most important of these felicity conditions is the authority condition: An illocution may be defective or even ineffective if the speaker lacks the authority required for it. The utterance “I pronounce you man and wife” has no illocutionary effect when pronounced by a child to children. The illocutionary force of the wide range of covenant language in the OT and the kyrios language of the NT depends for its validity on the authority of God. This is

146

Guide

expressed first in the illocutionary language of creation: “God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light” (Gen 1:3), second in the exercitive or directive illocution: “And

the LORD God commanded the man ...” (2:16), third in the promissory Noahic illocution, precursor of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, and fourth in the declaratory

locution reported by Paul: Jesus was “declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead” (Rom 1:4). We note also Phil 2:9. It is a consequence of this fundamental illocution that “the Lord” can now judge (1 Cor 4:4) or commend - (2 Cor 10:18) or save (Rom 10:9). In the OT the authority of Yahweh over his people is inculcated in them by reference to his authority over nature expressed in illocutionary language: “He spoke and stirred up a tempest that lifted high the waves... He stilled the storm to a whisper; the waves of the sea were hushed” (Ps 107:25-29). Thiselton demonstrates that the illocutions ascribed to Jesus by Matthew are systematically integrated with illustrations of Matthew’s Christology. In one sense this is restrained since the ultimate illocution is the resurrection, and yet within the time

span of the Incarnation some assertion of authority for Jesus must be given if his illocutions are to be accorded validity by the reader. Thiselton asks: Why should the reader be involved? The answer concerns the Christological presuppositions on the basis of which the series of illocutionary acts depicted by Matthew operate: language which brings forgiveness; language which stills the storm; language which authorizes and assigns a role. If the implicit Christology is false, the entire performative and exercitive dimension collapses and falls to the ground as nothing more than a construct of pious human imagination (288-89). C. Lexical Semantics

Words are symbols available to an author to be given significance by being attached to a referent, an object, or an event. Of itself a word has no meaning at all. The

father of modern linguistics, Ferdinand de Saussure, formalized the principle that the units of a language—sounds, words, or longer sequences—gained their meaning through their relationship to and particularly their contrast with other units in the same language system. Within this general principle de Saussure identified a word as signe and its referent as signifiée, directing attention to the primacy of signifiée over word and the importance of the human act of relating the two. In fact the relation of the word stock of a language to meanings is for the most part not iconic, or physiologically or psychologically necessary, but arbitrary and conventional. Nothing about the form or sound of the word “tree” makes it particularly appropriate as a word form to denote a large woody-stemmed perennial. The G uses dendron or xylon (Rev 2:7) and Heb. uses ‘és for the same entity. Since a dictionary is concerned with words, the secondary symbols, and the possible meanings with which those words might be associated by various individuals and across long periods of time, it is clearly important to understand their status as symbols only, to be given their significances by the respective language users. As we have seen, the task of the exegete is to determine the discourse meaning of an utterance, to which the constituent elements of the utterance make their cumulative contri-

bution.

147

Guide

To take an example, Peter is represented in Acts 5:30 as saying that his hearers had hanged Jesus “on a tree,” where he might perfectly well instead have employed a stauros-related

word

to express

the same

event.

The

reference

to a tree,

how-

ever—using G xylon which, unlike dendron, denotes both tree and gibbet—may be taken as directing the attention of a Jewish audience to Deut 21:22-23 and the assertion there that death on a tree represented the curse of God on the malefactor: Heb. ‘és also signifies both tree and gallows (Esth 5:14). Unfortunately the modern trend towards rendering denotation without connotation (hanging him on a gibbet, NEB; nailing him to a cross, GNB) serves at least to conceal the reason for Peter’s (or more precisely Luke’s) not using the terminology suggested by NEB. It is significant that here we have to hand one word in G and one in Heb. that share an element of polysemy, apparently exploited by an author, as is done with the similarly shared polysemy of the Heb. and G words for wind/spirit. Lexemes are given meaning not only by their location within a particular syntactic structure, but also by their collocations. Thus, Heb. zkr (> #2349) when collocationally related to Yahweh carries a connotative meaning of encouragement (remembering past mercy) or of repentance (remembering past judgment). Indeed, the semantic domain of zkr is extensive, involving reflection, reasoning, meditating, submitting, committing. Remembering Yahweh’s name at night means turning to him in prayerful meditation (Ps 119:55). On the negative side a time would come when it will no longer be appropriate to “remember” past events that will be transcended by new acts of Yahweh. The word may also involve perlocution, action-induced-by-word: When the Butler was asked to zkr Joseph, the expectation was that his “remembering” would lead to action to release Joseph. Indeed, as Allen says,

So closely is remembering associated with action that at times it functions as a synonym for action of various kinds. In Amos 1:9 Tyre’s not remembering its treaty with Israel means to disregard or break it. In Ps 109:16 not to remember to show kindness to the needy connotes neglect to do so. To forget God as Savior in Isa 17:10 is to forsake him for alien gods. Words are more than monofunctional discrete linguistic units. The incorporation of any word into an utterance and the utterance into a discourse introduces a highly subjective domain of meaning into the interpretive process, and it is from within that ill-defined domain that the exegete must find the meaning appropriate to each unique occurrence of the word. 1. Five myths about words. The exegetical task is made difficult by the persistence of five myths or misconceptions. (a) The myth of point meaning. The first is the myth of point meaning—the supposition that even if a word has a range of possible meanings attested inn the dictionary, there lies behind them all a single “basic” meaning. James Barr (115) quotes Norman Snaith’s formulation on this point: While it must be recognized that words can change their meaning in strange and unexpected ways through the centuries, yet in all languages there is a fundamental motif in a word which tends to endure,

whatever other changes the years may bring. This fundamental “theme”

148

Guide

of a word is often curiously determinative of later meanings (quoting from Norman Snaith, “The language of the Old Testament,” The Interpreter’s Bible, 224). A little thought will show that this thesis would be difficult to defend. In a long pericope covering twelve pages Barr deals with the vagaries attached to the elucidation of Heb. dabar. T. F. Torrance is quoted as finding a fundamental meaning “hinter_ ground” in this root and goes on to write extensively of dabar that “on the one hand it refers to the hinterground of meaning, the inner reality of the word, but on the other hand, it refers to the dynamic event in which that inner reality becomes manifest” (Barr, 130). In other words, “every event has its dabar or word, so that he who under-

stands the dabar of an event, understands its real meaning.” The fact is that words do not function in this way in language. They are more or less effective symbols attached to referents, and each such attachment is in some sense a unique use of the word; there is no “central” or “fundamental” or “basic” meaning of a word that lies behind every usage of it. Of course it is true that within the semantic field of any particular lexeme there will be meanings that can be related to a common theme, and the recognition of that common theme might be helpful in elucidating the meaning of a particular usage of the lexeme. The nature of the common theme, however, must not be allowed to conceal the

possibility of some quite unpredictable departure from it, into a quite different and unrelated semantic field. (b) The etymological fallacy. The myth of point meaning is closely related to the etymological fallacy. Words represent dynamic phenomena, their possible range of associated referents constantly changing, and changing unpredictably. In contemporary English the word “gay” has taken on a new meaning that is not recoverable from its etymology, and the word “presently” in most dialects of English no longer means “at once,” “in the present,” “now,” but its logical opposite, “not-at-once,”

“not-now,”

“not-in-the-present,” but “in-the-future.” Although it is true that the meanings of some compound lexemes may be deduced from their constituents (G anthropareskos, man-pleaser), it is less evident why probaton, whose constituents suggest something that goes forward, should denote a sheep (!) (David Black, Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek, 1988, 72, on a page that contains several ingenuous etymological notations).

We have already made reference to the problem posed by paralinguistic gesture and the particular problem of winking. The relevant vb. grs is associated with the eye in Ps 35:19; Prov 10:10; 6:13, with the lips in Prov 16:30, and in Job 33:6 with clay. Its

cognates carry the meaning “‘to cut.” In Eth., for example, gdrdse means incise, shear, cut, while a derived nominal is used for shears (Wolf Leslau, Concise Dictionary of Ge’ez, 1989, 84). We note particularly the hapleg. nominal form in Jer 46:20 is identified as some kind of stinging fly, gadfly (RSV), arguably “cutting” or “incising” creatures. The concept of “cutting” is appropriate to the passage in Job 33, and it is then tempting to interpret the association with winking in terms of a “sharp” flicker of the eyelid. But even if this process were correct, it could yield no clue at all to the meaning of the gesture, and the sharp flicker of the eyelid has no correlate in the compression of the lips. Semantic change is arbitrary, and the attempt to relate meanings to etymolo-

149

Guide eee

a

gies must give way to the process of relation to usage and such clues as may be provided by cotext. Reference to the Preface to the Revised Standard Version makes this arbitrary process of change clear: Thus, the King James version uses the word “let” in the sense of “hinder,” “prevent” to mean “precede,” “allow” in the sense of

“approve,”

99

66

“communicate” for “share,” “conversation” for “conduct,”

“comprehend”

“well-being,”

for

“overcome,”

“allege”

“ghost”

for “prove,”

for

“demand”

“spirit,”

“wealth”

for

for “ask,” “take no

thought” for “be not anxious,” etc.

These changes in Eng. language usage (and they are merely a few of many such changes) have taken place in some three hundred years. The process is a universally observed phenomenon and must relate to the Heb. vocabulary as well. Thus, the meaning of a word will not be revealed by consideration of its etymology but by a consideration of all possible meanings of that word known to have been available at the time the word was used (thus avoiding the diachronic fallacy), and of the text, cotext, and context within which it appears. Even then it is necessary to be aware that an individual source may make use of any available symbol in any arbitrary manner provided only that the meaning would be reasonably transparent to the intended receivers. Barr makes particular reference to the supposed origin of Heb. gahal in the nom. form gol, so that the gahal becomes the people of Israel, “called out” by the voice of God. And the process is further confounded by associating gahal with G ekklésia, etymologically “called-out,” so that the church is the “called-out-people-of-God” (Cotterell and Turner, 113f.). In fact, the meaning of the term gahal must be determined at

each occurrence without any necessary reference to etymology (cf. Ps 26:5, where the qahal is quite clearly not called out by God). Of course, this is not to deny the value of etymological study as such. The fact is that the etymology of a word may help to suggest a possible meaning in a particular text. But it is the context that is determinative and not the etymology. (c) The myth of aggregated meaning. Third, there is the myth of aggregated meaning. Meaning is not determined by assigning meanings independently to the constituents of a text and then aggregating the constituent meanings. An example from the NT may be allowed to illustrate the point. The words used by Jesus to his mother, represented in the G as ti emoi kai soi gynai? (John 2:4) may be rendered as ““What-to-me-and-to-you-woman.” There is no particular difficulty in these individual constituents of the string, but representing the meaning of the string has proved to be difficult, as may be seen by reference to the various translations. Sentences may be categorized in many ways, but may generally be divided into two classes: favorite-pattern sentences and minority-pattern sentences. The former are those within which substitutions may be allowed, and each substitution may produce a meaningful string, the meaning of which may be related to the meanings of the rest. Minority-pattern sentences cannot be modified in the same way. For example the sentence Not on your life, boy means something like—Absolutely not! but the substitution of “bed” for “life” yields a perfectly good favorite-pattern sentence Not on your bed, boy! the meaning of which bears no relationship to Absolutely not! But further substitu-

150

Guide

tions in this sentence might yield Not on my bed, boy! or, Not in his house, boy! the meanings of the three favorite-pattern sentences being clearly related to one another. The string in John 2:4 is a minority pattern string, to be understood as a phrase-whole. D. A. Cruse refers to these minority patterns as idioms and defines them as “complex lexemes acting as a single semantic constituent” (2.7 and 2.9.). (d) The myth of unique denotation. A fourth myth is the myth of the uniqueness of denotation, that the meaning of a word is determined once the object it denotes has been identified. But words carry also connotations that are primarily culturally determined, but within a culture may further be modified by individual perceptions, or ideolects. Considering the string in Ps 22:6, “I am a worm, and not a man,” the denota-

tion may readily be determined by reference to the lexicon, but it alone does not yield the meaning of the string, since no one is disputing the fact that the writer was not a worm. In some sense he resembled a worm, and it is assumed that it is in the sense of

the worm’s weakness, its connotation. However, this cannot simply be assumed to be the connotation; surprisingly, the connotation of worm in Amharic, a Semitic language, is strong, powerful. To the culturally determined connotation we might then add the ideolectal connotation of those individuals who suffer from a phobia, an actual terror,

of worms, yielding a whole domain of connotation to the denotation. Clearly a similar problem arises with the connotational meaning of the fox with which Jesus compares Herod. The connotative meaning of a word is the subjective meaning it may carry for an individual or group through an agreed perception of the nature or character or function of the referent. But, of course, that connotation holds for that individual or for that group, but not necessarily for any other individual or group. Biblical interpretation has, in some measure, been impoverished as a consequence of the fact that the majority of exegetes have been male. Although this could probably be illustrated from any book of the Bible, it is, perhaps, most readily demonstrated from the S of Songs and here most particularly in the unusual wasf of 5:10-16, unusual in that it relates to the male form. Falk (“The wasf” in Athalya Brenner (ed.), A Feminist Companion to the Song of Songs), quotes Richard Soulen, “The wasfs of the Song of Songs and Hermeneutic”: The poetic imagination at work in 5:10-16 where the maiden speaks of her lover is less sensuous and imaginative than in the wasfs of chs. 4 and 7. This is due in part to the limited subject matter and may even be due to the difference in erotic imagination between poet and poetess” (Falk, 231).

Falk, a feminist writer, has no difficulty in demonstrating the falsity of Soulen’s judgment and tracing the fault to the reading strategy (see sec. A.3) of the author, who finds what he expects and intends to find. But quite apart from the problem of gender discriminatory reading strategies we have the problem of a kind of cultural imperialism. Quoting Falk again, she notes that even Maurice Segal can dismiss the imagery of the female wasf in 7:1-5 as either grotesque or as comical: Only as playful banter can be rationally explained the grotesque description by the lover to the damsel of her neck as “like the tower of

151

Guide

David built for an armoury,” of her nose “as the tower of Lebanon which looketh toward Damascus,” and of her head like Mount Carmel . . . and similar comical comparisons of her other limbs” (Falk, 227).

Segal does indeed recognize subsequently the possibility that “our perspective radically differs from the poet’s,” and this is precisely the problem with all connotation: There can be no confidence that the connotative meaning intended by the author is even available to the reader, most especially if that reader is separated from the original location by thousands of miles and chronologically by thousands of years. A word of caution must be added to the potential semantic anarchy invited by the concept of connotative meaning. The remarkable account in Judg 4:17-21 of the murder of the Canaanite army commander Sisera by Jael, wife of Heber, encouraged much speculation on the true nature of the event. We have a lone married woman assassinating a prominent warrior at a period of history that had thrown up a female SOpét. It is not difficult to suppose that sexual intercourse preceded the assassination or that Jael might well have been, or at least might have temporarily adopted, the role of prostitute. However, the suggestion that the extraordinary nature of the murder was “a grim parody of the sexual act, in which the roles are reversed and Jael acts the part of the man’ expects a great deal of the reader. As Barnabas Lindars comments, “Of course we cannot be sure that the people of the narrator’s age would have seen it that way” (Barnabas Lindars, Judges 1-5, 1995, 201). Indeed, while the ingenuity of the

suggested interpretation is to be admired, the phallic connotation ascribed to a tent peg is highly improbable. (e) The myth of totality transfer. There is, fifth, the myth of totality transfer, the recognition of the polysemy of a particular word and the importation of some element of each possible meaning, the total domain of meaning, into a single occurrence of the word. Clearly a word may be employed precisely because of its particular polysemous nature, so that two or more of the potential meanings of the word may be simultaneously accessed: Heb. riiah and G pneuma are obvious examples. But that is quite a different matter and within the compass of discourse meaning, in contrast to the gratuitous importation of a multiplicity of meanings not identifiable as comprising discourse meaning. We must now ask how we are objectively to determine meaning conveyed by a string, when each symbol employed in the semiotic is potentially polysemous. At least part of the answer must lie in a determination of the syntagmatic and paradigmatic relationships of the elements of the string. The importance of the syntagmatic relationships of words flows from the recognition that the use of any one element of a string necessarily affects the subsequent generation of other units. Similarly, the importance of the paradigmatic relationships of words flows from the recognition that possible or impossible substitutions serve to identify such matters as literary genre, metaphor, and minority-pattern sentences. The fact that in the string Not on your life, boy the word “life” does not share paradigmatically with such words as “boat,” “bed,” “table” (each of which is, in terms of formal grammar, of the same word class), marks the string as

not representing a favorite-pattern sequence. Totality transfer may be seen E. Jacob’s Theology of the Old Testament, referred to by Barr (144-47). Jacob considers the etymologies of ’adam, ’i¥, “no, and geber and combines his results to produce a characterization of “man”: “added together

152.

Guide

they indicate that man according to the OT is a perishable creature, who lives only as the member of a group, but that he is also a powerful being capable of choice and dominion.” But as Barr points out, while geber is clearly related to the root gbr, that by no means validates the assumption that since the root carries a meaning be strong, be powerful, the nom. must carry that same meaning. And even if it once did, that is again no reason to suppose that subsequently it did not simply denote man, with no particular overtone of power. 2. Diachrony. To the five myths we must add the problem of diachrony. All living language is in a constant process of change; not only are new forms being created, but old forms are both gaining new meanings and losing old meanings. The Eng. word “nice” before the thirteenth century meant “simple” or “ignorant,” in the thirteenth century added the meaning “foolish,” “stupid,” in the fourteenth century “wanton,” and in the fifteenth century “coy” or “shy.” Each of these is now obsolete, and even some of the sixteenth-century senses, “subtle,” “precise,” “minutely accurate” are only preserved in such constructions as “a nice distinction.” It would thus be inappropriate to insist that when a speaker refers to a “nice” doctor, the doctor is being accused of being ignorant. This is the diachronic error. Language may be studied either diachronically or synchronically. In a synchronic study the process of change in a language is notionally halted and the language then described in terms of its condition at that time. To demonstrate the process of change a number of synchronic studies may be compared to give a diachronic view of the language. Changes in the semantic values of the lexical stock of a language fall into three principal categories, shift, metaphoric, and metonymic. In shift changes there are relatively small and even logical movements in the sense of the word—on the one hand—generalization, where “manuscript” moves from being a hand-written document to being an original document of any kind, or restriction, where “meat” moves from a general reference to food to a specific reference to flesh. Any form may become the basis for metaphorical extension: “spine” being applied to the back of a book, or “Jeaf’ to an extension to a table. Metonymy may similarly generalize, so that a door, the element closing a doorway, becomes the doorway, or may conversely produce restriction, such as “gate,” originally the gap, becoming instead the means of closing the gap. (See especially S. Ullmann, Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning, 1962, ch. 9; see also G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible, 1980, 62-84.) Of particular importance here are certain proper names: Moses, David, Solomon. David is at one point in Israel’s history no more (and no less) than a name,

but David becomes not merely king, but a king focally associated with divine covenant, founder not merely of a dynasty, but of a dynasty that expressed the eschatological expectations of a nation. Thus, “David” no longer signifies merely David, but metonymically signifies anyone of the promised ideal Davidic line. The nominal mal’ak presents the exegete with particular problems since its semantic domain covers not merely the purely secular sense of “messenger” but also the sense of a divine messenger, and more than that there is reference to the mal’ak

yhwh (> #4855). The same distinct usages occur with respect to G angelos, but the Eng. “angel” is almost invariably reserved for the divine messenger. io)

Guide

D. Discourse Analysis This article has dealt first with an indication of some developments in general linguistic and hermeneutical theory relevant to the exegesis of text, and then with the role of words in determining text meaning. Some reference must now be made to one further level of interpretation, the role of discourse. The meaning of a text is determined by the words from which it is constructed and the manner of their incorporation into the text syntactically and paradigmatically. But the meaning of any pencore is determined also by the larger text of which it is a part. The Jacob discourse, which occupies some twenty-five chapters of Gen, provides an indicative model to illustrate the point. It is itself set into the larger text of Gen and the still larger pentateuchal text. It is preceded by the creation discourse, Gen 1-11, which acts as Stage, as that part of the text that states the issue addressed by the text as a whole, and then by the Abraham narrative (12:1-25:18). Gen 25:19 economically

concludes the Abraham discourse and opens the new Jacob discourse. These first twenty-five chapters are given coherence through the formulaic téledét, introduced at 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10 and 27; 25:12 and 19. These formulae may be anaphoric (as

in 2:4 and 5:1), but may also be cataphoric (as in 10:1 and 11:10), with the distinction determined by the cotext. The Jacob discourse itself is introduced by the “generations” statement at 25:19 (lit., “these are the descendants of Abraham’s son Isaac’’), and is punctuated by the Esau genealogy of ch. 36, itself introduced by the t6ledét formula at 36:1 (~ Generations). However there is no “generations” statement for Jacob himself. The discourse is concluded at 49:33, although followed by a sequence of post-Peak episodes recording the magnificent closure account of the burial of Jacob, one final act of deception

(deception having been a major coherency theme throughout the Jacob discourse), practiced on Joseph by his brothers, and finally the death of Joseph. While the Joseph story has its importance first in carrying forward the deception motif of the Jacob narrative and second in its broader Heilsgeschichte role in moving Jacob-Israel from Canaan to Egypt, it has its peak in his self-revelation to his brothers in 45:1-4, while his biography whispers to a close, the matter-of-fact account of his death and embalming in 50:26 clearly leaving that story unclosed. In Exod 13:19 Moses is depicted taking the bones of Joseph out of Egypt, while only in Josh 24:32 is the story finally concluded, with the burial of his bones at Shechem. Gen 25-50, then, represent a coherent discourse, and we turn now briefly to a

consideration of the nature of textuality and to the relevance of the identification of a text to the process of interpreting its constituent parts, illustrating the process from the Jacob discourse. (1) The seven standards of textuality. We have already alluded (see sec. B.4) to the fact that textuality is indicated by seven standards. There is firstly cohesion of grammar and syntax. Referents remain constant: Proforms in one part of the text relate to co-referring expressions elsewhere. Proforms are significant, cataphoric reference introducing a suspense feature into the semantic structure, and this in turn has the

effect of transferring emphasis from one part of a text to another. In exegetical terms this means that cataphoric proforms underline a select portion of text making it more likely to be recalled. (On the use of cataphora and anaphora and their effect on learning and recall see R. de Beaugrande and W. Dressler, 60-68.) As a general principle it may 154

Guide

be said that any shift of emphasis produced by the reordering of words increases learning and recall at one point, but at the expense of some other point in the communicative process. The second standard of textuality is coherence at the semantic level. The constituent themes of the text are meaningfully related so as to produce a thematic net. In the case of the Jacob narrative, this net is woven out of the constituent themes of divine

promise and providence, human deception and human frailty. The third standard of textuality is intention: there is an author who purposes a communication. The traditional monkeys, hammering randomly on typewriter, could never, in this sense, produce a text, since there could be no communicative intention

behind the text. It should, perhaps, be noted that there may in any culture be specialized texts, the interpretation of which explicitly does not take account of authorial intention. In such texts it is the wording alone that carries meaning, and the possible intention of any author or drafting committee is disregarded. Legal texts frequently fall into this category. Fourth is the standard of acceptability. The reader of the text accepts that the text is meaningful, that is to say, not so ungrammatical as to be incomprehensible, that it offers the possibility of a genuine dialogue leading to an intended goal, and that the special circumstances that gave rise to the text are relevant to the interpretive process. In H.P. Grice’s terms a text creates cooperation. A text is not wholly redundant, so that the fifth standard is informativity. This requirement of a text may be realized even where the denotative content is already familiar to the reader. Thus Hamlet or the account of Jacob’s deception of Isaac remain texts even when denotative content has been exhausted, since their respective connotative content is in some measure determined by the unique moment of each existential dialogue with them. Texts are more than a presentation of facts to be assimilated, and biblical texts had a didactic function in which existing ethical imperatives were either challenged or reenforced. A text is directed to a situation, and situationality is the sixth standard of textuality: The interpretation of the text is in some measure related to the situation which gave rise to it. The absence of an identifiable situation may be remedied in Eng. by a phrase such as “let us suppose that,” or in Heb. by the employment of some term such as ma@Sal or, ambiguously in most languages, by a fictitious context, “There were two men in a certain town” (2 Sam 12:1), providing an apparent social context later revealed as maSal. In this particular example, the interpretation of the text is shown to depend precisely on its situationality. Finally is the seventh standard, intertextuality, the existence of a body of texts

in some sense analogous to the text under consideration. The interpretation of apocalyptic literature is given some measure of credibility by the existence of an entire apocalyptic textual genre, and this may be of particular importance when interpreting apocalyptic embedded in some different text type (see Thiselton, 80-81). The Jacob narrative clearly satisfies these seven standards of textuality. (2) Narrative structure. Discourse considerations suggest that the exegesis of any narrative depends not only on questions of grammar and syntax, but also on questions of textuality, and particularly on the identification of text structure and thematic net. In any extended text, such as the Jacob narrative, the narrative consists of a

155

Guide he a a

ee

sequence of contributing topics, which together create a network of relationships, events, and propositions. The net, which is being continuously woven as the text progresses, carries the text forward from Stage to Peak, the point at which the staged problem is resolved, the staged question answered, through a series of related Episodes. The Peak is followed by Closure, the more-or-less artistic conclusion of the text. In the Jacob narrative Stage is provided by Gen 25:23, Peak by 48:20, and Closure

quite magnificently by 50:14. The verse is preceded by the spectacle of the great mass of mourners processing from Egypt into Canaan, the splendid “grievous mourning” at Abel Mizraim, and is succeeded by dispersal: Joseph and his brothers and the great company return to Egypt, leaving the central character in his lonely tomb at Machpelah. Between Stage and Closure the narrative passes through a number of contributing pericopes (the angels at Bethel, the marriage of Jacob, Laban’s household gods, the encounter with Esau), each of which must be understood not merely in its own terms but also in terms of its relationship to the total text. Even the Joseph pericope (Gen 37:2-45:28) is ultimately significant because of its contribution to the Jacob narrative. Joseph is given preeminence over his brothers and provides the two grandsons who appear in the Peak, evoking the two brothers of Stage. Within the linguistic subdiscipline of Poetics, both Jacob and Joseph are full-fledged characters while Joseph’s brothers are agents, whose personalities are developed only insofar as they contribute to the narrative. Joseph’s sons are mere types, of whom we are allowed to know very little. Development of a type into an agent, or of an agent into a character would serve only to confuse the thrust of the narrative (see Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation

of Biblical Narrative, 1983, ch. 2; of course, a type from a larger text may be presented as a character in a constituent pericope, as is Benjamin in 42:1-45:15). Focal to the entire narrative is the onomastic element of the encounter between Jacob and the mal’ak yhwh at Peniel. The renaming of Jacob as Israel is itself significant, but it is arguably of greater significance that immediately afterwards (Gen 33:1) he is identified still as “Jacob,” and even at Peak and Closure both names are still being

used, selectively, and sometimes in typical Heb. parallelism (49:2, 24). The dual name is taken up with great linguistic skill by the so-called Second Isaiah. (3) Peak. Narrative moves from the staged problem or question to its resolution, the Peak. The correct identification of Peak is clearly of enormous importance, affecting the interpretation of all included pericopes. There are, in fact, generally recognized and objectively identifiable features that contribute to the identification of Peak: concentration of participants, rhetorical underlining, locus underlining, and grammatical underlining. (a) The first of these is deliberately so placed: It appears to be the case that the bringing together of all of the characters and agents or, alternatively, the isolation of the main characters from all others, appear to be an almost universal literary device for signaling Peak. The two contrasting devices appear in the two principal Peaks of Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities. In the court scene, where the resemblance of Carton and

Darnay is first noted, we have a concentration of participants. But at the ultimate Peak, the execution of Sydney Carton, he is left with an entirely new type as his only companion on the journey to the guillotine, while the rest of the cast is not merely omitted from the scene, but is actually depicted as driving rapidly away from it.

156

Guide

In the New Testament we note on the one hand Jesus’ absence from the Peak of the Cana miracle in John 2:10, when the water is found to have become wine, and on the other hand, in Matt 28 the assembling of the eleven on the unnamed mountain in

Galilee, where they are joined by Jesus so that his Great Commission may form the Peak of the Gospel. We note also the confirmatory locus underlining, mountains being given a particular connotational value in the structure of the Gospel (see T. L. Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain, JSNTSup 8, 1985), and the rhetorical underlining of the commission itself, with its pasa ... panta ... panta ... pasas. It is striking that after the account of Peter’s denial of Christ the disciples are denied any further role in the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection events; they are not intended as Peak events.

(b) For rhetorical effect the onset of Peak may be delayed, and delayed peaking is typical of Job and Revelation. The structure of Job may well be tedious to the contemporary scholarly mind, but not at all to Semitic culture. We are warned from Job 2:11, following Stage, that we must expect speeches from Job’s three friends before we are given Yahweh’s explanation of Job’s suffering. These three speeches take us to 11:20, with an inconclusive response from Job moving us on to 14:22, at which point Peak is further delayed by Eliphaz (ch. 15), Bildad (ch. 18) and Zophar (ch. 20). But then there is a third cycle involving Eliphaz (ch. 22) and Bildad (a mere six verses in ch. 25). There follows the long impassioned response of Job, taking the reader to the end of ch. 31, and precisely when we are led to suppose that we must now get the answer and that it must come from Yahweh, a new agent is introduced, Elihu, whose

speech occupies no fewer than six chapters. Only then is Peak reached: The supporting cast of agents is dismissed, and Job is left confronting Yahweh. The Peak itself is introduced by a devastating series of rhetorical questions (a device that occurs also in | Cor 9:1-12, signaling the episodic Peak), but the Peak is not after all provided by Yahweh, but by Job. This unexpected development forces the reader to recognize that Stage has been misunderstood. The Staged question is not “Why do the innocent suffer?” but “Can faith survive calamity?” Rhetorical underlining may be effected in other ways. For example in repetition, as in the ten occurrences of r’h, see, in Ezek 1, which precede the episodic Peak “I fell facedown” (1:28c). (c) Change of locus frequently signals Peak, where the new locus (as in Matt

28) has particular connotative value. We note particularly how in Exod 19:1 the change of locus to Sinai is solemnly recorded (“On the third month after the people of Israel left Egypt—on that very day—they came into the Desert of Sinai’’), but then Peak is delayed as Moses repeatedly ascends Sinai and then is sent back down again by Yahweh with some warning message to the people. Only at Exod 20:1 do we reach the anticipated Peak: “God spoke.” (d) Grammatical underlining to mark Peak may be seen in John 2, where as the Peak approaches the present tense used for verbal acts and the aorist for nonverbal acts

give way to the perfect tense, so that events now described are given particular emphasis (B. Olsson, Structure and Meaning in the Fourth Gospel, 1974, 182). Similarly, in the Flood narrative a great deal of paraphrase is used, and, as Longacre has pointed out, what is striking is that

much of this paraphrase is presented in clauses whose verbs have the characteristic narrative tense and the word order of event-line clauses. 157

Guide a ee

—————————————eeeeEeE

es

Elsewhere event-line verbs are not used in a paraphrase of an event. Here, however,

at the Peak of the story, the characteristic event-line

tense is extended to supportive materials (R. E. Longacre, The Grammar of Discourse, 27). (4) Deixis. The analysis of discourse as extended text takes seriously the dis-

tinction between mere sentences and utterances. Unlike a sentence an utterance has a context and that context contributes to the meaning of the text. Within texts we find linguistic elements included that are intended by the author or redactor to enable the reader the better to visualize the events being described, These are the so-called deictic elements of language. Texts are normally speaker-oriented, so that the words used by the writers of a text or by speakers within the text place any action in spatial and temporal relationship to themselves rather than absolutely. Deixis, then, is the encoding within an utterance of the spatio-temporal context and of the subjective experience of the encoder. Or, as John Lyons expresses it more explicitly:

the location and identification of persons, objects, processes and activities being talked about, or referred to, in relation to the spatio-temporal context created and sustained by the act of utterance and the participation in it, typically, of a single speaker and at least one addressee (Semantics, 1977, 637).

Five categories of deixis are usually identified. (a) Personal deixis, elements of the text that identify author, redactor, or speaker, include personal names or titles, and

particularly proforms, is significant in the so-called “we” passages in Acts (“they” in Acts 16:8, “we” in 16:10 and subsequently). The change of pronoun signals the presence of the writer in the events described. (b) Social deixis, which may include the use of honorifics or self-deprecating indirect modes

of address, establishes

the social standing of speaker and the one

addressed. Thus addressing the pharaoh Joseph says: “God will give Pharaoh the answer he desires” (Gen 41:16), and “The dreams of Pharaoh are one and the same; God has revealed to Pharaoh what he is about to do” (41:25), and “the reason the

dream was given to Pharaoh in two forms is that the matter has been firmly decided” (41:32). (c) Temporal deixis establishes the timeline of discourse, sometimes employing nominal forms, “the third day,” sometimes conjunctions, “later,” “before,” sometimes

verbal forms, especially verbs of intention or expectation. (d) The fourth category of deixis is locational: “here,” “there,” “‘at Socoh.” As an example of the role of deictic elements we may note those elements that set the scene for Esther’s appeal to the king in Esth 5:1:

On the third day [pointing back to 4:16 and the requirement that the Jews of Susa fast for three days on her behalf] Esther put on her royal robes [she would be in the harem; she puts on royal robes both to indicate her status and in recognition of the occasion, a formal audience] and stood in the inner court of the palace, in front of the king’s hall. The king was sitting on his royal throne [not as though, naively, the writer

158

Guide

supposed that he sat there each day, but because this was an audience day, and Esther knew so] in the hall, facing the entrance.

The richness of the locational deixis provided here is paralleled in the rape of Tamar pericope (2 Sam 13). The pericope is marked off by a new location, Jerusalem rather than Rabbah, by new actors, Amnon, Tamar, and Jonadab. David is reduced to a

mere type, where he had been a full character in the preceding chapter. The new _ represents a microcosm instead of the preceding macrocosm, and the literary changes from an epic to a classical tragedy. The limitation of employing only grammar, lexicon, and dictionary to mine meaning is evident. Absalom is named as “David’s son” (personal and deixis), and so is Amnon,

Stage genre detersocial

while Jonadab is identified as “son of Shimeah, David’s

brother” (2 Sam 13:3). These are all deictic indications that while we now have a microcosmic tragedy rather than a macrocosmic epic, the tragedy is primarily an episode within the epic. The locational deixis is skillfully worked between the respective residences of Amnon, Tamar, and David, climaxing in the pathetic picture of the ravaged Tamar walking back to her home, ashes on her head, her torn robes clutched to her, Amnon’s

love turned to hate, and his door bolted behind her. No interpretation of the text that excluded the deictically determined connotational elements could possibly do justice

to it. However, for all the pathos of the Tamar tragedy, its principal purpose is to contribute to the Royal Chronicle, and to remove it from its larger cotext would provide it with a different meaning from that intended by its author or redactor. (e) Logical or discourse deixis relates to those markers within a discourse that

signal to the reader that a new phase in the developing text has been reached, or that some past phase must now be invoked to facilitate the correct understanding of the new _ phase. Such obviously logical lexemes as “therefore” (cf. G oun) may be deictic, and so also may interrogatives. Heb. lammd in Eccl 2:15 is rendered unsatisfactorily in NIV by the bland “Why?” and yet the particular usage and connotative meanings of this form are far from clear (see James Barr, “‘Why?’ in Biblical Hebrew,” JTS [new series] 36, 1985, 1-33). At the end of this exhaustive article Barr indicates one of the

many possible connotations of lamma: “A ‘Why?’ question may be a joyful acknowledgment, tinged with a slight reproach at the excessive kindness or consideration of another” (33). In other words, this simple lexeme cannot be so much translated as paraphrased within the larger syntactic and semantic unit. The Eccl 2 example may well represent Barr’s class of hypothetical deprecations (19). And so we come back to the starting point of the essay. Primary language is spoken language, an imprecise communications semiotic, demonstrating both denotations and connotations, involving text, cotext, and context, a speaker and, normally, at

least one listener. The imprecision of connotation is moderated by the presence of the speaker and listener and by the existing relationship between them. Written language is secondary, an attempt to capture spoken language through an arbitrary system of signs, but compelled to do so in the absence both of the speaker and of the referents of the resultant text. To interpret a text it is necessary to have an understanding of phonology, morphology, syntax, and lexicography. However, the imprecision of language permeates 159

Guide the entire semiotic: Words are polysemous, chronology brings change in the lexical stock and its usage, and even small changes in the sequencing of words may produce significant, and yet not readily definable changes in meaning. Meaning itself is distributed between denotations and connotations, these latter to be identified only with probability, never with certainty, the probability level falling steadily as the age of the text increases. The user of NIDOTTE will be grateful for a magnificent resource, but will also be aware that lexical and grammatical studies of the constituents of a text can never be simply aggregated to produce text meaning. What such studies can do is responsibly to contribute to what must be seen as the art rather than the science of exegesis. BIBLIOGRAPHY

J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, 1961; R. de Beaugrande and W. Dressler (eds.), Introduction to Text Linguistics, 1981; A Brenner (ed.), A Feminist Companion to the Song of Songs, 1993; P. Cotterell and M. Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation, 1989; D. A. Cruse, Lexical Semantics, 1986; S. Fish, Is There a Text in This Class? 1980; idem, Doing What Comes Naturally, 1989; D. Levine, Wax and Gold, 1965; J. Lyons, Language and Linguistics,

1981; D. McKim (ed.), A Guide to Contemporary Hermeneutics, 1986; E. McKnight, Meaning in Texts, 1978; T. Muraoka, Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew, 1985; A. Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics, 1992; J. Tompkins (ed.), Reader-Response Criticism, 1980; F. Watson (ed.), The Open Text, 1993; W. Wink, The Bible in Human Transformation, 1973. Peter Cotterell

160

Guide

8. PRINCIPLES FOR PRODUCTIVE WORD STUDY

Often when studying a biblical text we understand that the meaning of a pasSage may be heavily dependent on the meaning of a particular word or phrase. It is the need to analyze words that NIDOTTE seeks to address. Still, all the tools in the world

will avail nothing if we do not know how to use them. Any tool, instrument, weapon, or equipment is subject to the limitations of those who use them. In order to put this tool to good use, the reader needs to have an acquaintance with some of the principles of lexical and semantic analysis. These principles may be presented within the context of the science of linguistics (see the preceding article by Cotterell), or may be discussed in terms of our common, everyday use of language. This latter approach may not satisfy the linguist, but it may serve the purposes of a less technically trained student.

A. Understanding Authors’ Choices In order to understand what an author invests in the meaning of a word, we

must think about what goes into the choice of a word. Biblical authors did not use some special heavenly language with mystical meanings. Like any other author, a biblical author chose a particular word because it carried precisely the meaning that he wanted to communicate. That sounds too obvious to mention, but it must be realized that there

are other alternatives, and we will consider some of those others first. 1. Considerations of form. If an author is working within the limitations imposed by a certain form, he may choose a word not for its precision of meaning, but for its conformity to the requirements. In English a good example of this would be the choice of a word to complete a rhyme or to represent the third point in an alliterated series (persecution, penalty, p...). If form is imposing some requirements on word choice, precision of meaning may not be possible. In Hebrew this may become relevant in acrostic poems or even in parallelism. Thus, in Ps 119:105 one would not make too much of the word lamp (nér; > #5944). Since all the verses between with nun, this word was chosen to suit the form.

105-12 begin

2. Poetic expression. Most languages have words available for use in poetry that would not typically be used in other types of writing. Often such expressions operate through the use of metaphor and therefore lack technical precision in terms of meaning. So when we read that “the mountains skipped like rams” (Ps 114:4), we understand that precision of meaning did not guide word choice. Likewise, when poetic terms like tébél, world (> #9315), are chosen, we can credit poetic style. In

these cases, we need to evaluate word choice in light of the type of literature we are dealing with. 3. Conventional combinations. There are some words that we choose to use in set phrases where the phrase has meaning to us even if the individual parts do not. Sometimes we use the parts always and only in the context of that phrase. In English the word “diametrically” would rarely, if ever, be used except in the phrase “diametrically opposed.” Most users do not know what “diametrically” means, but the phrase has meaning. Likewise “ulterior” would not be used with anything besides “motives” and has meaning to most users only in that phrase. A third example is the word “brunt,” which we would only use in the expression “to bear the brunt of . . .” and which has no independent meaning to most of its users. In BH the word bohi, empty

161

Guide

(> #983), is used only with tohd, nothing (# 9332), as in Gen 1:2. As interpreters,

then, we must be aware that authors at times use stock phrases, and we must learn to recognize them as such. The author is not choosing the word as much as he is choosing the phrase. Though we can recognize the above situations as offering exceptions, the rule is that most word choices are made on the basis of the meaning of that word as the author and his intended audience understand it. The following observations can provide prin-

ciples for interpretation. (a) Synonyms and antonyms. In many cases the process of communication takes place as the listener/reader hears the words that the author has chosen in light of other words that could have been used. For instance, think of the different aspects that might be communicated if an author chose to use “charger” instead of “horse.” What if he chose mustang, or bronco, or steed? What about stallion, mare, palfrey, or pony? In

some instances he might have chosen stud or gelding. This is an example from a whole series of words in the general category of “horse.” At other times the choices might involve words that refer to the same object, but raise different feelings about the object. In English one can speak of a fetus (and preserve a certain amount of objective formality) or of an unborn child (to incorporate or express one’s belief of personhood). Whenever words with overlapping meaning exist, we have a right to ask: Why did the author choose this one instead of another? In the articles in these books the authors and editors have made every attempt to alert the reader to the choices that would have been available to the biblical author and to suggest what situations might lead to the choice of one alternative over another. Sometimes even if words mean nearly the same thing and can often be interchanged, there are some contexts where one would be appropriate and the other would not. For instance, in English one can almost always interchange “earth” and “ground”—but not if electricity is being discussed. Likewise, if the word were paired with heaven, ground would not be chosen. In a similar fashion, the choice of a word is better understood by comparing words with similar meaning (synonyms) and with words of contrasting meaning (antonyms). Thus, someone who is described as running cannot be sitting, standing, or walking. Sometimes, then, words are chosen so as to differentiate between synonyms, and other times so as to contrast to antonyms. (b) The parts that make up a word. When we choose to use a particular word, we are often not conscious of the parts that make up that word. For instance, we use the word “awful” without even noticing that it is a combination of awe + full. English is full of compound words, some easily recognizable, such as “understand,” others not as readily noticed, such as “syllabus.” Our usage of these words does not imply knowledge of the parts, nor does it intend to convey what the parts meant in their individual forms. Therefore, when we analyze the word choices of the authors of Scripture, we should not assume that the use of a compound word assumes knowledge of or carries the meaning of the parts. In Greek, where compound words are common, it is a constant temptation to the interpreter to analyze the meanings of words by their constituent parts. But a moment’s thought about English usage should warn us against placing confidence in that type of approach. Our use of a word like “understand” is not at all influenced or informed by viewing it as a combination of “under” and “stand”; one cannot arrive at an interpretation of the meaning of that word by evaluating the parts.

162

Guide

In Hebrew the problem is not so much compound words as it is the relationship of words that share the same root. In English we understand that words that share the same root may be related and may not. The verb “exist” certainly is closely related in meaning to the noun “existence” and not many steps away from the adjective “existential.” Knowing the meaning of the root, exist, can help the reader deduce the meaning of the other related parts of speech. Other examples, however, do not work so well. For instance, recognition of the root “adult” in “adultery” will not be of any use. More subtly, one can easily associate “company” and “companion,” but when one gets to the verb “accompany,” only partial success can be achieved. If the verb is being used to speak of joining someone on a walk, there is no problem; but if the speaker is using the more technical idiomatic sense of accompanying a soloist on the piano, the root relationship provides little assistance. Likewise in Hebrew the interpreter cannot have confidence that the words that share a common root will also share a common meaning. We must be aware, therefore, that we cannot use one to shed light on the other unless

the relationship can be independently established. Likewise the BH for angel or messenger (mal’ak, > #4855) certainly shares a root with the nom. work, occupation (mala’kd,

> #4856), yet it would be a mistake to

try to interpret one in light of the other. On a more popular level, it used to be common to see the Philistine god Dagon portrayed in the form of a fish. This reflected the analysis of well-meaning interpreters that dag (> # 1834) meant fish, while 6n was a typical nom. ending. Further discoveries have clarified that the WestSem. deity Dagon, adopted by the Philistines, was a grain deity. We cannot expect that reducing a word to its constituent parts will give reliable guidance to establishing meaning. (c) The history of the word. We do not choose to employ a word based on an understanding of its history. A word’s origin is called its etymology. Most speakers are entirely unaware of the etymology of the words they are using. More importantly, many words have evolved over time in such a way that their current meaning is only vaguely related to their original meaning. For example, though the English word “sinister” originally referred to being left-handed, those who use the word today are rarely aware of that history. Even if they are aware of it, they do not use the word in that connection. Linguists refer to the study of the historical development of a word as a diachronic approach. The alternative is to study the current usage of the word in all its possible contexts. Linguists call this a synchronic approach. The diachronic study of a word may help the interpreter to understand by what route a word came to mean what it does mean. A synchronic study of a word will help the interpreter know what the word means to the person who has just used it. Though etymology or other diachronic approaches can at times provide information concerning meaning, the problem is that one cannot rely on them to do so. Since we are aware of so many cases where meaning has shifted over time, we should be uncomfortable establishing the meaning of a word on the basis of our knowledge of its history (diachronic) rather than on its usage (synchronic). An author will choose his word based on his presupposition about what his audience will understand when they hear or read that word. A well-meaning teacher dealing with Prov 22:6 was trying to explain to his class what the text meant when it said that the properly trained child would not depart from the parent’s teaching “when he was old.” He informed the class that since the

163

Guide

verb “to be old” (zagén; > #2416) also contributed its root to the nom. “beard,” (zagan;, — #2417), we could understand the text to be saying that when the son was

old enough to grow a beard he would not depart from the teaching. Such analysis can only mislead and distort—it contributes nothing to sound exegesis. Given these observations concerning related words, parts of a word, and the his-

tory of a word, we can recognize that as interpreters we need to understand words in the light of what choices authors are making when they use their words. The principles that emerge are: eA word should be understood in recognition of other related words that were not selected by the author. ¢A word should not necessarily be broken down into its constituent parts or analyzed in light of its root unless it can be established independently that a relationship of meaning exists. *Synchronic methods are to be preferred over diachronic methods. B. Determining Meaning by the Synchronic Approach The synchronic approach depends on the concept that the meaning of a word is established by the usage made of it by speakers and writers. Most words have a range of possible meanings, called the semantic range, which the interpreter should seek to define when investigating the meaning of the word in a particular context. With the help of a concordance, all of the occurrences of the word in its various forms may be located. These become the raw data of the lexical base. The next step, and arguably the most important, is classification of the data. In the synchronic approach one must attempt to differentiate all of the various defining aspects of how a word may be used. The following categories will provide an idea of the issues that must be considered. 1. Author. Different authors may use the same word in different ways. On the other hand, there are many words that may be used in the same way by many different authors. The synchronic method does not require that only usages by the same author be considered. It only requires that the interpreter be sensitive to idiosyncratic or distinctive meanings attached to certain words by certain authors. In NT studies it has long been recognized that Paul and James do not use the term justification with precisely the same meanings. In OT studies we are aware that the “Redeemer” motif takes on a unique role in Isa, or that the “enemy” has a distinctive sense in the Ps. In such cases the synchronic method asks us to isolate the usage of the author who has demonstrated an inclination to individualize the meaning. 2. Genre. The interpreter must be aware that some words may be used with distinctive meanings in certain types of literature that they would not have in other types. For instance, legal literature may use various words for law in technical ways, whereas Psalms may use the same words as virtual synonyms. It is important when classifying the data from the lexical base to be aware of the genre categories, for though the usage across the genres may be undifferentiated, the interpreter must be aware that change of meaning is possible. In BH the term minha (> # 4966) refers to a particular type of sacrifice in ritual literature (Pentateuch laws) and in ritual contexts in narrative literature (e.g. Dan 9:27), but in nonritual contexts it refers to a gift in general (1 Sam 10:27; 2 Kgs 8:8) or, more technically, to tribute (2 Sam 8:2).

164

Guide

3. Part of speech. We have already discussed the fact that noms. and vbs. that share a common history at times develop very different meanings. As a result, the synchronic method must be cautious in relating various byforms to one another. In Hebrew the noms. miftd, bed (> #4753), and matteh, tribe, staff (> #4751), cannot be evaluated in relation to the verbal root nth, stretch (> #5742), nor in relation to one another. Verbs must be classified independent of noms. and the various nom. forms must be kept distinct unless: (a) a relationship can be established by applying the synchronic method

to each form; or (b) insufficient numbers

of occurrences

make

independent investigation impossible and contextual factors suggest a relationship. A related distinction concerns the verbal stems. Though it is often the case that there is a level of semantic interrelation among the stems (e.g., the ni. as the passive of the q.; or the hi. as the causative of the q.), there are sufficient examples of deviation to urge us to caution. There are examples where the stems have radically departed from one another. One only has to look at the variations in the lexical listings in vbs. such as ‘tq (> # 6980) or pg‘ (> #7003) to see the diffusion of meaning that is possible. More subtle are the cases where relationship between the stems remains visible but certain nuances pertain in one but not in the other. So, for instance, for the root shq (> #7464) the q. and the pi. both concern joy, laughter, and fun, but the pi. contains a more negative nuance (making fun of someone) as well as a sexual nuance (Gen 26:8, caress). Again, then, the extent of relatedness between the verbal stems should be estab-

lished by applying the synchronic method to each stem individually before the interpreter would feel free to classify all the verbal occurrences together in the semantic range. 4. Time period. When sorting out the lexical base it is essential to consider whether occurrences in late literature use the word in the same way as in earlier literature. We are all aware of the way in which words can shift meaning over time. It is well recognized that there was the development of what is termed late biblical Hebrew that is evident from Ezek through the postexilic books (e.g., Ezra-Neh and Chron). For example, the verb /gh (#4374) develops the meaning “buy” in later times, but one would not expect that usage in earlier literature. As a result, the synchronic method cannot indiscriminately group various time periods together. Each time period should be considered independently until similarity of usage is established. 5. Technical or idiomatic usage. There will often be certain occurrences within the database that have a more technical sense, and these must be separated out lest they

unduly influence our understanding of the meaning of the whole. The usage of the ’épod (> # 680) as a cult object from which oracles were obtained and as part of the linen clothing of the priest may have little to do with each other. In the theological realm, the adoption of maSiah (> #5431), semah (> #7542), or ‘ebed (> #6269) as terms to describe a future, ideal Davidic king must be kept distinct from other nontechnical occurrences. Likewise, satan (> # 8477) as a general nom. must be distinguished

from any technical reference to Satan. In the idiomatic realm the interpreter must distinguish specialized uses from the other categories and deal with them separately. The fact that Hebrew uses the vb. yd’, know (~ # 3359), for sexual intercourse does not suggest that such a nuance could be applied for all occurrences. A meaning that a word has in an idiomatic context cannot 165

Guide

be applied to other occurrences of that word outside the idiomatic usage. In English it could be claimed that the word “minute” does not always apply to a period of sixty seconds, for when someone says “I’ll be there in a minute,” it can refer to a rather inexact and sometimes extended period of time. This would not suggest, however, that a professor could decide that the class period, consisting of 50 minutes, could be understood to last for 50 extended periods of time. The imprecise, extended aspect of the word “minute” is present only in idiomatic phrases, such as “in a minute.” The synchronic approach recognizes this distinction and insists on idiomatic usages being isolated:in classification of the occurrences. Additionally, the meaning of the idiomatic phrases must be established synchronically just as individual words are. This requires that other occurrences of the idiomatic phrase be found. So the phrase /gh naxim in Gen 6:1 must be understood as marrying, not just having a sexual encounter. The phrase ‘i¥ kil°babd in 1 Sam 13:14 must be understood as referring not to David’s devotion, but to the fact that David con-

forms to God’s criteria. The phrase /gh nepeSs in Prov 11:30 must be understood as taking life, as in all other occurrences, rather than the traditional “saving souls” (though the interpreter must then work at figuring out why such a person would be considered wise; see the helpful discussion by D. A. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 1993, 129). R. B. Y. Scott renders the verse: “But crime takes away life” (Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, AB, 1985, 87).

6. Accompanying circumstances. When establishing categories for the lexical base the interpreter must also observe common associations for the word under study. It is of importance, for instance, to recognize that the vb. br’, create (> # 1343), has

only deity as its subject, but takes a wide range of objects, including trees, humans, cities, cosmic phenomena, and abstractions (e.g., righteousness, praise); that the vb. nth, stretch out (> #5742), is going to vary in meaning depending on its object (often tent, but occasionally hand, heart, peace, etc.); that the vb. kpr, cover (> #4105), takes only items as its direct object (e.g., ark, altar) rather than people. We will also find variations of meaning depending on the collocations in which a word is used. One common distinguishing factor in collocations is represented in the various prepositions that may accompany a vb. In English we are well aware that there is a distinct difference in meaning between saying someone “believes the President” and saying that he “believes in the President’—the collocation “believe in” has a nuance that goes far beyond the uncollocated usage. Likewise in Heb. and G, the presence of certain prepositions with the vb. can make a good deal of difference in the meaning of the vb. A synchronic study will categorize each collocation separately until it can be determined what unique nuances, if any, each one carries. All of these factors become the basis on which the interpreter must establish categories within the lexical base. Having set up categories of author, genre, part of speech, time period, specialized usage, and accompanying circumstances, one can disregard those distinctions that show no sign of introducing different nuances. The resulting categories may then each be studied to determine from their usage what meanings they carry. Unfortunately this second step is often treacherous or seemingly impossible because of the following pitfalls. (a) Lack of synchronic data. In order to establish meaning from context, as the synchronic approach seeks to do, it is necessary to have a number of clear and precise

166

Guide contexts. This is often a problem in BH. If occurrences are few or contexts do not provide the information necessary for nuancing, the synchronic method cannot produce reliable results. For the former consider the plight of the interpreter trying to determine the meaning of the “desire” of woman in Gen 3:16. There are only two other occurrences of this word (Gen 4:7; S of Songs 7:10), and the three together simply do not provide the necessary information to arrive confidently at an understanding of meaning. As an example of lack of contextual information consider the difficulty in arriving at the meaning of the kapporet, mercy seat(?) (> # 4114). Its twenty-six occurrences (all in Exod, Lev, and Num + 1 in Chron) are all so much the same that they give little information and no explanation sufficient to understand it. In these sorts of cases, since the synchronic approach is incapable of providing reliable solutions, interpreters are often forced into the shoals of the diachronic method in the hope of improving our understanding of the word. Resorts would include many of those aspects that we have previously separated out: a nom. may find help from its verbal root; etymology may suggest some possibilities. Additionally, Heb. can at times turn to comparative Semitics to supply hints. We must understand, however, that comparative Semitics must usually be identified as a diachronic approach. That a particular word has a certain meaning in Arab., Ugar., Akk., Sumerian, or Aram. does not mean that it will have the same meaning or nuance in Heb. Nonetheless, when synchronic information is lacking or when context gives some reason to suspect the value of comparative Semitics, it can be a valuable tool. Examples of comparative Semitic assistance can be found in the following situations: kpr (> #4106) occurs in the q. only in the Flood story (Gen 6:14) and means to cover with pitch. It is known from Akk. kupru and the context makes the connection clear. mkr (> #4837) occurs only in 2 Kgs 12:6, 8 in the account of Joash’s financing of the temple restoration. Again, context suggests the connection with Akk. makkuru, which refers to temple or palace assets or estate (cf. CAD M1:133-37) or to Ugar. mkr, merchant (cf. NIV and HALAT 551). Here the guesses of translators have tried to make connection to supposed verbal roots (e.g., nkr, thus, “acquaintances,” NASB).

melek Yareb occurs in Hos 5:13 and, rather than a proper name, has now been understood as malki rab, the Hebrew equivalent of the well-known Assyrian title, Sarri rabii, the great king. Here the cognate relationship can easily be accepted because Hosea is referring specifically to the Assyrian king, so it is appropriate that he use the native title.

(b) Determining the degree of unity in the semantic range. A second pitfall is that interpreters are left to their lexical art and dexterity to determine when categories share a relationship in a base meaning and when they do not. As the synchronic approach proceeds to delineating the semantic range of a word (that is, all the possible meanings and the conditions under which each meaning applies), there is the temptation to establish relatedness to all the parts. It is often assumed that there is some individual core meaning to which all aspects of meaning and nuance can be connected. Again, however, this can easily reflect a diachronic mentality. The history that exists in

167

Guide

the background of the word should not dictate our nuancing of the word, because it is an element that the users are only subconsciously aware of at best. As an example we might consider the Heb. vb. hgh (> #2047). The q. occurs 24x with a variety of meanings, differentiated by collocations with prepositions. In combination with b it takes God or his law as object and means to meditate; with k it refers to animal sounds; with / it means desire or yearning; and with no preposition it refers to pondered action, either positive or negative. Each of these meanings can be established with confidence by the synchronic approach. While the interpreter might be inclined to seek out some common denominator to these collocations, such as “private articulation of base instincts,’ such an endeavor is diachronic in nature and is

unnecessary, unhelpful, and potentially damaging to semantic study if we allow it to regulate nuancing. Since this proposed core meaning is not a level of semantics of which the users of the collocations would have been consciously aware, it should be

considered tangential to the interpreter’s task. But here we have a fine line. Though we desire to avoid diachronic influence, it is also true that attention to the patterns of meaning may help the interpreter to nuance the aspects of the semantic range in a more accurate way. The best way to decide whether to seek common ground or not is on the basis of the amount of data available. Where various aspects of the semantic range are well established on synchronic grounds, there is no need to seek out common ground in order to establish nuance. If, however, the synchronic data are limited, one might use the assumption of cohesive-

ness within the semantic range as a guide to possible nuances. For an example we might return to the case of t°Sviqd, desire (> #9592), in Gen 3:16. Interpreters who opt for a sexually oriented interpretation tend to emphasize the usage of S of Songs 7:10 to the neglect of Gen 4:7. Those who favor the domineering interpretation exalt Gen 4:7 (contextually nearer) to the neglect of S of Songs 7:10. In this situation where synchronic data is so limited, it is preferable to try to find resolution assuming semantic cohesiveness: that all three occurrences should be able to be accounted for in the nuance suggested. Such a search would commend consideration of a more general nuance (necessary to encompass all three) along the lines of “desire to fulfill one’s most basic instincts” (whatever they may be). Thus, among the woman’s most basic instincts would be reproduction (a topic under discussion in the context of 3:16); in 4:7 the basic instinct would be to deprave; and in S of Songs 7:10 the male

sexual drive would be aptly defined as a basic instinct. This approach seeks to use the concept of core meaning as a means of establishing nuances of individual occurrences only when synchronic and contextual data are so limited or ambiguous. While such a conclusion would not offer the confidence that synchronic data would provide, its abil-

ity to account for each item in the lexical base could be offered as support. Even when there are more extensive occurrences to deal with, there are times

when an assumption of cohesiveness might offer a slightly different nuance than purely synchronic investigation has suggested. An example can be seen in the vb. nth (> #5742). As mentioned earlier it most often occurs with “tent” as its object and is usually translated as “stretch.” But several other direct objects also occur. With most of these other objects, the translation “extend” works much better (e.g., extending the hand, the heart, or peace). Working with the principle of semantic cohesiveness might suggest considering the concept of extending the tent, in the sense of extending the

168

Guide

space under the tent, i.e., raising the tent (a more appropriate description of how tents are pitched). This would appear to be a trivial distinction until we get to the passage where the distinction is necessary for proper interpretation. In Ps 18:9[10] the NIV translates “He parted (nth) the heavens and came down.” In other passages Yahweh is portrayed as pitching the heavens as a tent (e.g., Job 9:8), but here that is not the metaphor. Instead, with the newly established nuance, we can understand Yahweh as raising up the tent of heaven (i.e., lifting the canopy) and slipping under it. Another function of the assumption of cohesiveness is in accommodating all of the necessary elements in the lexical base. For instance, as one examines the nom. bila (> # 1435), one must seek a nuance that accounts for all of the contexts, unless

some can be set aside on the basis of criteria such as we have previously discussed. That not being the case, it is the assumption of cohesiveness that protects us from arbitrarily discounting any occurrence that undermines our preconceived notions of the meaning. We cannot just say that it means something different in those passages. In the case of this word, the hypothesis that the meaning is “virgin” is severely damaged by usage in Esth 2:17-19; Job 31:1; and Joel 1:8, and another meaning must be sought that will account for all the occurrences. Our conclusion then is that while we cannot assume a common core meaning to exist across the semantic range, there are situations when an assumption of cohesiveness is preferable, profitable, or even necessary. (c) Lack of synchronic and diachronic data. If the synchronic data are insuffi-

cient to achieve confident nuancing, and if diachronic approaches are likewise unable to resolve the ambiguity, the interpreter must be content to accept a vague translation and avoid building any exegetical or theological case on that translation. There are a number of places where it must be concluded that data are simply too sparse. For example, Zech 12:3 uses the adj. ma““masd (> #5098) to describe a stone that meta-

phorically represents Jerusalem. Though this is the only occurrence of the substantive, the vb. ‘ms (> #6673) occurs 9x with the meaning of load or carry. Since synchronic information is limited to what can be derived from the context of Zech 12, we can only resort to the vb. to help establish meaning. We find, however, that even then we are left without a definitive nuance. Thus, the traditional translation, heavy, is only a creative suggestion. Other equally creative (and equally unverifiable) suggestions could be offered (e.g., a loaded stone, such as one used for leverage or ballast). Nevertheless the

interpreter must conclude that even though guesses can be proffered, we do not know the precise nuance of the word and must settle for something vague. For another good example see the root srt (> # 8581) in the same verse.

C. Applying the Semantic Range to Individual Occurrences Once the interpreter has categorized the lexical base and established the semantic range, he is now faced with the task of deciding where any particular occurrence fits within the semantic range. Many occurrences will be already placed by their circumstances (e.g., their collocations, vb. stems, idiomatic phrases), but there will still be

many decisions to be made. Whenever there are decisions to be made, there are errors to be avoided. 1. Avoid the “cafeteria” approach. In a cafeteria the diner moves through the line choosing whatever food he likes. In a similar fashion some interpreters feel that it is their free choice to decide which aspect of the semantic range to associate with a par-

169

Guide

ticular occurrence of a word. Sometimes this is done to the neglect of categories established in the semantic range. For instance, the claim is often made that the word yém, day (> #3427), can mean a period of undetermined length. However, most, if not all, of the occurrences where such flexibility can be demonstrated are related to idiomatic phrases. The aspects of the semantic range connected to idiomatic phrases cannot be extended to nonidiomatic occurrences. At other times the cafeteria approach may involve the issue of a theological meaning as opposed to a general or secular meaning. Words like “redeem” and “salvation” are capable of carrying theological baggage. When we encounter these words, however, we must ask: (a) whether a synchronic study would include the theological meaning in the semantic range (e.g., does the OT ever demonstrably use ys" [> #3828]

or its derivatives for salvation from sin?); and (b) whether the author

intended to use the word with that meaning in the particular context under investigation. Another variation of this problem occurs when an element from the semantic range of an Eng. word is applied to the corresponding Hebrew word that itself has a more limited semantic range. In a classic example the Eng. word “glory” has in its semantic range the meaning “heaven” (e.g., “gloryland’”). The Heb. word kabéd (> #3883), though properly translated “glory,” does not have “heaven” in its semantic range. The lay Eng. reader then might be excused for making the mistake of interpreting Ps 73:24 as a reference to heaven, but linguistically informed interpreters are without excuse. Likewise the understanding of the “circle of the earth” in Isa 40:22 is often understood in light of the semantic range of Eng. (circle can include sphere) rather than in Heb., where hiig (> # 2553) is disc and is used to describe the curvature of the hori-

zon (see Prov 8:27). These are cases of Eng. semantic ranges being imposed on Heb. semantic ranges. In all of these cases the way to avoid the arbitrary subjectivity of the cafeteria method is to appeal to the author’s intention. The fact that a word can have a particular meaning does not prove that it does have that meaning. What was the author trying to communicate? What aspect of the semantic range was he making use of? Though these questions cannot always be answered with absolute confidence, the very asking of them will help the interpreter retain balance in the exegetical and lexical process. The Amplified Bible approach, where all the choices are before us and we are free to choose the one we like, can easily lead to distortion and misunderstanding. 2. Individual occurrences of a word generally do not carry all of the different elements found in the semantic range. Just as we are not free to choose the one meaning that appeals to us most, we are not free to assume that multiple meanings can be associated with the choice of a word. In Heb. the word riiah (> #8120) has both wind and spirit in its semantic range. It would not be acceptable to try to incorporate two distinct concepts of wind and spirit into a context using this noun. At a more sophisticated level, however, one could also question whether a cultural difference might be revealed

in this lexical information. Is it possible that the use of ré@ah for both wind and spirit suggests that in the Heb. mind the two were more closely associated and perhaps less distinguishable than we are inclined to consider them? These are the sorts of issues that emerge from thoughtful and careful word study.

170

Guide

3. We must distinguish carefully between the lexical sense and the contextual sense. The lexical sense refers to those elements of meaning that the word will automatically carry into any of the contexts in which it is used. If there is even one occurrence (in the same category of the semantic range) that does not carry that element of meaning, then that element must be excluded from the lexical sense. So, for instance, one could not include “creation out of nothing” in the lexical sense of br’ (> # 1343)

because there are a number of occurrences that clearly do not involve creation out of _ nothing (e.g., Gen 5:1-2). On the other hand, there is no reason why this verb could not express creation out of nothing, but it is up to the context to establish that nuance. Such a restricted meaning could be part of the contextual sense of the verb, but it is not a meaning inherent in the very nature of the word.

D. Conclusion We will be better interpreters when we understand words and their usage. Authors make choices in the communication process, and it is our task to understand the choices they have made. Our goal is to be on their wavelength. NJDOTTE is designed to expedite that goal by providing data about words. In these pages interpreters will find information about lexical base and the categories it can be divided into. They will find the delineation of semantic ranges and the application of semantic ranges to individual passages. Though all of this information is important and necessary to the exegetical task, it must be understood that it is only the beginning. Word study is a step in the process of exegesis; it does not comprise the whole of the process. The authority of the Scriptures is not found in the words, though each word has an important role to play; rather, the authority is embodied in the message—that tapestry for which words serve but as threads that derive their significance from being viewed within the tapestry rather than being explored on the skein. BIBLIOGRAPHY

J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, 1961; idem, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament, 1987; P. Cotterell and M. Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation, 1989; W. Klein, C. Blomberg, and R. Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 1993; G. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral, 1991, 64-92; M. Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning,

1993. John H. Walton

171

Guide

PART V: CANON, LITERATURE, INTERPRETATION, AND BIBLICAL THEOLOGY The last two articles bring these methodological essays to a close. The hermeneutic approach to the biblical text produces a theological development. NIDOTTE is presented to the reader out of the concern for synthesis—a synthesis that includes hermeneutics, the text (textual criticism), biblical history, literary genres, and a strategy for understanding words in relation to each other (semantics). This synthesis embraces also the connection of meaning (what the text meant) and significance (what

the text means). As Elmer A. Martens demonstrates, this basic postulate has received much critical attention in the last two hundred years. As the critical walls are crumbling from a lack of consensus, new voices for studying the text’s canonical dimension are being raised. Richard Schultz’s essay on the canonical study of the text is another attempt at such synthesis. He argues that good exegesis is theological in nature and that, consequently, it leads to understanding texts in their holistic relationships. The texts are a part of a discourse, which in turn are a part of a book. The books are related to each other as parts of larger collections (Pentateuch, OT), and the OT must be heard in relation to the NT. This

exegetical and theological endeavor is threatening for many, because it embraces so many components (hermeneutics; textual criticism; historical, literary, linguistic studies; and theological and canonical connections) and because it challenges our basic fear of uncertainty. Positively, interpretation of this magnitude presents us with a God who is marvelous, awesome,

and holy. Moreover,

the interpreter who so finds God

learns to deny self, to walk by faith, and to worship God in Spirit. (WVG) 9, THE FLOWERING AND FLOUNDERING

OF OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

Like a nation’s economy, which has its downturns and upturns, so the discipline of OT theology has in the last two hundred years seen both good and bad days. Especially in the twentieth century, OT theology has by turns been riding the crest or has plunged, about to disappear, into the proverbial watery trough. Even the term, “Old Testament Theology” is under attack; a substitute designation is “Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures” (for discussions and assessments cf. Sanders, 1987; Hasel, “The Future of Old Testament Theology,” 373-83; Moberly,

159-66; Smith, 64-69). The

purpose of this essay, however, is not to chronicle the history of OT theology. Such overviews have been written (cf. Hayes and Pruessner, OTT; Hasel, OTT, 10-27; Hggenhaven, 13-27; Ollenburger, “From Timeless Ideas to the Essence of Religion,” 3-19; Reventlow, 1985; Smith, OTT, 21-24). The purpose instead is to sketch the

dynamic that accounts for the oscillation of this discipline’s fortunes, a dynamic inherent in the issues surrounding it. Specifically, disagreements have persisted about goal, orientation, and methodology. Biblical theology provides a theological synopsis of the biblical material. Or, as I have elaborated elsewhere:

WF2

Guide

(Biblical theology is) that approach to Scripture which attempts to see Biblical material holistically and to describe this wholeness or synthesis in Biblical categories. Biblical theology attempts to embrace the message of the Bible andto arrive at an intelligible coherence of the whole despite the great diversity of the parts. Or, put another way: Biblical theology investigates the themes presented in Scripture and defines their inter-relationships. Biblical theology is an attempt to get to the theological heart of the Bible (Martens, 1977, 123).

Other definitions have been proffered (cf. Dentan,

122; Ebeling, 84; Scobie,

50). Biblical theology is a capsule description of the Bible theologically; it summarizes the exegetical results so as to help the faith community in its self-understanding. In the early decades of the twentieth century Otto Eissfeldt (20-29) questioned the legitimacy of biblical theology as a scientific discipline. At mid-century Brevard Childs wrote Biblical Theology in Crisis. Critics such as James Barr (1988), British

scholar R. N. Whybray (1987), and other detractors have pronounced the enterprise misguided and floundering. These sniper attacks were augmented by an armored attack by H. Raisaénen (Beyond New Testament Theology). However, Scobie rightly remarks, “For many the whole concept of Biblical Theology is dead; but it is just possible that in true biblical fashion it will rise again” (61).

A. Divergent Objectives If there is some disarray to the discipline at the end of the twentieth century, it is because the goals of the discipline have varied over the past two hundred years. Concise treatments of the discipline are offered by Stendahl, Barr (1976), Hanson (1985),

and Zimmerli (426-55). 1. Goal: A “pure” theology. Johann P. Gabler gave a lecture in 1787 at the University of Altdorf, near Erlangen, on the distinction between biblical and dogmatic theology. Even if Gabler’s address is too simplistically hailed as the beginning of the discipline of biblical theology, it is nevertheless a helpful starting point for a discussion of its objectives. Gabler was dissatisfied with a church dogmatics too much overlaid with church tradition. A true son of the Enlightenment, he intended to return to the

roots by examining the source book, the Bible, and suggested a two-step process. First, material on a subject should be gathered from the Bible, noting and comparing the historical settings. From this historical interpretation would emerge a true (read, accurate) biblical theology. Second, these results should be subjected to a sorting process at the bar of reason, thereby establishing a pure or universal theology. This pure theology,

with the particularist nuances of an Israelite history removed, would become the grist for a dogmatic theology. It was in the form of presenting a historical interpretation that the first OT theoldistinct from a full-blown biblical theology) was produced by Bauer (Theolo(as ogy gie des Alten Testaments) in 1796, subtitled A Summary of the Religious Concepts of the Hebrews. Such a work corresponded to the first step of Gabler’s program, namely, establishing the true biblical theology. Some years later (1835) Vatke provided an extended philosophical preface to his treatment of OT theology. The filter for a purified biblical theology in the mid-nineteenth century was the reigning philosophy of Hegel with its notion of development and progress. Vatke, while mindful of the OT’s

173

Guide

historical character, was also attentive to the philosophical dimensions. Not so subsequent scholars. They were enamored of the historical character of the Bible and left largely neglected Gabler’s second philosophical-related step toward a pure theology. 2. Goal: A scientific “critical” theology. Vatke himself made a contribution to the historical reconstruction of Israel’s history by hypothesizing that the legislation found in the Pentateuch came after and not before the prophets. Once the “criticisms” (source, comparative, textual) were entrenched as the acceptable procedure for biblical research and once the development of Israel’s religion was reconstructed, two results for biblical theology followed. First, Israel’s faith development was compared with that of her neighbors. Biblical theology went into eclipse. In the latter part of the nineteenth century scholars focused almost exclusively on the history of religions—Israel’s and those of surrounding peoples. A second result of the burgeoning of the criticisms was to put into question whether a biblical theology could at all operate within a scientific critical method. This second issue came to a head in the 1920s with the debate between Eissfeldt and Eichrodt. Eissfeldt distinguished between knowledge and faith, and hence between the history of religion and OT theology. In Eissfeldt’s view the history of religion can be objectively researched and therefore established as knowledge. However, statements of faith, which deal with what is timeless, while legitimate for theologians, are

largely determined by confessional (denominational) perspectives. Faith assertions, being of a subjective nature, are not amenable to rigorous “scientific” research. Eichrodt disagreed, arguing that the tools of historical criticism are indeed germane to biblical theology. Through scientific investigation one can penetrate to the essence of a religion. By defining the essence of religion as the deepest meaning of the religious thought world that historical research can recover, Eichrodt can be credited, whether for good or ill, with keeping OT theology within the sphere of historical scholarship. The goal now became, not the determination of a pure theology, as Gabler had proposed, but the formulation of the essence of Israel’s religion, as Ollenburger (1992) has explained. Debate on whether a biblical theology can be formulated on the basis of historical criticism continues. Collins (1-17) is of the opinion that confessional perspectives have too much influenced the work of biblical theologians such as von Rad, Wright,

and Childs. He affirms the “hermeneutic of suspicion.” Function rather than fact is paramount. For Collins, a biblical theology critically derived is possible, but the resultant theology is a functional construct in which God-talk helps to regulate religious piety, which is the heart of religion. Collins signals a change in the objective of the discipline—a functional tool informing conduct—rather than an attempt, as earlier, to delineate a structure of faith, or, somewhat later, to define the essence of a religion. There continues to be a difference of opinion about the intended outcome for a biblical theology. 3. Goal: A “Christian” theology. One of the recurring questions has been whether the aim of the discipline is to set forth the faith structure of the OT independent of the NT or in connection with it. Is the goal of an OT theology to situate it within the Christian faith? Already in Eichrodt’s formulation of an OT theology (TOT), one of the aims was to show how the OT bridged to the NT. At issue, in part, was the

nature of the unity of the OT. If that unity consisted in the concept of covenant, then

174

Guide

the connection with the NT was readily made. Von Rad (O7T) had a similar agenda in mind, though he did not assume a conceptual unity within the OT. Both viewed OT

theology as closely linked with the Christian faith, much as their predecessors (e.g., von Hofmann) had done. That the function of an OT theology is folded within the Christian faith was also assumed by others. Jacob (12) asserted that a theology grounded in the OT as a whole

“can only be a Christology, for what was revealed under the old covenant, through a long and varied history, in events, persons and institutions is, in Christ, gathered together and brought to perfection.” Vriezen wrote at length on the appropriation of the OT by the Christian church. Baker has summarized approaches taken to relate the two Testaments (cf. Oeming). Moreover, some attempts were made at a comprehensive theology that included both OT and NT. The list includes Burrows (1946), Vos (1948), Lehman (1971, 1974), Terrien (1978), VanGemeren (1988/1995), and Childs (1986 and 1992).

But not all have been of the mind to write an OT theology so as to connect it with the NT. McKenzie wrote as though the NT did not exist. Others argued for a free-standing OT theology since the rabbinic writings represent a sequel to the OT (cf. the nomenclature, “Theology of Hebrew Scriptures”). Eichrodt (TOT) and von Rad (OTT) were criticized for their “anti-Judaism” bias (Hayes and Prussner, 276). Clem-

ents acknowledged the place of law in the OT and so validates the emphasis found in Judaism, but he also sketches the promise motif, a motif elaborated in the NT. Jewish

scholars, while traditionally disinterested in an OT theology, are now entering the field (cf. the works of Jon Levenson, e.g., Sinai and Zion). The on-again, off-again fortunes of the discipline are due, indirectly, to a debate on whether one of the goals is to treat the OT as free-standing or to see it theologically within a framework that includes the NT. For most Christians, the answer is the latter,

often in the form of a biblical theology (cf. Hasel, 1994). The debate then soon turns to the methodology by which the two Testaments are best related, e.g., by typology, the promise-fulfillment schema, or tradition history (cf. discussion in Hasel, Old Testa-

ment Theology). 4. Goal: Descriptive or normative discipline? A question not yet resolved is whether biblical theology is merely descriptive or whether its results are to be normative. Gabler argued for normativity. A biblical theology, though initially describing the belief system of ancient Israel, has for its ultimate goal a definition of what the faith

community should now embrace theologically. On the other hand, a strong case for limiting the task to description only was made at mid-twentieth century by Stendahl, who distinguished two steps in treating a biblical text. First, interpreters must establish what the biblical text meant (in the past). The second step, not within the mandate of biblical theologians, is to explain what the biblical text means (now). Biblical theology’s occupation is only with the first step, to describe what ancient Israel believed. For Barr (1988, 11) biblical theology is a descriptive and not normative or prescriptive task. Knierim (38) asserted: “As soon as we ask the legitimate question of its meaning ‘for our time,’ we are no longer dealing with Old Testament Theology but with Old Testament Hermeneutics.” Knierim (16), however, envisions the function of an OT theology as adjudicating theologies found in the OT. 175

Guide

Stendahl’s position has been challenged, partly because it assumes that the scholar can rather objectively define what the text meant (e.g., Ollenburger, “What Krister Stendahl ‘Meant’”). Hanson (1985, 1062) has insisted that biblical theology cannot be reduced to “a strictly descriptive discipline or to an attempt to proceed in a positivistic manner.” Brueggemann (1977, x) as an editor in the OBT states that “the yearning and expectation of believers will not let biblical theology rest with the descriptive task alone.” Traditionally it is systematic theology that has offered a “normative” understanding of the faith. Those who view the task of OT theology as going beyond the descriptive to the constructive (and so invade the “space” of systematic theology) have offered a variety of suggestions. Hasel (“The Relationship Between Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology”) describes a “historical-theological” approach, which, while acknowledging the historical particularities, will nevertheless advocate a normative-like theology. Scobie refers to biblical theology as an “intermediate” discipline. Perhaps both biblical and systematic theology have reason to orient themselves to the biblical text as well as to the current agenda. Granted, each discipline will do so with different concentrations (cf. Martens, 1991; Ollenburger, Ollenburger, ed., 1991; also Ollenburger, 1995).

1991; and other essays in

The question is, “Is a biblical theology normative for the current believing community?” Leaving aside quibbles about definition, the answers range from a categorical “No,” to a guarded affirmative, to an assured “Yes.”

B. Shifting Orientations Perspectives with which scholars work often depend on the reigning cultural paradigm. If, as in the nineteenth century, the governing lens was history, then the biblical material was interrogated for scientific precision, stages of development, and theology arising from event. Over the decades, fresh angles of vision have sometimes either stimulated the discipline or brought near gridlock to the enterprise. 1. The historical angle of vision. For centuries, it seems, a helpful and virtually dominant way of study and analysis was via the grid of history. In 1828 Baumgarten-Crusius noted (as quoted in Ollenburger, FOTT, 4), “The idea and the execution of biblical theology are joined essentially with historical interpretation, and each of them has developed in recent times in relation to the other.” Vatke (1835), though keenly cognizant of historical dimensions, infused his presentation of theology with a healthy dose of Hegelian philosophy. Von Hoffman (1841-44) and the Erlangen school, more dubious about the place of philosophy in the whole enterprise, stressed strongly the historical character of the OT. That history, under God’s superintendency, was aimed at redemption; hence the telling term, Heilsgeschichte (salvation history). Writing a century later, G. E. Wright, an archaeologist as well as a theologian, held that OT theology is best constructed through the prism of history. Wright not only captured a major biblical emphasis, but served to reassure a religiously disillusioned post-war America about God’s ways. While there remained ambiguity about the way such a theology was to be appropriated by the contemporary church, the inspiration brought by Wright’s version of OT theology was considerable. F. Hesse, on the other hand, is one of a few who has categorically dismissed Heilsgeschichte as a legitimate notion. 176

Guide

The question of how a theology is to be derived from narrative is a vexing one. The debate heated up around the question: How is a theology to be fashioned from historical accounts? In what ways are events revelatory? R. Rendtorff (1968) gave large

significance to the event itself. Zimmerli’s study of the recognition formula in Ezekiel, “They (you) will know that I am the Lorb” was a significant tributary that fed into the larger discussion. Zimmerli emphasized that “knowledge” of God comes through “event-interpreted-through-word”—events in and of themselves are not the carrier of revelation. Summaries of the debate are given by Robinson (1967) and Childs (1992, 196-207). Some biblical theologians, such as Wright, have attended maximally to the

rubric of history; others, such as Clements, have largely downplayed the category of history (cf. Perdue for discussions about the role of history; cf. Adam; Hasel, OTT ch. 3; Martens, 1994).

Von Rad (OTT) shared Wright’s view on the importance of Israel’s faith as

being rooted in Yahweh’s acts in history—but with a twist. Since Israel’s confessed history differed from the critic’s reconstructed history, he was faced with a choice. He remained with Israel’s confessed history—a decision for which he has been both censured and lauded—but emphasized the transmission of traditions (patriarchal, Exodus, settlement traditions) as well as their appropriation through time (cf. Eichrodt, TOT 2:512-20). Gese (Essays on Biblical Theology) has capitalized on this approach by following the trajectories of traditions into the NT. Another twist, still history related, has to do more broadly with the history of religions, especially that of Israel’s neighbors. With archaeological discoveries in Mesopotamia and Egypt in the late nineteenth century, scholars became intent on sorting out the development of religious ideas. But describing the unfolding of a religion and setting out a theology are not the same thing. For more than a quarter of a century, fascination with writing Israel’s religious history eclipsed work on biblical theology. That scenario is somewhat echoed at the end of the twentieth century with fresh attempts to write the history of ancient Israel. Albertz (16) commenting on OT theology, says, “I cannot disguise the fact that in the present situation I regard the history of religion as the more meaningful comprehensive Old Testament discipline.” It may well be, then, that the relationship between the history of Israelite religion and a theology of the OT will again become an agenda. 2. The sociological angle of vision. Contextualization is a term that sociologists and anthropologists relish. The lens of sociology complements the lens of history more than replaces it. In the social scientific paradigm the OT is subjected to a fresh barrage of questions. Now various social dynamics are said to account for the shape of the material. Gottwald, using the conflict model of social theory, contends that ideologies were in the service of those in power. So, for example, the conflict in Jeremiah’s time

between the “autonomy party,” and the “coexistence party” was an ideological struggle. Jeremiah, as part of the “autonomy party” looked for theological grounding to the intertribal traditions of the God of the Exodus who had entered into covenant with Israel and brought them to the land of Canaan. The “co-existence” party, by contrast,

was rooted in the David-Zion complex of traditions (cf. discussion by Perdue, 97-98). An example of an OT theology sensitive to social dynamics is Hanson’s The People Called. Hanson asks in what way the Israelite community was distinguished from other communities and answers via the triadic notion, viz., that Israel was a peo-

177

Guide

ple of God differentiated from others in their attention to worship, righteousness, and compassion. Hanson’s work generally illustrates an agenda shift. One need only compare the work of G. E. Wright in the 1950s with Hanson’s: for Wright the angle of vision on theology is via history, while for Hanson it is sociology. The emphasis on sociology and related disciplines extends into the doing of theology in still another way. The focus on social location and dynamic is important not only for the ancients, but for the contemporary theologian. True, the shape of a theology will arise from the nature of the material. But increasingly it is recognized that the shape of any theology will be heavily influenced by the “spin” put on the material as a result of the social context of the theologian. Perdue (32) is of the opinion that John Bright’s interpretation of Jeremiah, not as an “ethical preacher and religious innovator in the style of old liberalism” but as a neoorthodox preacher who proclaimed the acts of Yahweh and applied normative tradition to current events, has been shaped by John Bright’s own position in the community as a theologian in the neoorthodox tradition. Bright (1953) stressed history as an avenue of revelation, the importance of historical criticism, the unity of the Bible in Christ, and the authority of Scripture—all elements of neoorthodoxy. It should not be surprising, the argument goes, to learn that Eichrodt (TOT), of the Reformed tradition, latched on to covenant, or that W. Kaiser, in the

evangelical tradition, should concentrate on promise. It is congruent with this perspective that feminist and liberation theologians each offer distinctive angles of vision on the OT. even

If, then, the shape of biblical theology differs from theologian to theologian, were the methods identical, their respective social locations and hence their

underlying agendas would significantly affect the result. The privileged position of the social sciences in doing OT theology has both recast the results and disclosed the bias in arriving at the results. 3. The literary/Ninguistic angle of vision. The shift from an historical to a social-scientific paradigm is continuing with a further shift to the literary/linguistic paradigm. The historical paradigm had focused on the events behind the text and the social-scientific paradigm on the community and text interplay; the literary/linguistic paradigm now focuses more singularly on the text as text. This angle of vision follows three streams. One stream is that of the narrow literary or linguistic approach; a second is the canonical construal of the literary text; and a third is to invoke features of literature, namely, story and metaphor.

(a) A venerable, though also controversial, approach was quite strictly linguistic. Theological elaborations centered on Heb. and G vocabulary and word studies. Word studies have included research into etymology, cognates, semantic fields, and statistics of usage. E. Jacob treated the understanding of God, for example, by explicating the Heb. terms employed for the attributes of God. The heyday of the word-study approach was represented in the multivolume theological dictionary (TDNT) and those in its genre, TWAT, THAT, TDOT;, TWOT. The word-study approach as theologically productive has been properly challenged by pointing, for example, to some fallacies of assumptions about etymology and the limitations of an exclusive linguistic approach (e.g., Barr, 1961; for a recent approach, see Cotterell’s essay “Linguistics, Meaning,

Semantics, and Discourse Analysis” in this volume).

178

Ie

ene

Sn

ee

en

See eh

Guide nee

(b) A second literary-related stream highlighted not the constituent terms of a text but the canonical framework (see the essay by Richard Schultz, “Integrating Old Testament Theology and Exegesis: Literary, Thematic, and Canonical Issues” in this volume). Sanders pinpointed the importance of the literary development of a biblical text in its interplay with community dynamics. Childs, known for his canonical approach, spearheaded a move to focus on the canonical text (rather than on events or on social dynamics) as a locus for biblical theology. At issue for Childs was not the ~ stages by which the biblical text was formed, but the way in which the present text, in its arrangement, contributes to an articulation of theology. Parts of the canon are regarded as in dialogue with other parts. An individual text is to be interpreted in the context, not so much of history, but of the canon (cf. the exposition of Childs’ approach by Perdue, 155-75, and the critical but sympathetic appraisal by Brett; cf. also Rendtorff [1993]; Sailhamer). An example of this canonical angle of vision is the proposal that a key to the theology of the Psalms lies in its first two Psalms. The Psalms have a didactic intent (Ps 1) and an eschatological perspective (Ps 2). Compati-

ble with the canonical approach is the emerging method of intertextuality. (c) Toward the end of the twentieth century, the literary angle of vision diverged into a third stream that highlighted the importance of metaphor and story. This interest in the “new literary criticism” may be due to several reasons: disenchantment with historical criticism, a shift away from the paradigm of history, a pervasive Zeitgeist, and a postmodern interpretation of reality as language-based (cf. the writings of Stanley Fish, Jacques Derrida; see esp. Jean-Francois Lyotard). Whatever the reason, doing biblical theology largely by means of metaphor is increasingly championed and practiced. The fascination with narrative, metaphor, and symbol has been fueled through the writings of scholars such as Hans Frei, Paul Ricoeur, and Phillip Wheelwright (cf. pertinent works by R. Alter, F. Kermode, and T. Longman). Attention is on the artistry of the text but especially on symbolism (cf. L. Perdue, chs. 6, 8, 9, on meta-

phor, story, and imagination). While traditional descriptions of God have been largely cast in patriarchal language (God is suzerain, lord, king, father), feminine writers point out that religious language is metaphorical in content and includes female imagery (e.g., Trible, McFague). But exploration of metaphor extends beyond the work of feminine scholars. Longman and Reid, who incorporate both OT and NT, are but one example among increasing presentations. The shift to the literary paradigm in doing OT theology gives rise to a series of questions. If the literary approach complements the historical, what weight is to be assigned to the rooting of the Christian faith in history? Does the literary approach necessarily invalidate the focus on history? How are historical, sociological, and literary perspectives on biblical material to be integrated? Answers are in short supply. Meanwhile, the dominant paradigms or angles of vision infuse the discipline with vigor, though admittedly also with some confusion. Proposals for proceeding follow different routes (e.g., Perdue; Sailhamer; Knierim; Hasel; and Hubbard). In this situation it is not

easy to determine whether OT theology is cresting or waning.

C. Ambiguity About Method To some extent much of what has been said about goal and orientation impinges

on the method of formulating a biblical theology. Some specifics on method, most of which relate to structuring an OT theology, can be identified. Davidson, working in the

179

Guide

early part of the twentieth century, organized his research around the traditional dogmatic scheme of God, humanity, and salvation. A similar scheme was followed by the Catholic theologians Paul Heinisch and Paul van Imschoot. Few, however, have fol-

lowed that schematic; it seemed too confining. Nor did it greatly aid in understanding the essence of biblical faith. Suggestions for structuring an OT theology have taken other turns. 1. Diachronic or synchronic. It was argued by some, especially when the category of history had a privileged position, that an OT theology must take account of eras or periods of Israelite history. Whether one spoke the language of progressive revelation or that of an evolution of theological insights, there were significant distinctions to be made between the early and later stages. Examples of OT theologies organized chronologically are those by von Rad (OTT), W. Kaiser, and W. VanGemeren. A different viewpoint is that one should proceed synchronically, namely, by arranging the material thematically perhaps around an idea or set of ideas (cf. discussion on diachronic and synchronic in Sailhamer, 184-94). Eichrodt (TOT) presented his work under the three rubrics: (a) God and People; (b) God and World; and (c) God and Man. He described his method as a “cross-cut” method. He asked what fundamental understanding governed the OT, irrespective of time period. His answer was that the fundamental understanding was the establishment of the kingdom of God, a code word for which was “covenant.” Others who have proceeded synchronically in order to display the essence of OT faith are Vriezen, Clements, and Childs (1986) (cf. God’s Design, where I intend to combine the diachronic with the synthetic).

2. Centered or non-centered. A vexed question for biblical theologians has been: Does the OT have a center? For the NT the answer is not really debatable: The center is Jesus Christ. One could say that God is the central figure in the OT, but that

helps little in getting a handle on the material. The question of center is important, of course, for the structuring of an OT theology. But the question has a larger significance, for behind the question lies another: Is there unity in the OT, and if so, does it

cohere around a theological center? Methodologically the question is whether the search for a theological center is legitimate, and if so, by what process? A significant number of theologians have identified a center, but because the

centers vary, the problem is not resolved but sharpened. Is the assumption that the OT has a center legitimate (cf. Hasel, 1991, 139-71)? Eichrodt (TOT) maintained that covenant was the center. Other proposals have been promise (Kaiser), the covenant formula, “Yahweh the God of Israel, Israel the people of Yahweh” (Smend), or the book of Deuteronomy (Hermann). For Preuss, election and obligation come together as a

center. The roster of those who questioned the possibility of a center begins with von Rad (OTT), who held that a series of traditions reappropriated through the centuries and not any one center accounts for the unity inherent in the thirty-nine books of the OT. McKenzie, skeptical of a center, organized his book around several themes such as cult, history, and nature. Hasel (1991) concluded that a search for a center was futile.

His own proposal, advanced but never implemented by him because of his untimely death, was to consider a multiplex approach. Poythress proposed a multiperspectival approach. 180

Guide

Fohrer (1968; cf. 1972, ch. 4) suggested that, much like an audio cassette, the OT be viewed as an ellipse and so be construed as having a double center. The two centers he proposed were the rule of God and the communion of God with humankind. Roughly in the same camp are those who have proposed a dialectical approach. Westermann proposed an emphasis on salvation (interventionist activity) and blessing (sustaining activity). Terrien’s portrayal of a God both present and absent is likewise dialectical, as is Brueggemann’s structure legitimation and embrace of pain. With this plethora of proposals, it is not surprising that some feel that the discipline is in some disarray and is floundering rather than flowering. But another reading of the situation is that the discipline, while seeking stabilization as to methodology, has churned up a cornucopia of insights. The community of faith is the richer for struggling with answers to questions of methodology and center, and is the richer also for the additional dimensions of faith suggested by different starting points. 3. Scientific or artistic. The ambiguity about method has continually plagued attempts to set out an OT theology. Can one clearly define procedural steps, as is customary in a science? Or is the task more akin to that of an artist dependent on imagination and intuition? The answer is not strictly one or the other, but both. If one begins in a more limited way with the task of setting out the theology of a biblical book, one can follow some basic steps. The formal structure of a book needs

first to be established and carefully pondered. The format of the book, including attention to the weight of component parts or climactic sections, can be expected to point to a theological substructure. It is helpful to ask and to answer the question, “What drives the book?” Perhaps the agenda is stated in the book itself. Attention to dominant metaphors employed may be a clue to the latent theology present in the book. A checklist of procedures is set out by Martens (“Accessing the Theological Readings”). But just as great literature cannot be circumscribed or explained via recipes, so the Bible, and especially its theology, cannot be reduced to recipe-like procedures. At work in formulating the theology of a book or a block of books such as the OT is a factor identified by Kelsey as “imaginative construal.” When a biblical scholar is thoroughly conversant with a body of material and wishes to recast it in summary fashion, he or she must be open to—and even await—the so-called “aha experience.” Quite inexplicably, meditation and probing reflection may yield a Gestalt by which to explicate biblical material. The theologian is both scientist and artist.

D. Conclusion One way of analyzing the “fortunes” of biblical theology is to note stages of differentiation in its history. Biblical theology originated as a discipline when it became unhooked from dogmatic theology. Another burst of activity came when it was liberated from the history of religion. Still another significant chapter opened with some options beyond the historical paradigm: sociology and literature. The current fascination with the latter, while temporarily stimulating, may need to be superseded by a further detachment. In this new stage, one may envision biblical theology to be more clearly a branch of theology, not of historical, sociological, or literary criticism. Considering the vigor and rigor of research that this discipline has engendered, it would be shortsighted to write off the efforts of biblical theologians as unprofitable. Discussions between Christians and Jews, clarity regarding the relationship of OT and NT, a better understanding of the limits and the contributions of philosophical theol-

181

Guide SS

5

ogy, a sense of identity for the Christian community of faith, and a curiosity and inquisitiveness about biblical faith have all been facilitated by this discussion. One could wish that more of the uncertainties surrounding the discipline could be resolved, but in the meanwhile the enterprise is making a substantial contribution and is better characterized as flowering than as floundering. BIBLIOGRAPHY A. K. M. Adam, “Biblical Theology and the Problem of Modernity: Von Wredestrasse zu Sackgasse,” HBT 12/1, 1990, 1-18; R. Albertz,

A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament

Period, 1: From the Beginnings to the End of the Monarchy, tr. by John Bowden, 1994; D. L. Baker, Two Testaments, One Bible: A Study of Some Modern Solutions to the Theological Problem of the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, 1976, 1991; J. Barr, “Biblical Theology,” IDBS, 1976, 104-11; idem, The Semantics of Biblical Language, 1961; idem, “The

Theological Case Against Biblical Theology” in Canon, Theology, and Old Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs, ed. by G. M. Tucker, David L. Petersen, and Robert R. Wilson,

1988, 3-19; G. L. Bauer, Theologie des Alten

Testaments;

oder, Abriss der

religidsen Begriffe der alten Hebréer von den altesten Zeiten bis auf den Anfang der christlichen Epoche: Zum Gebrauch akademischer Vorlesungen, 1796; M. G. Brett, Biblical Criticism in Crisis? The Impact of the Canonical Approach on Old Testament Studies, 1991; J. Bright, The Kingdom of God: The Biblical Concept and Meaning for the Church, 1953; idem, Covenant and Promise: The Prophetic Understanding of the Future in Preexilic Israel, 1976; W. Brueggemann, “A Shape for Old Testament Theology, 1: Structure Legitimation,” CBQ 47, 1985, 28-46; idem, “A Shape for Old Testament Theology, 2: Embrace of Pain” CBQ 47, 1985, 395-415 (reprinted in Old Testament Theology: Essays on Structure, Theme, and Text, ed. P. D. Miller, 1992, 1-21, 22-44); idem, The Land: Place As Gift, Promise, and Challenge in Biblical Faith. OBT 1, 1977; M. Burrows, An Outline of Biblical Theology, 1946; B. S. Childs, Biblical Theol-

ogy in Crisis, 1970; idem, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments, 1992; idem, Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context, 1986; R. E. Clements, Old Testament Theology: A Fresh Approach, New Foundations Theological Library, 1978; J. J. Collins, “Is a Critical Biblical Theology Possible?” in The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters, ed. W. H. Propp, B. Halpern, D. N. Freedman, Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California 1, 1990, 1-17; A. B. Davidson, The Theology of the Old Testament, 1904; R. C. Dentan, Preface to Old Testament Theology, 1950, rev. ed., 1963; G. Ebeling, “The Meaning of ‘Biblical Theology’” in Word and Faith, 1963, 79-97; O. Eissfeldt, “The History of Israelite-Jewish Religion and Old Testament

Theology,” FOTT, [1926] 1992, 20-29; W. Eichrodt, “Does Old Testament Theology Still Have Significance Within Old Testament Scholarship?” FOTT, [1929] 1992, 30-39; idem, Theology of the Old Testament, 2 vols., 1961, 1967; G. Fohrer, “Der Mittelpunkt einer Theologie des Alten Testaments,” TZ 24, 1968, 161-72; idem, Theologische Grundstruckuren des Alten Testaments, 1972; H. Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics, 1974; J. P. Gabler, “On the Proper Distinction Between

Independent

Biblical and Dogmatic Theology and the Specific Objectives of Each,” SJT 33, 1980, 133-44, reprinted in FOTT, 492-502; H. Gese, Essays on Biblical Theology, 1981, excerpt in FOTT, 387-405; N. Gottwald, The Tribes of Yahweh, 1979; P. D. Hanson, The People Called: The Growth of the Community in the Bible, 1986; idem, “Theology, Old Testament” in HBD, 1985, 1057-62; G. F. Hasel, “The Future Of Old Testament Theology: Prospects and Trends,” in FOTT, 373-83; idem, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate, 4th edition, 1991; idem, “The Problem of History in OT Theology,” AUSS 8, 1970, 23-50; idem, “The Rela-

182

Guide i

tionship Between Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology,” Trinity Journal, n. s. 5, 113-27; idem, “The Nature of Biblical Theology: Recent Trends and Issues,” AUSS 32/3, 1994, 203-15; J. H. Hayes and F. C. Prussner, Old Testament Theology: Its History and Development, 1985; P. Heinisch, Theology of the Old Testament, 1950; S. Hermann, “Die konstruktive Restauration: Das Deuteronomium als Mitte biblischer Theologie,” in Probleme biblischer Theologie: Gerhard von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. by H. S. Wolff, 1970, 155-70; F. Hesse, Abschied von der Heilsgeschichte, ThST 108, 1971; J. C. K. von Hofmann, Interpreting the Bible, 1959, 1972; J.

- Hggenhaven, Problems and Prospects of Old Testament Theology, Biblical Seminar 6, 1988; R. L. Hubbard, “Doing Old Testament Theology Today,” in Studies in Old Testament Theology, ed. by R. L. Hubbard, R. K. Johnston, and R. P. Meye, 1992, 31-46; P. van Imschoot, Theology of

the Old Testament, Vol. 1: God, 1965; E. Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament, 1958; W. C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward an Old Testament Theology, 1978; D. H. Kelsey, The Use of Scripture in Recent Theology, 1975; R. Knierim, The Task of Old Testament Theology, 1995; S. J. Kraftchick, C. D. Myers, Jr., and B. C. Ollenburger (eds.), Biblical Theology: Problems and Perspectives, 1995; C. K. Lehman, Biblical Theology, 2 vols., 1971, 1974; W. E. Lemke, “Is Old Testament Theology an Essentially Christian Theological Discipline?” HBT 11, 1989, 59-69; J. Levenson, Sinai and

Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible, 1985; excerpt in Reid, God Is a Warrior, SOTBT

FOTT, 437-44; T. Longman and Daniel G.

1995; J.-F. Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on

Knowledge, Theory and History of Literature, trans. by G. Bennington and B. Massumi, 1984; S. McFague, Metaphorical Theology, 1982; J. L. McKenzie, A Theology of the Old Testament, 1974; E. A. Martens, “Biblical Theology and Normativity,” in So Wide a Sea: Essays on Biblical and Systematic

Theology,

ed. B. C. Ollenburger,

IMS

Text Reader

4, 1991,

19-35;

idem,

“Accessing the Theological Readings of a Biblical Book,” AUSS 34/2, 1996, 233-49; idem, God’s Design: A Focus on Old Testament Theology, 1981, 19942, excerpt in FOTT, 300-320;

idem, “Tackling Old Testament Theology” JETS 20, 1977, 123-32; idem, “The Oscillating Fortunes of ‘History’ in Old Testament Theology,” in Faith, Tradition and History: OT Historiography in Its Near Eastern Context, ed. by A. Millard, J. Hoffmeier, and D. Baker, 1994, 313-40; idem, Old Testament Theology, IBR Bibliographies No. 13, 1997; J. W. Miller, The Origins of the Bible: Rethinking Canon History, 1994; R. W. L. Moberly, The Old Testament of the Old Testament, OBT, 1992, 159-66; M. Oeming, Gesamtbiblische Theologien der Gegenwort: Das Verhdiltnis von AT und NT in der hermeneutischen Diskussion seit Gerhard von Rad, 1985; B. C.

Ollenburger, “Biblical and Systematic Theology: Constructing a Relation” in So Wide a Sea: Essays on Biblical and Systematic Theology, ed. B. C. Ollenburger, IMS Text Reader 4, 1991, 111-45; idem, “From Timeless Ideas to the Essence of Religion: Method in Old Testament The-

ology before 1930” in FOTT, 3-19; idem, E. A. Martens and Gerhard F. Hasel (eds.), The Flowering of Old Testament Theology [FOTT], Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, Vol. 1, 1992; idem, “Old Testament Theology: A Discourse on Method,” in Problems and Perspectives, ed. S. J. Kraftcheck, et al., 1995; idem, ed., So Wide a Sea: Essays on Biblical and Systematic

Theology, IMS Text Reader 4, 1991; idem, “What Krister Stendahl ‘Meant’ —A Normative Critique of ‘Descriptive Biblical Theology,’” HBT, 8, 1986, 61-98; L. G. Perdue, The Collapse of History: Reconstructing Old Testament Theology, OBT, 1994; V. S. Poythress, Symphonic Theology, 1987; H. D. Preuss, Old Testament Theology, 2 vols., 1995; G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 1962, 1965; H. Raisinen, Beyond New Testament Theology: A Story and a Programme, 1990; R. Rendtorff, Canon and Theology: Overtures to an Old Testament Theology, OBT, 1993; idem, “Die Offenbarungsvortstellungen im Alten Israel,” Eng. tr. in W. Pannenberg, R. Rendtorff, T. Rendtorff, and U. Wilkens, Revelation As History, 1968, 23-53; H. G. Revent-

183

Guide low, Problems of Old Testament Theology in the Twentieth Century, tr. by J. Bowden, 1985; P. Ricoeur, “The Metaphorical Process,” Semeia 4, 1975, 75-106; idem, The Rule of Metaphor, 1977; J. M. Robinson,

“Revelation

As Word

and As History,” in Theology as History: New

Frontiers in Theology, 1967, 42-62; J. H. Sailhamer, Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach, 1995; J. A. Sanders, Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism, 1984; idem, “First Testament and Second,” BTB

17, 1987, 47-49; W. H. Schmidt, “The

Problem of the ‘Centre’ of the Old Testament in the Perspective of the Relationship Between History of Religion and Theology,” in Old Testament Essays 4, 1986, 46-64; R. Smend, Die

Mitte des Alten Testaments, Theologische Studien 101, 1970; C. H. H. Scobie, “The Challenge of Biblical Theology,” TB 42/1, 1991, 31-61; R. L. Smith, Old Testament Theology: Its History, Method and Message, 1993; D. G. Spriggs, Two Old Testament Theologies: A Comparative Evaluation of the Contributions of Eichrodt and von Rad to our Understanding of the Nature of Old Testament Theology, SBT 2/30, 1974; K. Stendahl, “Biblical Theology, Contemporary” JDB

1:418-32, = “Biblical Theology: A Program,” Meanings: The Bible as Document and Guide, 1984, 11-44; S. L. Terrien, The Elusive Presence: Toward a New Biblical Theology, Religious

Perspectives 26, 1978; P. Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, OBT 2, 1978; W. A. VanGemeren, The Progress of Redemption, 1988/1995; J. K. W. Vatke, Die biblische Theologie wissenschaftlich dargestellt, Vol 1: Die Religion des Alten Testaments nach dem kanonischen Biichern entwickelt, 1835; G. Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments, 1948; Th. C. Vriezen, An

Outline of Old Testament Theology, 2d ed., 1970; C. Westermann, Elements of Old Testament Theology, 1982; P. Wheelwright, Metaphor and Reality, 1962; G. E. Wright, God Who Acts: Biblical Theology As Recital, SBT 8, 1952; R. N. Whybray, “OT Theology—A Nonexistent Beast?” in Scripture: Meaning and Method. Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson for His Seventieth Birthday, 1987, 168-80; W. Zimmerli, “Biblische Theologie,” TRE 6, 426-55; idem, “Knowledge of God According to the Book of Ezekiel,” in] Am Yahweh, 1982, 29-98. Elmer A. Martens

184

Guide

cS

nO

The

10. INTEGRATING OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY AND EXEGESIS: LITERARY, THEMATIC, AND CANONICAL ISSUES

If the OT is approached not simply as a human religious document but as sacred Scripture, then exegesis involves ascertaining not only its meaning but also its message. In other words, determining the theology of a given text is an essential part of the exegetical process. However, this raises the difficult problem of methodology in biblical theology: If scholars cannot agree on a method for construing OT theology as a whole (cf. E. A. Martens’ essay in this volume and the survey and proposals of G. Hasel, Old Testament Theology), what can be stated definitively about the theological dimensions of an individual text? To be sure, some might decry any attempt to analyze and synthesize the theological content of various pericopes as theologizing, i.e., thinly veiled homiletizing, or as employing simplistic shortcuts, i.e., “What does this text say about God, about sin...?”

In this essay one foundational methodological principle will have to suffice: Just as in literary analysis, “the intended meaning of any passage is the meaning that is consistent with the sense of the literary context in which it occurs” (Klein, et al. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 157), so in theological analysis, the intended theol-

ogy of any passage is the theology that is consistent with the sense of the theological context in which it occurs. The theology of each passage must be viewed in the light of its larger theological context, including both the theology of the biblical book in which it is found as well as the larger concentric circles of theological context (i.e., the theology of the major divisions or genres of the OT, the theology of the OT as a whole, and of the entire Bible). The preceding essays have addressed a number of crucial issues in OT theology and hermeneutics, thoroughly expounding and critiquing various theories and judiciously weighing various methodological options. This essay presupposes and builds on their insights; it seeks to be practical and illustrative. Stated simply, our purpose is to answer the question: How does one do responsible, theologically rich exegesis of the OT text by being sensitive to (1) its words, some of which are more theologically significant than others, (2) its literary features, (3) its historical framework, and (4) the relationship between the text and other canonical texts?

A. The Theology of OT Books 1. Methodological Options: Inadequate Models

A crucial step in determining the theology of a text is discovering the theology of the book of which it is a part. However, this raises a further methodological problem: How does one analyze and synthesize the theology of a book? Although little has been written addressing this issue (but cf. Martens, 1996), there are many examples one can examine in order to discover which principles and procedures were followed. The introductions to most commentaries contain a section summarizing the “theology,” “message,” or “key themes” of a book, as do also the treatments of the individual OT books in Bible reference works and some OT surveys and introductions. Furthermore, there are series that focus on theological themes, such as Word Publishing’s Understanding the Basic Themes of..., individual volumes on Old Testament theology that employ a book-by-book approach (cf. Childs, Biblical Theology, Part 3; Dumbrell, The Faith of Israel; Sitarz, ed., Hore, Israel! Jahwe ist einzig; Zuck, ed., A Biblical

185

Guide

Theology of the Old Testament), and numerous essays expounding the theology of individual books (including those regularly published in journals such as Biblical Theology Bulletin and Interpretation; see also specific examples below). An examination of these efforts reveals several methodologically-flawed models, but this is not to say that publications that follow these models do not contain many valuable theological insights. (a) Systematic categories: God/Man, Sin/Salvation. One of the earliest and persistent models for presenting OT theology is that of adopting the categories of systematic theology, e.g., God and man, sin and salvation, history and eschatology (cf. Hasel, who labels this the “dogmatic-didactic

method,”

39-42). The attractiveness

of this

approach is readily apparent: The same categories can be applied to every book and the results easily synthesized. This approach is applied fairly rigidly by Wolf in his introduction to Isaiah (Interpreting Isaiah, Part II: “Theological Emphases: Christology, Eschatology) and more loosely in the volume edited by Zuck (cf. Merrill, “A Theology of Chronicles,” which employs the following headings: “The God of the Kingdom,” “The People of the Kingdom,” “The Charter of the Kingdom” [covenant and salvation], and “The Course of the Kingdom” [history and eschatology]; and “A Theology of Ezra-Nehemiah and Esther,” which focuses on “The Person and Actions of God,”

“The People of God”). The problem with this approach is that it tends to flatten the unique shape of the individual canonical books and obsure their dynamic theology. Something is lost by focusing only on those statements that contribute to one of the predetermined categories rather than on the interrelations among major theological themes. (b) Historical-critical reconstructions. A second inadequate model is that of deriving theology only from the reconstructed “original” book or its redactional layers, as determined by historical-critical methodologies. For example, in the volume edited by Sitarz, Frank-Lothar Hossfeld distinguishes the theologies of the Jahwist, Elohist,

the “Jehowist,” the Deuteronomist, and the Priestly writer. Similarly, Hans Wildberger presents the theology of Isaiah under two rubrics: “Isaiah’s Theology,” and “Toward a Theology of the Non-Isaianic Sections” (within Isa 1-39), limiting his discussion to the “book” of “First Isaiah” (Jesaja, 1634-84). Aarre Lauha summarizes the message of

Qoheleth only after removing nearly all references to God, judgment, and the enjoyment of life as orthodox redactional additions, resulting in an unorthodox theology of a cynical pessimist whose God is a distant unknowable despot (Kohelet, 5: “Die theologische Problematik”). The continuing debate over Martin Noth’s posited deuteronomistic and Chronicler’s histories also affects how one conceives of the theology of the individual historical books, e.g., whether or not to seek a theology common to both 1-2 Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah (see the summary of the discussion in Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 5- 11). Here one could also include those approaches that understand theology more in terms of ideology (N. Gottwald), history of religions (R. Albertz), or history of traditions (G. von Rad; H. Gese).

The problems with such approaches are twofold: First, the theology presented in this model is not that of the canonical book but only that of a part or preliminary edition of the book. Seldom is there any attempt made to demonstrate that this “layer” is theologically more significant or authoritative than any earlier or later layer (cf. Sanders, Canon

186

and Community,

ch. 2: “Canonical

Process”).

Second, since historical-

Guide

critical research is unable to reach a consensus regarding the extent of a particular source, redactional layer, or edition, each reconstruction will have slightly different theological contours. (c) History-based approaches. A third inadequate model views the historical background or foreground of the book as the key to determining its theology. There are three types of history-based approaches. (i) Some scholars focus on the theological significance of the book’s date and purpose. For example, how one understands the basic message of Judges depends on whether one dates it in the early monarchy, as a polemic for the monarchy, or in the postexilic period, as a plea for theocracy (cf. Cundall, “Judges—An Apology for the Monarchy?”; Dumbrell, “The Purpose of the Book of Judges Reconsidered,” 23-33). Similarly, the debate over Jonah’s “missionary message” is closely tied to how one conceives of its purpose (cf. Childs’ summary and critique of this approach in “The Canonical Shape of the Book of Jonah”). Others, however, use the theology of a book or a section thereof to determine its date, e.g., the mention of Satan in Job, “apocalyptic” in Joel and Isaiah, or the references to the resurrection in Daniel or personal piety in the Psalms. (ii) Some scholars focus on “the mighty acts of God” as theology (cf. G. E. Wright, 13, for whom the theology of a book is “the confessional recital of the redemp-

tive acts of God in a particular history”). (iii) Some, such as W. C. Kaiser (1978), present OT theology within the framework of history as portrayed in the OT. Thus Kaiser summarizes the theology of the “prepatriarchal” and “patriarchal” eras rather than developing a theology of Genesis within the framework of the Pentateuch (“Mosaic theology” might be a more appropriate designation, see discussion below), and discusses Wisdom literature as stemming from the “sapiential,” i.e., Solomonic, era (chs. 5-6, 10).

The problems with the above-mentioned approaches can be summarized only briefly. The first approach is in danger of forgetting that the OT is primarily divine revelation rather than political propaganda, and it is the former that is central for theology. The second approach may be dependent on an understanding of history as reconstructed by historical-critical approaches and is unable to deal adequately with books in which Heilsgeschichte is less prominent (e.g., Wisdom literature). Furthermore, theology must be text-centered (e.g., on the portrayal of God in the biblical accounts) rather than event-centered (cf. Sailhamer, Introduction to Old Testament

Theology, ch. 3). The third approach tends to fix its attention on those aspects that reflect the progressive revelation of the divine plan and loses sight of significant theological motifs that are more distant from this “theological Autobahn.” 2. Literary Approaches It should be apparent from the preceding section that if the theology of an OT book is to be the primary theological context for the theological assessment of an individual text, another model must be sought for analyzing and synthesizing the former. Fortunately, that which has been emerging for several decades under the rubric of “literary approaches” to the Bible (cf. the essays by Longman and Long in this volume) offers a model for a more comprehensive, synthetic, and text-based approach. From these studies two hermeneutical guidelines emerge. These will be illustrated on the book and on the pericope level: (1) Just as a text must be interpreted in light of its placement within the book as a whole, so its theology must be assessed as it partakes in 187

Guide nn

SSE

and contributes to (a dynamic relationship) to the theology of the book as a whole. (2) The theology of a text must be assessed in the light of its literary genre (that is, of the individual text and of the book as a whole), taking into consideration that genre’s characteristic elements, style, and function.

(a) The structure of books. (i) The theological significance of book structure.

One of the observations that has emerged from literary studies of the Bible (as well as from some of the redaction- or composition-critical studies of the OT (e.g., Rendtorff, “The Composition of the Book of Isaiah”) is that the structure of individual books does not result from the haphazard collection of transmitted materials or from strictly following chronological ordering principles but reflects a hermeneutically significant design, regardless of whether that design stems from an author or an editor (cf. Licht, Storytelling in the Bible, ch. 6; Pratt, He Gave Us Stories, ch. 9). The selection and ordering of material in all OT books has been determined, at least in part, by the mes-

sage that was to be communicated. Even in the book of Proverbs, in which the proverbs of chs. 10ff. traditionally have been understood as “card file” collections, composi-

tional patterns are apparent (cf. Whybray, The Composition of the Book of Proverbs). Thus it is crucial to understand the structure of a book in order to understand how its theology is unfolded in the course of a book. Dumbrell’s stated goal in The Faith of Israel is “to present the theological movement of each book, endeavoring, where possible, to indicate how the flow of content in each book contributes to the concept of that book’s purpose” (1988, 11). (ii) Book structure: objective or arbitrary? Here one must distinguish clearly between book outline as “table of contents” (e.g., Whybray claims that no integrative structure is to be found in the book of Ecclesiastes, and simply lists thirty-four sections (Ecclesiastes, 17, 30-31) or as “integrative structure.” A structure-based theology is as prone to subjectivity as are the other models we have rejected. Some of the complex chiastic book structures that have been “discovered” surpass any reader’s “competence,” whether ancient or modern, though we are suggesting that such a structure must

be identified in order for the book’s message to be assessed properly (note the examples cited in J. Welch, Chiasmus in Antiquity, 1981; for a brief but persuasive critique of “chiasmania” see Kugel, “On the Bible and Literary Criticism”). Furthermore, multiple outlines of various books have been suggested. Dennis Olson found among the forty-six commentaries on Numbers he surveyed twenty-four substantially different proposals for the outline or structure of the book (The Death of the Old and the Birth of the New, 31-37), and Hendrik Koorevaar found thirty-one different outlines of Joshua (De Opbouw van het Boek Jozua, 95-102).

However, many of these outlines were derived by focusing on major geographical, historical, or content transitions within the respective books and fail to indicate how the major divisions are integrally related to one another or to the structure of the book as a whole. If it can be demonstrated that the suggested structure is simple and obvious (i.e., easily identifiable and supported by internal thematic and content patterns) as well as hermeneutically significant (i.e., contributing to exegesis and theological analysis), it cannot be dismissed as arbitrary. (iii) Examples of book structure as theological outline. The book of Exodus, for example, can be understood as an extended exposition of the tripartite formula that expresses a central theological theme of the Bible: “I will be your God, you will be my 188

i ee

Guide ee

people, and I will dwell in your midst” (cf. Lev 26:11-13; note the NT development in John 1:14 and Rev 21:3), each of the major sections of the book developing one of the clauses: In Exod 1-18 the deity identifies himself as Yahweh, the covenant-keeping God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who will bring his people out of Egypt (6:2-8), beginning with fulfillment of the patriarchal promise of multiplied seed and concluding with Jethro’s praise of Yahweh as greater than all the gods (1:7; 18:10-11); in chs. 19-24 Israel becomes Yahweh’s people through the covenant ratification ceremony (24:3-8), the section being framed by two theophanies (19:16-19; 24:9-11, 15-18); and in chs. 25-40 a tabernacle is constructed so that God can dwell in Israel’s midst (25:8-9; 29:45-46; 40:34-35), two parallel sections recording God’s instructions and

their execution by Israel (25-31, 35-40), framing a section describing Israel’s apostate worship using the golden calf, whereby they almost forfeited their status as God’s people (32:9-10) until the issue was resolved through a covenant renewal (34:10). Uniting these three sections are God’s three self-revelations to Moses (3:1-6; 19:3-6; 34:5-7).

This three-part outline was suggested by Ramm (1974) and followed by Kaiser, Exodus, both of whom used the headings: Divine Redemption, Divine Morality, Divine Worship. An awareness of this theological development can help the exegete to note that the call of Moses (ch. 3) is part of covenant fulfillment, that prior to the covenant ratification ceremony God does not punish the people’s complaining (ch. 16-17; in contrast to the rebellions in Numbers), that the giving of the Ten Commandments (ch. 20) already presupposes the redemption of Israel from slavery, and that detailed typologi-

cal treatments of the tabernacle may well miss the actual theology of the text. Olson (1985) has demonstrated that the central theme of Numbers is the com-

parison of two generations of God’s people, represented by the two censuses in chs. 1 and 26 (125). The Exodus generation, which obediently prepares to leave Sinai (1-10) but then as a result of rebellion and apostasy is sentenced to die in the wilderness (11-25), is succeeded by the new generation, which obediently prepares for the Conquest (chs. 26-36; the chs. following the second census are framed by the narratives concerning Zelophehad’s daughters, 27: 1-11; 36:1-12). The book is open-ended: Will the second generation succeed where the first has failed? In Olson’s words (183): “The

concern of the book is to establish a model or paradigm which will invite every generation to place itself in the place of the new generation.” Understanding this structure not only undercuts Martin Noth’s contention that Numbers represents a poorly ordered hodge podge of narrative and cultic material, an unfortunate and secondary breaking up of the Sinai tradition complex, but also supplies a theological framework for interpreting individual texts. Following the condemnation of the Exodus generation in ch. 14, 15:1-21, a legal text that mandates offerings to be

brought “after you enter the land I am giving you” (v. 1) ... “for (throughout) the gener-

ations to come” (vv. 14, 21), takes on an added theological dimension that is promissory in nature (cf. Olson, 170-74). Accordingly, this pericope on supplementary

offerings has a different theological content than other similar cultic texts in Exodus, Leviticus, or Deuteronomy. Moreover, 15:37-41, which discusses the tassels of garments and immediately precedes Korah’s rebellion, should be understood as providing the theological foundation (15:40-41) for the rebels’ assertion that “the whole commu-

nity is holy, every one of them, and the LoRD is with them” (16:3). The rebellion text 189

Guide concerning the poisonous serpents is not simply a typological precursor of the crucifixion (John 3:14-15), but marks the climactic rebellion text, the last of seven in the book

of Numbers, which are arranged in symmetrical order with regard to the cause of the murmuring (A. 11:1-3: general difficulties; B. 11:4-34: monotonous food; C. 12: leadership; D. 13-14: enemies in the land; Cl. 16-17: leadership; B!. 20:1-13: lack of water; A!, 21:4-9: general difficulties). The first and seventh texts are not only the

briefest but both also conclude with Moses’ intercessory prayer (11:2; 21:7, the only occurrences of the vb. pil [hitp.] in the book; cf. R. Schultz, “Numeri/4. Buch Mose’’).

The primary theological contribution of the Balaam narrative (chs. 22-24) is not to demonstrate that “God can use anyone,” though the pagan curser Balaam is as least as well suited to be a divine spokesman as his donkey! Instead, the Balaam oracles confirm that the patriarchal promises remain intact (24:9) despite Israel’s sins (cf. Allen,

“The Theology of the Balaam Oracles’’). According to Hendrik Koorevaar the book of Joshua consists of four symmetrically arranged sections (cf. the summary in McConville, Grace in the End, 101-2): A.

1:1-5:12: going over (‘br [> #6296]); B. 5:13-12:24: taking (lgh [> # 4374]); Bi. 13:1-21:45: dividing (hlq [> # 2745)]); A!, 22:1-24:33: worshiping (‘bd [> # 6268]),

with each section containing a spiritual highpoint (Gilgal: 5:1-12; Ebal and Gerizim: 8:30-35; Shiloh: 18:1-19:51; Shechem: 24:1-28). Adopting Koorevaar’s analysis helps one to see the key battles (Jericho, Ai, Gibeon) as theologically paradigmatic demonstrations of God’s covenant fulfillment and the consequences of Israel’s obedience and disobedience (cf. 21:45; 23:14). Even the seemingly mundane conclusion of the book, which reports three funerals (24:29-33), contributes a final example of the fulfillment of the divine promises to Abraham (Gen 15:13-14; 50:24-25): Joseph’s mummy is finally home! The book of Joshua clearly contains more than a mere history of the Conquest. (> Joshua: Theology of) Even in a book like Proverbs, in which a detailed structure is not readily apparent, the prologue (chs. 1-9) and the epilogue (chs. 30-31), which emphasize both the vertical/religious (the fear of the Lord: 1:7; 9:10; 31:30; and the knowledge of the Holy One: 9:10; 30:3) and the horizontal/moral dimensions of wisdom and folly (what is right, just, and fair: 1:3; 2:9; cf. 31:8, 20), and which equate the authority of proverbial wisdom with that of the Mosaic law (calling it t6rad—1:8; 3:1; 4:2; 6:29, 23; 7:2; com-

pare 30:5-6 with Ps 18:30[31] and Deut 4:2), supply the theological framework for interpreting the proverbial collections in chs. 10-29. This invalidates any attempt to reduce folly to intellectual weakness rather than associating it with moral perversity: The wise man is righteous, the fool is wicked. Wisdom is personified by Lady Wisdom (1:20-33; 3:15-18; 8; 9:1-12) and exemplified by the capable and virtuous wife of 31:10-31 (cf. Childs, 1979, 551-56; Camp, 1985, ch. 6). In addition, various theological themes are also developed within the individual collections (e.g., divine sover-

eignty and human responsibility in 16:1-9).

The length and scope of the book of Isaiah, as well the form-critical analysis focusing on individual prophetic oracles and the redaction-critical break-up of the book into various smaller sections, might give the impression that it has no unifying theme or structure. This, however, is not the case. Chapter | serves to introduce the major theological movements within the book: rebellion, judgment, the call to repentance, and the offer of deliverance or further judgment. Following an initial contrast between 190

Guide

Zion’s present and future condition (chs. 1-5), the prophet is purged, thus forming the core of the faithful remnant,

and commissioned

to be spokesman

to an unseeing,

unhearing people (ch. 6). In three groups of texts the king and the people are challenged to trust God in the midst of a political crisis, and God’s deliverance is promised: chs. 7-11 present King Ahaz who fails, chs. 28-33 present an unnamed king who is tempted to rely on Egypt, and chs. 36-39 present Hezekiah who “passes the test.” The intervening sections announce God’s universal sovereignty, which will be demon. strated in the immediate and distant future (chs. 13-23, 24-27, 34-35). Chapter 39 concludes with the announcement of the Babylonian exile, but ch. 40 proclaims God’s return to a people in need. Isa 40-48 portrays Yahweh’s political deliverer, Cyrus, while his spiritual deliverer, the Suffering Servant, introduced in 42:1-7, emerges in chs. 49-57 as the only solution for a recalcitrant people. Only then can Zion be glorified by God and the nations (cf. Webb, 65-84; Seitz, 1988, 105-26). However, the book

does not end on a positive note: The first and final words of Isaiah concern the fate of those who rebel (p5“ [> #7321]) against God (1:2 and 66:24). Thus, Isaiah concludes as it begins, by describing those who will not heed the divine warning. The exegesis of any pericope should take into consideration its placement within the book as a whole: The portrayal of Zion’s future exaltation in Isa 2:1-5 is not primarily contributing to OT eschatology (Will Mount Zion replace Mount Everest as the mountaineer’s goal?) but is intended as a contrast to Zion’s present corruption (1:21-22) and imminent purging through judgment (1:25-27) and to show that the transformation does not depend on Israel’s faithfulness. The announcement of the coming of an eschatological king (9:6-7[5-6]) certainly contributes to the growing messianic expectation of Israel but, in context, offers the divine solution to the problem

of Israel’s faithless kings. (b) Theological implications of genre approaches to books and texts. A second insight from the literary approaches to the Bible that has theological implications is the significance of genre for interpretation. Longman has defined genre as “a group of texts that bear one or more traits in common with each other” (e.g., content, structure, phraseology, function, style, and/or mood, Longman and Dillard, 30). Genre theory in

its application to the OT not only helps to overcome many of the flaws of classic form criticism but is beginning to make a major contribution to OT interpretation. (Especially helpful in this regard are Sandy & Giese, eds., and Fee and Stuart.) Although all of the major OT genres have parallels among ANE texts, it is evident that, if dependent on literary conventions, these genres have not merely been “Yahwehized” but also theologically enriched (cf. Walton, 1989, ch. 10).

(i) Distinctive vocabulary and genre identification. There are a number of respects in which theological and genre concerns intersect. For example, the occurrence of several of the characteristic terms of wisdom literature in various psalms is considered to be a primary criterion for the identification of the sub-genre “wisdom psalm,” to which scholars have assigned twenty or more psalms. Approximately twenty psalms are labeled as such by several scholars (cf. Kuntz for a listing of these terms and a discussion of other criteria). If a psalm is clearly identifiable as “wisdom,” then its primary context for theological assessment is the larger collection of wisdom psalms, secondarily the wisdom books. The discussion of suffering, injustice, the wicked, and the threat of death (such are found in Ps 49), though quite common in indi-

191

Guide

vidual lament psalms (e.g., Ps 6), when found in wisdom psalms represents a different theological emphasis, for the psalmist is not only wrestling with his own experienced sufferings but also with the larger issue of theodicy. Thus Ps 49 should be grouped with Ps 37 and 73 when analyzing its theological response. In resolving the question of whether “take” (igh [> #4374]) in 49:15[16] refers to life after death as the psalmist’s

resolution to the problem, after examining the immediate context of the word within Ps

49, one should look first to the use of the same term in a similar context in Ps 73:24 (cf. Kuntz, 1977, 231-32; also Gen 5:24; 2 Kgs 2:10). Similarly, the awareness that nearly

all of the so-called “imprecations” in the psalms are found in lament psalms (a possible exception is 139:19-21, although its genre is disputed) cautions one against hastily deriving a “theology of revenge” from such psalms. Instead, their precise placement and function of this element within the laments must be analyzed before drawing any theological conclusions. (ii) The importance of genre for semantics. A knowledge of genre categories and features is also helpful for semantic studies. In studying a word like righteous (saddigq [> #7404]), not only is it illegitimate to read NT dimensions into the OT occurrences, but it is also important to determine whether the term is used identically in different genres. In narrative contexts there are not many references to “righteous” people; saddigq is used primarily as a relative term (e.g., morally outstanding or more righteous than) or it designates the innocent pary in interpersonal disputes (Gen 6:9; 7:1; 18:23-26, 28; 20:4; 1 Sam 24:17[18]; 2 Sam 4:11; 1 Kgs 2:32; 8:32 || 2 Chron

6:23; 2 Kgs 10:9). In legal texts the word “righteous” also seldom occurs (Exod 23:7-8; Deut 16:19; 25:1 = “innocent,” almost a technical term). In wisdom literature, how-

ever, especially Proverbs, it becomes a ubiquitous category, which is virtually coreferential with “wise” (hakam; > #2682) (Prov 10:3, 6, 7, 11, 16, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, 30, 31, 32; cf. Eccl 9:1-2). The wisdom psalms employ “righteous” similarly (e.g., Ps 37:12, 16, 17, 21, 25, 29, 30, 32, 39); elsewhere in the Psalter it is applied frequently to God (Ps 7:11[12]; 119:137; 129:4; 145:8), who, by virtue of this trait, is the rewarder and deliverer of the righteous (Ps 5:12[13]; 7:9[10]; 32:11; 34:14, 19, 21[16, 20, 22).

The usage in the prophets is similar but not identical. Another common OT phrase that has different theological nuances in different genres is “the fear of the LORD” or “fearing the LORD” (employing yr'/yir'a in verbal, adjectival, and genitival constructions

[> #3707]); the most thorough treatment of

this phrase is by J. Becker. “The fear of the LORD,” which could be described as the OT equivalent of faith (pistis) in the NT, occurs frequently in all OT genres. However, in narrative contexts it is used to describe exclusive, even radical, trust in or worship of God and basic morality (Gen 20:11; 22:12; 42:18; Exod 1:21; 14:31; Josh 4:24; 24:14;

1 Sam 12:14, 24; 1 Kgs 18:12); in legal contexts it usually is expressed in obedience to the law (Exod 20:20; Lev 19:14, 32; 25:17; Deut 5:29; 6:2, 24; 8:6; 10:12-13); in wis-

dom books, especially Proverbs, it expresses a fundamental attitude toward God that leads to wise behavior and the avoidance of every form of evil (Prov 1:7, 19; 2 SSelse 9:10; 10:27 5 14:26¢275015216}:333116:65:19223922;4:23e1713d:30;ciob ely Swe: 28:28; Eccl 5:7[6]; 8:12-13). The lexical sense of yr/yir'd may remain constant

throughout the OT, but its discourse sense varies (e.g., its behaviorial expression) in ways that apparently correspond to the characteristic thematic emphases and concerns of the basic OT genres. : 192

Guide

The usage of a theologically significant phrase also may differ within various genres. For example, in narrative and prophetic contexts the expression, “servant of God the LORD” is used mostly to describe those rare individuals who were distinguished by their divine election to carry out a unique task or by exceptional obedience or faithfulness (Abraham, Moses, David, Joshua, the nation of Israel, the agent of sal-

vation in the Isaianic “Servant Songs”; primarily occurs as a self-designation praise or in providing the basis for 31:16[17]; 34:22[23]; 69:17[18]; 79:2,

cf. also Job), while in the Psalms the expression employed in describing the pious in calls to the appeal to God in the laments (Ps 27:9; 10; 86:2, 4, 16; 90:13, 16; 102:14, 28[15, 29];

113:1; 134:1; 135:1; 143:2, 12). In this case, the person using the designation (God or

an individual) is clearly more important than the genre of the text that contains it. However, since these two distinct usages may involve polysemy, the former reflecting the high honor of being called the (divine) king’s servant and the latter deriving from the (court) convention of humbly designating oneself the servant of another upon whose favor one depends, these two categories must not be confused in determining their theological significance: To call oneself ““God’s servant” is not to compare oneself with Moses or David (> Servant/Slave)!

Furthermore, in analyzing some terms, it should be noted that some vocabulary may be genre- or even book-specific; thus the rarity of more common synonyms in a given book, and possibly even the presence of a rarer term, may not be theologically significant. For example, the preferred lexeme by the author of Chronicles for sin is m‘/ (> #5085), be unfaithful, unfaithfulness (17x; 48x in the rest of the OT, in Ezek 13x). The term abomination, 16‘@bd (> #9359), is most frequent in Deuteronomy (17x), Proverbs (21x), and Ezekiel (43x, 37x in the rest of the OT). How these various books

portray sin is more important than the specific word they use to designate it. The characteristic language of both faith and folly also can be genre- or book-specific. In narrative and prophetic texts the verb ’mn, believe [hi.; > #586], predominates, referring primarily to individual acts or demonstrations of faith (cf. Gen 15:6; Exod 4:8; Num 20:12; 2 Chron 20:20; Isa 7:9; 28:16). The verbal form of ’mn is used 42x outside of Psalms and Proverbs, but only 9x in Psalms and Proverbs, three of which are in historical psalms. Psalms and Proverbs prefer bth, trust (# 1053), a term referring primarily to a basic attitude toward God (cf. Ps 25:2; 26:1; 28:7; 31:6, 14[7, 15]; Prov 16:20; 28:25); bth occurs 56x in Psalms and Proverbs, but only 64x in the

rest of the OT. Although the word “fool” is commonly found throughout the Wisdom literature, each wisdom book does not utilize precisely the same terms (cf. Donald). Furthermore, one of the strongest Heb. word roots for designating folly, nbl, familiar from its use in Ps 14:1 and 53:1[2], “The fool says in his heart, “There is no God,’” occurs 38x in the OT (e.g., Gen 34:7; Josh 7:15; Judg 19:23-24; 20:6, 10), only seven

of which are in wisdom books.

Thus, the assessment of theologically significant terms as a part of the exegetical process must take into consideration possible generic influences and constraints on usage and discourse meaning. When exploring the theological dimensions of a given term, one cannot simply consult a concordance, arbitrarily drawing on any passages that contain the same term. (For additional examples of genre-specific semantics, cf. H.-P. Miiller, 282.)

193

Guide

(iii) Genre and theological diversity. One of the features of OT literature that contributes to its theological richness is the way in which various themes are developed differently in different books. Such theological diversity is not necessarily contradictory (cf. Goldingay, ch. 1; McConville, 1987), nor does it force one to speak of OT theologies. However, it does warn against simplistic or harmonizing attempts to synthesize the unique voices of the various canonical witnesses. One of factors that produces theological diversity is the treatment of the same theme within different genres. For example, the development of the creation theme in Genesis, wisdom, and prophecy each emphasizes various dimensions that are genuinely complementary. In Gen 1:1-2:3, emphases include the sovereign authority of a God whose commands are instantly obeyed, the establishment of order within creation, the universal blessing, and the setting apart of the Sabbath, all themes that will be

developed further in the books of the law. Gen 2:4-25, on the other hand, presents an immanent God who is intimately involved with humanity, one who will reveal himself repeatedly to the patriarchs. This relationship is reenforced by the incorporation of this account within the framework of the ten-part tdledét (“these are the generations of....’’) structure, indicating an unbroken progression from the creation to the beginnings of a covenant people (> Genealogy; Genesis: Theology; > #9352). Thus Gen 2 shares many of the genre features of the post-Eden Genesis narrative, despite its context of origins that scholars often label as myth (see > Genesis: Theology). However, in other genres both the style and the emphases are quite different: poetic rather than prose, amply utilizing images that are familiar from ANE creation myths, combining creation and redemption, emphasizing God’s wisdom (especially wisdom books), power (especially prophets), and glory and uniqueness (especially psalms)

as revealed

through and reflected by creation

19:1-6[2-7]; 89:9-13[10-14]; 44:24; 51:9-10,

13, 16; Amos

(Job 26:5-14;

38-41; Ps 8;

104:5-9; Prov 3:19-20; 8:22-31; Isa 40:12-17, 26, 28; 4:13; 5:8; 9:5-6). An exegesis of any of these texts

should be cognizant of the genre-appropriate theological emphases it contains, compare a given text with other texts of the same genre that present this same theme, and be wary of the dangers involved in deriving theology from poetry (see B. W. Anderson, 1984; Dassmann & Sternberger, eds., “Schopfung und Neuschépfung,” JBTh 5, 1990). 3. Thematic Emphases

However, as valuable as analyses of book structure and genre may be in helping one to assess the theological contribution of an individual text, another complementary approach must be added: the study of themes. Whereas the exegete seeks to identify the dominant structure and most precise genre category for a given book or section thereof, several divergent themes may be identified in the same text. For example, although Peter Miscall views the book of Isaiah as “The Labyrinth of Images,” and there are only a few major themes that are developed throughout the book and that serve to connect its various sections. (a) Definition and scope of themes. Here we are defining theme as used in tradition criticism. Georg Fohrer (99-109) distinguishes between a motif (humankind like a fading flower, God like a rock) and the related theme (the brevity of life; the trustwor-

thiness of God). In studying a theological theme such as sin within a given book, it is not sufficient simply to examine all the occurrences of the key synonyms for sin, such 194

Guide

as missing the mark (ht’ [> #2627]), rebellion (peSa‘ [> #7322]), and iniquity (awon [> #6411]; the most comprehensive treatment of the subject is by Rolf Knierim); one must also include all terms for sins and all descriptions and images of

sinfulness. For example, in Isa 1 alone, all of the following belong to the theological

theme of sin (and some additional phrases could be included): “children ... have rebelled against me’(2); “sinful nation, a people loaded with guilt, a brood of evildoers, children given to corruption! They have forsaken the LORD; they have spurned the Holy One of Israel and turned their backs on him” (4); “persist in rebellion” (5); “you rulers of Sodom ... you people of Gomorrah” (10); “Your hands are full of blood” (15);

“Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong” (16); “Though your sins are like scarlet” (18); “Sf you resist and rebel” (20); “a harlot ... now murderers”’(21); “your silver has become dross” (22); “Your rulers are rebels, companions of thieves; they all love bribes and chase after gifts” (23); “my foes ... my enemies” (24);

“your dross ... all your impurities” (25); “rebels and sinners ... those who forsake the LORD” (28).

Similarly, in studying the theological theme of wisdom, it is insufficient to limit oneself to the basic lexemes for wisdom which von Rad describes as “stereometric” (Wisdom in Israel, 13 n. 10; see the more detailed study by M. Fox, “Words dom’’): Prov 1:1-5 includes the terms byn/bind [> # 1067/1069], da‘at I [> hokmaé [> #2683], legah [> #4375], m°zimma [> #4659], miisar [> ‘orma [> # 6893], skl [> #8505], and tahbulét [> #9374], which refer to mentary aspects of wisdom. Other terms that belong to the semantic field of

for Wis# 1981], #4592], comple-

wisdom, including antonyms, such as the terms for folly, and positive terms associated with wis-

dom, such as righteousness and diligence, as well as descriptions and illustrations of wise and foolish behavior, also contribute to the development of the wisdom theme. (b) Themes and rhemes. Having discussed the macro components of textual exegesis—the structure of books, the genre categories that group together books or individual texts, and themes that weave their way through entire books, encompassing numerous words and related phrases and descriptions—we must return to the micro components—those fundamental building blocks of the text: the words. Certainly there have been many abuses of the word-study approach in the history of biblical theology (cf. the survey by Cotterell and Turner, ch. 4; Louw). However, despite the dangers associated with overvaluing individual words, the accurate identification, understanding, and comparison of theologically significant words within a text can make a substantial contribution to the theological assessment of a text. Several factors must be taken into account to help guard against such abuses. First of all, one must shift one’s attention from the sentence level to the discourse level

as the primary context for interpretation. Decisions regarding word usage are not made

195

Guide

simply on the sentence level, dictated by syntactical rules, but more often are made on the discourse level. In Isa 28, Wildberger (1078) eliminates verse 19 as a later “actualizing” addition, partly because verse 19b (“The understanding of this message [habin ¢mii‘d] will bring sheer terror”) repeats and, in his opinion, misunderstands the similar phrase in verse 9 (“To whom is he explaining his message?” [yabin §“mii‘G]). How-

ever, this explanation overlooks the technique of the author who repeats various words and phrases in this section (vv. 7-23) to make a contrast between the false security of foreign alliances and the rejected offer of divine security, resulting in disappointment and divine judgment (cf. v. 9 Il v. 19; v. 10 Il v. 13; v. 14 Il v. 22; v. 15 !l_v. 18). The

shift in nuance from verse 9, “to understand the prophetic message,” to verse 19, “to understand the news” of the inescapable disaster, is made by the repetition of the “hear” root (§m‘) in verse 12, “but they would not listen.” Refusing to hear the prophetic message regarding the divinely offered “resting place” (v. 12), they would be forced to hear a terrifying message, perhaps “delivered” by the invading foreign troops (v. 11). They had chosen their bed, and now they must lie in it! (v. 20). From a dis-

course standpoint, the reuse and meaning shift of the phrase from verse 9 is logically understandable and rhetorically effective. This example illustrates a second caution in word study: One must understand the difference between theme (“the starting point, the given”) and rheme (“the new element in what is being communicated,” Jeanrond, 85). Linguists have emphasized the importance of distinguishing between a general motif (topic) and its nuancing in a particular context (comment). Wildberger, for example, is unwilling to allow the prophet Isaiah to give a familiar topic a unique twist or comment in order to make a point. In the book of Isaiah (cf. “hearing” and “not hearing” or “hearing but not understanding”’) deafness is a major motif that is introduced early and developed throughout the book, but especially in the section Isa chs. 28-33

(1:19; 6:9; 29:18; 30:9; 33:15; 40:28;

42:18-20; 65:12; cf. Aitken, “Hearing and Seeing”). In ch. 28, the prophet is highlighting two types of messages that can be “heard” by giving similar phrases different nuances. To cite another example from Isaiah, in chs. 40-55 ““God’s servant” becomes a

major theme (Oswalt even claims that “servanthood” is the overarching theme of the entire book [54]; cf. “Book of Isaiah’). The servant theme is introduced in 41:8-9 using

terms that emphasize his election. This passage is sandwiched between two divine announcements of a conqueror coming from the east and the north, presumably Cyrus (vv. 2-4, 25-27), who will make the islands tremble (v. 5). In 42:1, however, a servant

is presented who, in contrast to Cyrus, will give the islands reason for hope (v. 4). Who is this servant? As the portrait develops, each occurrence of the theme adds a new “comment” to the “topic,” and gradually two different pictures emerge: a corporate servant Israel and an individual servant who ministers on behalf of the other (compare 44:21 with 49:6). Essentially, no two occurrences of the same word, even within the same book as

part of the same larger theme, have precisely the same nuance. For example, several essays suggest that the prophetic author in Isa 42 and 59 is repeating and playing with the various nuances of mispat, judgment, justice (> #5477) in the respective contexts (cf. Beuken; Jeremias; Kendall, 59). Despite the value of lexical entries that attempt to categorize accurately the various usages a word can have in the OT, the exegete must

196

Guide

attempt to determine the specific emphasis a word is being given in a given text, for a sudden shift in its discourse meaning may underline the major point the author is making. There are several additional aspects of themes that should be noted, especially as they are developed through key words. In many cases, themes are paired, either as a fixed linguistic expression (a syntagmatic collocation) or in their usage in a given book. The two terms, mispat is°dagd, judgment/justice and righteousness, are probably best understood as a hendiadys, that is, two terms that can be translated as “righ-

teous judgment” or “social justice” (cf. M. Weinfeld, 1995, 1). Either word can occur first in this combination, and the two also occur as word pairs in poetic parallelism. Whenever one of the two terms is thus used in close proximity to the other, it is appropriate to understand them in terms of the combined concept rather than sharply distinguishing between the two (Ps 99:4—combined; Isa 28:17—poetic parallelism; > Judgment/Justice). Another frequently occurring word pair is hesed w°'emet, covenant loyalty and faithfulness or, as more commonly translated, love and truth (Prov

3:3; 14:22; 16:6; 20:28—word pair; Ps 26:3; 57:10[11]; 69:13[14]; Isa 16:5—in poetic

parallelism), better understood as “reliable goodness” or “loyal love.” Other terms or themes are combined in particular books. In Isaiah, the words

“salvation” (y°sii‘G; > #3802) and “righteousness” (s“daga, > # 7407) occur together in Isa 33:5-6; 51:6, 8; 56:1; 59:17; 60:17-18. This should alert the exegete to the need

to examine the relationship between the reference of these two words within the theology of Isaiah. In some books, it may be fruitful to map out the relationship between a whole series of terms. In Chronicles there are at least eight theologically significant terms that are characteristic of the book and clearly interrelated. The primary theme is the need to seek God (drs [> #2011]: 1 Chron 10:13, 14; 13:3; 15:13; 16:11; 21:30; DINO 26-50. Loree 95 2 Chron): 12:14. 14:3. 6: IS-2, 12-157 16:12" 17:33 4: 18:4" 6: Gems SO) 2924-05 22 lS: 20. 20,5 5019. 31.9, 21s 32°31 34:3" 21, 26-4 bqs [> # 1335] 8x), both in a cultic sense and in seeking to do God’s will “with a whole heart” (1 Chron 22:19; 28:9; 2 Chron 12:14; 15:12; 19:3; 22:9; 30:19; 31:21; 32:31). Then one will “have success” (slh [> #7502], 11x) because God will be “with” that person (‘im, 22x). However, if one “abandons” God (‘zb [> # 6440], 15x) and is “unfaithful” (ma‘al [> #5086]; 17x), one will experience the divine wrath (gesep [> #7912], 7x) until one humbles oneself again (kn‘ [> #4044] 15x). In exegeting a text that contains one or more of these terms, one must determine how this

particular situation illustrates what it means to seek or abandon God and what consequences ensue, as an illustration of divine retribution (> Chronicles: Theology of). (c) Theology as a book’s key themes. It is evident, then, that when one seeks to exegete a text in terms of its theological context, one must note how the theology that emerges from the book’s structure intersects with the theology borne by its themes. In some books, the themes bear the primary theological freight. In Isaiah, several theological themes can be discerned, some related to Israel’s present and future state, others more related to appropriate responses that any reader can make. A major theme is Zion’s immediate and ultimate future (Isa 1:27; 2:3; 4:5; 8:18; 14:32; 24:23; 28:16; 33:5; 35:10; 46:13; 52:8; 64:10; 66:8; cf. Seitz; Webb) in

the light of the present guilt of the people (primarily idolatry and social injustice: 1:2, 5:18; 22:14; 27:8; 30:13; 33:24; 40:2; 59:2-3,

12, 20; 54:4-8), which initially will

To]

Guide

evoke the judgment of the Holy One of Israel but ultimately will lead to his salvific initiatives, beginning with the formation of a remnant (10:20-22; 1 EL AGHIT265- 2835

37:4, 31-32, cf. 35:10; 48:10; 51:10). These initiatives are a manifestation of God’s plan (‘ésé [> # 6783]; 5:19; 16:17; 25:1; 28:29; 30:1; 44:26; 46:10-11) and involve not only his intervention as

divine warrior (42:13; 51:9; 63:1-6) but also through his agent, the eschatological Davidic king (Isa 9, 11, 32) and servant (42, 49, 50, 52-53, 61, who can be identified with the king; cf. Schultz, 1995, 154-59), as well as the anointed political deliverer,

Cyrus. This divine intervention will encompass not only Israel but also the nations (42:6-7; 49:6; 51:5-6; 52:10), a clear demonstration of God’s superiority over the gods

(2:8, 18, 20; 10:10, 11; 19:1; 21:9; 30:22; 31:7; 40:19-20; 42:8, 17; 44:9, 10, 15, 17; 45:20; 48:5). God will judge the proud and lofty and reward the humble (especially 4:2; 24:4; 29:19; 38:15; 54:4; 58:3, 5; 60:15; 66:2) and desires that his people fear him and not human powers (esp. 7:4; 8:12, 13), and believe in him unreservedly (2:22; 7:9; 8175. 12:2: 26:24 28:12 TBO SBE A635 942: ils 437102 O10. od, ba

60:9). In examining these theological themes as they are reintroduced and developed in the course of the book, it is evident that there is not only a close relationship among the various themes but also between the ancient witness and the contemporary application. Ecclesiastes is a very different book, but its themes are also dominant over

structure in conveying its theology and are closely interrelated. Qoheleth views humankind as God’s creation (12:1, 7) and as originally upright (7:29). He views God as the giver of all that is good, including joy, wisdom, riches, honor, and life itself (2:24, 26; 3:13; 5:18-19[17-18]; 6:2; 8:15; 9:9) but his work is unfathomable (3:11; 7:13-14; 8:17; 11:5). However, sin has cast the shadow of temporality (hebel [> #2039]) over the world, filling it with injustice (3:16; 4:1; 5:8[7]; 7:7; 8:11; 9:2) and death (3:2; 7:2; 9:6, 10) and turning work into toil (‘amal [> # 6662], 1:13). In such a world all gain is relative, though wisdom is advantageous (2:13; 7:11-12). God

expects people to fear him (3:14; 5:7[6]; 7:18, 26; 8:12-13; 12:13), to accept their portion

(2:10;

3:22;

5:18-19[17-18];

9:9),

and

to

enjoy

life

(2:24-25;

3:12-13;

5:19-20[18-19]; 8:15; 9:7-8; 11:8-10), while keeping in mind the coming judgment (3:15, 17; 11:9; 12:14), for in the midst of temporality there is also an eternal dimen-

sion (3:11, 14). Otherwise, all human efforts are merely “chasing after wind” (1:14, La):

To summarize, exegesis is incomplete if it does not lay bare the theological thrust of a text, seeking to identify words, phrases, motifs, images, and even structural

elements that reveal aspects of God’s will and work in the world as it places demands on or otherwise

affects Israel, the nations, and/or all humankind.

These

elements

should be analyzed in terms of their function within a given text and synthesized in terms of their participation in and contribution to the theological emphases of the book as a whole, whether structural or thematic in nature. Theological exegesis must be sensitive to the larger theological context of the text, to generic factors that affect both word usage and thematic development, and to semantic issues such as discourse and theme/rheme considerations. Moreover, an exegesis that is consciously theological will also result in greater clarity regarding the contemporary implications and application of a given text.

198

Guide

B. Canon and Theology However, as important as the book context is for the exegete, it is not the only context that must be taken into consideration.

In recent decades, the importance of

canon for OT theology has received greater attention, largely through the work of Brevard Childs. Although biblical theology has always claimed to take the entire biblical canon seriously, Childs’ “canonical approach” has resulted in some new emphases in OT theology. This is not the place to debate all of the complex issues regarding the formation of the biblical canon, the determination of which church’s canon should be

made the basis for biblical theology, or the strengths and weaknesses of Childs’ proposal. (For a thorough discussion of these and other related issues, see Brett; Noble;

and Sailhamer, 1995.) Our goal in the following is more modest: to explore and illustrate some of the implications of taking the canon seriously as one of the theological contexts for exegesis. 1. The Importance of Canon for OT Theology

The canonical approach conceives of the canon not simply as a loose collection of diverse literary works but rather as a carefully conceived and integrated whole, which, accordingly, must constitute the context that enriches the interpretation of all of its constituent parts. According to Childs (OT Theology in a Canonical Context, 6-15),

a canonical approach to OT theology: (a) is essentially a Christian discipline; (b) consists of reflection on the canonical Heb. Scriptures, despite the fact that the NT church generally used its Greek form; (c) sees the OT as functioning as a witness to Jesus precisely in pre-Christian form; (d) reflects theologically on the text as it has been received and shaped; and (e) combines both descriptive and constructive features. Manfred Oeming, in a review of Childs’ OT theology, characterizes his approach as more text-based, more objective, more useful for the church, more sensitive to history,

and more theological than other contemporary models (‘“Text-Kontext-Kanon,” 242-but Oeming rejects Childs’ approach!). Such an approach has implications for the way one conducts exegesis in the theological context of canon. First of all, if the canon is a carefully composed whole, there may be hermeneutical significance even to the order of the individual books. Whereas the Greek canonical ordering places Ruth after Judges as an example of how God was working in the midst of this period among those who were obedient to the law (gleaning, levirate marriage, kinsman-redeemer) to bring about the birth of the great King David, who finally would be for Israel a leader after God’s own heart, Sailhamer

(1995, 214) understands the “semantic effect” of the Hebrew ordering in which Ruth follows Proverbs as presenting Ruth as the “virtuous woman” of Prov 31:10-31, “who is to be praised in the gates” (cf. Ruth 3:11; 4:11). More clearly, the Hebrew designation of the Minor Prophets as the Book of the Twelve leads the interpreter to seek aspects of thematic development and connecting sutures between the individual books (cf. the proposal of House; the use of Exod 34:6-7 in Jon 4:2; Mic 7:18; and Nah 1:3; also the examples cited by Nogalski). Second, if canon is the context for OT theology, one can legitimately compare a theological theme, such as creation, with analogous presentations anywhere in the canonical OT Scriptures, not simply in what one considers to be chronologically antecedent texts (contra Kaiser, 1981, 16, 18).

199

Guide Third, theological syntheses must take the entire canonical text of a book in its final form into account, neither bracketing out any parts as “later additions” or ignoring them as theologically insignificant. All books and passages should be viewed as contributing theologically to the whole. Even though some contain fewer theological “calories” per pericope, they are still legitimate objects of theological analysis. Finally, positing canon as a carefully composed whole suggests that it is legitimate to assume—and to seek—a fundamental unity in OT theology rather mae contradictory theologies in the midst of literary diversity. 2. The Theology of Blocks of Books

Such a unity should be sought within the major divisions or generic groupings of books. John Goldingay writes (1994, 132): “In the scriptures themselves the individual books do not appear in isolation but within complexes with varying degrees of interlinking.” In the Pentateuch, the dominance of source- and tradition-critical models have effectively kept most scholars, even those who defended an authorial unity,

from seeking an underlying theological unity. Clines’ examination of The Theme of the Pentateuch has convincingly demonstrated the centrality of the provisions of the patriarchal covenant in their partial fulfillment and nonfulfillment in Exod through Deut as the major theological link between Gen and the “books of the law” (cf. also T. W. Mann, The Book of the Torah). In addition, as Torah, Gen teems with “pre-Sinai” allusions to the law: Sabbath, freewill offerings, capital punishment, the tithe, an aware-

ness of the wrongness of adultery, even the claim that Abraham obeyed God’s commands, decrees, and laws (Gen 26:5). An exegete handling any of these texts must realize that its theological context is larger than just the book in view. Furthermore, Sailhamer (1987, 1991) has noted the eschatological horizon of the Pentateuch, something often lost amidst the law collections (“in the last days”—Gen 49:1; Num 24:14; Deut 31:29; cf. 32:20, 29; here one might note also the

covenant blessings and curses as laid down in Lev 26 and Deut 28) and the emphasis on the faith of Abraham and in Moses’ day (Gen 15:6; Exod 4:1, 5, 8, 9, 31; 14:31; 19:9; Num 14:11; 20:12; Deut 1:32; 9:32).

The fact that the deut. presentation of covenantal law is foundational for the historical books of Josh through Kgs has been used to bolster Noth’s theory of the “Deuteronomistic Historian” but less frequently has enriched the interpretation of these books theologically (but see Wenham and the introductory synthesis of McConville, 1993). Though addressing the subject from a variety of perspectives, these books present a powerful theology of leadership, i.e., kingship, under the kingship of God. The prophetic literature, though reflecting the diverse circumstances and personalities of the prophets, contains a core of theological themes that each prophet consciously drew upon and contributed to, to a lesser or greater extent. W. VanGemeren lists these “prophetic motifs” as the day of the Lord, the kingdom of God in creation, the Messiah and the messianic kingdom, the Spirit of restoration, the new people of God, and Israel and the nations (1990, 212-44; for a discussion of the evidence that the

prophets quoted their predecessors, see Schultz, The Search for Quotation, forthcoming). The so-called messianic prophecies are not merely isolated highlights of an otherwise mundane prophetic career, but are a deliberate building up of a concrete expectation (cf. K.-D. Schunk). For the prophets of Judah, the consequences of the election of Zion is a significant theme. For Isaiah this issued in a call to trust in the God

200

Guide

who elected Zion as his dwelling rather than in political alliances; for Jeremiah this theme involved rejecting the Jerusalemites’ false assurance that nothing could touch them as God’s chosen city (Isa 14:32; 31:8-9; 37:35; contrast Jer 9:7-15; 26:1-6). The

interpreter of prophetic literature needs to ascertain (a) which of these major theological themes is/are central to a given text; and (b) how the prophet develops the theme(s) in a given text, both in the context of the major themes of the prophet as a whole and in the context of the development of the theme(s) in the larger prophetic corpus. (For a discussion of common theological structures within the prophetic corpus as a result of conscious canonical shaping, cf. Clements, 1977.) Recently several major efforts to synthesize the theology of the wisdom books as a whole have been published, rather than simply analyzing the theology of the individual books (R. E. Clements, 1992; R. E. Murphy; L. G. Perdue), although the prevailing approach still involves contrasting the earlier optimistic proverbial wisdom (Proverbs)

with the later pessimistic

“critical”

wisdom

(Job, Ecclesiastes;

but see

Schultz, “Unity or Diversity in Wisdom Theology? A Covenantal and Canonical Perspective,” TynB, forthcoming). The growing consensus that wisdom’s theological contribution is essentially “creation theology” (cf. Perdue) provides a common basis for interpreting the wisdom books, even though each develops the creation theme in a different manner (Proverbs: creation order; Ecclesiastes: creation gifts; Job: the sovereign

power and inscrutable ways of the Creator). 3. The Theological Relationship Among Blocks of Books

The interpreter should take into account not only the theology of the blocks of books but also the complementary emphases and theological relationship among these major blocks. Goldingay (1994, 132-35) describes these emphases: The narrative from Genesis to Kings has magnificent highpoints in the time of Moses and Joshua and that of David and Solomon, but it has an ultimately tragic shape.... The prophets begin with forebodings of disaster but promise blessing and hope.... The relationship between Torah and Prophets can also be portrayed as one between order and freedom. The former establishes the norms that are vital to identity, and the latter prevents order from becoming institutionalized and fossilized.... The Writings as a whole are books produced “between the times” and designed for people living between the times.... They reflect a hermeneutical dialogue between the accepted canonical text of the Torah and the Prophets and the Second Temple community seeking to live its everyday life with God. (Cf. also Sailhamer, 1995, 239-43, re “canonical redaction” of the entire OT.) If this is the case, then von Rad’s conception of the traditions of confessional salvation history, the prophets, and wisdom as independent theological streams was seriously flawed. The theological significance of Torah for the rest of the canon cannot be overemphasized. Joshua’s primary charge is to study and obey the Torah (Josh 1:7-8); similarly, the first psalm describes the one who meditates on the Torah as truly blessed (Ps 1:2). Thus both the “Prophets” and the “Writings,” the second and third divisions of the Hebrew canon, begin with the call to turn to the Torah for orientation in one’s life and work. The close relationship between proverbial wisdom and the OT law cannot be overlooked (Weinfeld, 244-74; Gese, ch. 3), although the dominant view

201

Guide

that wisdom influenced Torah rather than vice versa is by no means certain (cf. McConville, 1993, ch. 3; Craigie, 24-29, 79-83, regarding the date of Deut’s composition). Furthermore, Douglas Stuart has demonstrated convincingly the prophetic dependence on the pentateuchal covenantal blessing and curse texts (Lev 26; Deut 28-32; Stuart, 1988, xxxi-xlii), texts that are also of fundamental importance for understanding the course of Israelite history. In the context of the OT canon, the interpreter also must take into account the

progressive growth of OT theology. Although the scholarly “dating game” may never be over, exegesis cannot be carried out in the theological context of the OT canon without taking into account what Robert Girdlestone termed The Building Up of the Old Testament (1912), but more recently has been described as “canon consciousness.” The

exegete must seek to discover the antecedent theology that the biblical author was assuming (Kaiser, 1981, 134-40), laying bare the underlying theology that informs each text (Bright, 143, 170), and to determine to what extent the author was reinterpret-

ing earlier theological traditions (see the magisterial study of Fishbane; for an approach to intertextuality that seeks to circumvent the chronological disputes over the dating of the biblical literature, see Eslinger, 47-58). The covenant between God and his creation—first with all humankind (Gen 9) and then with Israel—may not be the center of OT theology, but it certainly is foundational to Israel’s understanding of its relationship to God and to the unfolding of its history. It also involves a theological concept that progressively developed. John Walton has argued that there was only one covenant between God and his people that was modified and amplified in the course of Israel’s history: the covenant with the patriarchs (Gen 12, 15, 17), which later led to the covenant with the entire nation at Sinai (Exod 19-24), which later was mediated through the Davidic king (2 Sam 7 |! 1 Chron 17), and which is to be renewed and transformed through the new covenant (Jer 31), a covenant, through which all the nations were to be blessed (Gen 12:3; cf. Ps 72:17; Walton, ch. 3; cf. also Dumbrell,: 1984). Exegesis constantly must relate the theological

statements in a given text regarding divine blessing and human obligation to that stage in the unfolding of the covenantal relationship that that text reflects (cf. examples below).

4. OT Theology and Biblical Theology

However, since God’s covenant certainly is not foreign to a church that was established through the “new covenant in my [Jesus’] blood” (Luke 22:20), a canonical

approach to OT exegesis cannot limit itself to an exclusively OT perspective but must seek to reflect the relationship between the two Testaments within the larger context of biblical theology. According to Childs (1985, 8-9), it is wrong both to “force the entire Old Testament within a fixed schema of prophecy and fulfillment” and to “read the Old Testament as if [one] were living before the coming of Christ.” As noted above with regard to the OT, the exegete must be aware

of the progress of redemption and revelation as one crosses the threshold from the OT into the NT (cf. VanGemeren, 1988). Christian theological reflection on the OT must not address issues from an exclusively “BC” framework, but it must also not read NT

developments into OT theological themes (cf. Bruce). For example, David’s plea to God not to remove the Holy Spirit from him (Ps 51:11[13]) must be understood within the OT context, when the divine Spirit was given in order to equip individuals, some-

202

Guide

times temporarily, for a specific task or service. David had personally witnessed how Saul, following his disobedience to God’s commands, had been cast away from the divine presence and “lost” the Spirit, a fate that David greatly feared (cf. 1 Sam 15:35; 16:14; 28:6). The temptation is great to read a NT understanding of salvation into various OT terms, which, in their OT contexts, primarily refer to temporary, often corporate, deliverance from death or the enemy. Lev 18:5 (“Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD”) is no promise of eternal life through adherence to the law (cf. Kaiser, 1971). Nevertheless, the theological development of the theme of salvation in the OT is certainly analogous to that in the NT. The OT assures the Israelite of forgiveness for sins through its sacrificial system (Lev 4:21, 26, 31, 35), just as certainly as the NT does on the basis of Jesus’ sacrificial death, so

that its sacrifices cannot be viewed simply as a typological preparation for the crucifixion. The prayers and praise of the psalmist cannot be viewed as simply the well-worn formulas of an institutionalized religion but rather as reflecting a genuine personal faith and confidence in God that is comparable to that expressed by NT believers. (On OT soteriology, cf. J. S. Feinberg, Part 4; and Farris.) It already has been noted that an eschatological perspective is evident even in the Pentateuch. Though 1 Pet 1:10-12 states that the OT prophets knew that they there were serving us when they spoke of future things, both ancient Israel and the contemporary church find themselves “between the times” of prophecy and fulfillment. However, the Christian exegete cannot simply mine the prophets seeking eschatological details to fill out his or her chart of the last days. The strongly covenantal and national emphasis of OT eschatology with its abundance of rich imagery must not be flattened and spiritualized as now occurring in the church. The larger context of the new covenant passage (Jer 30-33) primarily describes the promised restoration of covenant blessings to Israel through the transformation of the people to guarantee obedience and through the raising up of a righteous (messianic) leader to rule over them (cf. Walton’s chart of the subjects covered in “aftermath oracles,” 1994, 135; also see Dumbrell,

1994). Both OT Israel and the church look forward to the coming of the Messiah. As a result of the renewed interest in the relationship between the Testaments,

the interpreter has been provided with helpful discussions and syntheses to aid in the responsible interpretation of the OT text within the context of biblical theology (cf. Childs, 1992; Fuller). Nevertheless, one of the most helpful tools is to study how the

NT interprets and applies specific OT texts in profoundly theological, though sometimes confusing ways (cf. Beale). As the interpreter diligently seeks to integrate OT theology and exegesis, he or she can be assured that this is not simply an academic exercise but an essential step toward personally appropriating its message, for “everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope” (Rom 15:4). BIBLIOGRAPHY

K. T. Aitken, “Hearing and Seeing: Metamorphoses of a Motif in Isaiah 1-39,” in Among the Prophets, Language, Image and Structure in the Prophetic Writings, JSOTSup 144, 1993, 12-41; R. B. Allen, “The Theology of the Balaam Oracles” in Tradition and Testament [Feinberg FS], 1981, 79-119; B. W. Anderson, ed., Creation in the Old Testament, 1984; G. K. Beale, ed., The

Right Doctrine From the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New,

203

Guide 1994: J. Becker, Gottesfurcht im Alten Testament, 1965; W. A. M. Beuken, “MiSpat: The First Servant Song and Its Context,” VT 22, 1972, 1-30; M. G. Brett, Biblical Criticism in Crisis? The Impact of the Canonical Approach on Old Testament Studies, 1991; J. Bright, The Authority of the Old Testament, 1975; F. F. Bruce, New Testament Development of Old Testament Themes, 1968; C. V. Camp, Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of Proverbs, 1985; B. S. Childs, Bibli-

cal Theology of the Old and New Testaments. Theological Reflections on the Christian Bible, 1992; idem, “The Canonical Shape of the Book of Jonah,” in Biblical and Near Eastern Studies [LaSor FS], 1978, 122-28; idem, Introduction to the Old Testament As Scripture, 1979; idem,

Old Testament Theology in Canonical Context, 1985; R. E. Clements, “Patterns in the Prophetic Canon,” in Canon and Authority, 1977, 42-55; idem, Wisdom in Theology, 1992; D. J. A. Clines,

The Theme of the Pentateuch, 1978; P. Cotterell and M. Turner, Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation, 1989; P. C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, NICOT,

1976; A. Cundall, “Judges—An

Apology for the Monarchy?” ExpT 82, 1970, 178-81; E. Dassmann and G. Stemberger, eds., JBTh 5: Schépfung und Neuschépfung, 1990; T. Donald, “The Semantic Field of ‘Folly,’” VT 13, 1963, 285-92; W. J. Dumbrell, Covenant & Creation: An Old Testament Covenantal Theology, 1984; idem, The Faith of Israel: Its Expression in the Books of the Old Testament, 1988; idem,

“In Those Days There Was No King in Israel; Every Man Did What Was Right in His Own Eyes.’ The Purpose of the Book of Judges,” JSOT 25, 1983, 23-33; idem, The Search for Order: Biblical Eschatology in Focus, 1994; L. M. Eslinger, “Inner-Biblical Exegesis and Inner-Biblical Allusion: The Question of Category,” VT 42, 1992, 47-58; T. V. Farris, Mighty to Save: A Study in Old Testament Soteriology, 1993; G. D. Fee and D. Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding the Bible, 1993; J. S. Feinberg, ed., Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, 1988; M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 1985; G. Fohrer, et al., Exegese des Alten Testamentes, 1979, 99-109; M. Fox, “Words for Wisdom,” ZAh 6, 1993, 149-69; D. P. Fuller, The Unity of the Bible: Unfolding God’s Plan for Humanity, 1992; H. Gese, Essays on Biblical Theology, 1981; R. Girdlestone, The Building Up of the Old Testament, 1912; J. Goldingay, Models for Interpretation of Scripture, 1994; idem, Theological Diversity and the Authority of the Old Testament, 1987; G. Hasel, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate, 1991; P. R. House, The Unity of the Twelve, 1990; W. G. Jeanrond, Text and Interpretation As

Categories of Theological Thinking, 1988; J. Jeremias, “OEWrim ersten Gottesknechtslied,” VT 22, 1972, 31-42; W. C. Kaiser, Exodus, EBC 2, 1990; idem, “Leviticus and Paul: ‘Do This and

You Shall Live’ (Eternally?),” JETS 14, 1971, 19-28; idem, Toward an Exegetical Theology, 1981; idem, Toward an Old Testament Theology, 1978; D. Kendall, “The Use of Mixpat in Isaiah

59,” ZAW 96, 1984, 391-405; W. W. Klein, C. L. Blomberg, R. L. Hubbard, Jr., Introduction to fiir Siinde im AT, 1965; H. J. KoorBiblical Interpretation, 1993; R. Knierim, Die Hauptbegriffe evaar, De Opbouw van het Boek Jozua, 1990; J. Kugel, “On the Bible and Literary Criticism,” Prooftexts 1, 1981, 99-104; J. K. Kuntz, “The Canonical Wisdom Psalms of Ancient Israel: Their Rhetorical, Thematic, and Formal Dimensions,” in Rhetorical Criticism [Muilenburg FS], 1974, 186-222; idem, “The Retribution Motif in Psalmic Wisdom,” ZAW 89, 1977, 223-33; A. Lauha, Kohelet, BKAT

XIX, 1978; J. Licht, Storytelling in the Bible, 1978; T. Longman III and R. B.

Dillard, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 1994; J. P. Louw, “How Do Words Mean—If They Do?” Filologia Neotestamentaria 4, 1991, 125-42; T. W. Mann, The Book of the Torah:

The Narrative Integrity of the Pentateuch, 1988, E. A. Martens, “Accessing the Theological Readings of a Biblical Book,” AUSS 34, 1996, forthcoming; J. G. McConville, Grace in the End: A Study in Deuteronomic Theology, 1993; idem, “Using Scripture for Theology: Unity and

204

Guide

Diversity in Old Testament Theology,” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 5, 1987, 39-57; P. Miscall, “Isaiah: The Labyrinth of Images,” Sem 54, 1991, 103-21; H.-P Miiller, “Formge-

schichte/Formenkritik I,” TRE 11:271-85; R. E. Murphy, The Tree of Life: An Exploration of Biblical Wisdom Literature, 1990; P. R. Noble, The Canonical Approach: A Critical Reconstruction of the Hermeneutics of Brevard S. Childs, 1995; J. Nogalski, Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve, BZAW 217, 1993; M. Oeming, “Text-Kontext-Kanon: Ein neuer Weg alttestamentlicher Theologie?” JBTh 3: Zum Problem des biblischen Kanons, 1988, 240-45; D. Olson,

The Death of the Old and the Birth of the New: The Framework of the Book of Numbers and the Pentateuch, BJS 71, 1985; J. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapter 1-39, NICOT,

1986; L. G.

Perdue, Wisdom & Creation: The Theology of Wisdom Literature, 1994; R. L. Pratt, Jr., He Gave Us Stories, 1990; G. von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, 1972; B. L. Ramm, His Way Out: A Fresh Look

at Exodus, 1974; R. Rendtorff, “The 1993, 146-69; J. H. Sailhamer, “The Understanding Prophecy,” JETS 30, ogy: A Canonical Approach, 1995;

Composition of the Book of Isaiah,” Canon and Theology, Canonical Approach to the Old Testament: Its Effect on 1987, 307-15; idem, Introduction to Old Testament Theolidem, “The Mosaic Law and the Theology of the Pen-

tateuch,’” WTJ 53, 1991, 241-61; J. A. Sanders, Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism, 1984; D. B. Sandy & R. L. Giese, eds., Cracking Old Testament Codes: A Guide to

Interpreting the Literary Genres of the Old Testament, 1995; R. L. Schultz, “The King in the Book of Isaiah,” in P. E. Satterthwaite, et al., eds., The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts, 1995, 141-65; idem, “Numeri/4. Buch Mose,” Das grosse Bibellexikon, 1988, 2:1068-72; idem, The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets, JSOT-

Sup forthcoming; idem, “Unity or Diversity in Wisdom Theology? A Covenantal and Canonical Perspective,” TynB, forthcoming; K.-D. Schunk, “Die Attribute des eschatologischen Messias: Strukturlinien in der Auspraégung des alttestamentlichen Messiasbildes,” ThLZ 111, 1986, 541-52; C. R. Seitz, “Isaiah 1-66: Making Sense of the Whole,” in Reading and Preaching the Book of Isaiah, 1988, 105-26; idem, Zion’s Final Destiny: The Development of the Book of Isaiah: A Reassessment

of Isaiah 36-39,

1991; E. Sitarz, ed., Hére,

Israel! Jahwe

ist einzig.

Bausteine fiir eine Theologie des Alten Testamentes, 1987; D. K. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, WBC 31, 1988; W. VanGemeren, Jnterpreting the Prophetic Word, 1990; idem, The Progress of Redemption: The Story of Salvation from Creation to the New Jerusalem, 1988; J. H. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context: A Survey of Parallels Between Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 1989; idem, Covenant:

God’s Purpose,

God’s Plan, 1994; B. G. Webb,

“Zion in Transformation: A Literary Approach to Isaiah,” in The Bible in Three Dimensions, 1990, 65-84; M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 1972, 244-74; idem, Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East, 1995; J. Welch, Chiasmus in Antiq-

JBL 90, 1971, uity, 1981; G. J. Wenham, “The Deuteronomic Theology of the Book of Joshua,” 1994; idem, 168, 140-48; R. N. Whybray, The Composition of the Book of Proverbs, JSOTSup J and 2 Williamson, M. G. H. Ecclesiastes, NCB, 1989; H. Wildberger, Jesaja, BKAT X, 1982;

Chronicles, NCB, 1982; H. M. Wolf, Interpreting Isaiah: The Suffering and Glory of the Messiah, 1985; G. E. Wright, God Who Acts: Biblical Theology As Recital, SBT 1/8, 1952; R. B. Zuck, ed., A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, 1991. Richard Schultz

205

Guide 11. SEVERAL ILLUSTRATIONS ON INTEGRATING THE GUIDE WITH NIDOTTE IN DOING OLD TESTAMENT EXEGESIS AND THEOLOGY

The uses of NIDOTTE are many. This section is intended to give a basic review of some ways in which the articles in the Guide may provide an integrative framework for exegesis and for doing biblical theology. It is written for those who are at a loss as to how to go from these articles to the lexical and topical dictionary articles. For purposes of illustration, we shall look at two representative texts: Ruth 1 (prose [narrative] genre) and Ps 119:1-8 (poetic genre) of the two genres of biblical literature in the OT. The “steps” are representative of the possibilities entailed by NIDOTTE. Narrative Text: Ruth 1 1. Read (translate) the text, observing temporal and chronological references, characters, dialogue clusters, repetitions, variation, etc. For convenience, these are

marked in the text below as follows: underlining for chronological/geographical references, double underlining for dialogue clusters, italics for repetitions, and bold for variation.

ln the days when the judges ruled, there was a famine in the land, and a man from Bethlehem in Judah, together with his wife and two sons, went to live for a while in the country of Moab. 2The man’s name was Elimelech, his wife’s name Naomi, and the names of his two sons were Mahlon and Kilion. They were Ephrathites from Bethlehem, Judah. And they went to Moab and lived there.

Now Elimelech, Naomi’s husband, died, and she was left with her two sons. 4They married Moabite women, one named Orpah and the other Ruth. After they had lived there about ten years, Sboth Mahlon and Kilion also died, and Naomi was left without her two sons and her husband.

When she heard in Moab that the LORD had come to the aid of his people by providing food for them, Naomi and her daughters-in-law prepared to return home from there. With her two daughters-in-law she left the place where she had been living and set out on the road that would take them back to the land of Judah. 8Then Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, “Go back, each of you, to your mother’s home. May the LORD show kindness to you, as you have shown to your dead

and to me. °May the LORD grant that each of you will find rest in the home of another husband.” Then she kissed them and they wept aloud l0and said to her, “We will go back

with you to your people.” MBut Naomi said, “Return home, my daughters. Why would you come with

me? Am I going to have any more sons, who could become your husbands? Return home, my daughters; I am too old to have another husband. Even if I thought teresa

still hope for me—even

if I had a husband tonight and then gave birth to sons—

3would you wait until they grew up? Would you remain unmarried for them? No, my

206

Guide

daughters. It is more bitter for me than for you, because the LORD’s hand has gone out E EE EER SANE TGS KONE OU against me!”

14 At this they wept again. Then Orpah kissed her mother-in-law good-by, but

Ruth clung to her. 16T ook” said Naomi, “your sister-in-law is going back to her people and her

_ gods. Go back with her.”

aa

l6But Ruth replied, “Don’t urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. 17 Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the LORD deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me.”

!8When Naomi realized that Ruth was determined to go with her, she stopped urging

1956 the two women went on until they came to Bethlehem. When they arrived in Bethlehem,

the whole town was stirred because of them, and the women exclaimed

“Can this be Naomi?” 20D on’t call me Naomi,” she told them. “Call me Mara, because the Almighty

has made my life very bitter. 217 went away full, but the LORD has brought me back

empty. Why call me Naomi? The LORD has afflicted me; the Almighty has brought misfortune upon me.”

2280 Naomi returned from Moab accompanied by Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter-in-law, arriving in Bethlehem as the barley harvest was beginning. 2. Assess the nature of the text (see Waltke, “Textual Criticism of the Old Testament and Its Relation to Exegesis and Theology,” p. 51). Look at several commentaries, compare the NIV with other versions, and check the notes in commentaries where the difficulties are in the text and translation. Mark these for further study, if the differ-

ences prove to be significant. 3. Set the text in its historical, literary, and theological contexts by reading several entries in the topical dictionary section: historical figures or events, geographical references (~ Bethlehem, Moab), and the theology of the book (~ Ruth). The article on Ruth by Robert L. Hubbard gives a fine survey of the genre, the literary features, and the theological emphases in the book. We learn that the book is “a short story that narrates events involving ancestors of David” and uses “inclusios and parallelism.” The section on the theological themes highlights several themes, such as love and loyalty (hesed). Hubbard confirms interpretive dimension 2 (above) in that history, literature, and theology interface (see also the introductory essays on history, theology, and hermeneutics by Eugene H. Merrill [p. 68] and V. Philips Long [p. 86]).

4. Develop a literary strategy to the text. (a) Tremper Longman III (‘Literary Approaches and Interpretation,” section G1. Genre, p. 114) challenges the reader to pay attention to the literary genre (incl. 207

Guide

literary context and the choice of words) and its distinctive features in narrative and poetry (see also the essays in Cracking Old Testament Codes: A Guide to Interpreting the Literary Genres of the Old Testament, ed. D. Brent Sandy and Ronald L. Giese,

1995). Longman further gives helpful hints on the four elements to look for in the prose/narrative genre: plot, character, setting, and point of view (section 2a, p. 115). While keeping in mind that Ruth 1 is a part of a larger whole (four scenes), we limit the example to the first scene (ch. 1): (i) Plot/Scene. The narrative begins and ends with Bethlehem. The story begins with a famine in the land that forced Elimelech to leave together with his wife, Naomi, and his two sons, Mahlon and Kilion. Prior to her return to Bethlehem, Naomi had lost

her husband and sons, but had gained a loving daughter-in-law. Instead of being filled with contentment, suggested by the name Naomi, she has become a bitter woman. She renames herself Mara, bitter (> #5252), in the presence of the women of Bethlehem.

Moreover, three times she charges that the Lord has dealt harshly with her. The village also has undergone a change in that the famine is past. This time the town is bustling and prospering as Naomi and Ruth arrive in Bethlehem during the barley harvest. (For an introduction review to deixis—the personal, temporal, logical, and spatial markers

embedded in the text that help the reader/hearer to better understand the flow or movement of the discourse—see the fine discussion by Peter Cotterell [“Linguistics, Meaning, Semantics, and Discourse Analysis,” section 4.4, pp.158-59].)

(ii) Character. The narrator does not describe human characters, but lets their characters come out in their actions, interactions, and especially through their dialogues. He quickly introduces the family, but moves rapidly over the famine, the migration, the death of Elimelech, the marriage of the sons, and their deaths. He is also reticent about giving many details when it comes to Naomi and Ruth. However, “the gaps of the narrative” open up possibilities. Especially through the dialogues we learn that Naomi is bitter, lonely, and argumentative. The character of Ruth comes out through her commitment to Naomi, even when her mother-in-law is adamant on her staying in Moab. Though Ruth has suffered the loss of a husband and has not experienced the goodness of the God of Israel, she is adamant in her insistence to go with Naomi to her people and to serve her God. She leaves Moab with a renewed spirit of commitment and faith, whereas Naomi returns home with bitter sentiments.

(ili) Setting. The setting takes place on the way from Moab to Bethlehem. While on the way, Naomi engages in several dialogues dissuading her daughters-in-law from joining her. Orpah decides to return (Swb) home, but Ruth joins (dbq) Naomi on her journey to Bethlehem. (iv) Point of view. The narrator brings out those facts that are pertinent to the flow of the whole story (Ruth 1-4). In the first scene he presents us with a Moabite woman who has faced death, is facing a bitter mother-in-law, and decides to cling to

her new family. She does not know what will be her lot, but she puts herself under the “wings” of Israel’s God, as Boaz puts it so well: “May you be richly rewarded by the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to take refuge” (2:12). (b) In addition to and complementary with the above analysis is Satterthwaite’s proposal (“Narrative Criticism: The Theological Implications of Narrative Techniques,” p. 125). 208

Guide (i) Repetition and variation. (a) Repetition extends to all four chapters, but again we shall restrict ourselves to the first chapter by italicizing those words that are repeated and that are significant in the development of the plot: died/death, left, go back/return, kissed and wept aloud, your people/God, and Naomi’s charges of God’s injustice. Several of the repetitions are marked by italics or by transliteration of the Heb. word, together with the Goodrick/Kohlenberger number.

‘in the days when the judges ruled, there was a famine (ra ‘Gb, # 8280) in the land, and a man from Bethlehem in Judah, together with his wife and two sons, went (h/k, #2143) to live for a while in the country of Moab. 2The man’s name was Elimelech, his wife’s name Naomi, and

the names of his two sons were Mahlon and Kilion. They were Ephrathites from Bethlehem, Judah. And they went to Moab and lived there. 3Now Elimelech, Naomi’ s husband, died (mwt, # 4637), and she was left

with her two sons. 4They married Moabite women, one named ae and the other Ruth. After they had lived there about ten years, >both Mahlon and Kilion also died (mwt, # 4637), and Naomi was left without

her two sons and her husband. When she heard in Moab that the LORD had come to the aid of his people (‘am, # 6639) by providing food for them, Naomi and her daughters-in-et (kalla, # 3987) prepared to return home (Swb, # 8740) from there. ‘With her two daughters-in-law (kalld, # 3987) she left the place where she had been living and set out (Alk, #2143) on the road that would take them back (§wb, # 8740) to the land of Judah. 8Then Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law (kalld, # 3987), “Go (hlk,

#2143) back (Swb, # 8740), each of you, to your mother’s home. May the LORD show kindness Meesed) to you, as you have shown to your dead (mwt, # 4637) and to me. “May the LORD grant that each of you will find rest in the home of another husband.” Then she kissed them and they wept aloud l0and said to her, “We will go back (Swb, # 8740) with you to your people (‘am, # 6639).” ‘But Naomi said, “Return home (swb, # 8740), my daughters. Why would you come (hlk, #2143) with me? 1S I going to have any more sons, who could become your husbands? !Return home (Swb, # 8740), my daughters; I am too old to have another husband. Even if I thought there was still hope for me—even if I had a husband tonight and then gave birth to sons— 13Would you wait until they grew up? Would you remain unmarried for them? No, my daughters. Jt is more bitter (mar I, # 5253) for ie than for you, because the LORD’s hand has gone out against me!” I4at this they wept again. Then Orpah kissed her mother-in-law good-by, but Ruth clung to her. 157 ook,” said Naomi, “your sister-in-law is going back (Swb, #8740) to her people (‘am, # 6639) and her gods. Go back (Swb, # 8740) with her.”

209

Guide

'6But Ruth replied, “Don’t urge me to leave you or to turn back (Swb, # 8740) from you. Where you go (hik, #2143) I will go (Alk, #2143), and where you stay I will stay. Your people (‘am, # 6639) will be my people (‘am, #6639) and your God my God. 7 Where you die (mwt, # 4637) I will die (mwt, #4637), and there I will be buried. May the

LORD deal with me, be it ever so Seveaely, if anything but death (mawet, # 4926) separates you and me.’ !8When Naomi realized that Ruth was determined to go (hlk, #2143) with her, she stopped urging her. 1956 the two women went on (hlk, #2143) until they came to Bethlehem. When they arrived in Bethlehem, the whole town was stirred because of them, and the women exclaimed, “Can this be Naomi?”

20Don’t call me Naomi,” she told them. “Call me Mara, because the Almighty has made my life very bitter. 217 went away (hlk, #2143) full, but the LORD has brought me back empty. Why call me Naomi? The LORD has afflicted me; the Almighty has brought misfortune upon me.” 225 Naomi returned (Swb, #8740) from Moab accompanied by Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter-in-law (kalld, # 3987), arriving in Bethle-

hem as the barley harvest was beginning. (b) Variation. The new information of the relief in the famine is critical to the

development of the story: “The LORD had come to the aid of his people by providing food for them” (v. 6). Further, Ruth’s clinging and her words of commitment to Naomi break the theme of death. As repetition forms a thematic net (e.g., “return’’) that structures the narrative, so variation (rheme) anticipates a new development (e.g., Ruth’s loyalty). This will be further transformed by the events of chapters 2 and 3. Ruth will demonstrate and extend her loyalty to include Naomi and Boaz. Ultimately the narrator is making the link between Ruth and David, the first dynarch of the house of David and

forefather of the Lord Jesus Christ. (11) Narration and dialogue. For narration, see plot/scene above. The dialogue is an important narrative device in Ruth 1. One can bracket those verses with dialogue markers and discover the movement of the narrative: A. Background: ‘Tn the days when the judges ruled, there was a famine (ra ‘ab, # 8280) in the land, and a man from Bethlehem in Judah, together with his wife ou two sons, went (hlk, #2143) to live for a while in the country of Moab. The man’s name was Elimelech, his wife’s name Naomi, and the names of his two sons were Mahlon and Kilion. They — Ephrathites from Bethlehem, Judah. And they went to Moab and lived there. 7Now vate ea, Naomi’s husband, died (mwt, # 4637), and she was left with her two sons. 4They married Moabite women, one ag Orpah and the other Ruth. After they had lived there about ten years, both Mahlon and Kilion also te (mwt, # 4637), and Naomi was left without her two sons and her husband. °When she heard in Moab that the LORD had come to the aid of his people (‘am, # 6639) by providing food for them, Naomi and her daughters-in-law (kalld, #3987) prepared to return home (wb, #8740) from there. ‘With her two daughters-in-law (kalld,

210

Guide

# 3987) she left the place where she had been living and set out (hlk, # 2143) on the road that would take them back (wb, # 8740) to the land of Judah.

B. Naomi

and her two daughters-in-law:

'Then Naomi said to her two

daughters-in-law (kalld, #3987), “Go (hlk, #2143) back (Swb, #8740), each of you, to your mother’s home. May the LORD show edie (hesed) to you, as you have shown to your dead (mwt, # 4637) and to me. °May the

LORD grant that each of you will find rest in the home of another husband.” C. Response from the daughters-in-law: Then she kissed them and they

wept aloud '°and said to her, “We will go back (Swb, # 8740) with you to your people (‘am, # 6639).” B’. Naomi and her two daughters-in-law: 11But Naomi said, “Return home (Swb, # 8740), my daughters. Why would you come (hlk, # 2143) with me?

Am I going to have any more sons, who could become your husbands? Return home (Swb, # 8740), my daughters; I am too old to have another husband. Even if I thought there was still holope for me—even if I had a husband tonight and then gave birth to sons— ““would you wait until they grew up? Would you remain unmarried for them? No, my daughters. Jt is more bitter (mar I, #5253) for me than for you, because the LORD’s hand has gone out against me!” C’. Response from the daughters-in-law: 4 at this they wept again. Then Orpah kissed her mother-in-law good-by, but Ruth clung to her. D. Naomi and Ruth:

1S“

ook,” said Naomi, “your sister-in-law is

going back (Swb, # 8740) to her people (‘am, #6639) and her gods. Go back (Swb, # 8740) with her.”

D’. Ruth’s response to Naomi: 16But Ruth replied, “Don’t urge me to leave you or to turn back (Swh, # 8740) from you. Where you go (Alk, # 2143) I will go (hlk, #2143), and where you stay I will stay. Your people (‘am, # 6639) will be my people (‘am, # 6639) and your God my God. !’Where you die (mwt, # 4637) I will die (mwt, # 4637), and there I will be buried. May the LORD deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death (mawet, #4926) separates you and me.

”

A’. Background information: '8When Naomi realized that Ruth was determined to go (hk, #2143) with her, she stopped urging her. !9So the two women went on (hik, #2143) until they came to Bethlehem. When they arrived in Bethlehem, the whole town was stirred because of them, and the women exclaimed,

“Can this be Naomi?” B’. Naomi and the women of Bethlehem: 7°“Don’t call me Naomi,” she told them. “Call me Mara, because the Almighty has made my life very bitter (mrr # 5352). 217 went away (hik, # 2143) full, but the LoRD has brought me back empty. Why call me Naomi? The LorD has afflicted me; the Almighty has brought misfortune upon me.”

7

Guide

A’. Background information:22So Naomi returned (swb, #8740) from Moab accompanied by Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter-in-law (kalld, # 3987), arriving in Bethlehem as the barley harvest was beginning.

The dialogue moves from Naomi and her two daughters-in-law to Ruth and from Ruth to the women of Bethlehem. Naomi is able to dissuade Orpah from following her by laying their common misfortune at God’s door and by pitying herself: “It is more bitter for me than for you, because the LORD’s hand has gone out against me!” Ruth will not let Naomi affect her spirit. She speaks clearly and with a strong passion. Naomi stops arguing with her. “When Naomi realized that Ruth was determined to go with her, she stopped urging her” (lit., stopped speaking to her). However, Naomi continued her bitter “composure” when the two women arrived in Bethlehem. Neither the long journey nor Ruth’s commitment had changed her. She was still as bitter as before the journey, as she puts the blame upon God for all her troubles. No, Naomi is far from a pleasant woman to be around. (iii) Selectivity, dischronologous presentation. See character, setting, and point of view (above).

(iv) Ambiguity; persuasion. The narrator leaves the reader with an ambiguous feeling toward Naomi. Who is this lady, after all? Why would Ruth commit herself to her? These questions may not be readily resolved, but at least the questions encourage the reader to be ready for engaging with the next scene (ch. 2). (v) Theological implications. Naomi’s charges of divine injustice are indeed serious, but they receive no clear resolution in the book. Her life changes for the better when the Lord favors Ruth and brings her fully into the covenant relationship through Boaz. God’s providential ways include adversity (ch. 1) and prosperity (chs. 2-4), yet providence cannot be explained. People respond differently to God’s providence, as we can see from Naomi’s complaints and Ruth’s expression of commitment. 5. Select important words that open up the text. One can do this by using the G-K numbering system or the Strong’s numbering system (see the index volume for a correspondence between the two systems). Several verbs suggest further study: hlk (# 2143), variously rendered as go/went, come, set out; Swhb (#8740), variously rendered as go back, return home, take back, turn back; and dbg (# 1815), clung. Nouns of interest are: famine (ra ‘ab [# 8280]), daughter-in-law (kalla [# 3987]), death (mawet, # 4926; see also the vb. mwt, die [# 4637]), hesed (kindness, #2876), and people (‘am, # 6639). In the study of words, one must keep in mind that the location of meaning is at the discourse level, that is, the meaning of the word within the literary unit/chapter and book. In order to maximize the possibilities of working productively with words, read and reread the essays by Peter Cotterell, “Linguistics, Meaning, Semantics, and Discourse Analysis” (p. 134) and by John H. Walton, “Principles for Productive Word Study” (p. 161). We shall now look at several words. (a) The first two are verbs—hlk (#2143, see the lexical portion of NIDOTTE) and Swb (# 8740); they are here used in a nontheological manner. Both verbs bind the narrative together from beginning to end. The verb Alk forms an inclusion as, on the one hand, the family of Elimelech “went (h/k, # 2143) to live for a while in the country of Moab” (v. 1) and, on the other, Naomi and Ruth arrive in Bethlehem, “So the two women went (hlk, #2143) on until they came to Bethlehem” (v. 19). Naomi’s words to the women of Bethlehem also hark back to the beginning of the story, “I went away PAD

Guide Se

a

a

a

a

a

(Alk, #2143) full, but the LoRD has brought me back empty” (v. 21). This comment expresses the pain of a bitter woman and is not a reflection on Ruth’s commitment to stick it out with her tough mother-in-law, or is it? Upon hearing of the reversal of fortune in Bethlehem, Naomi and her two daughters-in-law, Ruth and Orpah, “set out (hlk, # 2143) on the road that would take them back (Swb, # 8740) to the land of Judah”

(v. 7). The departure and dialogues employ the two verbs (hik and Swb) in close connection as the women are on the road of return (Swb), because at issue is the question ~ which way Ruth and Orpah will “return.” Naomi wants them to return to Moab: “Go (Alk, # 2143) back (Swb, # 8740), each of you, to your mother’s home” (v. 8, cf. vv. 11, 12). Orpah decides to go to her home (vv. 14, 15), whereas Ruth is determined to go (hlk) with Naomi (v. 16), and, even more, she commits herself to the God of Naomi: “Where you go (hlk, #2143) I will go (hlk, #2143), and where you stay I will stay.

Your people (‘am, # 6639) will be my people (‘am, # 6639) and your God my God” (v. 16). So they arrive at Bethlehem, having “returned” from Moab at an opportune time: “So Naomi returned (Swb, # 8740) from Moab accompanied by Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter-in-law, arriving in Bethlehem as the barley harvest was beginning” (v. 22). The closure is complete. The story began with a famine and a departure from Bethlehem (v. 1) and ends with the arrival of Naomi and Ruth and a harvest in Bethlehem (v. 22). The use of hlk, go, is further developed in Ruth. For example, Boaz blesses Ruth in that she did “not run (h/k) after the younger men, whether rich or poor” (3:10).

Even though a different English verb is used (“run after”), the Heb. employs the same verb as in the first chapter. The narrator brings out aspects of Ruth’s character in relation to her mother-in-law and also to Boaz. Ruth is not indecisive, but is a woman of

commitment. Thus, the text presents a kind of scaffolding in that themes are related to each other as through a network of words, carefully chosen to give cohesiveness and coherence to the text. (b) The verb dbg (# 1815) is also a key word. The author of the lexical entry observes that “the vb. is also commonly used metaphorically to express a state of loyalty, affection, or close proximity.” The concordance study reinforces the importance of the choice of this word in that dbg refers to Ruth’s close connection with Naomi and with Boaz, who says, “Stay here (dbqg) with my servant girls (2:8). ... Follow (hlk)

along (v. 9).” Naomi likewise encourages Ruth to “stay with (dbg) my they finish harvesting all my grain” (v. 21). The narrative closes with an doing what she has been counseled to do: “So Ruth stayed close (dbq) girls of Boaz to glean until the barley and wheat harvests were finished”

workers until image of Ruth to the servant (v. 23).

Though the NIV renders the word differently (cling, stay here, stay with, stay close), you can find the various translations of the word by looking at entry # 1815 in the “Hebrew to English Index-Lexicon of the Old Testament” at the end of NIVEC. A faster way of locating the other texts in Ruth with the word dbg is by using a Hebrew concordance, such as George V. Wigram, The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons; 3d ed. 1874;

repr. Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), the recently published Hebrew-English Concordance of the Old Testament (ed. John R. Kohlenberger III and James A. Swanson, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), or for the student of the Hebrew Bible the A

213

Guide

New Concordance of the Bible: Thesaurus of the Language of the Bible (ed. Abraham Even-Shoshan, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989°). Consider other words (synonyms or antonyms) that help one define the nature of dbg, cling, in Ruth. The article on this verb (> # 1815) offers two such possibilities: ’hb, love (> #170; cf. Gen 34:3; 1 Kgs 11:2; Prov 18:24) and hesed (> # 2876; see

TDOT 3:79-84, esp. 83). Both of these are in the semantic field of love. A look at the index volume gives other words in this field: Love, loyalty: ~ ’hb (love, be lovable, #170; ’dhéb, joys of love, #171; ‘ahab, gifts of love, charm, loveliness, #172; “haba I, love, #173); > dbq (stick, cling, cleave, pursue, # 1815; dabégq, cleaving, attached to, holding fast to, #1816); > hbb (love, #2462); > hsd II (show o.s. kind, # 2874; hesed II, loyalty, faithfulness, goodness, # 2876; hasid, faithful, pious, # 2883); > yadid (beloved, #3351; y°didét, darling, #3353); > rhm (love, have compassion, # 8163)

The semantic field may open further possibilities for exploration. Which words are used in Ruth? What is the difference between ’hb, hsd, rhm, and dbq? A study of this kind helps in determining more closely the meaning of dbq in the discourse of Ruth 1. (c) The noun “people” (‘am, # 6639) appears to be a supporting theme. At issue is Ruth’s identity, whether she will remain loyal to her people or to Naomi’s people and God (see the article on people and nation [Nation: Theology]). One can also find

this entry by looking up ‘am in the lexical part of this dictionary. There are two entries for people (‘am): # 6638 and # 6639. The difference lies in the nature of the relationship. The NIVEC follows many dictionaries that make a lexical distinction between # 6638 (‘am I, relative, populace member, citizen) and # 6639 (‘am II, nation). Both

are found in the lexical portion. The former has a full entry; the latter occurs only as a cross-reference to the topical dictionary article “Nation” (by D. Block) in Volume 4. This latter entry is relevant to the text in that it opens the whole field of how Israel understood her own nationhood in relation to other peoples. 6. Determine a theological thrust of the chapter in keeping with the narrative scene, characterizations, and theological implications. From this point, it will be easier

to develop a sermon or a lesson from Ruth 1. However, in so doing, keep also in mind the larger theological framework, namely, the connection of this text within the OT and within the entire Bible. Review the introductory essays: Eugene H. Merrill, “Old Testament History: A Theological Perspective” (p. 68), and Richard Schultz, “Integrating Old Testament Theology and Exegesis: Literary, Thematic, and Canonical Issues” (p. 185). Poetic Text: Psalm 119: 1-8

1. Read (translate) the text, observing repetitions and parallel expressions, variation, and imagery. Again the text is marked: italics for repetitions and parallel expressions, bold for variation, and underlined for imagery:

Blessed are they whose ways are blameless, who walk according to the law of the LORD. Blessed are they who keep his statutes and seek him with all their heart. 214

I a a

Guide thee

>They do nothing wrong; they walk in his ways. You have laid down precepts that are to be fully obeyed. Oh, that my ways were steadfast in obeying your decrees! Then I would not be put to shame when I consider all your commands. TT will praise you with an upright heart as I learn your righteous laws. 3] will obey your decrees; do not utterly forsake me. These verses reveal both repetition (vv. 1-3, vv. 4-8) and variation (vv. 3-8). The varia-

tion is one of person as the psalmist shifts from describing the upright (3rd. pl.; wv. 1-3), turns to the Lord (2d. sing., v. 4), and finally applies God’s expectations to himself (1st, sing.; vv. 5-8).

The repetition comes out in a variety of expressions that present the qualifications and nature of the upright. Positively, they are blameless, responsive to the law of the Lord, keep his statutes, seek him wholeheartedly, and walk in his ways. Negatively, they do nothing wrong. The repetition is suddenly broken up by means of a shift in person in verse 4 (“You”). This shift is concise in comparison to the previous three verses. Variation is further found in verse 5, when the psalmist looks at himself in the light of the qualities of the upright (vv. 1-3) and in view of God’s expectations (v. 4). The choice of vocabulary in verses 5-8 is repetitive and makes connections with verses 1-4. The variation in verses 5-8 consists of two expressions that break the flow of the repetitions: “Then I would not be put to shame” (v. 6) and “do not utterly forsake me” (v. 8). Both of these contain a negation and raise the question as to the condition in

which the psalmist finds himself (see further W. A. VanGemeren, “Psalms,” EBC, 1990, 736-63). 2. Assess the nature of the text (see Waltke, “Textual Criticism of the Old Tes-

tament and Its Relation to Exegesis and Theology,” p. 51). Look at several commentaries, compare the NIV with other versions, and check the notes in commentaries

to

discover where there are difficulties in the text and/or translations. Mark these for further study if the differences prove to be significant. 3. Read up on the theology of the book of Psalms (Vol. 4) and review the discussion on poetic texts (see Tremper Longman III, “Literary Approaches and Interpretation”: G2b. Old Testament Poetry, p. 118). (a) Consider the genre of the text (see a modern commentary that treats this matter).

(b) Reflect on the primary traits: terseness, parallelism, and imagery. (i) Terseness (see Longman’s article, p. 119). The basis for this observation is, of course, the Heb. text, because the English translations at times supplement the terseness with additions. Terseness can be syntactical, structural, or elliptical. Syntactic terseness occurs when particles are left out: “and” (w*), the relative pronoun (Ser),

and the direct object marker (’et). Sometimes the English versions add “and” or a relative pronoun (who, that) to bring out the Heb. text, whereas the original Heb. does not 215

Guide

have them. For example, verses 1-4 manifest some examples of the above in the NIV (underlined), but these are absent in the Hebrew: ! Blessed are they whose ways are blameless,

who walk according to the law of the LORD. Blessed are they who keep his statutes and seek him with all their heart. >They do nothing wrong; they walk in his ways. 4Y ou have laid down precepts that are to be fully obeyed.

The particle “and” does not occur in these four verses in the Heb., though the NIV adds “and” in verse 2: “Blessed are they who keep his statutes and seek him with all their heart.” The relative pronoun is also absent in the Heb. text, but is supplied several times in the NIV. In verse 8 we find one usage of the direct object marker, and this

can be explained as a part of the aleph strophe (’et begins with an aleph): “(et) your decrees I will obey; do not utterly forsake me” (Heb. order).

Some knowledge of Heb. is useful to detect structural terseness, ellipsis, and imagery. Structural terseness takes place by the use of the colon (a short line). Ellipsis takes place when a word or phrase is omitted for purposes of efficiency or artistry. The missing word or phrase can be understood by reading the whole bi-colon or a tri-colon. The reader of the English versions will do well to observe these phenomena, because they explain variations in the English translations. For imagery as another source of terseness, see below.

(ii) Parallelism (see Longman’s article, p. 119). The opening blessing, “Blessed are they whose ways are blameless, who walk according to the law of the LORD” (v. 1), has its parallel in verse 2: “Blessed are they who keep his statutes and seek him with all their heart.”’ These two lines complement each other, as the psalmist defines the blameless in terms of walking “according to the law of the LORD,” keeping “‘his statutes,” and of seeking the Lord with all (one’s) heart” (vv. 1-2). The colons are constructed in

such a way that they define the qualifications for happiness in relation to each other: “Blessed are they whose ways ... Blessed are they who” (a and a’). Those who are “blameless” (b), “seek him with all their heart” (b’). Finally, the second and third colons are linked together by their common reference to the law of God: “walk according to the law of the LORD ... keep his statutes” (c and c’) The interlocking of the various expressions is semantically significant as the phrases can be explained in relation to each other: a. Blessed are they b. whose ways are blameless, c. who walk according to the law of the LORD. a’. Blessed are they who c’. keep his statutes b’. and seek him with all their heart. (iii) Imagery and figurative language (see Longman’s essay, p. 120). The stanza is bound together by the theme of the “way” in which the godly live their lives:

216

Guide

“Blessed are they whose ways (derek) are blameless, who walk (hik) according to the law of the LorD. ... they walk (h/k) in his ways (derek). ... Oh, that my ways (derek) were steadfast” (vv. 1, 3, 5). The image of a path is further enhanced by the choice of

verbs “walk” (hlk) and be “steadfast” (kwn). Attention to the literary and imaginative expressions enriches the imaginative representation of the text. Be sure to develop a greater sensitivity to the literary features of the biblical text (see Longman’s bibliography, esp. W.

G. E. Watson,

Classical

Hebrew

Poetry,

1984, and L. Ryken

and

- T. Longman III, A Complete Literary Guide to the Bible, 1993). (c) Reflect on the secondary traits (see Longman’s article, p.121): (i) Acrostic. Psalm 119 is a complex acrostic, developing the acrostic in eight bi-colons from the first letter to the last. (ii) Stanzas and strophes. Psalm 119 exemplifies nicely the usage of stanzas in biblical literature, as the 176 verses are divided into 22 stanzas of 8 verses each. 4. Whenever feasible, set the text in its historical, literary, and theological contexts by reading several entries in the topical dictionary section: concepts (e.g., law of God), historical figures or events, geographical references, the theology of the book (> Psalms), and search for any other relevant topics in the Index of Subjects (Vol. 5).

5. Study the first strophe exegetically and theologically by using the lexical entries in NJDOTTE. One can find the appropriate numbers by using NIVEC (see above under Ruth 1). There are many fascinating possibilities: ' Blessed (asré, # 897) are they whose ways (derek, # 2006) are blameless (tamim, #9459), who walk (hlk, # 2143) according to the law (t6rd, # 9368) of the LORD.

Blessed (’airé, # 897) are they who keep (nsr, # 5915) his statutes (‘édiit, # 6343) and seek him (drs, # 2011) with all their heart (/éb, # 4213).

3They do nothing wrong (‘awld, # 6406); they walk (hlk, #2143) in his ways (derek, # 2006). 4Y ou have laid down (swh, # 7422) precepts (piqqidim, #7218) that are to be fully obeyed (Smr, # 9068). 5 Oh, that my ways (derek, # 2006) were steadfast (kwn, # 3922)

in obeying (Smr, # 9068) your decrees (hog, # 2976)! Then I would not be put to shame (bws, #1017) (nbt, # 5564) all your commands (miswd, # 5184).

when

J consider

TT will praise (ydh, # 3344) you with an upright heart (ébab, # 4222) as I learn (Imd, # 4340) your righteous laws (mispat, # 5477).

87 will obey (mr, # 9068) your decrees (hog, # 2976); do not utterly forsake (‘zb, # 6440) me.

Select important words that will further open up the text. The numbers above are based on the system used throughout NIDOTTE: The NIV Exhaustive Concordance (= NIVEC; if you know the number based on Strong’s, use the Index for a conversion

to NIVEC in the back of this concordance). The perusal of the numbers in the text (above) reveals the repetition of several words: blessed (# 897; vv. 1, 2); ways (# 2006;

217

Guide

vy. 1, 3, 5); walk (# 2143; vv. 1, 3); heart (# 4213/4222; vv. 2, 7); decrees (# 2976; vv. 5, 8); obey(ed) (# 9068; vv. 4, 5, 8). There is also a striking use of variation in the choice of words for God’s law—statutes (# 6343), precepts (#7218), commands (#5184), and righteous laws (#5477)—and verbs (synonyms) for obedience—keep (#5757), seek (#2011), steadfast (# 3922), consider (#5564), praise (# 3344), and learn (# 4340).

To maximize the possibilities of working productively with words, read and reread the essays by Peter Cotterell, “Linguistics, Meaning, Semantics, and Discourse

Analysis” (p. 134) and by John H. Walton, “Principles for Productive Word Study” (p. 161). Also consider developing some greater understanding of one or more topics: blessing in the Old Testament (bold); words for the law of God (double underlining;

~ Law of God: Theology); expressions for commitment to God orresponse to God’s revelation (italics); expressions for the quality of commitment (underlined). By categorizing the diverse elements of the strophe, the repetition as well as variation (note that vv. 6a and 8b stand out by themselves), one can open up a structure that reveals the following flow or logic of the text: A. Blessing on all the godly, vv. 1-3 B. God is the source of godly living, v. 3 A’. The psalmist wants to be a godly person, vv. 5-6 B’. The psalmist’s response to God’s revelation, vv. 7-8

6. Determine a theological thrust of this stanza in keeping with the choice of vocabulary, the poetic features of repetition and variation, and the structure. From this point, it will be easier to develop a sermon or a lesson from Ps 119:1-8. However, in so doing, keep also in mind the larger theological framework, namely, the connection of this text within Ps 119, the book of Psalms, the OT, and the NT. Review the introductory essays: Eugene H. Merrill, “Old Testament History: A Theological Perspective” (p. 68) and Richard Schultz, “Integrating Old Testament Theology and Exegesis: Literary, Thematic, and Canonical Issues” (p. 185). Willem A. VanGemeren

218

THE NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY OF OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY AND EXEGISIS

Lexical Articles § to Tt

=

oo

~

ke,

ty

og

pire

(AS

Dieta aa

ty 3).

jy wt's tw

I

Purge

whee

Lo

ees

vw

antes.

Li BATT

a

“

re

rer ae

tas

Set

aA alt Bd ag

anta ii

em

DLN sg (4 Pia

(a GaaSi, peet apa 4 Bray commande | yy

veaabaeEheR ee

ae

g Sed. seine K ‘haa at

Gt, Ge ips satiducts valy withweer.

t ingpiaah Macaig Semantics; wad

ray Hid eh “Trinclplanta] iharuioksWard. vai swe? devel istiy ire ae su barsaad (Hi tester vagni (hutch? ners fy eae st

crePond hedhogts# pestle

ET | 16sLAMOHRS

Mold:

pemoner

‘Mr Faate or Tcgthe # 8657]/matteh [> #4751]); the clan (miSpahd, > #5476); and the household (bét-’ab). It was the last of these that had the greatest social importance for

individual Israelites and in the organization of society. Though often translated “family,” it was much broader than the modern nuclear family, including up to three or four generations of sons and their wives and dependents living under the authority of a living “head of a father’s house.” This extended family, with its share in the land, was the

basic unit of Israel’s social structure, economic system of land-tenure, and covenantal relationship with Yahweh. With such social, economic, and theological importance attaching to the family, the role of parents was correspondingly crucial. The term bét-’ab (“father’s house”) points to the patriarchal nature of Israelite society (though four texts refer to “mother’s house,” Gen 24:28; Ruth 1:8; S of Songs 3:4; 8:2). But there are many indications that mothers had a social and spiritual importance that is often overlooked. The terms occur together (“father and mother,” or vice

versa and plurals) some 40x. Honoring both parents is at the heart of the ten commandments (Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16), and the mother comes first in the command to “respect” (lit. “fear”’) them as part of national holiness (Lev 19:3). Both were to be heeded and obeyed (Prov 1:8; 15:20; 19:26; 20:20; 23:22-25; etc.). The reciprocal

wig

DN (#3) responsibility was parental teaching. First laid as a duty on Abraham as the vital ethical link between his election and God’s mission to the nations (Gen 18:19), this is stressed in Deut as a part of that obedience that would ensure continued possession of the land (Deut 4:9; 6:7; 11:19; 32:46-47). Five texts specify a father’s reply to a son’s questioning and clearly indicate his didactic, possibly catechetical, role (Exod 12:26-27; 13:14-15; Deut 6:20-25; Josh 4:6-7, 21-23). Each of these relates to some central fea-

ture of Israel’s history or cult, and thus stresses the role of parental teaching in the preservation of the traditions and thereby the continuity of the covenant relationship. Although the father is specified in these didactic texts, the mother’s teaching role is found in Prov 1:8 and 6:20 (“the téraé of your mother’), even for the benefit of kings (Prov 31:1-9).

In legal affairs, the father (especially the head of the father’s house) had authority to act in certain matters without reference to “civil” courts (the rest of the elders in the gate): e.g., on divorce, slavery, and discipline within the household. Likewise, the father gave legal protection even to an adult son (Judg 6:30-31, 2 Sam 14:7), unless he was a “fool” (Job 5:3-4), and he was required to act impartially regarding the rights of the firstborn (Deut 21:15-17). The law of the rebellious son (who was not just a naughty child) shows that only after the failure of internal family discipline did the matter come before the elders in public court (Deut 21:18-21). This last case is one of

several where the mother is mentioned alongside the father in legal texts. Her required presence (v. 19) was doubtless an additional protection for the son from a merely vindictive father. Similarly, the mother acted along with the father in protection of a daughter accused of premarital infidelity (Deut 22:15-21). Her social and legal status as mother (Exod 21:15, 17; Lev 19:3; 20:9; Deut 27:16; cf. Zech 13:3) is one of many factors that rule out the mistaken (but still canvassed) view that the wife in Israel was legally the chattel property of her husband (Wright, 1990, 183-221), since it would

seem hard to reconcile this attitude of honor and respect for the mother with the alleged inferiority and suppression of the wife. There is plenty of evidence of mothers taking public initiative and exercising considerable influence, domestically (Gen 27; Judg 17) and particularly as queen mothers (1 Kgs 1:11, etc.). Though children were legally the property of the father, the circumstances in which this had any economic reality were limited to situations where the “property” was damaged or devalued (e.g., Exod 21:22; 22:16-17; Deut 22:13-19), or where debt

or poverty forced the sale of children into concubinage or as debt pledges (Exod 21:7-11; 2 Kgs 4:1-7; Neh 5:1-5). However, this did not give the father absolute power over children in terms of a judicial right of life and death. In Gen 38:24 a father passes a death sentence on a daughter-in-law

(not carried out), but in the post-settlement

period there is no example of this. Rather, Deut 21:18-21 explicitly places such power only in the hands of the civil elders. Vicarious punishment of children for the father’s crime was also excluded (Deut 24:16; cf. 2 Kgs 14:5-6), which is a different matter

from exceptional cases where a whole family suffered together because of a father’s blatant sin against the covenant community (Num 16; Josh 7). It is unlikely that child sacrifice was ever a legitimate part of Yahwism at any period (Wright, 1990, 222-38). 3. “The fathers.” (a) Positive use. Used of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the term

collectively describes the ancestors of Israel and roots Israel’s existence in God’s loving election of “the fathers” (Deut 4:37; 10:15). The awareness of both continuity and 220

ON (#3) discontinuity between the religion of the patriarchs and Mosaic Yahwism is partly expressed by the identification of Yahweh as the “God of your father” (Exod 3:6, 15), an extension of the patriarchal title “God of (my/your) father” (Gen 26:24; 28:13; 31:5, 29, 42, 53). The greatest single proof of the faithfulness of Yahweh was the gift of “the land that the LORD swore he would give to your fathers” (Deut 1:8 and passim) > “eres (#824). “The fathers” can also describe the generation of the Exodus (Lev 26:45; Josh 24:6, 17), and all subsequent generations who witnessed the mighty acts of God and could tell about them (1 Kgs 8:57; Ps 22:4[5]; 44:1[2]; 78:1-8).

(b) Negative use. The statement that God “punishes the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation” (Exod 20:5; Deut 5:9) must be under-

stood in the context of the solidarity of extended families (of three or four generations living together), in which the sin (especially idolatry) of one generation would affect the others detrimentally; it is not a principle of human judicial action (that is excluded by Deut 24:16). It is more than outweighed by the following “thousands” of generations God desires to bless for obedience (cf. Deut 7:9) and his definitive forgiving nature (Exod 34:6-7; Num 14:18). Nevertheless, the accumulated sin of generations

could be seen as prophets had to selves by laying 18). The proper

finally justifying God’s judgment (2 Kgs 17:14; 21:11-15; 22:13), but resist the tendency of the generation of the exile to exonerate themall the blame on their fathers (Isa 65:7; Jer 31:29-30; Lam 5:7; Ezek response should be repentance and confession that identifies with the

sins of the fathers (Lev 26:40; Neh 9:32-34; Ps 106:6; Jer 3:25; Dan 9:8, 16). Meta-

phorically, the sin of the nation through the generations could be concentrated on the first fathers (Isa 43:27; Hos 12:2-3[3-4]), or on a personified mother (Isa 50:1; Ezek 16:3, 44-45; Hos 2:2[2:4]).

4. Metaphorical use. The term ’ab was used of a variety of social roles that carried authority or exercised a protective or caring function. It could be used of a prophet (2 Kgs 6:21), priest (Judg 18:19), king (1 Sam 24:11), or governor (Isa 22:20-21). A servant used it for his master (2 Kgs 2:12; 5:13). Joseph, as chief advisor and governor, could be called “father to Pharaoh” (Gen 45:8). Job, for his legal protection of the poor, claimed the title “father to the needy” (Job 29:12-16). It was natural, therefore, for such fatherly metaphors to be used in relation to God’s authority, discipline, care, and provision (Deut 1:31; 8:5; Ps 27:10; 68:5[6]; 103:13; Prov 3:12).

Though not commonly, ’ém could also be used in this extended metaphorical sense. Deborah, as judge and leader, is titled “mother in Israel” (Judg 5:7), and this same phrase is used of Abel, a city renowned for its wise counsel (2 Sam 20:18-19). Capital cities were “mothers” (Jer 50:12 [Babylon]; Isa 49:18-21; Ezek 16:20 [Jerusa-

lem]). Job’s calling “corruption” and “the worm” his father and mother may mean submitting to their authority over him in death (Job 17:14). The mother’s womb could be the place where one was already known by God (Ps 139:13-15; Jer 1:5) or the starting point of the moral life, negatively (Ps 51:5[7]) or positively (Job 31:18; Ps 22:10[11]; 71:6). It was also the ultimate basis of human-created equality on which Job made the highest declaration of slaves’ rights in the OT (Job 31:13-15). More often, motherhood

signified comfort (e.g., Ps 131:2), self-sacrificial love, and deep longing and thus was also a natural metaphor for the love of God. Though Yahweh is never directly called “mother,” similar to “father,” there are a number of texts that use maternal metaphors,

ZaA

AN (# 3) or other fem. imagery, in portraying God’s character and behavior (Deut 32:11, 18b; Isa 42:14; 49:15; 66:13; cf. Num 11:12, ironically used by Moses).

5. As a theological metaphor: God as father, Israel as son. Probably the danger of association with fertility cults (cf. Jer 2:27) explains the much less frequent use of parental imagery to describe God’s relationship with Israel, in comparison with covenant and kingship metaphors. Nevertheless, it is a significant strand in OT theology that informed Jesus’ and the NT’s concepts of sonship. The use of ’ab in theophoric names (Joab, Abijah, Eliab, etc.), whether signifying “my father” or “the father” (i.e., of the tribe or nation), shows that the idea of the fatherhood of God was common

enough in the popular life of Israel, even if it did not figure prominently in “official” theology. Possibly the earliest poetic use is Deut 32, where it is linked with God’s creation of Israel (v. 6), Israel’s unnatural desertion (v. 18), and God’s parental discipline (vv. 19-20).

Two well-defined but complementary meanings are expressed through the metaphor. (a) The attitude and action of Yahweh as father towards Israel. This was one of concern, love, pity, and patience, but also discipline and correction. It is characteristic

that when such texts speak of Israel, they use the singular, indicating the whole nation (Exod 4:22; Deut 1:31; 8:5; Ps 103:13; Prov 3:12; Jer 31:9, 20; Hos 11:1). This is also

the dominant note in the portrayal of God as father of the Davidic king as representative of the nation (2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7; 89:26). It also implicitly underlies the language of “inheritance,” especially in Deut (> nhl, # 5706). (b) The expectation of God as father from the Israelites. He is to be viewed as trustworthy, to be respected and obeyed. Texts in this category tend to use the plural “sons” for Israel, indicating the responsibility of all members of the community (Deut 14:1). This aspect can be seen most clearly in those texts where God complains that his fatherly care or authority is being abused or ignored by rebellious, faithless, disobedient sons (Isa 1:2; 30:9; Jer 3:4, 19; Mal 1:6). The combination of these two dimensions, of course, is similar to the dual direction of relationship and obligation in the covenant.

It has been argued, indeed, that, for Deuteronomy at least, father-son relationship and covenant relationship were synonymous (McCarthy). They were not exactly coextensive or coterminous, however. The declaration of Israel’s sonship preceded the exodus and Sinai (Exod 4:22) and remained to be invoked even amidst the ruins of the broken Sinai covenant (Isa 63:16; 64:8; Jer 31:9, 18-20). The father-son relationship between God and Israel contained within itself an element of permanence, which injected hope into an otherwise hopeless situation. Wrath, exile, and loss of land would not be permanent. Yahweh would not abandon his people. The father could not ultimately disown his son. The roots of Jesus’ confidence in his own resurrection may well lie in his core sense of identity as the Son of God, both personally and as Davidic messianic representative of Israel (cf. Acts 2:24-28; Wright, 1990, 15-22; 1992, 125-32). Family, relative, citizen: > ‘ab (father, #3); > ’ah II (brother, kinsman, relative, countryman, # 278); > ’ém (mother, #562); > bén I (son, grandson, member of a group, # 1201); > batI (daughter, granddaughter, # 1426); > ddd (uncle, # 1856); > ham I (father-in-law, # 2767); > htn (become intermarried, become a son-in-law, #3161); > mdda‘ (kinsman, relative, # 4530); — mixpaha (clan, kind, #5476); > ‘am I (citizen, kinsman, relative, # 6638); > ribbéa‘ (member of fourth generation, # 8067); > Sillé¥ (member of sixth generation, # 9000)

Die

=N (# 4) a

Child:

> gdlem (embryo, # 1677); > tap I (children, #3251); > yonéq (young child, # 3437);

> yld (bear, bring forth, be born, # 3528);

> yatom (orphan, #3846);

> mamzér (bastard,

# 4927); > na‘ar (boy, #5853); > ‘6lél (child, # 6402); > t’m (bear twins, #9298); > Adoption: Theology Tribe: > degel (tribal division; standard(s), banner, # 1840); > matteh (staff, rod, scepter, tribe, #4751); > Sébet (tribe, stick, rod, weapon, scepter, # 8657) BIBLIOGRAPHY ABD 2:761-69; ISBE 2:284-86; 3:426-27; TDNT 5:959-74; TDOT 1:1-19; TWOT 1:5-6, 50-51; F.I. Andersen, “Israelite Kinship Terminology and Social Structure,” BT 20, 1969, 29-39; P.A.H.

de

Boer,

Fatherhood

and

Motherhood

in Israelite

and

Judaean

Piety,

1974;

M-J. Lagrange, “La paternité de Dieu dans l’Ancien Testament,” RB 5, 1908, 482-83; D. J. McCarthy, “Notes on the Love of God in Deuteronomy and the Father-Son Relationship Between Yahweh and Israel,” CBQ 27, 1965, 144-47; A. Phillips, “Some Aspects of Family Law

in Pre-exilic Israel,” VT 23, 1973, 349-61; C. S. Rodd, “The Family in the Old Testament,” BT 18, 1967, 19-26; C. J. H. Wright, “The Israelite Household and the Decalogue,” TynBul 30, 1979,

101-24; idem, God’s People in God’s Land: Family, Land and Property in the Old Testament, 1990; idem, Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament, 1992.

Christopher J. H. Wright

4 ANE

2S

3 (2b), shoot (# 4).

The nom. is probably cognate with Ugar. ’ib II (Aistleitner, wus, # 8), but some

relate it to the Akk. inbu to ‘énab, grape [# 6694]), which in turn is related to Ugar. gnb, grape.

OT The nom. is rare (only 2x) and according to contexts suggests plants that are still growing in the ground. S of Songs 6:11 reads, “I went down to the grove of nut trees to look at the new growth (’éb) in the valley, to see if the vines had budded or the

pomegranates were in bloom.” NRSV has “blossoms”; REB has “green shoots”; NAB has “fresh growth”; and NJPSV has “fresh shoots.” In Job 8:12 Bildad refers to a shoot of a plant growing close to the ground: “While still growing (’@b) and uncut, they wither more quickly than grass.” Shoot, bud, growth, sprig, sprout, tendril: ~ zalzal (shoot of vine, #2360);

> ’2b (shoot, # 4); > géza‘ (shoot, stump, # 1614);

> hdter (rod, shoot, # 2643);

> ydneget (shoot, stripling,

# 3438); ~ n°tix6t (tendrils, shoots, #5746); > néser (sprout, shoot, #5916); spring up, grow, prosper, make grow, # 7541)

> smh (sprout, Larry Walker

“IN (bd I). q. perish, be destroyed; become 6

Tas

lost; pi. exterminate,

destroy;

hi. exterminate,

eradicate (# 6); MTAN (“béeda), nom. s.t. lost (#8); JIMS (“baddén), nom. destruction, realm of the dead (> # 11); TJa8 (abdan), nom. destruction (only in Esth 9:5; # 12); TJ2R8 (Cobdan), nom. destruction (only in Esth 8:6 [# 13]).

223

“TON(# 6) ANE. The root ’bd, be lost, perish, is widely attested and found in Akk. (abatu) and Ugar. (’bd), as well as in Phoen., Aram., Arab., and others (HALAT 2; DISO, 1-2).

1. Of the approximately 184x that this vb. occurs, the greater part is found in q. OT (ca. 117x), with pi. (ca. 41x) and hi. (26x) following in frequency. On the pi. of ’bd as factitive (referring to a state or condition) and the hi. as causative (referring to an action and often in the future), see Jenni, SVT 16, 143-57; idem, Pi‘el, 65-67. 2. There are two root meanings, perish and become lost, both of which are also attested in the Akk. abatu (see discussion in TDOT 1:20; cf. abatu A or B in CAD A/1:41-47). The latter is less frequent. Possessions and hope can become lost (Deut 22:3 [also ““bédd]; Ezek 19:5); so can animals (1 Sam 9:3, 20) and Israelites who sometimes behave like them (Ps 119:176; Jer 50:6). In the case of Deut 26:5, it is difficult to decide between perishing or wandering (cf. e.g., TDOT 1:20; Craigie, Deuteronomy, 321; Kreuzer, 162-67).

3. The perishing and destruction can refer to a wide variety of things, usually in the context of judgment: e.g., images (pi., Num 33:52, with 5md; hi., Ezek 30:13), weapons of war (q., 2 Sam 1:27), a harvest (q., Joel 1:11), one’s name (hi., Deut 7:24,

with Most often Deut

md), memory (q., Ps 9:6[7]), wisdom (q., Isa 29:14), and counsel (q., Jer 49:7). often, however, ’bd speaks of divine judgment against humankind. Nations are the object of this judgment; e.g., Egypt (q., Exod 10:7), the nations of Canaan (q., 7:20), the Philistines (q., Amos 1:8; Cherethites, hi., Zeph 2:5), Tyre (q., Ezek

26:17), Ammon (hi., Ezek 25:7, par. Smd), Moab (q., Num 21:29-30), Babylon (pi., Jer

51:55, par. Sdd), and ungodly nations allied against Israel (q., Ps 2:12; 83:17[18]; cf. also Esth 9:6, 12; cf. 3:9, 13). Israel is often God’s agent (e.g., hi., Jer 1:10, par. hrs). Israel, too, is not exempt when her sin prompts God’s wrath (q., e.g., Lev 26:38; Deut 8:19-20 [also hi.]; hi., 28:51, 63, par. Smd; q., Jer 27:10, 15).

4. The judgment described by ’bd is devastating. Yet Yahweh does not make a full end of his people. He declared concerning the house of Israel and the house of Judah that “just as I watched over them to uproot [nts/) and tear down [nts], and to overthrow [hrs], destroy [’bd] and bring disaster, so I will watch over them to build and

to plant” (Jer 31:28). 5. The vb. ’bd also describes the lot of the wicked in contrast to that of the righteous. “Those who are far from you [Yahweh] will perish [’bd]; ... But as for me, it is good to be near God” (Ps 73:27-28; cf. also Prov 10:28; 11:7).

6. In Num 24:20, 24, ’obéd, preceded by ‘“dé, is probably best interpreted as a q. part., understood as an abstract nom., destruction (Wernberg-Meller, 54-57). But, cf. HALAT 3a for the rendering of ‘@ 2 hed by “for ever.” Also on this issue cf. THAT 1:18. 7. The nom. ’“bédd, something lost, is a general term indicating something lost and can refer to almost anything, whether animals, clothing, or money (Exod 22:9[8]; Lev 6:3[5:22]; Deut 22:3). One who found what had been lost was obliged to return it

to the rightful owner (Deut 22:1-3). If one lied about what he had found and kept it and

then returned it, one had to make full restitution and add a fifth of the value (Lev 6:3-5[5:22-24]). If he did not do so voluntarily and was convicted, he had to cep double (Exod 22:9[8]). The nom. ’abdan, destruction, in Esth 9:5 (with hereg, killing) refers to the destruction of the enemies of the Jews, while the variant ’obdan in Esth 8:6 refers to

224

38 (#7) ee a

the annihilation of the Jewish people that had been planned by Haman . 3:5-11). P-B_

(cf. Esth

In 11QTemple* 33:14, ’bd (q.) describes water disappearing into the ground.

Destruction, annihilation, devastation, disfigurement, ruin: > ’bd I (perish, #6); > ’éd (disaster, #369); > blq (devastate, #1191); > dmh IIL (ruin, #1950); > dmm III (perish, # 1959); > hrs (demolish, # 2238); > hbl III (treat badly, # 2472); > hig Il (destroy, # 2746); > ht’ (be destroyed, # 3148); > klh (be complete, perish, destroy, #3983); > krt (cut, cut off, exterminate, cut a covenant, circumcise, #4162); > mhh I (wipe off, wipe out destroy, # 4681); > nsh Il (fall in ruins, # 5898); > nts (break up, # 5995); > nts (tear down, # 5997); > nts (root up, pull down, destroy, #6004); > p’h (dash to pieces, #6990); — pid (ruin, misfortune, #7085); — prr (break, invalidate, nullify, frustrate, foil, thwart, #7296); > sdh II (be devastated, #7400); > rzh (destroy, waste away, #8135); > dd (devastate, # 8720); > Sht (become corrupt, ruin, spoil, #8845); > smd (be exterminated, destroyed, #9012); > tablit (annihilation, # 9318) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDNT 1:394-97; TDOT 1:19-23; THAT 1:17-20; P. C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, NICOT, 1976, 321; E. Jenni, “Faktitiv und Kausativ von 738, zugrunde gehen,” V7Sup 16, 1967, 143-57; idem, Das hebrdische Pi‘el, 1968, (cf. index); S. Kreuzer, Die Friihgeschichte Israels in Bekenntnis und Verkiindigung des Alten Testaments, BZAW 178, 1988; A. R. Millard, “A Wandering Aramean (Deut 26:5),” JNES 39, 1980, 153-55; P. Wernberg-Magller, “Observations on the Hebrew Participle,” ZAW 71, 1959, 54-67. Cornelis Van Dam

fi

“a8

“8 (Obed), nom. right time (hapleg., # 7).

ANE Probable cognates are Arab. adv. ’abadan, continuous, long-lasting, from the vb. ’abada, to last. The Ugar. phrase 5d ubdy, appearing in a number of administrative texts, apparently means “perpetual land grant.” OT 1. The nom. appears only in Num 24:20, 24, in the phrase ‘““dé ’obéd. In these verses, Balaam prophesies destruction for the nations Amalek, Assyria, and Eber that would last ‘“dé ’dbéd, perpetually. Like the synonymous ‘ad ‘olam (#6409), the phrase lacks the philosophical implications of the modern concept of eternity, in which time is envisioned as an entity with an objective, independent existence. Rather, this phrase means something more akin to the English phrase “ever after.” BHS suggests emending the text to ’dbéd because of the obscurity of the nom. (so also Ashley, 504; Albright, 221, suggests yet another emendation). It has also been argued that ’obéd is an active participle form of the Heb. vb. ’bd, perish, with the meaning “ruin” (Wenham, 181; Wernberg-Moller, 55; NIV).

P-B___

The nom. is not attested in postbiblical Heb.

#7); > Open (right time, # 698); > gil I (stage of life, # 1636); Time: > ’dbéd (ever after, ~ zmn (be appointed, # 2374); > ‘dlam (long time or duration, # 6409); > ‘ét (time, #6961); > pa‘am (foot, step, time, #7193); ~ peta’ (instant, #7353); — tamid (continuance,

unceasingness, regular offering, # 9458)

225

Ti7DN #1) BIBLIOGRAPHY

W. F. Albright, “The Oracles of Balaam,” JBL 63, 1944, 207-33; T. Ashley, Numbers, NICOT, 1993; J. Milgrom, Numbers, JPS Torah Commentary, 1990, 209; G. Wenham, Numbers, TOTC, ZAW 71, 1955, 54-67. 1981; P. Wernberg-Meller, “Observations on the Hebrew Participle,”

Anthony Tomasino

8 (“bed, s.t. lost), > #6

9 (“baddoh, destruction), > # 11

ll

yi7a8

Yi738

(“baddén),

MDS

(“baddoh),

nom.

nom.

destruction

destruction

(#11);

(only in

Prov 27:20; #9); < I38 (’bd), perish, go astray, give up as lost, destroy, exterminate

(> #6). ANE.

Akk. attests the vb. abatu A, to destroy, become destroyed (CAD, A/1: 41-45),

but not a nom. with the meaning of the Heb. This is true also of Ugar. ’bd, be destroyed, and Arab. ’abada, run away. Aram. ’bddwn extends the basic meaning of Heb. to the notion of underworld or place of damnation, a meaning also found in Heb. OT The nom. occurs 5x (or 6 with Qere ’bdn for ’bdh in Prov 27:20), 3x as a pair with or parallel to §°’61 (> # 8619; Job 26:6; Prov 15:11; 27:20), once parallel to gbr, bury (> #7699; Ps 88:11[12]), and once paired with mawet, death (> #4638; Job 28:22). In all but the last, then, ““baddén is the grave, the underworld,

or the like,

clearly the meaning in Job 31:12. In Job 28:22 Abaddon and Death are personified as denizens of the subterranean realm. In all cases it is a mysterious place, one of darkness (Ps 88:12[13]) and destruction.

P-B

In Rev 9:11 Abaddon appears with its G translation Apollyon, “the Destroyer”

(BAGD, 95). The term also occurs 4x in the DSS. Death: > ’bd I (perish, #6); > ’“damda (ground, piece of land, soil, earth, realm of the dead, #141); > ’Gs6n (mortal accident, #656); > gw‘ (expire, die, #1588); > hrg (kill, murder, # 2222); > zrm I (put an end to life, #2441); > hedel (realm of the dead, #2535); > hnt II (embalm, embalming, #2846); > mwt (die, kill, execute, # 4637); > gtl (murder, slay, # 7779);

> r°pa’im I (shades, departed spirits, #8327); > 5°’dl (sheol, netherworld, # 8619); > Sahat (pit, grave, # 8846) Burial: > gbr (bury, # 7699) ? Grave: ~ ’“damé (ground, piece of land, soil, earth, realm of the dead, # 141); > bér (cistern, well, grave, #1014); > gadis II (grave, grave-mound, # 1539); > §°’6/ (sheol, netherworld,

# 8619); > Sahat (pit, grave, # 8846)

;

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABD 1:6; NIDNTT 1:462-65; TDNT 1:344-47; TDOT 1:23; THAT 1:19; TWOT 1:3-4; Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels, 2d ed., 1949, 177; U. J. Tromp, Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Netherworld in the Old Testament, BibOr 21, 1969, 80-81.

Eugene H. Merrill

12 (abdan, destruction),

226

> #6

eae

ee

eer

rat

en

DIDN(# 17) ern

13 (‘obdan, destruction), > # 6 14 (bh, willing, accede, consent), > #5838

16 (’“béy, [a cry]), > Particles

ox

—

DIDN (ebiis), nom. feeding trough < O3N(’bs), feed, fatten (> # 80).

(#17);

ANE

Akk. attests abisu, trough.

OT

The word has three uses in the OT. 1. In the proverb, “Where there are no oxen, the manger is empty” (Prov 14:4).

Work creates more work, as Kidner observes, “Orderliness can reach the point of ste-

rility” (Proverbs, TOTC). 2. In one of the questions that the Almighty put to Job (39:9), “Will the wild ox consent to serve you” (i.e., like a domesticated animal), “will he stay by your manger at

night?” 3. Most significant theologically is Isa 1:3, “The ox knows his master, the donkey his owner’s manger, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand.” A greater recognition of ownership and loyalty to a master can be found in domestic animals than Israel showed to the Lord who had created and redeemed them. Trough: ~ ’ébiis (feeding trough, #17); ~ yeqeb (wine vat/trough, winepress, # 3676); > miS’ eret (kneading trough, #5400); > piird (trough [winepress], #7053); > rahat (watering trough, # 8110); > Sdéget (watering trough, # 9216) Francis Foulkes

26

=a

=’3N (abib), ears of grain (# 26).

OT ~ This word may have an Arab. cognate (’bb, “food grass” [G. R. Driver, “Brief Notes,” PEQ 77, 1945, 6-7]) and was the name

of a month in the Gezer Calendar

(ANET”, 320), possibly reflecting the fact that the barley crop is harvested during this month. In Exod 9:31 the LXX translates it as parestékuia, meaning “advanced,” and the word is found in Later Aram. (’“biba@’) with the same meaning. In both of the biblical occurrences it refers to the “heads” or “ears” of grain (Exod 9:31; Lev 2:14). HALAT suggests that this word refers to grain that is already ripe or nearly so, but with soft kernels that can be eaten (1:4). Grain, barley, millet, rice, etc.: > ’abib (ears of grain, #26); > bisqgaldn (fresh stalks [cj.], # 1303); > bar III (grain, corn, # 1339); > gadi¥ I (stack of grain, #1538); > geres (grits, # 1762); > dagan (grain, # 1841); > dohan (sorghum, millet, # 1893); > hitta (wheat, # 2636), > kussemet (emmer-wheat, #4081); > karmel IV (grain, fresh, newly ripened grain, #4152); ~ mlila (grain, grains, #4884); > minnit (rice, #4976); > mos (chaff, #5161); > sdlet

(wheat flour, # 6159); > pannag (parched? grain, meal or flour, #7154); > sebet (grain, bundle of grain, #7395); > sanum (hard, barren [ears of grain], #7568); > gali (parched grain, # 7833); > gama (crops, grain, standing grain, #7850); > S6ra (millet, # 8463); (barley, # 8555); > SibbdletI (ear of grain, # 8672); > Seber Il (grain, # 8692)

> S° ‘Ora

adh

VANE 36) BIBLIOGRAPHY

J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 1991; N. M. Sarna, Exodus, 1991.

Paul D. Wegner

36

[Pas

WAX (‘eby6n), (# 36).

adj. poor,

needy,

oppressed

ANE. The etymology of ’ebyén is uncertain (see TDOT 1:27-28). The most common view is that ’eby6n is related to the Heb. root ’bh, meaning lack or to be in need (> #14). Suggested cognates include the Ugar. ’bynt (CTA 17, I, 17) and the Copt. ebyen, both with the sense of the poor. Most ANE codes of law carried particular protection for such categories as the widow, the orphan, and the poor. In Mesopotamia Urukagina (2400 BC), Ur-Nammu (2050 BC), and Hammurabi (1728-1686) all claimed in their legal inscriptions special protection for the poor and needy (e.g., Code of Hammurabi—telease

of credit slaves after three years, ANET,

164, 178). In the

Egyptian instructions of Amenemope (1000 BC) there is a command not to rob the oppressed or illtreat disabled persons (ANET, 421-24). Finally, from Ugarit the Epic of Aghat describes the gods as “judging the cause of the widow, adjudicating the case of the fatherless” (ANET, 151).

OT 1. Where Western thinking stresses the economic aspect of poverty, the ANE understood poverty in the context of shame and honor. So the possession of land, power, economic security, and social status made a person rich, and the absence of these factors made a person poor. The semantic field of poverty consists of a number of Heb. terms including the following. The most common term is ‘Gni (poor, humble, oppressed, # 6714; 37x) and describes those people who are without their own land and who are consequently in need of economic protection (WJDNTT 2:821). The second term is the related word

‘anaw (oppressed, afflicted, #6705; 81x), which indicates the frequent connection between those who are poor and those who are oppressed. Both the ‘Gn? and ‘anaw are socially dependent on someone of greater prestige (honor) and power. Often such dependence is a consequence of oppression, in that the person has been made poor so that someone else might gain wealth and power. The third term is dal II (low, weak, poor, thin, # 1924; 48x), used, for example, in Amos, to describe the peasant farmers,

many of whom have lost their lands to the wealthy landlords (see Coote, 24-32). The stress is upon the vulnerability of such people and their exposure to abuse at the hands of the powerful, who trample upon their heads (Amos 2:7), their symbol of dignity. The fourth term is ’eby6n (in want, needy, poor, # 36; 61x), which is used for people

who are virtually destitute, the day laborers of the ancient world, completely dependent on others for their daily survival. The fifth term is rws (in want, poor, # 8133; 11x), found chiefly in the Wisdom literature; it stands in contrast to the rich, thus implying those whose social status has destined them to belong to the lower strata of the honor/shame table. The sixth term is miskén (beggar, poor, #5014; 4x), which is another term for the poorest of the poor, found in the Wisdom literature, implying people like beggars, who occupy the lowest ranks in the social table. The seventh term is mwk (poor, #4575; 5x), meaning temporary poverty, and the eighth term is dk’

228

VAN 36) (crush, # 1917; 18x), used often of the crushing of oppression or poverty. (On the roots relating to oppression, see Hanks, 1983.) 2. The various parts of BH enable us to comprehend the basic elements within a biblical theology of the poor. The legal texts evidence a primary interest in protecting the rights of those who make up the lowest rungs of the social ladder, because they are - those people (orphans, widows, and the very poor) whose lack of power makes them vulnerable to abuse. The Jubilee laws (Lev 25) in particular aimed at reversing the condition of these people so as to enable them to regain ownership of land, or ownership of their freedom from slavery and debt, and to restore a sense of dignity as humans, as men, women, and children made in the image of God. The prophets saw a close corre-

lation between the lack of justice and mercy of the rich and the poverty of their own spirituality. Their religion was a mockery, an empty facade, behind which they hid their true motives of greed and violence (Hos 6:6; Amos 5:21-24). Finally the Writings declare that God is the protector over the poor in the face of the powerful (Ps 74:21—‘ani; Prov 22:22-23—dal). The God of the Bible is a God with a passionate concern for those whom society has ostracized and whose lack of power and status has made them especially vulnerable to exploitation—widows, orphans, and the poor (> yatdm, # 3846) (and since the two groups were often linked, e.g., Isa 58:6-7, also the oppressed). In the absence of an earthly kinsman-redeemer, God stands as their protector and guardian (see Daube, 46). 3. The divine concern is expressed initially in the provisions of the legal code of early Israel. The Covenant Code carries two of the earliest protectional clauses for the poor. Illustrating a remarkable understanding of the structural violence of oppression, Exod 23:6 commands that the poor should not be denied justice in the courts. As the poor are often lacking in power and status, in a society structured around the values of honor and shame, to deny them access to true justice through the courts is to render them both powerless and effectively silenced. Most of the poor in BH were subsistence farmers (> dal II), whose link with their ancestral lands was the determining factor in their socioeconomic well-being (TDOT 3:219). For those who had no access to land,

Exod 23:11, which falls within the Sabbath laws and makes provision for a seven-year cycle of fields, vineyards, and olive groves, legislates that in the seventh year the poor would have access to whatever crops came, and the owner of the field or vineyard

would not harvest that year. Presuming that the seventh years did not coincide, at any one time there would be food for the poor of a particular community. 4. A tension exists in Deut 15:4 between God’s expressed will (“there should be no poor among you”) and the conclusion to the pericope, “There will always be poor people in the land” (v. 11). Part of the solution lies in v. 5, which predicates the absence of the poor on obedience to God’s commands. Sin manifests itself in society as poverty and oppression. 5. Few pieces of literature, ancient or modern, come close to the prophetic defence of the poor against the wiles of the rich. Amos cries out against the rich who

abuse the poor by means of slavery (Amos 2:6) through their uncaring lifestyles (4:1),

through their denial of justice (5:12), and by economic exploitation (8:4, 6). The rich have declared war on the poor, but God, who sides with the poor, will fight on their

side (see Coote, 32). On the Day of the Lord, darkness and judgment will come

(5:18-20) and the rich will be taken from the land (v. 27). Whether the Song of Hannah

fhe)

VAN 36) (1 Sam 2:8) or the prophecies of Isaiah (Isa 25:4; 29:19) or Jeremiah (Jer 20213;

22:16), the same message is proclaimed: God will act on behalf of the poor, no matter whether their oppressors are the rich in Israel (Amos 4:1), the wealthy of Jerusalem

(Jer 2:34; 5:28; Ezek 16:49), or a foreign ruler like Babylon (Isa 41:17). Oppression and neglect of the poor is a sin in the sight of God. In the list of sins in Ezek 18:11-13, idolatry, adultery, oppression of the poor and needy, robbery, usury for excessive interest, and failure to return a pledge (cf. Deut 24:12 and Amos 2:8) are ranked together. 6. The Writings proclaim God as the Redeemer of the unprotected (widows, orphans, and resident aliens) against the powerful (Job 5:15), those who would rob

them (Ps 35:10), or those who condemn them (109:31). God hears their cry for help and will act (69:33[34]). “The LORD secures justice for the poor and upholds the cause of the needy (’ebyén),” states the psalmist (140:12[13]). Job defines his righteousness

in terms of his practical provision for the poor (as protector [Job 29:16] and clother [31:19]). Prov 14:31 suggests that a basis for the care of the poor lies in their relation-

ship to God (as people made by God): “He who oppresses the poor (dal II, # 1924) shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.”

7. The psalmist indicates that the quality of a ruler lies in his/her treatment of the poor. Indeed, the touchstone of any society is the condition of the poor. So Ps 72 describes the ideal ruler as one who would defend the afflicted, save the children of the needy, and crush the oppressor (vv. 4, 13), because their blood is precious in God’s sight (v. 14). Here in v. 13, as often in BH (e.g., Job 24:14; Ps 9:19; 12:16; Amos 8:4),

‘ani and ’eby6n are found in poetic parallel, rendered in NIV as “poor and needy.” In the Psalms this phrase occurs most often in individual laments. In antithetical parallelism, the opposite of the rich (‘6Ser or ‘aStr) is never ‘ani but rather ’ebydn or dal (Ps 37:14; 82:3, 4). This suggests that ‘ani might have a wider semantic meaning than just poverty, since the term is most often contrasted with the wicked (r°5a‘im, e.g., Prov 10:2) and oppressors (e.g., Ezek 18:12). dal and ’eby6n are found 3x in parallel in the Psalms (Ps 82:3, 4; 72:13; 113:7), suggesting that they share the same field of meaning, namely, physical poverty. 8. Poverty is a consequence of a number of factors, such as lost ancestral ground (Exod 23:11), borrowing (Deut 15:7, 9, 11), oppression (Isa 10:1-2) and, especially in the Wisdom literature, laziness (Prov 19:15; 20:13). The latter view reflects

essentially the view of the educated elite, for whom poverty is only a threat if they were to become so lazy that they lost their wealth, or, alternatively, wasted it in “riotous living” like the Prodigal Son (Prov 29:3). At times the wicked and the lazy are linked together (Prov 15:19), and at other times the poor and the righteous (Ps 140:12-13[13-14]). BH does not resolve the tension between rich and poor, righteous

and wicked. The poor are not always the righteous, nor are the rich always wicked. 9. The study of the Bible and the poor forms one of the most important areas of theology today. The commencement of such a theology must be God’s concern for the poor and weak (outlined above). In God’s sight all people share equally in the image of God, but some people, on account of their physical, psychological, or socioeconomic situation, are singled out for an extra measure of the protection of God. They are those whom society has undervalued, ostracized, and often rendered powerless. They are the victims of oppression, discrimination, and exploitation. The rich and strong are often able to silence them, to make them weak, and to banish them to obscurity. The God of

230

TV (# 36) the Bible, however,

sees all things and hears even

the voice of the poor and the

oppressed. Following the paradigm of the Exodus, God acts to set oppressed people free, both spiritually and physically. The task facing the church today is to locate itself within God’s initiative, to protect those who have no protector, to feed those who have no breadwinner, to abolish oppression and discrimination, and, in turn, to allow the poor to evangelize the church with a full message of spiritual and physical redemption. 10. Poverty in some cases is used metaphorically to imply a person’s religious need. This stems from the typical style of addressing a superior or the deity by undervaluing one’s own position. At times in the Psalms we read of the writer claiming to be one of the “poor” (e.g., Ps 35:10). One also reads of the poor as a group of the righteous (Ps 18:27; Zeph 3:12 [‘ani, # 6714]), remembering that the poor may be contrasted with the wicked (Ps 37:14). The poor, because they have no natural protector, look to God. In their recognition of God as their Redeemer, they are able to cope with their sense of weakness in the face of the powerful rich (see Weir, 13-15). Their cry for help and protection is heard by God (Job 34:28, dal II, # 1924), and their faith may be contrasted with the absence of such trust on the part of those whose human condition, power, and wealth lead them to feel secure in and of themselves (Prov 15:16; 30:11-14). Moreover, those wicked, who are also rich, may well have gained their

power or possessions at the expense of the righteous (in the sense of innocent) poor. P-B_ 1. The LXX renders ’eby6n primarily by ptochos and the phrase “poor (‘ani?) and needy (’ebydn)” as ptochos kai penés. In the Greek world the two words for poor implied two different levels. penés implied someone who had suffered a temporary economic setback or, being without property, was obliged to earn his/her keep by physical labor or some other form of work. ptochos implied a beggar or someone so poor that they had literally nothing. 2. In Qumran (e.g., 1QH 5:13-14, 16, 18) the sect saw itself as the “righteous poor,” reflecting both their lifestyle and their humility before God. ’ebyén is the most commonly used title of honor for the group (so TDNT 6:897). NT 1. In the NT ptdchos and not penés is the usual form for the poor. ptochos is used 34x, of which ten are in Luke. Jesus quotes Isa 61:1-2 (with a line from 58:6c)

and proclaims that the day (of Jubilee) of good news for the poor has arrived (Luke 4:18-19; cf. 6:20-21). Apart from these occurrences of ptochos, poverty is also to be understood in other contexts. Jesus shows an awareness of the plight of the poor both in his parables (Luke 16:19-31—plousios), and in the prayer that he teaches to his disciples: “Give us today our daily bread” (Matt 6:11), and “Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (v. 12). In the parable of the sheep and goats, Jesus stresses that the care of the poor and needy is considered as an act toward God himself (25:31-40). 2. The beatitude on the poor in spirit (Matt 5:3), often contrasted with that of Luke 6:20, may be understood in one of two ways, not necessarily exclusive of each other. Jesus may be blessing those people who are conscious of their need of God and

so display the attendant sense of humility. Such spiritual humility is evident in Isa

57:15b, where God declares that he lives with the lowly (dakka’ I, # 1918) in spirit, and in the QL, where the community adopted poverty as a self-designation to express their humility before God (1QpHab 12;3, 6, 10; 4QpPs 37 2:10; see TDNT 6:896-99).

231

INH 51) Alternatively, the term might imply those people who are both poor in economic terms and stripped of their human dignity (spirit), as in Ps 109:16, “the poor (‘Gni, #6714) and the needy (’ebydn, # 36) and the brokenhearted.” 3. Outside of the Gospels, James ranks as the most important work on poverty. defines pure and faultless religion as looking after orphans and widows in 1:27 James their distress and avoiding the pollution of the world. In essence the NT captures the spirit of BH in its concern for the poor and oppressed and in its dedication to justice (see Matt 23:23). Poor, crushed, needy: ~ ’ebyén (poor, needy, #36); > dk’ (crush, be crushed, # 1917); > dal II (scanty, helpless, powerless, insignificant, dejected, # 1924); > dqq (crush, # 1990); > mwk (depressed, grow poor, #4575); > miskén (poor man, #5014); > ‘anaw (poor, humble, #6705); ~ ‘ani (humble, #6714); > sn‘ (be modest, humble, #7570); > rw (become poor, oppressed, # 8133) Widow(er): > ’almand (widow, # 530) BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anclsr 1:72-74; NIDNTT 2:820-29; TDNT 6:885-915; R. B. Coote, Amos Among the Prophets, 1981; D. Daube, Studies in Biblical Law, 1969; G. R. Driver and J. C. Miles, The Babylonian Laws, 2 vols., 1956; F. C. Fensham, “Widows, Orphans and the Poor in Ancient Near Eastern

Legal and Wisdom Literature,” JNES 21, 1962, 129-39; S. Gillingham, “The Poor in the Psalms,” ExpTim 100, 1988/89, 15-19; D. E. Gowan, “Wealth and Poverty in the Old Testament,” Jnt 41, 1987, 341-53; E. Hammershaimb, “On the Ethics of the Old Testament Prophets,” SVT 7, 1960, 75-101; T. D. Hanks, God So Loved the Third World, 1983; R. D. Patterson, “The Widow, the Orphan, and the Poor in the Old Testament and the Extra-Biblical Literature,” BSac 130, 1973, 223-34; J. D. Pleins, “Poverty in the Social World of the Wise,” JSOT 37, 1987, 61-78; J. E. Weir, “The Poor Are Powerless,” ExpTim 100, 1988/9, 13-15; R. N. Whybray, “Poyerty, Wealth and Point of View in Proverbs,” ExpTim 100, 1988/9; G. H. Wittenberg, “The Lexi-

cal Content of the Terminology for ‘Poor’ in the Book of Proverbs,” Scriptura 2, 1986, 40-85. W. R. Domeris

43 ('“bimelek, Abimelech), > Abimelech

51

oN

VN (’abir), adj. strong, powerful (#51); VAN

(abbir), adj. strong, powerful (# 52).

ANE The following cognates occur: Sam. ’aber; Ugar. 3br; Akk. ab/pru (strong). The root ’abhar is found in Akk., Ugar., and Aram. (Kapelrud, TDOT 1:42). In Akk., abaru (power, strength [not necessarily that signified by a bull]) occurs, and the possibility exists that the adj. abru is also found (Kapelrud, TDOT 1:42). In Ugar., 3br is usually translated bull or wild ox (Kapelrud, TDOT 1:42).

OT It is widely believed that the reason why the OT has two forms of the adj. is because the Massoretes wished to distinguish the use of the word when applied to Yahweh from its use in other contexts so as to prevent any suspicion that Yahweh -was to be identified with the bull (Skinner, 1969, 531; C. A. and E. G. Briggs, 473; Kapelrud, TDOT 1:42; cf. Oesterley, 531; North, 197-98; Motyer, 396; Hamilton, 681, n. 14).

232

WAN (#51) 1. The form ’abir occurs 6x. In five texts (Gen 49:24; Ps 132:2, 5; Isa 49:26;

60:16) it is used in the phrase “bir -ya““qdb, the Mighty One of Jacob (Albright, 248, translates ’“bir as “the champion of” [cf. Taylor, 685; Speiser, 363, 369]; Watts, 1985, 23, 25, prefers “Hero [of]’”). In Isa 1:24, the adj. occurs in the phrase ’“bir yisra’él, the

Mighty One of Israel. (a) As a result of the powerful protection and assistance given it by the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob (“bir ya““qob, Gen 49:24), the strong, prosperous, and populous tribe of Joseph remained unharmed despite being fiercely attacked and sorely harassed (v. 23). Schreiner (177, n. 1), followed by Fretheim (291), takes the title “the Mighty One of Jacob” to be an epithet of the ark. He points out that the ark was kept in the tribal area of Joseph for a long time after the land had been settled. According to Miller, a title of El as warrior (cf. Ugar. tr, bull) underlies ’abir, and this title was later

transferred to Yahweh in the metaphorical sense of “mighty.” The titles “Mighty One of Jacob,” “Shepherd,” and “the rock of Israel” in v. 24b are said to have a Canaanite flavor (Vawter; Westermann, 1986, 239; Murphy, 43).

Along with the titles magén (the shield [of Abraham], Gen 15:1) and pahad

yishaq (the fear or kinsman of Isaac, Gen 31:42, 53), the title “bir ya““qob has been taken by Alt to be evidence of the earliest form of patriarchal religion, the religion of the god of the father (for a description and assessment of the work of Alt and others in this area, see deVaux, 268-82; Westermann, 1985, 105-21). Alt’s work in this area has been corrected, amplified, and modified by some (e.g., May; Hyatt, 1955; Andersen; Seebass, 49-55) and rejected by others (e.g., Hoftijzer, 84-96; Haran, 51-52, n. 34;

Eissfeldt). Accounts of patriarchal religion are conditioned by the views scholars hold concerning the genre of the patriarchal narratives (McKane, 1979, 195-224). Of considerable theological significance in this context is the fact that one of the principal characteristics of the patriarchal narratives that serves to link them with the later religion of Israel is God’s special intervention on behalf of the weak, the disadvantaged,

and the outcast (Westermann, 1985, 575).

(b) In a liturgy celebrating Yahweh’s choice of Zion and the Davidic dynasty (Ps 132), David’s determination to secure a dwelling place for the Mighty One of Jacob (vv. 2, 5) is recalled (vv. 1-5; cf. 2 Sam 7:2). The dwelling place signifies the presence of God who is mighty to bless and to protect (* Divine Warrior: Theology). Toombs (298) thinks that this ancient divine title was used here to emphasize that under David all Jacob’s descendants lived in political unity. Rogerson and McKay (1977c, 137-38) suggest that its function here may have been twofold: to acknowledge that David’s victories in adversity were due to the support of the Mighty One, and to communicate the intention of David to unite the tribes in common worship at the “dwelling place” (vv. 5, 7)/“resting place” (vv. 8, 14)/“dwelling” (v. 13) of the God of the father of the Israelite tribes. Weiser (780) thinks that the use here of this title for the

deity points to a merging of the (essentially northern) tradition of the God of the patriarchs with the Yahweh cult of the ark of the covenant at Jerusalem, a merger that would not have been accomplished without considerable friction. (c) The helpless, discouraged, and exhausted captive Israel is given the twofold assurance (Isa 49:24-26) that God will rescue her, shattering the power of her oppressors, and that when this has been accomplished all the inhabitants of the earth will acknowledge that Yahweh is Israel’s Savior and Redeemer, the Mighty One of 233

“PIN (#51) Jacob (vy. 26b). According to Knight (1984, 141), the ancient title of God may have

been used here to assure those in captivity that the divine purpose and plan, now about to be revealed to all peoples, are rooted in the distant past of the patriarchal period. It would also have served to underline the fact that the Savior of Israel is the one who wields sovereign power (cf. Westermann, 1969, 222-23). The theme of restoration is echoed in Isa 60:15-16, where once forsaken and despised Zion is promised that she will be exalted, become a joy (cf. Ps 48:2[3]), and receive the wealth of the nations. When she has been gloriously restored, then she shall

acknowledge that Yahweh

is her Savior and Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob

(60:16b). Here, the grief and despair of Lam 2:15 are not just reversed (Herbert, 159),

but are used as a springboard to present the revelation of the nature of Israel’s redeeming God (Knight, 1985, 47). As in Isa 49:26, the use of the ancient title for Yahweh here served to emphasize the sheer power of the Redeemer working as Savior (Motyer, 498). (d) As shown above, the Mighty One of Jacob is the warrior who defends and rescues his people when they are attacked by foreign nations. However, he who is mighty to save can also be mighty to destroy (cf. 1 Peter 4:17) (Oswalt, 106). When those among his own people become his enemies and use injustice to corrupt and destroy the faithful, then God takes decisive action to eradicate the rebels and restore his realm to its former faithfulness (Herbert, 31-32). Because the once loyal Jerusalem has turned its back on justice and righteousness (Isa 1:21-23), Yahweh of hosts, the

Mighty One of Israel (“bir yisra’él [v. 24], a variant of ’“bir ya““qob [Wildberger, 68]), will take punitive action aimed at purifying the corrupt city (vv. 24-25), restoring it to a state of righteousness and faithfulness, and reinstating leaders who will administer justice and rule with wisdom (v. 26b). The titles ha’ad6n yhwh s°ba’6t “bir yisra’él (the LORD, the LORD of hosts, the Mighty One of Israel) are used in v. 24 not only to

emphasize the claims of the Lord of the universe and the God of Israel to the people’s homage (Kissane, 1960, 19), but also to stress the all-inclusive power of Yahweh, who will avenge the broken covenant and purify the city by destroying his enemies among the people (Kaiser, 20), thereby enabling redemption and restoration to take place (Watts, 1985, 26). This assemblage of divine titles calls attention to the one who is sovereign in status (ha’adon, the Lord [used in Isa only in introducing a threat; see Skinner,

1909,

10; Oswalt,

106]), omnipotent

(yhwh

s°ba’ét, Yahweh

of hosts), and

absolute ruler of his people (’“bir yisra’ él,the Mighty One of Israel) (Motyer, 49). 2. The word ’abbir occurs 17x and in a variety of contexts. (a) The word is used 6x poetically with the meaning “bull” (Ps 22:12[13]; 50:13; 68:30[31]; Isa 10:13; 34:7; Jer 46:15). In a state of intense anguish, physical

exhaustion, and deep despair, a psalmist (Ps 22:12[13]) who feels abandoned by God uses the striking metaphor (’abbiré basan, strong bulls of Bashan [a district east of the Jordan renowned for its rich pastures, prime cattle, and powerful and fierce bulls; cf. Amos 4:1]) both to describe the brutishness, strength, and ferocity of relentless evildoers who harass him and threaten his life (cf. Davison, 121; Dummelow, 338; Oesterley, 179; Taylor, 119; Kissane, 1964, 100) and to evoke the abject terror and powerlessness

that overcome him at the sight of his tormentors (Weiser, 223; Craigie, 200). Several commentators (e.g., Kraus, 1988, 296-97; Mays, 110; cf. Toombs, 268; Rogerson and McKay, 1977a, 31-32, 72, 100; 1977b, 43; A. A. Anderson, 189) have drawn attention

234

AN 51) to the use of similar metaphors in the literature of the ANE to refer to demonic powers and have argued that a similar

usage

may sometimes be found in the Psalter (cf. Eaton,

35, 73). It is widely accepted that animals are often used in the OT as emblematic or figurative designations of certain nations (Buttenwieser, 605), but not all commentators think it likely that the metaphorical use of the names of animals in the OT was a means of designating demons (see, e.g., Weiser, 223). The absurd notion that the Creator and absolute sovereign of the universe requires animal sacrifices for food is repudiated in Ps 50, where Yahweh, who demands from his people prayer and thanksgiving rather than abundant sacrifices, asks the rhetorical question: “Do I eat the flesh of bulls?” (b°sar ’abbirim, Ps 50:13; cf. Ps

40:6-8[7-9]; 51:15-17[17-19]; Isa 1:10-20; Jer 7:21-28; Amos 5:21-27; Mic 6:6-8). This is a rejection of the primitive and naive idea of sacrifice, according to which the god(s) partook of the offerings physically (Smith, 213-440; Davison, 257; Dummelow, 349; Kirkpatrick, 281; Bratcher and Reyburn, 462; cf. Dahood, 1966, 308, who thinks

that there is here an allusion to the carnivorous goddess Anath). Although it is unlikely that those passages in the OT that refer to certain offerings as the food of God (Lev 3:11; 21:6, 8, 17, 21; Num 28:2; Ezek 44:7) were intended to be taken literally, it is

probable that some worshipers had a literal understanding of this sacrificial terminology (Rogerson and McKay, 1977a, 238; A. A. Anderson, 386). Ps 50 as a whole also makes the important point that, however appropriate it may be as a symbol of veneration and adoration (Kraus, 1988, 493), as an expression of need, and as an acknowledgment of answered prayers (cf. Eaton, 138), punctilious observance of sacrificial ritual is no substitute for obedience and faithful adherence to the covenant requirements and will be impotent to allay God’s wrath or avert his judgment for violation of the covenant. No amount of ritual can compensate for the lack of love, compassion, and sincerity.

In a prayer for victory against enemies, Yahweh is asked to rebuke, crush, and scatter “the beast among the reeds, the herd of bulls (‘“dat ’abbirim)” (Ps 68:30a[3 1a]). While there seems little doubt that the words “the beast among the reeds” refer to

Egypt, there is considerable debate about the meaning of ‘““dat ’abbirim. Many (e.g., Dummelow,

356; Addis, 385; Kirkpatrick, 394; G. W. Anderson, 427; Dahood, 1973,

149-50; M’Caw and Motyer, 493) think that the bulls symbolize foreign kings. Some take “dat ’abbirim to be a reference to Egypt, parallel with line a (see, e.g., FRCL; cf. Dahood, 1973, 150, who thinks it refers specifically to Pharaoh’s generals). C. A. and

E. G. Briggs (104) take the phrase to refer to the eastern nations under the dominion of Persia. Others think that the herd of bulls is a figure for Babylonia (Buttenwieser, 270; Kissane, 1964, 298). Observing that Baal was conceived in the form of a bull (symbolizing sexual prowess) among the Canaanites, Knight (1982, 315) takes the clause to be

a general reference to bull worshipers.

As for the words following ‘“dat ’abbirim, b°‘eglé ‘ammim, among the calves of the nations, may refer simply to those who follow the leaders of the nations (Davison, 336; Kirkpatrick, 394; cf. Kidner, 1979, 244), possibly soldiers (Tate, 184; cf. Dahood, 1973, 150, who maintains that the reference is specifically to Egyptian soldiers). Alternatively, the phrase may refer to the weaker, dependent nations over whom the bulls rule (Delitzsch, 268; C. A. and E. G. Briggs, 104, 111; Bratcher and Reyburn, 590), or to those nations that, though less powerful than the bulls, are also wilfully 235

ANH 51) aggressive and collude with the stronger warmongering nations in their military offensives (Durham, 309; cf. Kidner, 1979, 244; Knight, 1982, 315). Some (e.g., Oesterley, 322-23; Taylor, 360; Weiser, 479; Kissane, 1964, 291-92, 297-98; Kraus, 1989, 45, 47;

cf. BHS) emend b°‘eglé to ba‘“lé and read “the lords of the peoples,” in apposition to “the herd of the bulls,” but this emendation does not commend itself. Rogerson and McKay (1977b, 91) argue that the purpose of the various animal figures in this v. is to present a general image of warlike strength, even brutality, and that it is pointless to try to identify these figures with particular nations. According to Mowinckel (1953, 59-61; 1967, 152) and Eaton (174), the primary referent is chaotic powers and demonic gods with their cults (cf. Tate, 183). The v. is very difficult and any interpretation is, at best,

tentative. Unaware that he had been empowered to act as Yahweh’s instrument, arrogant, self-sufficient, autonomous Assyria claims God’s power and work as his own (Miscall,

43) and boasts: w°’érid ka’ bbir yos°bim (Isa 10:13). Q reads kabbir, an adj. meaning “mighty,” but the K is probably to be preferred (see, e.g., BDB, 460; Skinner, 1909, 88). Some ka’ bbir to by, among ka’ bbir be lated “like

(see Kissane, 1960, 119, 122; cf. Scott, 242) have suggested emending k°’abib, like ripe corn, but this is unnecessary, as is the suggestion (favored others, JB; G. B. Gray, 195, 199, 202; Wildberger, 412; cf. BHS) that emended to le ‘apar or be ‘apar, to, or in, the dust. The word ka’ bbir is transa bull” by some (RSV; NRSV; Watts, 1985, 145). However, NIV, Kissane

(1960, 117), and Oswalt (265) translate ’abbir as “a mighty one” (cf. Scott, 242), and Kaiser (141) reads “a hero” (cf. Mauchline, 123-24). Some think that, in this v., ’abbir

may be a quasi-divine title, suggesting that Assyria considered itself “God-like” in power (Motyer, 115; cf. Scott, 242; Mauchline, 123-24).

The meaning of w°’drid ... yOs°bim in Isa 10:13 seems to be that Assyria has brought down (NEB, REB, and TEV have “trampled”; NIV has “subdued”; and Wildberger, 412, translates “I knock down’) either those who had been sitting on thrones (RSV; NRSV; Dummelow, 422; G. B. Gray, 195, 199; Kaiser, 141; cf. NIV) or the inhabitants of those places which had been overrun (NEB; REB; JB; TEV; Scott, 242; Kissane, 1960, 117, 121-22; Watts, 1985, 145; Wildberger, 412). Despite difficulties

posed by the text, the point made in Isa 10:12-19 is that even those empowered to be instruments of divine action are doomed to destruction if they are unwilling to acknowledge, or unable to recognize, the source of their strength, exceed their commission, and remain impervious to the divine will (vv. 15-19). Often in the OT, there is a special connection between Edom

and Yahweh’s

judgment on all his enemies (see, particularly, Cresson). In an oracle announcing that enraged Yahweh has doomed all those nations that have opposed him (Isa 34:1-17), there is a description of how the divine sword will be sated with the blood of Edomites, together with (RSV; NRSV; NEVB; REB; NIV; Mauchline, 224-25; Kelley, 288; Watts, 1987, 11), or in the place of (JB; Skinner, 1909, 255; Whitehouse, 343; Kidner, 1972, 609; Miscall, 85) that of sacrificial animals, including mighty bulls (’abbirim, v. 7). Kissane (1960, 375; cf. Oswalt, 612), who shares with others the view that the animals mentioned in vv. 6-7 stand for rulers and their nations, thinks it probable that the

lambs, goats, and rams in v. 6 represent the common people of Edom while the wild oxen, young steers, and mighty bulls in v. 7 represent that nation’s leaders. Motyer (271) thinks that ’abbirim, here, may be a metaphor for important people.

236

“PDN 51) That no bull god is capable of saving its worshipers from the wrath of Yahweh is made clear in an oracle that seems to concern the advance of Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon, on the land of Egypt (Jer 46:13-26). Egypt is asked, firstly, why Apis has fled/flees (Jer 46:15a, following LXX ephygin ho Apis and reading nas hap, Haf [i.e., Apis] has fled/flees, rather than MT nishap, has been overthrown/made prostrate [see, Streane, 289; Peake, 1912, 219; Bright, 303; Carroll, 768]). Apis was the sacred bull

worshiped at Memphis and revered as the son or reincarnation of the god Ptah, who was later associated with Osiris, the god of vegetation and regeneration. The priests of the Apis cult were entrusted with the task of caring for a special live bull, which was the representative of the god (Thompson, 692). At death, each of these bulls was buried in its own sarcophagus in a special mortuary (Thompson, 692). In the next part of Jer 46:15, Egypt is asked why your bull (reading [with, e.g., Streane, 289; Driver, 1906a, 274, n. c; Peake, 1912, 218-19; BHS] ’abbirayik for MT

“abbireyka, your bulls [NEB and REB have “your bull-god’’]) has not stood/does not stand. NIV adheres closely to MT and translates, “Why will your warriors be laid low? They cannot stand....,” but the interpretation/translation followed here of the scarcely intelligible Heb. seems preferable because the emendations on which it is based are convincing (cf. Jones, 495). In some ancient cultures, images of deities were carried into battle, and the flight or capture of such an image would have been interpreted as the defeat of those worshiping that particular god (Hyatt, 1956, 1107-8). It is because Yahweh has thrust him down that Apis does not stand (v. 15b). It may be that here, as elsewhere (Jer 51:7, 20-23), Babylon is an instrument Yahweh uses to work out his

purpose for the earth; but once she proudly defies the divine will (50:14, 24, 29, 31), God takes decisive action and destroys her (50:45; 51:12, 29) (Achtemeier, 110). (b) In four texts, ’abbir is used with the meaning mighty steed, charger 5:22; Jer 8:16; 47:3; 50:11). In a song celebrating the victory of Deborah and (with the assistance of Yahweh, the real architect of the victory) over Canaanite led by Sisera, the furious charge (cf. Dummelow, 163; TEV) or the precipitate

(Judg Barak forces flight

(NEB; REB; Cooke, 64; O’Connor, 138; cf. JB) of the enemy’s horses is vividly con-

veyed in the sentence ’@z hal°mii ‘igqq®bé-stis middah“rét dah*rét ’abbirayw, “Then thundered the horses’ hoofs, galloping, galloping go his mighty steeds” (Judg 5:22).

These words, particularly the repetition of the trisyllabic nom. dah“rét with the accent on the final syllable, produce a striking onomatopoeic effect, echoing the drumming hoofbeats of the galloping chargers (Strahan, 1920, 262; Moore, 161; J. Gray, 290; Lindars, 271; cf. Slotki, 200).

Panic and despair are induced in Judeans when they hear the sound(s) of many horses coming from the distant city of Dan (located in the extreme north of Israel at the foot of Mount Hermon), signaling the approach of an implacable enemy invader (Jer 8:16). This description of the approaching sounds of war (mish“lét ’abbirayw, the neighing of their chargers) being within earshot of the distant Judean populace may be the result of poetic license; alternatively, it may have been an intense anticipation of the coming disaster that caused it to be expressed as an eventuation (McKane, 1986,

192). What is beyond doubt is that while the active agent behind the ravages of invasion that were beginning to materialize was Yahweh, the ultimate responsibility for the tragedy lay with the people themselves (Clements, 58-59). 23i7.

“PAN #51) An oracle against the Philistines (Jer 47:1-7) describes how, when an invading army approaches from the north, unnerved fathers will flee in such terror at the sound of thundering hoofs (migqél Sa“tat parsét ’abbirayw, at the pounding [NEB; REB] or thunder [JB; lit., noise of the stamping] of his chargers’ hoofs) and rumbling chariots that they will not even cast a backward glance at their own children, let alone go to their assistance (v. 3). The enemy invader is not identified, but it is abundantly clear from vy. 4c, 6-7 that the one who really wields the bloodthirsty sword against the terrified victims is the holy warrior, Yahweh (Carroll, 777). In a long, impassioned series of oracles against Babylon (Jer 50:1-51:64), the

plunderers of Yahweh’s heritage are likened to a frisky heifer and to neighing stallions (“bbirim) (50:11). The two pastoral images of a gambolling cow and snorting horses is a depiction both of the ease with which the Babylonians pillaged the land of Judah and of their delight in so doing (cf. Carroll, 824; Thompson, 735-36). However, she who formerly was the instrument of the divine anger (51:20-23) is warned that, as a result of her insolence and excessive cruelty (50:29-32; 51:24-25), she will be destroyed by the wrath of Yahweh (50:12-16, et passim). (c) In four texts ’abbir is used with reference to a mighty man or the principal figure in a group (1 Sam 21:7[8]; Job 24:22; 34:20; Lam 1:15). It is applied to Doeg the Edomite, the nature of whose office is uncertain (Bennett, 283), but who seems to be described as the chief (RSV; NRSV; REB; TEV; Baldwin, 138; cf. NIV “head’) of

Saul’s herdsmen, ’abbir hard ‘im ’“Ser I°Sa’iil(1 Sam 21:7[8]). Kennedy (148) thinks that “the chiefest of the herdsmen” is a doubtful rendering, but does not suggest an alternative. Some (e.g., Driver, 1966, 175-76; McCarter, 346, 348; Klein, 211-13; cf.

McKane, 1963, 132; Payne, 299) prefer to emend MT haro‘im (the shepherds) to harasim (the runners) and translate “the mightiest/strongest/chief of Saul’s runners.” Driver (1966, 175-76) argues that it is unlikely that power or heroism would have been a quality in a shepherd that the narrator would have singled out for distinction (however, see Hertzberg, 181), whereas he might be expected to comment upon the strength and size of a formidable runner. Observing that ’abbir can mean “violent,” Baldwin (138) thinks that the word may have been used here to indicate that this man was potentially sinister and his presence ominous, a suggestion compatible with the description of Doeg as an Edomite (cf. Hertzberg, 180-81; Klein, 213). Klein (213) suggests that ’abbir may have been used to indicate the strength of this man who later, single-handedly and in one day, slaughtered eighty-five priests and an undisclosed number of women,

children, and livestock (1 Sam 22:18-19). Some (e.g., Ackroyd,

171) take Doeg to be a notable warrior, perhaps one of Saul’s mercenaries (McCarter, 349; Cohn, 282). McKane (1963, 132-33) and Klein (212) describe Doeg simply as one of Saul’s officials. It has been suggested that Doeg may have been a religious official, a herdsman of temple flocks and herds (Ackroyd, 171).

The words timasak ’abbirim b°kohé yagiim w*lo’-ya’“min bahayyin in Job 24:22 have been translated in divergent ways: “Yet God prolongs the life of the mighty by his power; they rise up when they despair of life” (RSV; NRSV); “Yet (God) by his power maketh the mighty to continue: He riseth up, though he believeth not that he will live” (Driver and Gray, 1:213); “But God has none the less supported them by His

power; they have risen up again when they had ceased to count on their lives” (Renan, cited by Dhorme, 391); “But He who by His power seizes the mighty, Rises up, and the

238

IN (#51) other can no longer be sure of his life!” (Dhorme, 390); “But he who lays mighty hold on tyrants rises up to take away that life which seemed secure” (JB); “But God by His power dethrones the mighty; as soon as He rises they no longer count on their lives” (Le Hir, cited by Dhorme, 391); “Yet God in his strength carries off even the mighty; they may rise, but they have no firm hope of life” (NEB; cf. REB); “But God drags away the mighty by his power; though they become established, they have no assurance of life” (NIV); “God in his strength, destroys the mighty; God acts—and the wicked man dies” (TEV); “He lures the mighty with his power. He rises and he trusts in life” (Pope, 189); “May he allure the mighty by his power; let him rise but never be sure of his life” (Hartley, 351); “The mighty man may continue in his strength, he may survive, but has no faith in life” (Gordis, 256). The Hebrew text of Job 24:22-24 is extremely obscure (see, Irwin, 401; Hart-

ley, 352), and the difficulties of translating these vv. are almost insuperable (Watts, 1972, 99). It is little wonder that commentators have understood them in directly opposite senses (A. and M. Hanson, 82) and that numerous suggested emendations have been proposed (Hartley, 352). Some (e.g., Dummelow, 309; Franks, 359; H. Anderson,

248) think that the words of v. 22 are Job’s and that he is complaining that God maintains the wicked in power. Hartley (352-54) considers vv. 18-24 to consist of a series of imprecations uttered against the lawless by Job, who wants God to execute his justice against these wicked as proof that the divine justice will manifest itself in his case also

and ensure that he receives a just resolution to his complaint. According to Hartley (354), though challenging contemporary theology, Job’s profound faith in God impels him to seek an answer for injustice from God. Others are convinced that some (e.g., Peake, 1905, 228, who isolates vv. 18-21)

or all of the material in Job 24:18-25 does not express the views of Job. Some take these vv. (e.g., May and Metzger, 636) or even the entire chapter (e.g., Strahan, 1913, 212-13, 216) to have been inserted here by a pious editor who wished to soften Job’s

blasphemous arrogance. Others who consider these vv. to be misplaced attribute them to one of Job’s friends, either Bildad (cf. Davidson, 206-7) or Zophar (so Pope, 187-89,

195; Dhorme, 386-93; JB; cf. May and Metzger, 636; Gibson, 191 [Gibson assigns vv. 18-20, 24 to Zophar and vv. 21-23 to Job]). Some (e.g., RSV; Janzen, 169) take vv.

18-20 to be a quotation by Job of what his friends have been saying (RSV adds the words “You say” to the beginning of v. 18) and interpret vv. 21-24 as Job’s rejoinder. Gordis (256, 258) takes all of vv. 18-24 as the quotation. Is the complaint being made in Job 24:22-24 that God supports and protects the powerful oppressors, guaranteeing their prosperity, maintaining their security, and ensuring that when they die it is a peaceful death in a ripe old age (so Driver, 1906b, 72; Davidson, 208-9; Janzen, 169)? Or are vv. 22-24 attempting to explain why tyrants

rise to great power before they are destroyed, by stressing that God allows them to enjoy short-lived success in order to demonstrate the potential forces inherent in all evil (so Habel, 131)? Or is Job himself here expressing the hope that God will punish the wicked by initially fulfilling their desires but then robbing them of their zest for life so that they can never enjoy the wealth and power they have just attained (so Hartley, 353-54)? In response to Job’s accusation that God is immoral, Elihu argues that God is supramoral, beyond human categories of justice (Terrien, 1144; Watts,

1972, 128).

239

“PON(451) Arguing that the ways of God are ultimately just, Elihu asserts that the divine judgments are impartial: paupers and princes, subjects and rulers are all subjected to the same divine scrutiny, and even the mighty, oppressive leaders, who are responsible to him for justice (Habel, 185), are destroyed by the invisible power of the one who has not only created the universe but who governs it with absolute justice Job 34:20). The

words w*yasirit ’abbir lo’ b°yad are accepted by Blommerde (122-23), who translates

“and they remove the mighty one without hand.” RSV and NRSV seem to take w°yasirii as an impersonal use of the pl. (see GKC, § 144g), for they read “and the mighty are taken away by no human hand” (cf. Hartley, 455). However, Dhorme (518-19; cf. Terrien, 1145) emends MT wyasirii, “and they will remove, to w“yasir, and translates, “And effortlessly He deposes a potentate” (cf. JB, “it costs him no effort to remove a tyrant”; REB, “and he removes the mighty without lifting a finger!”; and TEV, “he kills the mighty with no effort at all”). According to Bergant (165), not only does Elihu fail to address the specific issue raised by Job, but the examples he cites to illustrate and support the points he makes are less than reliable. Sorrowful Zion laments the fact that, as a result of her sin, Yahweh has crushed

her as grapes in a winepress, flouting all her mighty men, i.e., her “warriors” (NRSV; NIV), her “bravest fighters” (JB), her “seasoned champions” (Westermann, 1994, 111, 133), or her “strongest soldiers” (TEV) (Lam 1:15). (d) In two passages, ’abbir is used in conjunction with /éb. In the first (Ps 76:5[6]), the phrase has the meaning stout of heart (pace Kissane, 1964, 342, 344), and, in the second (Isa 46:12), it has the sense stubborn of heart. No weaponry, or human

arrogance and pretensions to power, can prevail against the irresistible might of the warrior/judge, Yahweh, who strips the stouthearted of their spoil and makes them sink into the sleep of death (Ps 76:5[6]). The words ’abbiré léb are translated “‘stouthearted”’ by RSV, NRSV, Delitzsch (342, 345), Buttenwieser (109), C. A. and E. G. Briggs (165-66), Oesterley (352 [‘‘the stout of heart’]), Weiser (524 [‘“the stout of heart’]), Kraus (1989, 107), and Tate (261). JB has “heroes”; NEB has “the boldest”; REB has “The bravest”; TEV has “Their brave soldiers”; and NIV has “Valiant men.” Before

Yahweh’s supernatural and miraculous power, every human power is doomed to collapse (Weiser, 527). Disbelievers

and

cynics

(abbiré

léb

[Isa 46:12];

parallel

to pds ‘im,

rebels/transgressors [v. 8]) are assured that Yahweh is God, that there is no other (Isa

46:9), and that only Yahweh can, and will, save his people (Isa 46:13). Here, the ‘abbiré léb are those who are “rigid in mind, intractable in emotions and unbiddable in will” (Motyer, 370). They are far from salvation/deliverance (v. 12) because of their stubborn resistance to the proclamation made by the prophet (Muilenburg, 543) and their refusal to believe that Cyrus, a foreigner, has been appointed as the divine agent to rescue them (cf. Isa 45:9-13) (Sawyer, 104). Following LXX, many (e.g., Whitehouse, 136; McKenzie, 86; Westermann, 1969, 184; Whybray, 117) change ’abbiré léb

to ’ob°dé léb and translate “you whose heart despairs,” but this is unconvincing, since the context demands a stronger sense than fainthearted or dejected (Skinner, 1960, 79); unnecessary, since MT makes excellent sense; and unlikely, since MT is supported by 1QIsa*, Tg., and Vg. (Watts, 1987, 165). (e) In one text (Ps 78:25), ’abbir is used with the meaning angel (with LXX; not mighty god [so Buttenwieser, 123, 145; cf. Johnson, 52, n. 1; Tate, 282]). During the

240

ANG 51) wilderness wandering God fed his people lehem ’abbirim, the bread of angels (cf. Wisd. 16:20), i.e., manna (cf. Exod. 16; Num

11), food normally reserved for higher

beings (Rogerson and McKay, 1977b, 145). A parallel term, gibboré koah, mighty ones, is used of angels in Ps 103:20. Whereas the Pentateuchal traditions view the gift of manna as the result of pure grace, grace and judgment are closely intertwined in Ps 78:25 (Weiser, 541). Here, the provision of this food is but the prelude to Yahweh’s judgment in response to Israel’s testing: he strikes them at the precise moment when ned are greedily devouring the food they had craved (vv. 29-31) (Clifford, 133; Tate, ). P-B_ The adj. ’abbir occurs with the meaning strong, mighty, eminent; noble. (Jastrow 1:6). Power, strength: > ’abir (strong, powerful, #51); > ’6n I (generative power, strength, # 226); > ’ayil I (man of power, #380); > ’él IV (strength, power, #445); > ’ms (be strong, strengthen, be superior over, #599); > ’apiq II (strong, # 693); > ’S¥ (take courage, # 899); > gbr (accomplish, excel, swell, rise, be strong, # 1504); > dobe’ (strength, # 1801); > zimra

II (strength, # 2380); > hzq (be strong, overpower, support, seize, # 2616); > hayil (capacity, power, property, # 2657); > hdson (strong, # 2891); > ykl (able, endure, be victorious, conquer, # 3523); — ysr II (strengthen, # 3580); > kabbir (strong, #3888); > kdah I (strength, power, possession, means, #3946); > kellah I (maturity, full vigor, #3995); > m°’dd (power, might, # 4394); > ma’mas (exertion, #4410); > ng (overtake, be able to, afford, appear, # 5952); > ‘zz (be strong, defy, show a shameless, #6451); > ‘sm I (be mighty, vast, numerous, make strong, # 6793); > tgp (overpower, # 9548) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 1:42-44; THAT 1:25-27; E. A. Achtemeier, Jeremiah, KPG, 1987; P. R. Ackroyd, The First Book of Samuel, CBC, 1971; W. E. Addis, “The Psalms,” in Peake, 1920, 366-96; W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process, 2d ed., 1957; A. Alt, “The God of the Fathers,” in (his) Essays on Old Testament History and Religion, 1966, 1-77; K. T. Andersen, “Der Gott meines Vaters,” ST 16, 1962, 170-88; A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms. Volume I: Introduction and Psalms 1-72, NCBC, 1972; G. W. Anderson, “The Psalms,” in Peake, 1964, 409-43; H. Anderson, “The Book of Job,” in The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, 1971, 238-52; J. G. Baldwin, J and 2 Samuel: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC, 1988; W. H. Bennett, “I and II Samuel,” in Peake, 1920, 273-93; D. Bergant, Job, Ecclesiastes, OTM, 1982; A. C. M. Blommerde, North-

west Semitic Grammar and Job, 1969; R. G. Bratcher and W. D. Reyburn, A Translator’s Handbook on the Book of Psalms, 1991; C. A. and E. G. Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms. Vol. II, 1CC, 1960; J. Bright, Jeremiah: Introduction, Trans-

lation, and Notes, AB, 1965; M. Buttenwieser, The Psalms Chronologically Treated With a New Translation, 1969; R. P. Carroll, Jeremiah:

A Commentary, OTL, 1986; R. E. Clements, Jere-

miah, Interp, 1988; R. J. Clifford, “In Zion and David a New Beginning: An Interpretation of Psalm 78,” in B. Halpern and J. D. Levenson, eds., Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith, 1981, 121-41; R. L. Cohn, “1 Samuel,” in HBC, 1988, 268-86; G. A. Cooke, The Book of Judges, CBSC, 1918; P. C. Craigie, Psalms 1-50, WBC, 1983; B. C. Cresson, “The

Condemnation of Edom in Postexilic Judaism,” in J. M. Efird, ed., The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays: Studies in Honor of William Franklin Stinespring, 1972, 125-48, M. Dahood, Psalms I: 1-50. Introduction,

Translation, and Notes, AB, 1966; idem, Psalms II:

51-100. Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 1973; A. B. Davidson, The Book of Job With

241

PAN 51) Notes, Introduction and Appendix, CBSC, 1962; W. T. Davison, The Psalms I-LXXII, CB, n.d. (19042); F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Psalms. Vol. II, KD, 2d ed., 1889; E. Dhorme,

A Commentary on the Book of Job, 1967; S. R. Driver, The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah: A Revised Translation With Introductions and Short Explanations, 1906 (1906a); idem, The Book of Job in the Revised Version, 1906 (1906b); idem, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel With an Introduction on Hebrew Palaeography and the Ancient Versions.and Facsimiles of Inscriptions and Maps, 2d ed., 1966; S. R. Driver and G. B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job Together With a New Translation, ICC, 1964; J. R. Dummelow, ed., A Commentary on the Holy Bible, 1909; J. I. Durham, “Psalms,” in BBC, 1972, 4:153-464; J. H. Eaton, Psalms: Introduction and Commentary, Torch, 1972; O.

Eissfeldt, “El and Yahweh,” JSS 1, 1956, 25-37; R. S. Franks, “Job,” in Peake, 1920, 346-65; T. E. Fretheim, “Psalm 132: A Form-Critical Study,” JBL 86, 1967, 289-300; J. C. L. Gibson,

Job, DSB, 1985; R. Gordis, The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation and Special Studies, Moreshet,

1978; G. B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah

I-XXVII, ICC, 1975; J. Gray, Joshua, Judges and Ruth, NCBC, Job, NCBC,

1967; N. C. Habel, The Book of

1975; V. P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis Chapters 18-50, NICOT,

1995; A. and

M. Hanson, The Book of Job: Introduction and Commentary, Torch, 1976; M. Haran, “The Reli-

gion of the Patriarchs. An Attempt at a Synthesis,” ASTI 4, 1965, 30-55; J. E. Hartley, The Book of Job, NICOT, 1988; A. S. Herbert, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah Chapters 40-66, CBC, 1975; H. W. Hertzberg, I & IJ Samuel:

A Commentary, OTL, 1974; J. Hoftijzer, Die Verheissun-

gen an die drei Erzvater, 1956; J. P. Hyatt, “Yahweh as “The God of My Father’,” V7 5, 1955,

130-36; idem, “The Book of Jeremiah: Introduction and Exegesis,” in JB, 1956, 5:775-1142; W. A. Irwin, “Job,” in Peake, 1964, 391-408; J. G. Janzen, Job, Interp, 1985; A. R. Johnson, The Cultic Prophet and Israel’s Psalmody, Isaiah 1-12:

1979; D. R. Jones, Jeremiah, NCBC,

1992; O. Kaiser,

A Commentary, OTL, 1977; P. H. Kelley, “Isaiah,” in BBC, 1972, 5:149-374; A. R.

S. Kennedy, Samuel, CB, 1905; D. Kidner, “Isaiah,” in NBC, 1972, 588-625; idem, Psalms 1-72:

An Introduction and Commentary on Books I and II of the Psalms, TOTC, patrick, The Book of Psalms, CBSC,

Critically Revised Hebrew Text With Commentary.

Vol. I (I-XXXIX), 1960; idem, The Book of

Psalms Translated From a Critically Revised Hebrew Text With Klein, J Samuel, WBC,

Theology:

1979; A. F. Kirk-

1957; E. J. Kissane, The Book of Isaiah Translated From a

a Commentary,

1964; R. W.

1983; G. A. F. Knight, The Psalms. Volume I, DSB, 1982; idem, Servant

A Commentary on the Book of Isaiah 40-55, ITC, 1984; idem, The New Israel: A

Commentary on the Book of Isaiah 56-66, ITC, 1985; H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 1-59: 1988; idem, Psalms 60-150:

A Commentary,

and Commentary,

1995; P. K. McCarter,

and Commentary,

AB,

1989; B. Lindars, Judges 1-5:

A Commentary,

A New Translation

JSamuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes

1980; L. S. M’Caw

and J. A. Motyer, “The Psalms,” in NBC, 1972, 446-547, W. McKane, J & I Samuel: Introduction and Commentary, Torch, 1963; idem, Studies in the Patriarchal Narratives, 1979; idem, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah.

Volume I; An Introduction and Commentary on Jeremiah I-XXV, ICC, 1986; J. L. McKenzie, Isaiah: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 1968; J. Mauchline, Isaiah 1-39,

Second

Torch, 1970; H. G. May, “‘The God of My Father:’ A Study of Patriarchal Religion,” JBR 9, 1941, 155-58, 199-200; H. G. May and B. M. Metzger, eds., The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1973; J. L. Mays, Psalms, Interp, 1994; P. D. Miller, “El as Warrior,” HTR 60, 1967, 411-31; P. D. Miscall, Isaiah, Readings, 1993; G. F. Moore, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges, ICC, 2d ed., 1918; J. A. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary, 1993, S. Mowinckel, Der achtundsechzigste Psalm,

242

1953; idem, The Psalms in Israel’s

SIN (#61) Worship, Vol. I, 1967; J. Muilenburg, “The Book of Isaiah Chapters 40-66: Introduction and Exegesis,” in JB, 1956, 5:381-773; R. E. Murphy (with R. J. Clifford), “Genesis,” inNJBC, 1990,

8-43; C. R. North, The Second Isaiah: Introduction, Translation and Commentary to Chapters XL-LV, 1967; M. O’Connor, “Judges,” in NJBC, 1990, 132-44; W. O. E. Oesterley, The Psalms

Translated With Text-Critical and Exegetical Notes, 1959; J. N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah _ Chapters 1-39, NICOT, 1986; D. F. Payne, “1 and 2 Samuel,” in Peake, 1964, 284-319; A. S. Peake, Job, CB, 1905; idem, Jeremiah and Lamentations Vol. IT: Jeremiah XXV to LII, Lamentations, CB, 1912; M. H. Pope, Job: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 3d ed., 1979; J. W. Rogerson and J. W. McKay, Psalms 1-50, CBC, 1977 (1977a); idem, Psalms 51-100, CBC, 1977 (1977b); idem, Psalms 101-150, CBC, 1977 (1977c); J. F. A. Sawyer, Isaiah. Volume 2, DSB,

1986; J. Schreiner, Sion-Jerusalem Jahwehs Kénigssitz: Theologie der heiligen Stadt im AT, 1963; R. B. Y. Scott (and G. G. D. Kilpatrick), “The Book of Isaiah,” inJB, 1956, 5:149-419; H. Seebass, Der Erzvater Israel, BZAW 98, 1966; J. Skinner, Genesis: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, ICC, 2d ed., 1969; idem, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah Chapters I-XXXIX, CBSC, 1909; idem, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah Chapters XL-LXVI, CBSC, 1960; J.

J, Slotki, (and H. Freedman), Joshua and Judges: Hebrew Text & English Translation With an Introduction and Commentary, Soncino, 1961; W. R. Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites. First Series: The Fundamental Institutions, new ed., 1914; E. A. Speiser, Genesis: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 1964; J. Strahan, The Book of Job Interpreted, 1913; idem, “Judges,” in Peake, 1920, 256-70; A. W. Streane, The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Together With the Lamentations, With Map, Notes and Introduction, CBSC, 1891; M. E. Tate,

Psalms 51-100, WBC, 1990; W. R. Taylor (et al.), “The Book of Psalms,” in JB, 1955, 4:1-763; S. Terrien, “The Book of Job: Introduction and Exegesis,” in JB, 1954, 3:875-1198; J. A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, NICOT, 1987; L. E. Toombs, “The Psalms,” in The Interpreter’s

One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, 1971, 253-303; R. de Vaux, The Early History of Israel to the Exodus and Covenant of Sinai, 1978; B. Vawter, “The Canaanite Background of Genesis 49,” CBO 17, 1955, 1-17; J. D. W. Watts (with J. J. Owens and M. E. Tate), “Job,” in BBC, 1972, 4:22-151; idem, Isaiah 1-33, WBC, 1985; idem, Isaiah 34-66, WBC, 1987; A. Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary, OTL, 1965; C. Westermann, Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary, OTL, 1969; idem, Genesis 12-36: A Commentary, Continental, 1985; idem, Genesis 37-50: A Commentary, Continental, 1986; idem, Lamentations: Issues and Interpretation, 1994; O. C. Whitehouse, [saiah I-XXXIX, CB, 1905; R. N. Whybray, /saiah 40-66, NCBC, 1975; H. Wildberger, Isaiah 1-12: A Commentary, Continental, 1991. Robin Wakely

52 ('abbir, strong, powerful), > #51

53 (“biram, Abiram), ~ Korah 59 (’ebyatar, Abiathar), ~ Abiathar

b = 61 IN (abél), adj. mourning (# 63);

ANE

DIN (bl 1), q. mourn,

lament; hi. cause

to

mourn; hitp. to observe mourning rites (# 61); 28 (ebel), nom. mourning, mourning rites (# 65).

The lexeme ’b/ is attested in some of the main Sem. languages: Ugar. ’bl; 243

SN (#61) Aram. “bel, mourn; Syr. (HALAT 6); Arab. ’abbala, ’abbana, to praise a dead person (Noldeke, ZDMG 40, 724; Guillaume, 17).

OT

The lexeme ’b/ occurs in q. (18x: 17x in the Prophets and 1x in Job); hitp. (19x;

primarily in narrative text); hi. (2x); adj., ’abél (8x); nom., ’ébel (24x). 1. Syntax. The lexeme ’b/ has a number of noms. as its subject; these noms. are animate or inanimate, sing. or pl., collective or individual. In some instances there is

uncertainty since some have suggested that the vb. may be ’b/ II, dry up (> #62). However, despite the isolation of a second root, first proposed by G. R. Driver and followed by several others (cf. HALAT), Clines points out the inherent weakness in the

distinction. Because even inanimate objects may be personified as mourning, the case for the existence of a root ’bl II is far from established. The following discussion will proceed on the basis of a single root: ’b/, mourn, lament. The vb. appears in q., hi., and hitp. forms in the pf. and impf. tenses. The q. form is restricted to the prophetic literature, except for its occurrence in Job 14:22. The noms. of the q. pf. forms are: her (Zion’s) earth (24:4; Jer 23:10); the new wine (Isa Judah (14:2); people (Hos 10:5); the priests (Amos 8:8, 9:5). The nom. of the q. impf.

gates (Isa 3:26); the 24:7); vineyard and (Joel 1:9); everyone forms are: he [man]

fishermen (19:8); the field (Jer 12:10, 11); who lives in the earth (Job 14:22); the earth

(Jer 4:28; 12:4; Hos 4:3).

In the OT the hi. stem of ’b/ is used only twice, while the hitp. is the most frequently used stem. The former is used once each in the pf. and impf. tenses. In Ezek 31:15 the Lord God is the nom. of the hi. pf. vb. while “deep springs” is in the acc. case. The hi. impf. is used to describe the effect on the rampart and wall because of God’s ruin of Zion (Lam 2:8). The hitp. form occurs in the expression, “Samuel mourned for Saul” (1 Sam 15:35). The following observations can be made. (a) The vb. ’b/ is used metaphorically (Lam 2:8; Ezek 31:15) as well as literally

(1 Sam 15:31). (b) The Lord can metaphorically cause nature and inanimate objects to mourn when he judges non-Israelite or Israelite nations for their transgressions. (c) The vb. is used as a result of divine or human action. In the hi. usages God is the nom. of the vb. while humanity is the nom. in hitp. case. (d) It may be observed that God is not the nom. in any hitp. stem usage in the OT (cf. Gen 37:34; Exod 33:4; Num 14:39; 1 Sam 6:19; 16:1; 2 Sam 13:37; 14:2; 19:1[2]; 1 Chron 7:22; 35:24; Ezra 10:6; Neh 1:4; 8:9; Isa 66:10; Dan 10:2; Ezek 7:12,

20): 2. Pentateuch. In the Pent., the vb. ’b/ occurs in the hitp. stem only; Jacob tore

his garments, put sackcloth upon his loins, and mourned many days for Joseph (Gen 37:34-35). Though his children tried to encourage him (nhm), he remained depressed. The change of disposition occurred soon after Jacob heard the good news that Joseph was still alive in Egypt (45:27). In this context ’b/ depicts a prolonged psychological state of depression. Its antonyms are to have one’s spirit revived (45:27, hyh ri“h) and to be encouraged (nhm; 37:35).

3. Historical books. The men of Beth Shemesh because Amnon’s death at the hands of David also mourned for his son

244

people mourned after the Lord struck seventy of the they looked into the ark of the Lord (1 Sam 6:19). Absalom occasioned much weeping (2 Sam 13:36). Absalom every day. Absalom, the perpetrator of the

SIN #61) homicide, had fled into self-imposed exile in Geshur for three years. There is also ambivalence on David’s part. Moreover, two interesting comments are made about David in the account: that his spirit longed to go to Absalom and that he was comforted (nhm) concerning the death of Amnon. This means that David’s severe depression was gradually mitigated after the death of Amnon. The vb. ’b/ occurs in 1 Chron 7:22 and 2 Chron 35:24-25. In 1 Chron 7:22 Ephraim mourned for his sons, Ezer and Elead, who were killed by the men of Gath under tragic circumstances. Ephraim mourned many days and his relatives came to comfort (nhm) him. Josiah, after he was killed by Necho, the king of Egypt, at Megiddo, was brought back to Jerusalem and was buried there. After Josiah’s burial, Jeremiah composed a lament for the people to sing (2 Chron 35:24-25). Ezra, the priest/teacher of the Lord, mourned on account of the unfaithfulness

of the people to the Lord’s covenant as shown by their practice of intermarriage with foreigners (Ezra 10:1-6). The reformer prayed, confessed, wept, and threw himself on

the floor of the Lord’s house before he withdrew to a private residence, where he ate no bread, drank no water, and mourned. Here mourning is associated with fasting, weep-

ing, and praying. Nehemiah, the builder/reformer, also wept, prayed, fasted, and mourned after he heard of the distress and humiliation experienced by the inhabitants and city of Jerusalem (Neh 1:4). After the rebuilding of the wall, Nehemiah, Ezra, and the Levites instructed the people not to mourn (’b/), weep (bkh), or grieve (‘sb)

(8:9-12). 4. Job. The only q. form of the vb. ’b/ outside the prophetic literature is found in Job 14:22. Habel observes that Job appealed to God to give human beings a break in the light of their existential gloomy reality (14:1-6; Habel, 239-44). Job was in the pit of despair; he felt a tree had more hope of sprouting again than a person in 5°’6/ (Job 14:7-14). Such a person “feels but the pain of his own body, and mourns only for himself’ (14:22). The text links pain with the vb. mourn. Atkinson observes that “depressed people become totally self-absorbed and cannot see beyond their own miserable predicament” (Atkinson, 86; Habel, 244). Pain may give rise to mourning, which in turn may result in self-absorption. 5. Prophets. The vb. ’b/ is used in Isa (6x), the adj. (3x), and the nom. (2x). Isa

3:16-4:6 deals with a series of oracles against the women of Zion (cf. Amos 4:1-3). The gates of Zion will lament (nh) and mourn (’b/) (Isa 3:26). The gates—places for legal

affairs, conversation, bargaining, and news—and so the glory of the city (Ross, ZPBD, 300; cf. 14:31; Jer 14:2) mourn because of the judgment of the Lord (Isa 3:17-25). For the men of Zion will suffer military defeat, leaving the women widows and their children orphans (Herbert, 45).

Isa 19 has an interesting usage of ’b/. The text speaks of the judgment and subsequent blessing of the Lord upon Egypt (Youngblood, 65-66; Watts, 252-55). Nothing will prevent the Egyptians from experiencing a devastating visit from the Lord. The waters of the river will dry up (nt); the riverbed will be parched (hrb) and dry (yb5); the canals will stink (znh); the streams of Egypt will dwindle (d/l) and dry up (hrb); the reeds and rushes will rot (qml); the sown field along the Nile will become parched (ybs) and be blown away (ndp); the fishermen groan (nh), lament (’b/), and pine away (ml, vv. 5-8). Kaiser observes, “The drought caused by the drying up of the Nile, the canals that run beside it and its tributaries is not meant to be understood as a

245

538 (# 61) consequence of a breakdown of the irrigation system in connection with the previously mentioned collapse of internal order in the country, but as a consequence of the coming and intervention of Yahweh” (13-39, 102). Isa 61:1-3 affirms that an anointed servant (the Messiah?) will reverse the condition of those who mourn and are brokenhearted. He will comfort all who mourn and provide the oil of gladness instead of mourning. In Luke this text functions as the manifesto for Jesus’ ministry (Luke 4:16-27). Isa 66:10 commands those who love (‘hb) and mourn (’bl) for Jerusalem to be glad (smh), rejoice (gyl), and rejoice greatly (SwS) because there will be a new era of salvation in the city of Zion. Jer 14:2 employs four synonymous phrases to describe the effects of a famine on the land of Judah: Judah mourns (’b/); her gates languish (’m/l); they wail (gdr) for the land; a cry goes up (‘/h) from Jerusalem. The intense drought affects the nobles, the ground, and the animals (Jer 14:3-6). Breuer notes the nexus between human sin and natural calamity: “The healthy development of nature is dependent on whether man fulfills his moral destiny” (Breuer, 121; cf. Jer 4:28; Joel 1:9).

Ezek 31:15 employs the only case of the hi. pf. form of the vb. ’b/ in the Prophets. Baumann points out that this form is debated by scholars; a proposal is for a root bl II (shut, close). However, the suggestion has not received much support. Baumann contends, contrary to Driver, that there is actually one root for ’b/ with different meanings based on the context (TDOT 1:45; cf. THAT 1:27-28; Clines, VT 42, 1992, 1-10;

Clines, DCH, 107-8). The vb. occurs within an oracle against Egypt and its leader, Pharaoh (Ezek 31:1-18). The Lord caused the deep springs to mourn on the day when the tree of Egypt was brought down as a result of pride. The theme of mourning is strong in Amos 5. It begins with the funeral song, arising out of a military defeat, and it ends with military defeat, death, and exile. J. DeWaard argues that Amos 5:1-17 is a large scale chiasm (DeWaard, 170-77). The

prophet states that there will be wailing (mispéd) in the streets and cries of anguish in every public square. This is followed by the Day of the Lord theme. The use of the Day of the Lord theme in 5:18-20 may be intended to reinforce themes expressed in 5:1-17. Granted that the Day of the Lord theme appears only in 5:18-20 in the book of Amos, the content of the pericope is similar to the large scale chiasm of 5:1-17. For instance, in both pericopes the scenes are gloomy. Both have striking rhetorical features. The first employs a popular dirge form to dramatize the devastating judgment planned by Yahweh, while the second is another instance of Amos’s employing a popular theme and giving it an unexpected twist (cf. 3:1-2). The theme of mourning also appears in Amos 8-9. In the light of the sinfulness and recalcitrance of the people, the prophet asks the rhetorical question in 8:8, “Will not the land tremble (rgz) for this, and all who live in it mourn?” This same theme is

expressed in 9:5, where the sovereign Lord touches the earth and those who live in it mourn. Mourning is associated with judgment and exile. 6. Summary of verb. The vb. ’bl in the OT is employed in a number of ways. First, it is used to depict the response of some loved one to the death of a friend, relative, or admirer. The death in question may have been real, imagined, or faked (Gen 37:34; 1 Sam 6:19; 2 Sam 14:2; 19:1-2[2-3]; 1 Chron 7:22; 2 Chron 35:24). Second,

people mourned because of separation from a loved one (2 Sam 13:37), an unfavorable report or vision (Exod 33:4; Dan 10:2), the loss of privilege (Num 14:39), an 246

SIN4 61) announcement of judgment (Hos 10:5; Joel 1:9), or contrition after transgression against God (Ezra 10:6). Third, inanimate objects are characterized as mourning on account of God’s judgment on the land, nature, wine, or the gates of a city (Isa 3:26; 24:4, 7; Jer 4:28; 12:4, 11; 14:2; 23:10; Hos 4:2).

Baumann (TDOT 1:46) points out that ’bJ may be assumed to be a mourning for the dead in calamities where people have died (1 Sam 6:19) but not in cases where none have died (Neh 1:4), in events affecting nature (Isa 33:9), or in situations where a

future calamity is being announced (Esth 4:3). The use of ’b/ in the OT is closely connected with rituals. These practices included shaving the beard, shaving the hair on the head, putting on sackcloth, tearing the clothes, sprinkling dust and ashes on the head, throwing dust into the air, weeping, fasting, and lying on the ground. It incorporates spd (lament, wail) and bkh (weep), though exceeding them in intensity and duration. Contrary to Baumann, the word describes both the inner feelings and the outward behavior of the mourner (TDOT 1:45).

7. The Nominative and Adjective. The adj. ’abél occurs 8x in the OT. In Gen 37:35 Jacob states that he will go down to his Joseph in Sheol mourning. The vb. weep (bkh) is used to describe the action that accompanied Jacob’s mourning. Haman, after experiencing a shocking reversal of fortune before Mordecai, the Jew, rushed to his house with his head covered in grief (Esth 6:12). Job recalls the days of glory that he experienced with God and his community prior to the calamities (Job 29:1-25). He used to comfort (nhm) mourners (29:25). Iron-

ically, he made that statement at a time of personal mourning. There were those who came to comfort him; they tore their clothes, threw dust into the air, and remained silent for seven days (2:11-13; Habel, 98).

The nom. ’ébel is used 24x to refer to prolonged weeping and grief. This form is used in the Pent. only in Gen 27:41; 50:10, 11. The plan of Esau is to kill Jacob after the days of mourning for their father Isaac (27:41). The days of mourning refer to a period observed by relatives and friends as a sign of respect and expression of grief after the death of someone dearly loved (TDOT 1:45-46). There are numerous references to specific periods of mourning: seven days (50:10), thirty days (Deut 34:8), or many days (Gen 37:34; 2 Sam 13:37; 14:2; 1 Chron 7:22). These periods of mourning

were observed with cultural rituals. For example, mourners wore mourning garments (2 Sam 14:2; Isa 61:3) and ate mourning bread (Jer 16:7). Qoheleth observes that going to the house of mourning can be a better learning experience than going to the house of pleasure (Eccl 7:2-4). A number of adverbs and similes are used to describe the intensity of the mourning, e.g., “great” (Esth 4:3), “grievous” (Gen 50:11), “as for an only son” (Jer 6:26), and “as one who laments for his mother” (Ps 35:14). Finally, there are

indications that the period of mourning was brought to an official end (Gen 50:14; Deut 34:8; 2 Sam 11:27; Isa 60:20).

> Lament: Theology Lament, mourning: ~ ’b/ I (mourn, observe mourning rites, #61); > ’nh I (lament, # 627); ~ bkh (weep, bewail, # 1134); > dm‘ (shed tears, # 1963); > z'q¢ (call for help, call to arms, assemble, utter a plaintive cry, #2410); > nhh I (lament, # 5629); > spd (sound of lament, mourn, #6199); > gdr (be dark, mourn, #7722); ~ qind I (dirge, #7806); > Lament:

Theology

247

DON(# 62) BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 1:27-31, 44-48; TWOT 1:27-31; 44-48; D. J. Atkinson, The Message of Job: Suffering and Grace, 1991; J. Breuer, The Book of Jeremiah: Translation and Commentary, 1988; U. Cassuto, The Commentary on the Book of Genesis, 1964; D. J. A. Clines, Job 1-20, WEC 17, 1989; idem, “Was There an ‘bl II, ‘Be Dry’ in Classical Hebrew?” VT 42, 1992, 1-10; J. DeWaard, “The Chiastic Structure of Amos v 1-17,” VT 27, 1977, 170-77; G. R. Driver, “Confused Hebrew Roots,” Gaster FS, Anniv. Vol, 1936, 73-75; N. C. Habel, The Book of Job: A Commentary, 1985; J. E. Hartley, The Book of Job, NICOT, 1988; J. H. Hayes, Amos the Eighth-Century Prophet: His Time and His Preaching, 1988, 61-66, 151-79, 209-22; A. S. Herbert, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 1973, 40-160; O. Kaiser, Isaiah 13-39: A Commentary, OTL, 1974; J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1-33, WBC, 1985; C. Westermann, Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary, 331-427; S. H. Widyapranawa, The Lord Is Savior: Faith in National Crisis: A Commentary on the Book of Isaiah 1-39, 1990; R. F. Youngblood, The Book of Isaiah: An Introductory Commentary, 1984.

Anthony Oliver

62 ANE.

538

528 (’b ID), q. dry up (# 62).

Akk. abdlu, dry up, dry out. Example: “he is responsible if the field dries up”

(BIN 7 204:12; CAD 1:30); Arab. ’uballat.

OT — Usually listed under the root ’b/ I, meaning mourn or observe mourning rites, there are eight passages that HALAT lists as cognate with the Akk. root, dry up: “How long will the land lie parched?” (Jer 12:4; cf. 23:10; Isa 33:9; Hos 4:3; Joel 1:10) and “the top of Carmel withers” (Amos 1:2). Two other examples are “the earth dries up and withers” and “the new wine dries up” (Isa 24:4, 7). In several of the above instances, the dearth is God’s judgment for the evil of people; in others, dryness is associated with theophany. (> Theophany: Theology) Dry, withering, parched: > ’b/ II (dry up, #62); > bassard (dearth, destitution, # 1314); > zrb (cease, dry up, #2427); > hrb I (be dry or desolate, ruined, #2990); > hrr II (be parched, # 3081a); > yb¥ (be dry, dried up, withered, dry up, # 3312); > mil I (wither, be dry, # 4908); > nSt (dry, parched, #5980); > gml (wither, become moldy, musty, infected w. insects, # 7857) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 1:44-48; THAT 1:27-31.

Roy E. Hayden

63 ('abél I, in mourning), > #61

65 (ébel, ceremony of mourning), > #61 66 (’“bal, but, indeed), > Particles 67 (ubal, canal, water conduit), > # 5643

74 ANE

248

a8

28 (eben), stone, rock (# 74).

See the Akk. abnu (CAD 1/1: 54-61), Ugar. ’bn , Phoen. ’bn , Syr. ’abna, etc.

JON (#74) OT 1. The OT uses more than a dozen Heb. words meaning rock, stone, pebble, boulder, etc. The more common terms include ’eben (rock, stone), sela‘ (pebble), and sur (boulder, large rock).

The numerous OT references to rock and stone is a commentary both on the importance and accessibility of stone in Palestine compared to the ANE in general. Pri- marily, stone was used as a building material for houses (Amos 5:11), temples (1 Kgs 5:17-18), city walls (Neh 4:3[3:35]), fences (Ps 62:3[4]), even altars (Exod 20:25). Rock and stone were also commonly used for vessels (Exod 7:19), for pagan idols (Deut 4:28), as weapons (Judg 20:16), as commercial weights (Deut 25:15), and even as pillows (Gen 28:11). Often inscriptions were carved on stones, the most well-known being the stone tablets of the Mosaic decalogue (Exod 24:12; 31:18) and the plastered stela of Joshua’s covenant renewal ceremony (Josh 8:32: cf. Deut 27:2-4). Hewn or unhewn stones might also be used for sealing wells (Gen 29:8) and tombs (2

Kgs 23:17), or as boundary markers (Josh 15:6; 18:17). Theologically, the OT words for rock and stone invoke images of God as a holy judge, gracious provider, and welcoming refuge. 2. The most widely used of all the Heb. words for stone and rock, ’eben, occurs

269x in BH and 8x in biblical Aram. The NIV reads “‘stone/s” for ’eben in 192 instances, and “‘rock/s” only 15x. The word is used in a range of contexts indicating that ’eben may refer to a foundation stone of several tons (1 Kgs 5:17[31]) or a stone

the size of a pebble (Exod 28:9). Stone was an extremely versatile material for the inhabitants of ancient Palestine, as demonstrated in this catalog of uses: pillow or chair (Gen 28:18; Exod 17:12), standing pillar or masséba (Gen 28:22; 31:45), covers for wells and tombs (Gen 29:2; Josh 10:18), vessels and implements (Exod 7:19), memorials and witnesses (Exod 28:12; 39:7; Josh 4:7; 24:27), writing tablets (Exod 31:18; Deut 4:13), altars (Exod 20:25; 1 Kgs 18:32), weights (Deut 25:13, 15), pagan idols

(Deut 28:36), execution by stoning (Num 14:10; 15:35), weapons (Judg 20:16; 1 Sam 17:40), walls (Neh 4:3[3:35]; Prov 24:31), various types of buildings (1 Kgs 7:9-10; 12:12[13]; 2 Chr 34:11), and decoration and adornment (Exod 28:17; Isa 54:11-12; Zech 9:16).

3. Sometimes stones were named for events that took place at the site or for a nearby village, like Samuel’s “stone of help” (‘eben ha‘azer, 1 Sam 7:12; cf. Gen 28:18; 35:14-15; Josh 18:17; 1 Sam 20:19).

4, Occasionally stones served a pedagogical function, in that stone memorials erected to commemorate significant events in Heb. history were used to teach lessons in theology and covenant faith (e.g., Josh 4:1-7,19-24; see W. Brueggemann, The Creative Word, 1982, 14-39).

5. The word ’eben is also used figuratively, though less so than sela‘ and sir I. Examples include: those who have set their hearts or minds like stone (Job 41:24[16]; Ezek 11:19; 36:26), those turned to stone by fear (Exod 15:16), hailstones of judgment

(Isa 30:30; Ezek 38:22), the plumbline weighted with a stone as a symbol of divine

judgment (Isa 30:1) or divine restoration (Zech 3:9), and most significant, Yahweh’s Messiah as the foundation stone or capstone of Zion (Ps 118:22; Isa 28:16). This last image, taken from the language of the stonemason, described the stabilizing stone

joining two walls or columns of stone. It was a reference to the Lord himself for Israel 249

DIDN# 77) (Ps 118:25), and a foreshadowing of Jesus Christ as the cornerstone of the NT church (1 Peter 2:6-8). Rock, stones: > ’eben (stone, rock, #74); > gabi¥ (rock-crystal, # 1486); > hallamis (flint, # 2734); > hasas (gravel, #2953); > kép (rock, #4091); > sdheret (mineral stone, # 6090); > sela‘ (rock, #6152); > sql (throw stones, #6232); > sirI(rock, boulder, #7446); > sar I (pebble, flint, # 7447); > sdrI (flint knife, # 7644); > rgm (stone, # 8083); > talpiyy6t (courses of stones, # 9444) BIBLIOGRAPHY

ISBE 3:205-6; 4:622-30; NIDNTT 2:731-34; 3:381-99; TDOT 1:48-51; TWOT 1:7-8. Andrew E. Hill

dit!

DIIN

QIAN (abnét), nom. sash (# 77).

ANE_

’abnét is perhaps a loanword from the Egyp. bnd (HALAT 8, Ges!® 10).

OT

‘abnét occurs 9x, 8x in Exod and Lev. The exception is Isa 22:21, where it

refers to the clothing of a high official. In the priestly texts it describes the sash or girdle that was an essential element of the clothing of Aaron and his sons (Exod 29:9).

The material of the priestly sash is not explicitly mentioned, and Haran (Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel, 170 n. 47) considers that the occurrence of the sing. ’abnét in 39:29 indicates a reference to Aaron’s sash, the ordinary priestly sash being simpler. Milgrom (Leviticus 1-16, 1991, 502, 519, 548) argues rather that ’abnét is a

collective sing. (the versions take it as a pl.) and that all the priests wore a mixed linen and wool weave of rogém embroidery (Exod 28:39). This mixture is forbidden to ordinary Israelites (Lev 19:19) and is a mark of holiness. The work of an embroiderer (rogém) is found also in the screens at the entrances of the tabernacle and the court (Exod 26:36; 27:16), the location of the normal high priestly and priestly ministry. Like the other garments, it was made for “dignity and honor” (28:40) and contributed to the complex and integrated symbolism of Israel’s worship (Haran, Jenson). The high priest’s sash on the Day of Atonement was made of plain linen (Lev 16:4).

P-B_ There is a detailed description of the sash in Josephus (Ant 3:154-56). Seven priests of the sons of Aaron wear a high-priestly sash in 1QM 7:10 (cf. 4QM?@ 1, 18). Priests and levites: > ’abnét (sash, esp. of priests, #77); > ’épdd I (ephod, priestly garment, cult object, # 680); > hosen (breast-piece of highpriest, # 3136); > khn (perform the duties of a priest, #3912); > komer (pagan priest, #4024); — léwi (levite, #4290); > migba‘a (head-band, #4457); > miknasayim (trousers, #4829); > pa“mén (bell [on priest’s robe], #7194); > taSbés (checkered work, #9587); > Aaron: Theology; ~ Priests and Levites: Theology BIBLIOGRAPHY

J. Gabriel, Untersuchungen iiber das alttestamentliche Hohepriestertum mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung des hohepriesterlichen Ornates, Theologische Studien der Osterreichischen Leo-Gesellschaft 33, 1933; M. Haran, “Priestly Vestments,” EncJud

13, 1971, 1063-69; idem,

Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel, 1978; R. P. E. Haulotte, Symbolique du vétement selon la Bible, Théologie 65, 1966; H. W. Honig, Die Bekleidung des Hebriiers:

Eine bib-

lisch-archdologische Untersuchung, 1957; P. P. Jenson, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly

250

DSN (# 80) Conception of the World, in Israel,” ZAW

JSOTSup 106, 1992; A. Jirku, “Zur magischen Bedeutung der Kleider

37, 1917-18,

109-25;

M. Levin, Melekhet

Hammishkan

(Hebrew),

1968;

C. Rabin, “Avnet and pitdah (Hebrew),” Les 39, 1974-75, 182-86. Philip Jenson

8 ANE

ON

2

Saad

(bs), q. fatten (# 80); nom. DIAN (ébiis),

manger (> #17).

Tender meat was a delicacy both within Israelite tradition (e.g., Gen

18:7, 8;

Luke 15:23) and elsewhere (e.g., in the Ugar. myths Baal marked the building of his house by feasting on fatlings [Ugar. mr’]). OT 1. The past part. of ’bs occurs in 1 Kgs 4:23[5:3] and Prov 15:17; the nom. ‘ébis in the other passages cited. Words other than those from the ’bs group are generally used for such special animals. A beast would be fattened for the table by careful feeding and by being kept in the stall while other animals were worked. In the light of this it is uncertain whether ’@biis means manger or cattle-stall. The contrast between the empty manger and the abundant harvest in Prov 14:4 appears to favor manger. However, although /°bi’G (harvest) usually refers to grain and fruit in OT, it may denote increase in a flock. So Deut 14:22, 23, where fbii’at zar‘ekd (lit. “the produce

of your seed,” NIV “all that your fields produce’’) includes stock born during the year. In the light of this Prov 14:4 could read, “Where there are no oxen the stall (ébiis) is empty, but from the strength of an ox comes abundant progeny (t°bii’d).” The meaning stall is more fitting than manger for Job 39:9. A wild ox may conceivably threaten a farmer’s store of fodder, but it would never consent to be stalled overnight. Although Vg. has praesepe, manger, it evidently senses a difficulty, for it has morabitur (lingers) for the Heb. “stay the night.” The presence of (> marbéq) “cattle stall” in OT wordstock may make a similar meaning for ’@bis less likely. The associated nom. ma’“biis (Jer 50:26) may mean “granary” (so, NIV, RSV) or more generally “store.” NIV 1 Kgs 4:23 [5:3] and Prov 15:17 render ’ébiis by “choice” fowl and “fattened” calf respectively. However ’é@biis is rendered, the references here are to domestic animals that have been bred for the table. It was the choicest of his fowls that Solomon is said to have reserved for sacrifice (1 Kgs 4:23[5:3]). 2. Throughout the OT ’bs has a positive reference to the care a farmer gives to his livestock. This makes a powerful image for the care that God bestows upon his people and, by contrast, for their stubborn refusal to acknowledge him (Isa 1:3). The care

given by a farmer results in human well-being, but this benefit is not a supreme moral value (Prov 15:17). Fat, fatty food, oil: > ’bs (fatten, #80); > br’ II (fatten o.s., # 1344); > dsn I (become fat, #2014); > héleb I (fat, #2693); > mhh III (fattened, #4683); > mrt’ (fattened, #5309);

~ peder (fat, # 7022); > pimd (fat, # 7089); > Smn I (be fat, # 9042) Robert J. Way

81

NYDVIN

MYDVIN (“ba ‘bu ‘6t), blisters, boils (# 81). 251

PN (#85) OT

Boils (KJV), a rare term describing vesicles or pustules, most probably refer-

ring to the malignant pustule of anthrax (Exod 9:9-10), which had affected animals and

humans alike (see J. I. Durham, Exodus, WBC, 1987 120 (n. 9c), 122). Disease - blister, boil, skin disease, scar, wound: > ““ba‘bu ‘dt (blisters, # 81); > bohaq (skin condition, #993); > baheret (white patch on skin, # 994); > gdarab (festering eruption, # 1734), > zrr I (press out [wounds], #2452);

> yallepet (skin disease, #3539); #3918); > m’r (be sore, #4421);

> heres I (itch, # 3063);

> yabbelet (wart?, #3301);

~ y*ragraq (discoloration, #3768); — k°wiyya (scar, > mazér I (boil, #4649); > makka (blow, #4804);

> mispahat (skin eruption, #5030); > mrh (rub, polish, #5302); — neteq (scalp infection, # 5999); > sappahat (hair disease, #6204); > ‘dpel I (abscesses, #6754); > ‘as II (pus, # 6932); > sapd (pus?, #7597); — sarebet (scar, #7648); > sr‘ (suffer from skin disease, #7665); > $°’ét II (swelling, # 8421); > Str (break out [tumor], # 8609); > Shin (boil, # 8825). For related entries > hlh I (become weak, tired, ill, # 2703) BIBLIOGRAPHY

ISBE 1:532, 953-60; 3:103-6. R. K. Harrison

85

Par

PIN (’abagq), nom. dust (# 85).

OT All six occurrences of the word ’abaq refer to dust, the kind of fine dust kicked up by horses (Ezek 26:10). Figuratively, clouds are the dust of God’s feet (Nah 1:3). Moses throws the soot from a furnace into the air and it becomes fine dust (Exod 9:9). In judgment God will turn the rain into dust and powder (Deut 28:24); through judgment enemies will become like fine dust (Isa 29:5). In a simile of judgment, flowers,

representing humankind, will blow away like dust (Isa 5:24). Dust, clay, dirt, loose soil: > ’abaq (dust, # 85); > ’@per (ashes, loose soil, # 709); > homer II (mud, clay, mortar, # 2817); > fit (mud, mire, clay, # 3226); > tnp (dirty, # 3245); > ‘pr (dust, # 6759); > roba‘ II (dust, rubbish, # 8066); > regeb (clods of earth, # 8073); > §*hdr (soot, blackness, # 8818); > Sahaq (dust, clouds of dust, # 8836)

Roy E. Hayden

86 (’“bagd, aromatic powders), > # 8379 87

=38

TANS (br), hi., fly (denom.; #87); TAN (ber), nom. wings, feathers (# 88); T7AN(ebrda), nom.

wings, feathers (# 89).

ANE The Akkad. abru denotes wing (of a bird); Arab. wabara, cover with feathers/fur. OT

1. Job 39:26 contains the lone occurrence of the vb., in which Yahweh asks Job

if the hawk is able to take flight because of Job’s wisdom. Through the question the Creator affirms his awe-inspiring wisdom and the wonderful truth that the God who is sovereign over and cares for animals certainly cares for Job. 2. The use of the noun (’éber) has a similar intent, “The wings (k°ndp) of the

ostrich flap joyfully, but they cannot compare with the pinions (’ebrd)) and feathers 252

MTN #99) (ndsa) of the stork” (Job 39:13). The surpassing wings of the stork illustrate Yahweh’s creative greatness. (For the exegetical problems of v. 13b, see J. E. Hartley, The Book of Job, NICOT, 1988, 509.) The word ’éber is used of the wings of a dove by which the psalmist desired to carry away his troubles (Ps 55:6[7]), but also of Yahweh’s wonderful care of all who are faithful to him: “but those who hope in the LORD will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and ~ not be faint” (Isa 40:31). How different is the threatening imagery of Nebuchadnezzar, who is likened to the majesty and strength of an eagle: “A great eagle with powerful wings, long feathers and full plumage of varied colors came to Lebanon” (Ezek 17:3). 3. The noun ’ebrd applies to spoils of war as the token of Yahweh’s victory and tender love for Israel. Among the spoils of war Israel received were “the wings (kanpé)” of the dove, sheathed with silver and whose feathers (’ebrdteyha) were shining gold” (Ps 68:13[14]; for the interpretative issues, see W. A. VanGemeren, “Psalms”, EBC 5, ad loc.).

The imagery of Yahweh’s care is vivid. protect its young, so Yahweh loved Israel: “In and howling waste. He shielded him and cared his eye, like an eagle that stirs up its nest and

Like an eagle that spreads its wings to a desert land he found him, in a barren for him; he guarded him as the apple of hovers over its young, that spreads its

wings to catch them and carries them on its pinions (’ebraté)” (Deut 32:10-11; see Ps

91:4). P-B_

Mish. Heb. ’éber means “limb, part.”

Flying, wing: > ’br (fly, #87); > gwz (fly away, pass, #1577); > d’h (fly swiftly, # 1797); > twS (rush, dart, #3216); > kandap (wing, skirt, outermost edge, # 4053); > mr’ (spring, fly?, # 5257); > nosd (feathers, # 5681); > ‘wp I (fly, fly about, fly away, # 6414) BIBLIOGRAPHY

C. Begg, “The Messenger Dove in Ps 68, 12-14,” ETL 63, 1987, 117-18; idem, “The Covenantal Dove in Psalm Ixxiv 19-20,” VT 37, 1987, 78-81; E. Lipifiski, “La colombe du Ps LX VIII 14,”

VT 23, 1973, 365-68. George L. Klein

88 (éber, wings, feathers), > # 87

89 ('ebrd, wing), > # 87 90 (abraham, Abraham), ~ Abraham

92 ('abram, Abram), ~ Abraham

99

mae)

MAAS (“gudda), sprinkling brush (# 99).

The meaning of the word is based primarily on Exod 12:22, where the people OT are instructed to take “a bunch” of hyssop, dip it into the blood, and put it on their doors as part of Passover observance. The word refers to what is firmly held together (and for this meaning for ’gd, cf. later Heb. and Aram.). Thus, we have the reference to a “bunch” of hyssop (Exod 12:22), “cords” of a yoke (Isa 58:6), a “group” of soldiers 253

TAN# 100) (2 Sam 2:25), and “the vault” (NIV, the “foundation” of Yahweh’s heavenly palace) on

the earth (Amos 9:6). In this last reference the prophet is referring to Yahweh’s dwelling place in heaven, which he pictures as a vault firmly bound together and overarching the earth, what elsewhere in Scripture is called a ragia‘ (Gen 1:6-8), or hig, horizon (Prov 8:27). For an alternate interpretation of ““guddd in Amos 9:6, cf. D. Stuart (389), who renders the word into English as “storeroom,” i.e., a metaphor for

earth, just as “upper chamber” is a metaphor for heaven. P-B___

Late Heb., see Jastrow 1:11.

Sprinkling: > ’“guddd (sprinkling brush, # 99); > zrh I (scatter, sprinkle, be scattered, scatter, spread, be strewed,

#2430);

> zrp (sprinkle, #2449);

— zrq I (sprinkle,

scatter, #2450);

~> mlh II (sprinkle salt, # 4873); > nwp II (sprinkle, #5678); > nzh (sprinkled, spatter, # 5684) Heaven: ~ ’“guddé (firmament, sprinkling brush, # 99); > ragia‘ (firmament, plate, # 8385); > Sahagq (clouds of dust, # 8836); > Samayim (heaven, sky, air, # 9028) BIBLIOGRAPHY

S. Paul, Amos,

Hermeneia,

1991, 280 n.77; D. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah,

WBC,

389 n.6b, 393;

H. W. Wolff, Joel and Amos, Hermeneia, 1977, 342.

Victor P. Hamilton

100

Tas

TAN (gz), walnut tree (# 100).

OT Only in S of Songs 6:11. Holladay has “walnut-tree” (Juglans regia), but identification remains uncertain. The basic root is distributed throughout Aram./Syr., Eth., and probably Ugar. The new versions render “nut orchard” (NRSV, NJPSV), “grove of nut trees” (NIV), “garden of nut trees” (REB), or “nut garden” (NAB). Trees:

> ’éld I (mighty tree,

#461); > ’erez (cedar, #780);

> ’dren I (pine, #815);

> ’éSel

(tamarisk, # 869); > b°r6s (juniper, # 1360); > lz I (almond-tree, # 4280); > ‘és (trees, tree, wood, timber, sticks, #6770); ~ ‘ar‘ar (juniper, #6899); — sammeret (acacia, [tree-]top,

#7550); > Sagéd (almond, #9196); — Sigma (sycamore-[fig-] tree, #9204); > £’aksir (cypress, # 9309); > tamar I (date-palm, #9469); > tirzd (unknown tree, # 9560); > Tree of

Knowledge/Life: Theology Larry L. Walker

102

:

m peels

MTANC“gdrd), nom. payment, or perhaps piece

Dae : : coin (of silver) (hapleg.; # 102).

‘

ANE ’“g6r@ is a loanword from Akk. igru, and later cognates are found in Arab. and Syr. (See HALAT 10). OT The term’s sole usage in or a piece of silver (presumably of the doomed house of Eli will that they can have something to

1 Sam 2:36 (’“gérat kesep) indicates either a payment quite small; see DCH, 116), for which the descendants beg as an alms of the faithful priest in time to come so eat.

P-B__LXX renders obolos, a small coin worth one-sixth of a drachma, a silver coin.

254

O38 # 103) a

er

Te

Payment, rent, reward, wages: > “gdrd (payment, #102); > ’esSkar (tribute, payment, # 868); > m*hirI (price, payment, # 4697); > sl’ (be paid, # 6131); > slh II (be paid, # 6137);

> p rsh II (pay for, make good, make

amends, # 8355); > Skr (hire, #8509); > 51m (repay, reward, retribute, make peace, # 8966);

> Retribution: Theology

Cornelis Van Dam

103

bo vis

ANE

Das (égel), nom. drop (of dew); hapleg. in Job 38:28 (# 103).

Cf. ESA root ’gl in m’gl, cistern (Biella, 3).

OT Job 38:28 asks the question, “Does the rain (matar) have a father? Who fathers the drops (égel) of dew?” The parallelism with maar, rain, and the construction with

tal, dew, invites the interpretation of ’égel as drop. Dripping, flowing, trickling: > ’égel (drop, # 103); > dip I (drip, #1940); > zwb (flow, # 2307); > trd (continuous dripping, # 3265); > mar II (drop, # 5254); > ngr (flow, gush forth, pour out, #5599); > nzl (flow, trickle, #5688); > ntp (drip, pour, #5752); > ‘rp I (drip, # 6903); > pkh (trickle, #7096); > r“wayd (overflow, # 8122); > ryr (flow, # 8201); > rss I (moisten, # 8272); > r‘p (drip, flow, rain, # 8319) Rain, dew, drizzle, hail, showers: ~ ’égel (drop [of dew], #103); > brd I (hail, # 1351); > gsm (make rain, # 1772); > zrm II ({clouds] pour out [water], #2442); > h“ndamal (sleet, hail?, # 2857); > tal (dew, light rain, drizzle, #3228); > yrh II (give drink, cause rain, # 3722); > mtr (make rain, #4763); — malqds (late rain, #4919); > sagrir (downpour, #6039); > sapiah II (violent storm, # 6207); > r°bibim (showers, #8053); > rasts (dew drop, # 8268); > r‘p (drip, flow, rain, # 8319); > sa‘ir IV (heavy rain, # 8540); > sikbda (layer of dew, emission/ discharge of seed, # 8887) Richard S. Hess

108 ANE

DAN

DIS

(adgém),

adj.

sad,

grieved,

troubled,

depressed, distressed (hapleg.; # 108).

Although the vb. ’gm, be troubled, sad, vexed, irritated, does not occur in OT,

suggested cognates occur in Akk. agammu, be angry; Arab. ’agam/(at), loathe; and Syr.

‘agma; cf. Tigre, ‘ag“m, irrigation channel (?). OT The phrase ’agmé-ndpe’S, sick at heart, describes the despair and impotence of Egyptian wage-earners who will be subjected to poverty and crushing socioeconomic distress when Yahweh causes a catastrophic drought to destroy crops, disrupt industries, collapse the economy, and create widespread unemployment (Isa 19:10).

P-B.

The nom. Aram.

’agma’ occurs frequently in Talm., meaning a depression,

stagnant water, lake, marshland, meadow. Often the word occurs in the phrase cut reeds in the meadow = be illiterate (Jastrow 1:13). Despair, discouragement, grief, trouble: > ’agém (sad, grieved, distressed, #108); > y’s (despair, be hopeless, # 3286); > mwg (melt, reel, waver, lose courage, # 4570); > mss (waste away, melt, dissolve, lose courage, #5022); > ‘gm (be afflicted, distressed, grieved, # 6327);

Zo

OwTIN# 113) eS

+ swq I (constrain, press in/upon, harass, vex, #7439); straits, distress, # 7674); be/become discouraged,

re

> srr I (bind, shut up, be narrow, in

> mwg (melt, reel, waver, lose courage, # 4570); > gsr II (be short, worn out, #7918); ~ rph (become slack, lose heart, discourage,

# 8332); > Syh (melt away, be in despair, # 8863) Robin Wakely 109 ('agmén, reed), > # 7866 110 (aggan, bowls or basins), > #3998

113 ANE.

Owns

OMIN(4gartal), nom. pan(s); dishes (# 113).

Cf. Arab. girtallat; Eth. gartalo,; Hitt. kurtal.

OT The word is used in Ezra 1:9 to indicate the 1000 containers of some kind that were brought by Sheshbazzar from Babylon to Jerusalem. There were thirty gold dishes/pans that had been plundered by the Babylonians in 605-586 BC. P-B

The LXX translates with psuktér, wine cooler.

Pan, pot: > ““gartal (bowl, basin, # 113); > did (cooking pot, # 1857); > mahtd (censer, fire

pan/tray, #4746); > marheset (baking pan, #5306); > masrét (baking pan, #5389); (cooking pot, #6105); > pari (cooking pot, # 7248); > gallahat (pot, # 7831)

~ sir

Eugene Carpenter

114 Cegrop, fist), > #3338 115 Ciggeret, document, letter),

> Writing

116 (éd, fresh water stream), > #5643

121 (‘“dém, Edom), > Edom

122 (‘“démi, Edomite),

> Edom

ITS (‘adén), nom. lord, master (# 123); 72458 23)

as

°

Nip

a=

:

e

(“donay), personal title, my Lord (> #151).

3

ANE_ 1. Common in Northwest and South Sem.: Ugar. ’adiinu, lord, master; Phoen. ‘dn lord, master; Pun. ’adon, lord, master; Ammon. ’dn, lord, master; Emp.Aram. ’dn, lord, PN; Palm. ’dth, fem. lady, mistress; OSA ’dn, command; Arab. ’idn, commission,

announcement;

M-L Egyp. ’idnw, administrator, representative, deputy, lieutenant;

commander; Mari Aduna, PN; Amarna Aduna, PN; Canaan. Adunum, PN. 2. Northwest Sem.: The nom. ’adiinu is used in reference to: (a) human lord

(usually king) and (b) divine lord. It is often paired with mlk, king, and b‘I, lord in Ugar. (CTA 1:1V:17; 6:VI:56; 1:1V:17) and Phoen. (EXmun ‘azar 18; Ma‘soub 5--6; Larnaka 1:2;,2:4, 5, 6,8;.3:5;,CIS 1:15, 7; 7. 3310. 498:5; 95. 2"RES 234: 9-9219'3"

4). Ugar. ’adunu is used in construct with a following nom. that identifies the sphere of tule, e.g., ‘dn ’rs, lord of the land (Krt 1:10); ’dn yrgb, lord of PN (CTA 6:VI 57); and ‘dn hwt, lord of life (NK 13:201. 4). . 256

TITAS 123) 3. In Northwest/Northeast Sem., ’dn is used as a personal name of human and divine kings. It may be a hypocristicon of a nominal sentence name, like “Baal king of Tyre” (Borger 69; Kraeling 18). E.g.: Amarna: Aduna, Aduna, king of Arka (EA 75:25, 140:10); Amorite/Mari: Aduna-Adad, Lord Adad (Huffmon, 156-59); Can.: Adunum Adunu (Bauer, 11); Ugar.: bn adn, son of Adunu (KTU 4. 90:3; 4. 609:33); Akk.:

Aduna, Aduna (Tallqvist, 13); Ammon.: ’dn Adon (Landes, 1961, 81, 83); Aram.: ’dn Adon (Dupont-Sommer, 43-68; Ginsberg, 24-27; Gibson 21; Fitzmyer 41-55; Porten

36-52). This is paralleled by the personal names of several Hebrew kings (see OT 11 below).

4. According to Albright (1950, 388-89; 1954, 228), Heb. ’adén and Ugar./Phoen. ’adiinu may be related to Middle/Late Egyptian ’idnw (vocalized as ‘idunu by Albright), deputy, administrator, representative, lieutenant, commander (Lesko 1:63; Faulkner, 35). As in Northwest Sem. (see ANE 2 above) and Hebrew (see

OT 9 below), this Egyptian nom. often appears in construct with a following nom. that designates the sphere of rule, e.g., “idny-a k3t, deputy-overseer of public works (Urk IV 52. 17), and ’idnw n mS‘, lieutenant-commander of the army (AEO 1:25; JEA 39:46). 5. BDB and TWOT wrongly relate Heb. ’Gd6n to Akk. addnu, which does not mean strength, as they suggest, but a moment/period of time (CAD 1:1:96; AHw 1:10). The Akk. cognate is aduna, which refers to human and divine lords, e.g., Aduna-Adad, Lord Adad (Huffmon, 156-59).

6. Early Ugar. lexicographers failed to distinguish ’adinu, lord, master, and ’ad“nu, father, as separate roots (WGU §86; UM §53), leading some scholars to relate Heb. ’Gd6n to Ugar. ’ad“nu, father (Herdner, 67-70; Ginsberg, 473-74). However, ’adn I and ’adn Il are now clearly distinguished. Bilingual polyglot texts reveal that ’adn I, lord, master, was vocalized ad-du-nu = ’adiinu (Albright, 1950, 389), while ’adn II, father, was vocalized ’ad“nu: Ugar. a-da-nu = Hur. at-ta-ni = Akk. a-bu (Huehnergard,

24-25, 104). OT 1. ’Gd6n, nom. lord, master (DCH 1:119-22; HALAT 1:12-13; BDB, 10-11) occurs 334x in OT. It is most often used in reference to human lords and masters (over 300x). Leaving ’*“dénay (= Yahweh) out of consideration, it is used only about 30x of the divine Lord/Master, as in the divine title ’“dén kol-ha’ares, Lord of all the earth

(Josh 3:11, 13). 2. The semantic domain of ’dddén is similar to ba‘al, lord, husband, owner (HALAT 1:142-45). However, ’a@d6n describes the sovereign authority of lordship (lord as master), while ba‘al depicts ownership (lord as owner). ’Gd6n does not primarily denote ownership of property, but lordship over a sphere, e.g., Joseph was ’adén (lord) of Pharaoh’s household and mé¥é/ (ruler) of his possessions (Ps 105:21). Note: ’adén in 1 Kgs 16:24 is often rendered owner of the hill of Samaria (DCH 1:120; BDB, 11; KJV, RSV, ASV, NIV); however, it is more accurate to view Shemer as the lord, ruler

of the hill of Samaria, just as Joseph was lord (vizier?), not owner, of Egypt (Gen 42:30; 45:9) (HALAT 1:12-13). 3. The most common synonyms to ’Gd6n equate it with rulership or kingship: melek, king (Isa 19:4); m6¥él, ruler (Ps 105:21); ro‘eh, shepherd as king (1 Kgs 22:17 = 2 Chron 18:16); and ’ab, father as advisor to Pharaoh (Gen 45:8, 9). The most common

antonyms

designate

subordinate

positions:

‘ebed,

subordinate,

servant,

slave 257

ITN 123) (Gen 24:9; Exod 21:4-8; Deut 23:16; Judg 3:25; 1 Sam 25:10, 41; 29:10; 2 Sam 11:9, 11:13; 20:6;1-Kgs 1:333:2,Kgs-9:115)48;24; Ps:123:2;:)1sa 24:2; 36:9; Dan 10:17; Mal 1:6); na‘ar, lad (Judg 19:11; 1 Sam 20:38; 25:25); na “4rd, lass (2 Kgs 5:3); and Siphd, handmaid (Gen 16:4, 8, 9; 1 Sam 25:25).

4. When used in reference to men, ’Gd6n designates a wide range of referents in positions of leadership or authority: (a) master as lord of servants/slaves (Gen 24:9; 40:7; 42:10; Exod 21:4, 6, 8, 32; Deut 23:15; Judg 19:11, 12; Job 3:19; Ps 123:2; Prov 25:13; 27:18; 30:10; Isa 24:2; Zeph 1:9; Mal 1:6); (b) husband as lord of wife (Gen 18:12; Judg 19:26-27; Ps 45:11[12]; Amos 4:1); (c) master as lord of people (1 Kgs 22:17); (d) vizier as lord of country (Gen 42:10, 30, 33; 44:8; 45:9); (e) owner as lord of territory (1 Kgs 16:24); (f) household master as lord of household (Gen 45:8; Ps 105:21); (g) prophet as master of disciples (2 Kgs 2:3, 5, 16); (h) provincial governor as lord of district (Neh 3:5); (i) prince as lord of people (1 Sam 29:10); Gj) king as lord of nation (Gen 40:1; Judg 3:25; 1 Sam 29:4; 1 Kgs 22:17; 1 Chron 12:19; 2 Chron 13:6; 18:16; Isa 19:4; 22:18; 36:12; 37:4, 6; Jer 22:18; 27:4; 34:5); and (k) oppressor as

tyrannical lord of the poor (Ps 12:5). 5. The construct form is used with a genitive denoting the sphere over which the master rules: lord of the land (Gen 42:30, 33); lord of a hill (1 Kgs 16:24); lords of the

field (Job 5:23); master of Joseph (Gen 39:20). The genitive use of ’ad6n designates the master of the construct nom.: house of the master (Gen 39:2; 40:7; 44:8; 2 Sam 12:8; 2 Kgs 10:3; Isa 22:18; Zeph 1:9); camels of the lord (Gen 24:10); throne of the lord (1 Kgs 1:20, 27, 37).

6. The verbal collocates of ’ad6n are appropriate to lords, masters, and kings: b‘l, rule over (Isa 26:13); hi. mlk, make king (1 Kgs 1:43); q. S/h, send (1 Kgs 18:10;

2 Kgs 5:22; 18:27; 19:4), pi. dispatch (Isa 10:16); pi. swh, command (Num 32:25; 2 Sam 9:11); Sym, appoint (Ps 105:21); bhr, choose (2 Sam 15:15); ni. Jhm, fight (1 Sam 25:28); hi. ys‘, conquer, save (1 Sam 25:31; 2 Kgs 6:26). ’ado6n is the object of vbs. used of lords, kings, and masters: pi. kbd, honor (Mal 1:6); yr’, fear (Dan 1:10); and pi. brk, bless (Gen 24:35; 1 Sam 25:14; 1 Kgs 1:47).

7. The nom. often appears in the pl. form to designate a single individual; an example of the intensive or honorific pl. (GKC §124i1;

Waltke-O’ Connor

§7. 4. 3. c).

The pl. absolute form, ’“d6nim, only rarely refers to a plurality of number (Deut 10:17; Ps 16:3; Isa 26:13; Jer 27:4); it usually refers to a single individual. The referent of the pl. suffixed forms is always a single individual, e.g., “Our lord ("“dénénii) King David (hammelek-dawid) has made Solomon king” (1 Kgs 1:43), and “I will hand the Egyptians over to the power of a cruel (qa5eh) master (’“donim), and a fierce king (melek) will rule over them” (Isa 19:4). The pl. construct may refer to an individual, e.g.,

Shemer, the lord of the hill (“déné hahar) (1 Kgs 16:24). Except for the sg. “don? (my master), suffixed forms are usually pl., even when referring to an individual, e.g.,

‘“donéka, your master (e.g., 1 Sam 26:15). 8. Suffixed forms are often used in apposition to hammelek, the king, in royal titles: ““déni-hammelek, my lord the king (1 Sam 24:9; 26:17, 19; 29:8; 2 Sam 3:21; 4:8; 9:11; 13:33; 14:9 [+ 6x]; 15:15, 21; 16:4,.9;,18:28, 31,32; 19:20 [+ 8x]; 24:21, 22: 1 Kgs 1:2 [+ 11x]; 2:38; 20:4,9; 2 Kgs 6:12, 26; 8:5; 1 Chron 21:3, 23; Jer 37:20; 38:9;

Dan 1:10); hammelek ’“doni, the king, my lord (2 Sam 14:15); “déneyka hammelek, your lord the king (1 Sam 26:15); ’“donénti hammelek, our lord the king (1 Kgs 1:43);

258

JUAN 123) la’“donéhem

I°melek misrayim, against their lord, the king of Egypt (Gen 40:1);

et-’“doni ’ et-melek ’aXSiir, my lord, the king of Assyria (2 Kgs 18:23 = Isa 36:8). The suffixed form is also used in reference to a prophet: “dont ’i¥ ha’“lohim, my lord, the

man of God (2 Kgs 4:16). 9. The first common singular suffixed form ’“déni, my lord, my master (occasionally ’“dénay), is often used as an expression of courtesy: (a) as a polite address: my lord, my master; and (b) in polite style, instead of independent personal pronouns (Landes, 28-35; TDOT 1:59-62; TWOT 1:12-13; DCH 1:119; HALAT 1:12-13; BDB, 10-11). (a) This polite address is an example of meiosis: the speaker humbles himself and exalts the addressee in an attempt to placate the anger of a powerful individual (Gen 32:5; 33:8; 44:7; 1 Sam 25:24) or to find favor in the eyes of a potential benefactor (Ruth 2:13). (b) In polite style, “don? is used in place of the full address with a personal pronoun (you, your, he, his) (Gen 24:27; Exod 21:5; 1 Sam 16:16; 30:13; 2 Sam

1:10; 1 Kgs 1:43). For example, Rachel politely addresses her father Laban as ’“ddni, my lord (Gen 31:35), and a servant refers to Abraham as ’“doni, my master (Gen 24:27). As a polite address "“doni (= you) is used by: (i) wife to husband (Gen 18:12; 1 Kgs 1:17); (i) daughter to father (Gen 31:35); (iii) brother to brother (32:6); (iv) wife to stranger (Judg 4:18); (v) woman to benevolent stranger (Gen 24:18); (vi) servant or slave to master (Gen 24:12, 27; 44:5; Exod 21:5; 1 Sam 30:13, 15; 2 Kgs 5:3, 20, 22; 6:15); (vii) people to individual (Gen 23:9; 42:10); (viii) people to prophet (1 Kgs 18:7, 13; 2 Kgs 2:19; 4:16, 28; 6:5; 8:5); (ix) king to prophet (2 Kgs 8:12); (x) people to prince (Gen 23:6, 11, 15; 42:10; 43:20; 44:18; 47:18; Judg 4:18); (xi) people to king (1 Sam 22:12; 75x in Sam-Kgs); (xii) Israelites to Moses (Exod 32:22; Num 11:28; 12:11; 32:26, 27; 36:2); (xiii) woman to priest (1 Sam 1:15, 26); (xiv) captain to commander (2 Sam 11:11); and (xv) people to the angel of the Lord (Josh 5:14; Judg 6:13).

10. Frequently, ’“ddn? is used in a full address with a personal name: Abraham (Gen 24:12, 27, 42, 48), Esau (32:5, 19), Moses (Num 11:28), Saul (2 Sam 2:7; 1 Chron 12:20), Joab (2 Sam 11:11), David (1 Kgs 1:11; 2 Chron 2:13), Elijah (1 Kgs 18:7), Ahab (2 Kgs 9:7), Hadadezer (1 Kgs 11:23), Sennacherib (2 Kgs 19:4 = Isa 37:4), and Hanun (2 Sam 10:3).

11. Similar to Semitic personal names (see ANE 3 above), ’“doni appears in Heb. royal personal names: "“doniyahii, Adonijah; ’“doniqgam, Adonikam; ’“doniram, Adoniram; ’“doni-sedek, Adoni-Zedek; and *4doni-bezek, Adoni-Bezek (lord of Bezek,

the Canaanite king of Bezek).

P-B_

1. The nom. occurs 41x in ancient Heb. inscriptions, dating from eighth-sixth

centuries BC (Davies, 268-69), always in the lcs suffixed form of polite address/refer-

ence as a royal title: ’dny, my lord. It often appears with the synonym hmik, the king, and the antonym ‘bdk, your servant, and once with the synonym hsr, the official. The Ics suffixed form ’dny, my lord, occurs 27x in Lachish ostraca 2:1, 2, 4, 6; 3:2, 6, 8, 157,971; 12.1.6; 17:2,'3;'18:2 Davies; 1-7; DE A Ome See SPO" D, 3, 8-6: Pewee ss 4 6:2. 42406. 102 (Davies, ostraca Torczyner; Diringer); 7x in Tel Arad

11-32; Aharoni); 2x in Kuntillet ‘Ajrud inscription 21:1, 2 (Davies, 81; Meshel 2:2; Hadley, 185); 1x in Mesad Hashavyahu (Yavneh-Yam) ostraca 1:1 (Davies, 76; Naveh, 130-36); and 1x in En-Gedi Cave inscription 2.7 (Davies, 91-92; Bar-Adon,

226-32). The plene form occurs 1x in a polite address by a wife to her husband in a deed of sale: bbytk ’dwny, in your house, O my lord (Murabba‘at 30.27). The

Pes)

TITS# 123) possessive form /’dny occurs 1x in Kadesh Barnea oil lamp inscription 7:1 (Davies, 84; Cohen, 71). The titles ’dn and ’dny occur 5x with personal names: Gediah (Arad ostracon 71:3); Eliashib (Arad ostracon 18:1); and Jaush (Lachish ostraca 2:1; 3:2; 6:1).

2. Suffixed forms occur 8x in ancient Hebrew seals and impressions, most dating from the seventh/sixth centuries BC (Davies, 269-70): lgsr ’dny, Of PN, my lord (100. 096); lim bn ’dnyh, Of PN, son of her lord (100.075); l’dnyhw ’Sr ‘I hbyt, Of his lord, who is over the house (100.501; 100.502); /’dnyhw bn ygmyhw, Of his lord, son

of PN (100.511); Inryhw ’dnyhw, Of PN, his lord (100.625); liptyhw ’dnyhw, Of PN, his lord (100.665); /’dnyhw, Of his lord (100.891). 3. The nom. ’Gd6én occurs 13x in DSS (DCH 1:119). It usually refers to the divine Lord, but on rare occasion to human lords (1Q19 2.1.5). The special form ’dwny = ’“dénday, the divine Lord (= Yahweh) occurs 52x (DCH 1:133) (see OT 1 above). 4. ’ad6n occurs 5x in Ben Sirach, 2x in reference to the divine Lord (Sir 10:7; 32:22) and 3x in reference to human lords or masters (Sir 41:15, 18; 42:3). When contrasted with the antonym ’?¥, (common) man (Sir 41:15), and paired with the synonym

g°beret, princess (Sir 41:18), it refers to a prince or ruler in a lordly position. It is also used in reference to an employer (DCH 1:120), paired with hdbér, business partner or

assistant (Sir 42:3). 5. In RL ’adén, lord, master (Sokoloff, 35), is used in reference to human rulers

and the divine Lord. Based on popular etymology, rabbinic exegesis derives ’Gd6n from diin, judge (Jastrow, 16; Levy, 30). It often appears in wordplays: “There is no justice (din) and no judge (’adén)” (PTalm Talmud IV. 65b). However, the traditional sense was also recognized, e.g., “Lord (’ad6én) of all creatures” (Hagiga 3b). Also

appearing are the related fem. noms.:

’“ddnd, lady, mistress; and ’adnit, lordship,

authority (Jastrow, 16-17; Levy, 30; HALAT 1:12).

6. LXX rendered ’G4d6n most often with kyrios, lord, master; other terms were used more rarely: archon, ruler (1x), despotés, lord (4x), hégoumenos, governor (1x), and anér, man (1x).

NT The NT use of kyrios mirrors the LXX rendering of ’Gdd6n. Its semantic range of meaning parallels ’Gd6n; kyrios is used of human masters/lords (about 60x) and the divine Lord (nearly 700x) (including kyrios, for ’“dénay = Yahweh). When used of human masters and lords, kyrios, refers to: (a) master of slaves and servants (Matt 10:24-25; Eph 6:5, 9); (b) employer of workers (Matt 6:24); (c) husband as master of wife (1 Pet 3:6); (d) lord of vineyard (Mark 12:9; Luke 20:13); (e) master of house (Mark 13:35; Luke 14:21); (f) manager of household (Gal 4:1); (g) master of property (Luke 19:33); and (h) kings and rulers of people (Acts 25:26; 1 Cor 8:5). Parallel to the

Ics suffixed form “doni used as polite address, kyrios, is often used of polite address as well: “Sir” (Matt 13:27; John 4:11). The main antonym of kyrios (when used in ref-

erence to human masters) is doulos, servant (Matt 10:24), while its main synonyms are didaskalos, master (John 13:13-14), and basileus, king (Rev 19:16). Leaders: > ’adén (lord, master, # 123); > ’allip II (tribal chief, # 477); > ’asil II (eminent, noble, #722); > zagén (elder, # 2418); > hdr I, free man, freeborn, # 2985); > maptéah (badge of office, #5158); > ndagid (prince, ruler, leader, #5592); > nasi’ I (chief, king, #5954); > saris (eunuch, court official, #6247); — seren II (Philistine prince, #6249); > ‘attiid

(he-goat, leader, #6966);

260

~ pehd (governor, #7068);

> paqid (officer, #7224);

> qgasin

OTN (# 131) (commander, leader, # 7903); > rab II (captain, chief, #8042); (noble, # 8777)

> rzn (rule, # 8142); > s6a‘ I

BIBLIOGRAPHY DCH 1:119-22; DISO, 5; GPL, 74; PPG, 284; TDNT 3:1039-98; TDOT 1:59-62; TWOT 1:12-13; WGU, §86; UT §§ 53, 86; Y. Aharoni, Arad Inscriptions, 1981, 35, 42-43, 52, 71, 95; W.F. Albright, “Book Review,” JBL 69, 1950, 388-89; idem, “Northwest-Semitic Names in a List of Egyptian Slaves,” JAOS 74, 1954, 228; N. Avigad, Hebrew Bullae From the Time of - Jeremiah, 1983, §§ 1, 2, 11, 125, 165; idem, “Two Seals of Women and Other Hebrew Seals,”

Erlsr 20, 1989, 93, § 9 (Heb.); P. Bar-Adon, “An Early Hebrew Inscription in a Judean Desert Cave,” IEJ 25, 1975, 226-32; W. W. Graf Baudissin, Kyrios als Gottesname im Judentum und seine Stelle in der Religionsgeschichte, 1929, 3:52-60; 4:25; idem, Adonis und Esmun, 1911, 10, 65-67; T. Bauer, Die Ostkanaannder, 1926, 11; J. C. Biella, Dictionary of Old South Arabic,

1982, 7; R. Borger, “Die Inschriften Asarhaddons K6nigs von Assyrien,” AfO 9, 1956, 69; R. Cohen, “Kadesh-Barnea, 1980,” JEJ 32, 1982, 71; G. A. Cooke, A Textbook of Northwest Inscriptions,

1923, 28; G. J. Davies, Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions: Corpus and Concordance,

1991, 268-69; M. A. Dupont-Sommer, “Le lettre araméenne du roi Adon au Pharaon: Un papyrus arameéen d’époque saite découvert a Saqqara,” Sem 1, 1948, 43-68; R. O. Faulkner, Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, 1962, 35; J. A. Fitzmyer, “The Aramaic Letter of the King Adon to the Egyptian Pharaoh,” Bib 46, 1965, 41-55; J. Friedrich, Phénizisch-punische Grammatik, 1970, 284; G. Garbini, I] Semitico di Nord-Ovest, 1960, 194-95; J. C. Gibson, Aramaic Inscriptions, 1975, 21; H. L. Ginsberg, “An Aramaic Contemporary of the Lachish Letters,’ BASOR 111, 1948, 24-27; J. M. Hadley, “Some Drawings and Inscriptions on Two Pithoi from Kuntillet “Ajrud,” VT 37, 1987, 185-87; Z. Harris, A Grammar of the Phoenician Language, 1977, 74;

A. Herdner, “Les noms de parenté en ugaritique,” GLECS 6, 1951-54, 64-70; C. F. Jean-J. Hoftijzer, Dictionnaire

des Inscriptions Sémitiques de l'Ouest,

1965, 5; J. Huehnergard,

Ugaritic

Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription, 1987, 104; H. B. Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts, 1965, 156-59; J. A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna-Tafeln, 1915, §1556; A. E. Kraeling, The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri, 1953, 18; I. Landes, Formelhafte Wendungen der Umgangssprache im Alten Testament, 1961, 28-35; L. F. Lesko, A Dictionary of Late Egyptian, 1982, 1:63; O. Loretz, “Vom Baal—Epitheon Adn zu Adonis and Adonaj,” UF 12, 1980, 287-92; Z. Meshel, Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, Inscriptions E (2. 2); J. Naveh, “A Hebrew Letter from the Seventh Century BC,” JEJ 10, 1960, 130-36; idem, JEJ 14, 1964, 158-59; M. Noth, Die israelitischen Personennamen,

1928, 115; B. Porten, “The Identity of King Adon,” BA 44, 1981, 36-52; J. San-

martin, ‘““Semantisches tiber ug. adn,” UF 9, 1977, 269-72; C. F. A. Schaeffer, ed., Le palais royal d’Ugarit, 1959-, 2:205; 4:245; E. Schrader, Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament,

1903, 398; M. Sznycer, Les passages puniques dans le Poenulus de Plaute, 1967, 998; K. L. Tallqvist, Assyrian Personal Names, 1914, 13; H. Torezyner, ed., Lachish I: The Lachish Letters, 1938, 37, 51, 79, 97, 117, 129, 137, 153, 177, 182; O. Tufnell, ed., Lachish Ill: The Iron Age, 1953, 332-37. Gordon H. Johnston

129 (’addir, magnificent, excellent, splendid), > # 158

131

Bs

DAN (dm), q. be red; pu. dyed red; hi. be red;

hitp. be red (# 131); DN (‘adom), red (# 137); 261

DTN (# 132) QIN

(ddem),

nom.

ruby

(> #138);

DIADIS

sian

red (#140);

"212798

( adméni), red (# 145).

1. The words belonging to this group are the most extensive of the semantic OT field for colors. Red (’adom) is a primary color by Brenner’s definition (49-105), with a range of color specification: “brown-red-pink.” It is likened to blood, wine, and scarlet. The secondary colors are: ’“damdam (“red”) and m®’oddam (“rubbed with red dye,” pu. part.). The tertiary colors are: ’adméni (“red”) and laban "4damdam “reddish-white” (Brenner, 127-29).

2. The one q. occurrence of the vb. is in Lam 4:7, (“princes were ... more ruddy than rubies”). The pu. appears 6x in Exod, all in the phrase, “ram skins dyed red,” and once in Nah 2:3[4], where it is the soldiers’ shields that are red, whether from blood or

paint, or because of the sun shining on the copper. The one hi. is in the oft quoted Isa 1:18, “... though they are red like crimson,” where crimson signifies the acts of injustice (1:15). God is willing to forgive and remove the stain of sin, but requires that the people return to him by changing their treatment of other people (1:19-20). The one hitp. is in Prov 23:31, “Do not gaze at wine when it is red.”

3. The word ’4ad6m—with the wide-color range of brown-red-pink—appears 8x in six OT books and modifies a variety of words: stew (Gen 25:30), heifer (Num 19:2), water (2 Kgs 3:22), lover (S of Songs 5:10), garments (Isa 63:2), and horses (Zech 1:8 and 6:2). 4. The word ’admé6ni, a secondary or tertiary color (reddish or reddish-brown, Brenner, 127-29), denotes the color of the skin: Esau’s skin was reddish at his birth (Gen 25:25). In 1 Sam 16:12 this is a positive physical feature of the young David, but in 1 Sam 17:42 Goliath mocked David because he was only a “pink-cheeked” boy

(Klein, 170). 5. The reduplicated form (’“damdam) occurs 6x, all in Lev 13 and 14 in connection with skin diseases. The priests determined whether a person was fit to come into the presence of God and worship at the holy temple. The regulations include a set of color tests, by which the priests determined whether a disease or fungus brought uncleanness and defiled a person or property. G. J. Wenham’s discussion on these complex regulations is most helpful (Leviticus, 189-214). (> Leviticus: Theology) Colors—Red: ~ ’dm (be red, #131); > ’argamdan (purple, #763); > karmil (crimson, #4147); > Saroq (brownish red, # 8601); > Sani I (scarlet, #9106); > Sa¥ar (vermillion/red, # 9266); > tl‘ I (clad in scarlet material, # 9433) BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Brenner, Colour Terms in the Old Testament, _JSOTSup 21, 1982; J. Doumet, A Study of the Ancient Purple Color, 1980; P. L. Garber, “Color,” SBE 1:729-32; R. Gradwohl, Die Farben im Alten Testament, BZAW 83, 1963; L. B. Jensen, “Royal Purple of Tyre,” JNES 22, 1963, 104-18; W. D. McHardy,

“The Horses in Zechariah,” In Memoriam

Paul Kahle, BZAW

103, 1968,

174-79. Robert L. Alden

132

262

oss

DUS (adam I), “Adam, people, humankind,”; it

ce

never appears in the OT as a fem. or pl., or in the

DIN@#132) construct case or with any pronominal suffix (# 132).

ANE In Ugar. ’adm is used as an epithet of El: “And in his dream El descends, in a vision the father of men” (ab ’adm; Krt 36-37). The title ’ab ’adm is found only in the Krt epic, and 5x after 1:37 (11:136, 151; V: 259; VI: 278, 297). ’adm also appears as a

synonym for lim, “people”: “She strikes the people of the West, she shatters the men of the East,” tmhs lim hp (ym) tsmt ’adm sat ¥pX (Anat II:7-8). Phoen. uses ‘dm and the pl. ’dmn for “person(s)/commoner(s).” So in the so-called Azitawadda inscription from Karatepe (ninth to eighth centuries BC) there is the line: “If there be a king (mlk) among kings or a prince (rzn) among princes, or a man who is called a man (’m ’dm ’§ ’dm §m) who will wipe out the name of Azitawadda” (KAI 26:III: 12-13). In the Eshmunazar inscription (fifth to fourth centuries BC) one finds the merismus mmlkt and ’dm: kl mmlkt wkl ’dm, “any ruler or any commoner” (KAI 14:4). See also the Larnex-Tes-Lapethos inscription (third to second centuries BC: “For my life and for the life of my descendants (zr‘y), day by day, and to the legitimate progeny (w/smh sdq) and for the women (wil ’Xtw) and commoners (wl *dmy)” (KAI 43:11). One notes in the above Phoen. texts that whenever ’dm occurs in a list of two or more groups of people, it always occurs last, suggesting that the least prominent figure is last, and hence the rendering “commoner” for ’dm. Some scholars have suggested a connection between Heb., ’adam, and Akkad.

(1) adamu, which is used for “blood,” and (2) adamatu, which is used for “black blood” in a pathological condition, and (3) the pl. adamatu for “dark, red earth.” In Old Akkadian and Old Babylonian one discovers proper names like A-da-mu; A-dam-u; A-da-mu (CAD 1, part 1, 95, s.v. adamu B; AHw 1:10). One might also connect Heb. ’G4dam with the hero of the Mesopotamian story of Adapa (see below), a cuneiform text that dates back to the fourteenth century BC, and fragments of which were discovered from Ashurbanipal’s library at Nineveh, dating from the seventh century BC. The only difference between the two names is the fourth letter, m/p, both of which are labials, which, as phonemes of the same type, may inter-

change (as in §mS/5pS, “sun’’). See Shea 37-39. In the Old South Arab. ’dm designates a “serf.” OT 1. Excluding the personal name “Adam” in Gen 4:25; 5:1 [2x], 3, 4, 5; 1 Chron 1:1 (> # 134), adam appears 555x in the OT. It occurs most often in Ezek (132x), 93

of which are in the expression in reference to Ezekiel himself, “son of man” (ben adam). It occurs in Gen 1-11 46x, but only once in Gen 12-50 (16:12). The remaining OT books with the most frequent uses are Psalms (62x), Ecclesiastes (49x), and Proverbs (45x). 2. In addition to “humanity” and the personal name “Adam,” HALAT provides three possible additional meanings for ’adam: (1) “skin, hide, leather” (Hos 11:4); (2)

“sround, earth, steppe” (Gen 16:12; Job 36:28; Prov 30:14; Jer 32:20; Zech 9:1; 13:5); (3) a geographic name (Josh 3:16). Apart from the last of these three, the renderings “skin” or “earth” for adam are hypothetical, and furthermore, “adequate readings exist within the recognized Heb. semantic range of ’4dam with the meaning ‘humanity’ in all the examples above” (Hess, 148-49).

3. There is a wide divergence among modern versions where the proper name “Adam” first appears in Gen: (1) 2:19 (KJV, NKJV); (2) 2:20 (NIV, NAS, NJPSV);

263

DTN(# 132) (3) 3:17 (RSV); (4) 3:21 (NEB); (5) 4:25 JB, NJPSV, REB, NRSV). More versions are opting for 4:25 as the first instance because it is the first time where ’4dam occurs without the definite article, and in the Heb. language of the OT proper names rarely, if ever, take the definite article. There is, however, uncertainty over places where the

consonantal spelling l’dm appears. If vocalized as 1a’adam, the meaning is “to the man.” If vocalized as /°’ adam, the meaning is “to Adam.” Genesis itself connects ’adam with ’“damda, ground, earth (> # 141), and this

suggests a connection between man’s reddish brown skin and the reddish brown soil of the earth (> ’dm, be red, #131). ’G4dam was created from the *“damd (2:7). ’adam must work the ’*damd (3:23). One day ’Gdam will return to the *“dama (3:19). And all of ’adam’s relationships to the "“damd are determined by Yahweh. Accordingly, the best English equivalent of ’adam may be “earthling” or “earth person.” 4. Apart from its uses in Gen 1-5, the only other unambiguous occurrence of the proper name “Adam” in the OT is 1 Chron 1:1. It may occur in Deut 32:8; Job 31:33; Hos 6:7. This is surprising, given the fact that OT literature does not hesitate to recall early heroes of Israel’s past such as Noah, Abraham, Jacob, and Moses, and thus link

the past with the present in one corporate continuum. Similarly, while the prophets appealed frequently to the Sodom/Gomorrah event in Gen 18, 19 to illustrate a point about God’s judgment on sin, they never used the story of Adam and Eve in Gen 3 to illustrate that point. 5. Unlike the OT, intertestamental literature and the NT have numerous references to Adam. For the former, compare Sir 17:1; 49:16; Tob 8:6; Wisd 2:23; 9:2. For the latter, compare Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 11:12; 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14 (see below).

6. In two of these NT passages (1 Cor 15:49, briefly; and Rom 5:12-21 more extensively) Paul compares the work of Adam with the work of Christ in terms of the consequences of each for humanity. What have the first Adam and “the last Adam,” bequeathed to humanity? Note that in 1 Cor 15:45 Paul is careful to call Christ the “last Adam” and not the “second Adam.” Had he used the latter phrase, he would have called into question the finality of Christ. “Second” can be followed by “third,” but “last” is ultimate. What Paul does in the Rom 5 passage, the locus classicus in the NT on “Adam theology,” by way of comparison (vv. 12-14), contrast (vv. 15-17), and comparison (vv. 18-21), is draw an analogy between Adam’s communal effect with respect to sin and Christ’s communal effect with respect to rightness with God. The trespass of Adam brought death to humanity. “Much more” will Christ’s act bring life to humanity. Actually, all of Rom 5 is devoted to contrast/comparison. Paul takes the cross of Christ and contrasts/compares it with two things—(1) human sacrifice (vv. 1-11) and (2) Adam’s sin (vv. 12ff.). Based on this twofold contrast and comparison,

he comes out at the same point; namely, the certainty of the eschatological hope of the believer is assured because of the love of God expressed in the cross of Christ, when that love is compared with human sacrifice and Adam’s sin. 7. A parallel to Adam as the first human personage is provided by the cuneiform story of Adapa (ANET, 101-3), especially when it appears from linguistic considerations that Adapa is a secondary development from Adam, rather than vice-versa (Shea, 37-39, 41). Both Adam’s and Adapa’s actions involve an act of eating that leads to the loss of immortality and a “return” to the earth. Both individuals wore garments

264

DAN(#132) that are subsequently replaced by other garments. The differences, however, between the two are significant. For example, Adapa’s sin (while fishing and caught in a storm: Adapa cursed the south wind, causing the breakage of its wing) was that he disturbed nature’s course. Adam’s sin (a deliberate violation of God’s clearly expressed prohibition) was moral in nature. Adapa was deceived by Ea, the god who told Adapa not to drink “the bread of death/water of death,” which, in fact, was the bread/water of life. There is no created serpent here. Again, Adapa is summoned to appear before Anu in heaven for his actions. In Gen it is God who comes to earth solicitiously in search of

the man. 8. According to Mesopotamian myth humanity was made out of divine blood (e.g., ANET, 68). The Heb. word for “blood” is dam (> # 1947), and it sounds much like the Heb. words for “man” (’@dam), “earth” (’*damd), and “likeness” (d°mit). Possibly by prefacing the fact that God created humankind in/according to his likeness with God created mankind in his image (selem) (Gen 1:26), the biblical writer is rejecting the idea of creation of humanity from divine blood. Any likeness that the created bears to his Creator has nothing to do with the blood flowing in his veins (Miller).

9. Comparisons have been made between the genealogy of Adam to Noah in Gen 5:1-32 and the Sumerian King List (most likely composed around 2000 BC), a list of eight (or ten) kings that lived before the great flood and many others afterward. There are a number of fundamental differences between the two. In particular, Gen 5

traces the descent of humankind from Adam the creature. However far one pushes back the origin of humanity, says Gen 5, one never finds anything more than ’adam. Man, even primal ’4dam, never becomes a god. He is simply “earthling.” By contrast, the farther one goes back in Sumerian history, the more vague the line of demarcation between divine and creature becomes. Thus, the Sumerian King List has lines like these: “Mes-kiag-gasher, the son of the (sun) god Utu, became high priest as well as king...the god Lugalbanda, a shepherd, ruled 1,200 years; the god Dumizi...ruled 100 years; the divine Gilgamesh...ruled 126 years” (ANET, 266). Such notions of apotheosis are explicitly ruled out by the Genesis genealogy in ch. 5. 10. As pointed out above (see #1), 46/47 uses of ’G4dam in Gen are in chs. 1-11.

It is further to be noted that the majority (30x) of these occur in chs. 2 and 3, whereas ’?¥ occurs only twice (2:23-24). Whatever the difference between these two words may be (see below), these two critical chapters in Gen tell much more about ’adam than they do about ’7%. In some ways the teachings about ’adam in Gen 2-3 balance those found about ‘adam in Gen 1. For example, Gen 1 says that God created ’adam in his likeness/image, and created him to rule over the rest of his creation. Thus, the emphasis

in Gen 1 is on ’Gdam’s uniqueness and divine mandate. He is created to exercise authority. Gen 2, on the other hand, states that ‘adam must also live under God’s

authority (2:16-17). So both ’adam’s uniqueness (ch. 1) and limitations (ch. 2) are underscored. adam is to be neither animalized nor divinized. He is more than animal and less than God. (> Genesis: Theology) 11. In some instances in the OT there appears to be little difference between ‘adam and ’i¥ (> #408) when the two are used side by side. Thus, Isa 2:9, “So man (adam) will be brought low and mankind (i) humbled” (NIV). See also Isa 5:15.

Ha’ adam is parallel to ’“naSim in Isa 2:11, 17 in similar statements about human hybris. Or again, Eccl 5:19 [18] refers to any man (ha’Gdam) to whom God has given

265

DN # 132) wealth and possessions. Just a few verses later (6:2) the same words are used except for

“man,” which here is 7%. 2 Kgs 7:10 shows that such a synonymous usage is not limited to poetry: “We went into the Aramean camp and not a man (’i¥) was there nor the voice of a man (’Gdam) (NIV not a sound of anyone).” 12. There are other instances, however, in which ’adam is distinguished from

’2¥ when used side-by-side. Two interesting verses in the Ps illustrating this are 49:2[3]

and 62:9[10]. Both use the expressions b°né ’adam and b®né ’i§, rendered by NIV as “low(born)” and “high(born).” This suggests that in some places in the language of the OT ’adam, but never social status.

’?¥, means “man” as a “commoner,”

with the term designating

13. As a rule of thumb, one may say that when a biblical writer was thinking of humanity as a whole or human beings in general, he used ’4dam. When he was referring to a particular individual or group of individuals, he used ’if (Grant). Note, for example, that, excluding references to “Adam” in Gen 2ff. and the ben ’adam in reference to Ezekiel, ’4dam is used only once in connection with a particular individual (Josh 14:15, Arba). By contrast, 7% is used 427x in reference to particular individuals.

P-B

In ninety-three percent of the cases ‘adam is either transliterated (27x, all in

Gen 1-11 and 17 of these have the article [if the LXX translators understood ’adam in

Gen 2-3 as a personal name, then either they were unaware of or ignored the rule of Heb. about personal names not taking the definite article]), or translated as anthropos (480x). With ’i§, anér is used in about fifty percent of the 2,174 instances, and anthro-

pos in about twenty-five percent. Male: > ’adam (Adam, people, # 132); > if I (man, husband, # 408); > ’*nd¥s I (men, single man, #632); > ’asis (man, #861); > geber I (young man, # 1505); > zakar (male, # 2351);

> m‘tim I (men, people, # 5493); > na‘ar (boy, #5853) Female: ~ ’is§4 (woman, #851); > g°bird/g®beret (lady, queen, mistress, # 1485/1509); > na“ra I (girl, #5855); > n°gébd (female, # 5922); > pilegex (concubine, #7108); > sidda (lady, # 8721) BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABD 1:62-64; IDB 1:42-44; TDOT 1:75-87; THAT 1:41-57; TWOT 1:10-11; K. Barth, Christ and Adam, ET 1957; M. Black, “The Pauline Doctrine of the Second Adam,” SJT 7, 1954, 170-79; J. Ellington, “Man and Adam in Genesis 1-5,” BT 30, 1979, 201-5; A. M. Grant, “’adam and ish: Man in the OT,” AusBR 25, 1977, 2-11; R. S. Hess, “ *Adam as ‘Skin’ and ‘Earth’: An Examina-

tion of Some Proposed Meanings in Biblical Hebrew,” TynBul 39, 1988, 141-49; idem, “Splitting the Adam: The Usage of ’adam in Genesis I-V,” Studies in the Pentateuch, ed. J. A. Emerton,

1990, 1-15; L. Kutler, “A Structural Semantic Approach to Israelite Communal Terminology,” JANESCU 14, 1982, 69-77; J. R. Levison, Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism, 1988; J. M. Miller, “In the ‘Image’ and ‘Likeness’ of God,” JBL 91, 1972, 289-304; S. Niditch. “The Cosmic Adam: Man as Mediator in Rabbinic Literature,” JJS 24, 1983, 137-46; J. L. Sharpe, “The Second Adam in the Apocalypse of Moses,” CBQ 35, 1973, 35-46; W. H. Shea, “Adam in Ancient

Mesopotamian Traditions,” AUSS 15, 1977, 27-41; Y. Thorion, “’dm und bn ’dm in den Qumrantexten,” RevQ 10, 1980, 305-8; P. Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, 1978. Victor P. Hamilton

266

DAN(#133)

a ANE

aN

DUS (adam Il), 1x, nom. leather [?] (# 133). NIV does not recognize this uncertain homonym.

Arab. ’adam, ’adamat, skin; ’adim, skin, leather; ’addam, tanner; Geez ’adim,

skin, leather (of reddish color). OT

The sole occurrence of this word is found in Hos 11:4, where its semantic paral-

lel is ’ah“bd, love. NIV translates “I led them with cords of human kindness, with ties

of love.” If Hos 11:4 is using ’Gdam II them with leather (cords), with leather the possibility of this BH lexical item allow for this possibility. However, the

and ’ah“bd I, the translation should be “I led ties.” Etymologically, ANE cognates support referring to leather, and it is thus prudent to most important criterion for deriving a sense

from a lexical item is from the immediate textual environment, or co-text, of the lexical

item in question. The textual environment around Hos 11:4 suggests that Yahweh is trying to argue that he has treated Israel in a way greatly dissimilar from using nonfigurative leather bindings: he has treated them with cords of human kindness (’a@dam I) and ties of love ('ah“bd I), not with cords of leather (’adam Il) and leather ties (ah*bG M11). One should not rule out a meaningful double entendre in Hos 11:4, ’a@dam and ’ah“bd both being understood by Hosea’s audience as referring to leather as well as to human compassion and love respectively. The audience would then understand Hosea’s intention to emphasize that Yahweh has acted with compassion and love and has not led them as leather-bound slaves. P-B

Nocertain attestations.

Skin, leather: > ’Gdam II (leather, # 133); > ’ah%bd II (leather, # 174); > ’6b I (wine-skin, #199); > géled (skin, # 1654); > hémet (waterskin, #2827); > no’d (bottle, scroll, #5532); > ‘6r (skin, hide, #6425); > shl II (shine [of healthy skin], # 7413); — tahra’ (leather collar?,

# 9389); > tahaS I (leather?, # 9391)

BIBLIOGRAPHY G. R. Driver, “Hebrew Notes on ‘Song of Songs’ and ‘Lamentations,’” Festschrift Alfred Bertholet Zum 80. Geburtstag gewidmet von Kollegen und Freunden, 1950, 134-46; idem, “Supposed Arabisms in the Old Testament,” JBL 55, 1936, 101-20; H. Hirschberg, “Some Additional Arabic Etymologies in Old Testament Lexicography,” VT 11, 1961, 73-85. Gary Alan Long

134 (‘adam Il, Adam),

135

~ Adam

Dus

ON (adam IV), nom. ground (# 135).

ANE.

There are no cognate forms.

OT

If ’adam IV exists, it is the masc. counterpart of “dam

(see # 141). Dahood

(123-24) championed this suggestion in a discussion of Zech 9:1, citing other passages

(Gen 16:12; Job 36:28; Prov 30:14; Jer 32:20; Zech 13:5) as additional examples of

this alternative form. He contends that ’ddam in ‘én ’adam signifies “the surface of the earth” (much like ‘én ha’Gres in Exod 10:5, 15; Num 22:5, 11), producing the translation, “For the LORD’s is the surface of the earth.” The idea that the earth’s surface

267

DoS (# 138) belongs to Yahweh does not fit the immediate context as well as the interpretation that translates ’Gdam as humankind (see Otzen, 101-3, 234-35; Smith, 251, for other views

on this phrase that do not resort to ’@dam IV). Meyers and Meyers (94) contend that “the eye of the people” refers to the inclination of inhabitants of territories north of Israel who are looking toward Yahweh (cf. NIV). Of the other passages suggested by Dahood, the meaning of “land” seems best to fit Zech 13:5 (“the land has been my livelihood since my youth,” NIV, cf. NRSV). This translation, however, appears to draw on the emendation first suggested by Well-

hausen (201): "“damd ginyani (recognizing the presence of ““damd, not ’adam IV). Regardless, the presence of “land” nuance in Zech 13:5 does not confirm the existence of ‘adam IV. Field, ground, rural area: > ’a@dam IV (ground, #135); ~ bar IV (wild, open country, # 1340); > gazér (infertile land, # 1620); > hisét (open fields, #2575a); > yagéb (field, # 3321); > m®léhd (barren land, salt-plain, #4877); > mimSaq (ground overrun with weeds, #4940); > m° ‘ara II (bare field, #5118); > nir II (ground newly broken & cleared, # 5776); > ‘agob (ground [uneven and bumpy], crafty heart, #6815); > p*raz6n (fertile field, #7251); > rekes (rugged ground, # 8221); > sadeh (open country, open field, fields, domain, # 8441); > §°déméd (terrace, #8727); > Saman (fertile field, # 9044) BIBLIOGRAPHY

M. Dahood, “Zacharia 9,1, ‘EN ’ADAM,” CBQ 25, 1963, 123-24; C. Meyers and E. Meyers,

Zechariah 9-14, 1993; B. Otzen, Studien tiber Deuterosacharja, 1964; M. Saeb¢, Sacharja 9-14, 1969; R. Smith, Micah-Malachi, 1984; J. Wellhausen, Die Kleinen Propheten, 1898. Michael A. Grisanti

137 (adom, red), > #131

138

sik

é < BAN, (dm, be red, > #131). OT

O38 (’ddem), carnelian, ruby, spind, sardin? (# 138), only Exod

28:17; 39:10; Ezek 28:13;

1. The NIV translates ’6dem “ruby,” while JB and NEB render “‘sardin” and the

NRSV “carnelian.” According to Zimmerli (83), rubies did not appear in the Mediterranean world until the late first millennium BC—and then only rarely. Sardin, a somewhat transparent variety of red-carnelian, is the preferred reading here. 2. The majority of the more than twenty OT words identifying semiprecious and precious stones familiar to the ancients_are catalogued in two texts: (a) the list of stones used to represent the Israelite tribes on the high priest’s breastpiece (Exod 28:17-21; 39:10-14) and (b) the gemstones adorning the vestments of the king of Tyre (Ezek 28:13). Exact identification of several of these OT terms still escapes the modern interpreter. In the case of the priestly breastplate, it is clear that each stone was distinctive in its setting as a representation of one of the Hebrew tribes; so clearly no two stones were alike.

The words for gemstones in the OT present the reader with an idea of the splendor of God in the beauty of precious stones in architecture (Exod 24:10; 1 Chron 29:2), of the incomparable

268

value of wisdom

as a divine gift (Job 28: 16-18), but also of

MIDING 141) Israel’s tragic tendency of resisting the word of God with a hardness of heart like that of a gemstone (Ezek 3:9). Precious Stones: > ’eben (stone, rock, #74); > ’ddem (precious stone, # 138); > ’ahlama (jasper, # 334); > ’eqdah (beryl, #734); > bahat (precious stone, #985); > bareget (emerald,

#1403);

> yah“lom (precious stone, #3402); > yas*péh (jasper, # 3835); > kadkod (ruby?,

# 3905); > leSem I (precious stone, # 4385); > ndpek (semi-precious stone, # 5876); > sdheret

(mineral stone, #6090); > sappir (lapis lazulli, #6209); > pitdd (chrysolite, #7077); > 5°b6 (precious stone, # 8648); > Soham I (precious stone, #8732); > Samir II (emery, diamond?, # 9032); > Ses II (alabaster, # 9253); — tarS?¥ II (precious stone, # 9577)

Jewelry, ornaments:

~> h“/i I (ornament, jewel, #2717);

#3016); ~ tabba‘at (ring, #3192); #5401); > nezem (ring, #5690); > > ‘dh Il (adorn o.s., # 6335); > ‘ks > p®ninim (corals, pearls, #7165); #7543); > s°‘add (anklets, #7577); # 8448); > Sabis (ornament, # 8667);

— h@riizim (necklace of shells,

> kiimaz (ornament, #3921); — mixb*sét (settings, n°ti(i)pd (ear-ring, #5755); > ‘agil (ear-ring?, # 6316); (jingle, #6576); > ‘ng (put on as a necklace, # 6735); — sawwardn (necklace, #7454); > samid I (bracelet, — rabid (necklace, #8054); — Sah*ronim (crescents, > SérI (bracelet, #9217); > tdr (pendant, # 9366)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

IDB 2:898-905; ISBE 4:623-30; NIDNTT 3:395-98; TWOT 2:631; J. S. Harris, “An Introduction

to the Study of Personal Ornaments, of Precious, Semi-Precious and Imitation Stones Used Throughout Biblical History,” ALUOS 4, 1962, 49-83; L. Koehler, “Hebradische Vokabeln II,” ZAW 55, 1937, 161-74; H. Quiring, “Die Edelsteine im Amtsschild des jiidischen Hohenpriesters und die Herkunft ihrer Namen,” AGM 38, 1954, 193-213; W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 25-48, 1983, 82-84. Andrew E. Hill

140 (%damdam, reddish), > #131

MaTS (4dama), ground; piece of land; earth; 14]

MTS

underworld;

ground,

soil; realm

of the dead

(# 141). ANE The nom. “damé appears to derive from a Sem. root, ’dm, to be red: Aram., Syr. ’adamta’, land; Old Aram. ’dm[h], cultivable land; Arab. ’adamat, land; Nab. *dmth, land.

OT “damdé occurs 225x in the OT, most frequently in Gen (43x), Deut (37x), Ezek (28x), Jer (18x), and Isa (16x) (occurring with less frequency in all but eleven of the remaining OT books). 1. Dirt. Like its synonym ‘Gpar, dust (a par. term in Gen 3:19; Job 5:6), "*dama

can signify dust a person scatters on his head to demonstrate tangibly mourning and humility (1 Sam 4:12; 2 Sam 1:2; 15:32; Neh 9:1). ’“damd or clay served as earthen molds in the manufacture of bronze items for use in the Jerusalem temple (1 Kgs 7:46 = 2 Chron 4:17) as well as clay for the potter’s wheel (Isa 45:9). Certain altars were made from ’“damd (Exod 20:24). Naaman transported back a load of dirt to Syria (2 Kgs 5:17) either to build an earthen platform for an altar or for building the altar itself (in either case, apparently misunderstanding the holiness of ’“damd from Israel). Finally, God used ’“damd to form animals and humankind (Gen 2:7, 19), and after the

269

MD IN 141) Fall God announced humanity’s mortality; adam would return to the "4dama (see TWOT 1:11 for an extended treatment of the interrelatedness of ’adam and ’“damd). 2. General term for ground. In a broad sense, ’“damd connotes land on which people stand (Exod 3:5; 8:21[17]), earth that splits wide (Num 16:30) or opens its mouth (Gen 4:11), and land that bears various kinds of animal life (small animals [remes|—Gen 1:25; 6:7, 20; 7:8, 23; 9:2; Lev 20:25; Deut 4:18; Ezek 38:20; Hos 2:18[20]; flies —Exod 8:21[17]; 10:6; locusts—Deut 28:42; Ps 105:34-35; Mal 3:11)

and larger animals (2 Kgs 5:17; Isa 30:24; Jer 7:20). 3. Cultivable land. In many contexts ’*“damd connotes cultivable land/fields as opposed to barren lands (cf. midbar, ““raba, Smama, > Desert: Theology). It serves as a near synonym of sadeh (> # 8441, Gen 47:20-24; Deut 21:1; 1 Chron 27:26; Joel 1:10). A farmer is called a worker of the field (‘obéd “dam, Gen 4:2; Zech 13:5) or a

man of the field (’2% ha’“damd, Gen 9:20), whose activity is cultivating the ground (‘bd [# 6268], Gen 2:5; 3:23; 4:2, 12; 9:20; 47:23; 2 Sam 9:10; 1 Chron 27:26; Zech 13:5). Dew (2 Sam 17:12) and rain (1 Kgs 17:14; 18:1; Isa 30:23) are necessary for abundant fertility, just as the lack of water destroys any hope for a harvest (Jer 14:4). The land yields (ntn) or brings forth (ys’, hi.) strength (koah, Gen 4:12), vegetation (semah, Gen 19:25), fruit/crops (p°ri, Gen 4:3; Deut 7:13; 26:2, 10; 28:4, 11, 18, 33, 42, 51; et al.), and produce (y*bil, Deut 11:17; bi’, Isa 30:23). Although it is used as a figure of

speech to describe corpses littered throughout a region in the wake of divine judgment, reference to refuse or manure (d6men) on the ground (Ps 83:10[11]; Jer 8:2; 16:4; 25:33) suggests that fertilizing land with manure was commonplace. 4. Inhabited earth. The nom. "“damd can carry a universal significance, approaching the common meaning of ’eres, the world, although ’“damé refers to the inhabited world (e.g., Gen 12:3, “all peoples on earth,” kdl mixp*hot ha’“damé; cf. 28:14; Amos 3:2). In addition to serving as a simple reference to ground (Gen 7:8; 2 Sam 17:12; Ezek 38:20), the phrase ‘al ha’“damd (23x) can refer to the earth as a whole (Isa 24:21), the land of Egypt (Exod 10:6), a land of exile (Amos 7:17), and most commonly, the land of Israel (Exod 20:12; Num 11:12; Deut 4:10, 40; 5:16; 7:13; 11:9, 21: 12:1; 25:15; 28211; 30:18, 20; 31213; 32:47: 1 Sam 20:31 Jer 25:3) meshes

these references belong to statements offering the ised Land, see below]). The expression (upon) ha’“dam4) (34x) can signify an area as small as a the entire surface of the earth (Gen 2:6; 8:8, 13; Ps

potential of longevity in the Promthe face of the earth (/{‘al] p°né battlefield (Jer 8:2; 16:4; 25:33) or 104:30). On a number of occasions, the biblical spokesman mentions the entire surface of the earth as the vast region from which a condemned people is removed (Noahic flood—Gen 6:7; 7:4, 23; other divine

judgments—Exod 32:12; 1 Sam 20:15; 2 Sam 14:7; 1 Kgs 9:7; 13:34; 9:8; Zeph 1:2-3) or Yahweh’s removal of his vassal nation from the (Deut 6:15). The phrase can also designate the land of Israel (1 Kgs 6:31; 1 Kgs 17:14; 18:1; Jer 35:7) or the entire inhabited world (Gen 33:16; Num 12:3; Deut 7:6; 14:2; Isa 23:17; Jer 25:26; Ezek 38:20).

Jer 28:16; Amos land of promise 8:40 = 2 Chron 4:14; 6:1; Exod

5. Dan 12:2—Grave or netherworld? The expression in Dan 12:2, the dust of

the earth (NIV; or lit., the country/region of dust; ’admat ‘apar) denotes either the earth or ground/soil as the substance in which the dead are buried (Fohrer, 319-20) or it signifies the netherworld (Collins, 392; Ridderbos, 177; Tromp, 91; Hartman and

DiLella, 307, suggest that both ideas exist). The fact that Sheol is often called a land 270

MING 141) (however with ‘eres, not “dama—Ezek 26:20; 31:14, 16, 18; et al.) and dust (‘apar) might allude to the netherworld (Job 17:16; Ps 30:9[10]) lends credence to the underworld view (possibly like the Akkadian region of the dead, bit ipri, the house of the dead, Tallqvist, 37). However, going to or lying in dust (‘@par) could easily describe the buried condition of a corpse (Job 20:11; 21:26; Ps 22:29[30]) and serve as an allusion to God’s curse on Adam, “for dust you are, and to dust you will return” (Gen 3:19), esp. in light of the fact that God formed Adam “from the dust of the ground”

(‘apar min ha’“damé, 2:7). 6. Theological

considerations.

(a) Land

of Israel. The collocation

’admat

yisra’él is unique to Ezek (cf. similar form, ’admat y°hiidd, Isa 19:17), occurring 17x (Ezek 7:2; 11:175:12:19,022;.13:9; 18:2; 20:38, 42;.21:2-3[7-8];:25:3, 6; 33:24; 36:6;

37:12; 38:18-19). This expression joins the phrase mountains of Israel, haré yisra’ él, and other less frequent expressions (see Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 565) to provide focus for his preaching. The prophet addresses God’s covenant people, Israel. These expressions do not regard ’“damé as a political term or ha@rim as a topographical item. Rather, the geographical/political aspects fade into the background to give expression to theological content (Zimmerli, ibid.). This *“damd is the land given to Israel by Yahweh (cf. Deut 7:13; 11:9, 21; 28:11; 30:20). The use of ’“damd rather than ’eres may evoke

images of the soil of the cultivated homeland inhabited by Israel, something particularly poignant for an exiled Israelite (Greenberg, 145). Although quickly dismissed by Greenberg (145, Greenberg contends that every instance of this phrase occurs in material looking back to Israel’s national existence in the land), Keller’s suggestion concerning the function of ’admat may deserve more careful attention. Keller (489-90) proposes that Ezek formulates this expression as a sobering reference to the soil of the holy land deprived of its people and the divine presence. It is not until Ezek 40-48, which envisions the restoration of Israel and the return of Yahweh’s

presence, that

to Yahweh’s grant of land to Israel, but it may also confront Israel with the imminent nonexistence of God’s people as a political entity. However, this phrase does not necessarily signify the nonpolitical nature of the prophet’s land expectations (contra Rost, 78). . (b) ’“damd as a divine grant. Several books in the Pent. and historical literature affirm that the land of Canaan was Yahweh’s gift to Israel, most frequently indicated by the juxtaposition of ’eres, land, and ntn, but also by ’4damaé and ntn (Exod 20:12; Ninny ts2: 32-11 Deut 4:40: 5:46;,7-13;,11:9,,.21. 21:4: 26:1.53 28:1.1;.30:20;.3.1:20; 1 Kgs 8:34, 40 = 2 Chron 6:25, 31; 1 Kgs 9:7; 14:15; 2 Kgs 21:8; 2 Chron 7:20; 33:8) (see Miller, 453, n. 4, and Ploger, 125-26, for a more detailed treatment of the exam-

ples in Deut). Among all the things Yahweh gave his chosen people (e.g., 13:12; 20:16; peoples, 7:16; herds and flocks, 12:21; et al.), the land was nent gift. Possession of the land and enjoyment of life in the land were components of God’s blessing his children, just as expulsion from the land

cities, Deut his preemiclearly key or the non-

productivity of the land constituted the epitome of God’s cursing of Israel (see below, the place of ’“damd in covenant blessings and curses). The provision of Canaan for Israel fulfilled Yahweh’s oath to their ancestors (Num 11:12; Deut 7:13; 11:9, 21; 26:15; 28:11; 30:20; 31:20). He gave them a land flowing with milk and honey (Deut 31:20; this phrase occurs 5x with ’eres in Deut 271

MITING 141) [6:3; 11:9; 26:9, 15; 27:3] and 14x in the rest of the OT). The divine grant of Canaan for Israel served to demonstrate the unity of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. The land grant constituted the marrying together of nation and land (Dumbrell, 117). It was because this land was given by Yahweh that it can be called “the LORD’s land” (Isa 14:2). God’s presence made ordinary ground to be holy ground ('admat-qodes, Exod 3:5; Zech 2:12[16]). (c) The divine curse on the ’“damd. In the wake of Adam and Eve’s disobedience of God’s only limitation in the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:1-7), the Lord pronounced a curse (’Griir) against the serpent (3:14) and the ground (’“damd, 3:17). This curse against the ground complicated agricultural labor by causing thorns and thistles to grow, competing with the desired plant for space, water, and nutrients. After Cain murdered his brother Abel, God pronounced a curse (’arir) on Cain (4:11, the first such curse upon a human). The ground, formerly the object of Cain’s delight, would produce nothing for all his labor. This guarantee of nonproductivity doomed Cain to a nomadic existence. Spina (323-27) contends that God rejected Cain’s offering because it came from the cursed *“damd. To allow for God’s later acceptance of nonblood sacrifices, Spina (330-32) incorrectly argues that God lifted (or alleviated) the curse (g/l) against the ground after the Noahic flood (Gen 8:21). As Westermann (455-56) points out, the thematic par. between 8:21c and 6:5b (because of the evil inclination of man’s heart) and the final clause of 8:21 (“never again will I destroy all living creatures”) demonstrates that God promises not to judge humankind through a universal catastrophe as he had with Noah’s flood. God will never again curse the ’“damd because of an ’adam (Westermann, 456). (d) The place of ’“damé in covenantal blessings and curses. As the suzerain, Yahweh gave the land of Canaan (an ’“damé flowing with milk and honey, Deut 31:20) to his vassal nation, Israel (see "“damd as a divine grant) for all time (4:40, kol-hayyamim). However, according to normal covenantal arrangements, this land grant carried with it certain expectations of the vassal by the suzerain. Israel’s suzerain expected absolute loyalty manifested through purity in worship and wholehearted obedience to the covenant stipulations. In fact, obedience was the “sine qua non for continuing existence in the land” (Miller, 459).

The phrase “that you may live long in the land” (lit., you will lengthen your days in the land; ’rk + y6m + ’“damd, 7x) demonstrates the close connection between

obedience and longevity and blessing in the land. This potential of longevity (for the children of Israel and their descendants) is explicitly connected with the fifth commandment (Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16), the requirement to maintain accurate weights and measures (Deut 25:15), and the exhortation to obey the covenant stipulations (4:40; 11:9; 32:47). Deut 4:40 combines an exhortation for covenant obedience and the

potential of longevity with a phrase modifying ““damd, “[that] the LoRD your God gives you for all time.” This note of contingency, “so that you may live long in the land,” concerns the Israelites’ continued enjoyment of the land and not the promise of the land. Merrill (134, n. 200) points out that the grammatical and syntactical construction of 4:40 links the phrase “for all time” (kol hayyamim) with God’s giving the land, not living long in the land. The latter connection would create an unnecessary tautology (Weinfeld, 214). Finally, a denial of the potential longevity serves as a statement of covenant curse (30:18).

212

MINTS 141) The phrase “crops of your land” (pri ha’“damé) stresses the agricultural aspect of Yahweh’s covenant blessings (and curses). If Israel wholeheartedly obeyed Yahweh’s covenantal expectations, he promised to bless their crops (and the growth of their families and livestock, Deut 7:13; 28:4, 11; 30:9; cf. Mal 3:11). However, if

God’s children refused to submit to his authority, he would curse their crops (28:18). Invading armies (28:33, 51) and locusts would consume their crops and livestock (cf. Jer 7:20). The abundance or absence of grain, new wine, and oil, commodities that rep-

resent all agricultural produce (occuring together 20x in the OT), are juxtaposed with ’“damé to demonstrate the tangible aspect of covenantal blesing (Deut 7:13) or curse (Deut 28:51; Joel 1:10; Hag 1:11).

The ultimate penalty for covenant treachery is removal from the land. Yahweh warned his vassal nation that they would perish (’bd, Josh 23:13), be carried away (glh, 2 Kgs 17:23; 25:21; Jer 52:27; Amos 7:11, 17), be destroyed (smd, Deut 6:15; Josh 23:15; 1 Kgs 13:34; Amos 9:8; cf. Deut 28:63), be cut off (krt, 1 Kgs 9:7), be plucked from (nsh, Deut 28:63), or be uprooted (nt¥, 29:28[27]; 1 Kgs 14:15; 2 Chron 7:20)

from the Land of Promise if they failed to keep his covenant stipulations. Yahweh also reminded his beloved people that he would not remove them from their ’“damd if they would only obey him (2 Kgs 21:8; 2 Chron 33:8). The threat of this ultimate penalty does not represent the potential end of Yahweh’s dealings with Israel, his elect nation. Instead, through prophets who anticipated or had experienced divine eviction from the Promised Land, Yahweh declared that he would uproot (nts; > #6004) the wicked neighbors of Judah who took advantage of their demise and will uproot (nt) Judah from their exilic location (Jer 12:14). He would regather (kns) them to the ’“damd (Ezek 39:28) and plant (nt‘) Israel in their own land, never again to be uprooted (nts) from the land “I have given them” (Amos 9315). 7. Relationship of ’“damd and ’eres. Although ’eres (> #824), which occurs over 2500x, contributes significant cosmological, geographical, and political connotations (unlike ’“damd), these two terms share certain physical and theological nuances of meaning. They both can describe the land on which humans walk and work (see above for ’“damd, and THAT 1:231-32, for ’eres). ’“damd designates agricultural land

that sustains a sedentary population in contrast to barren land (e.g., midbar), while ’eres includes the latter (Janzen, 144). It is with regard to Yahweh’s promise of land to his chosen people that ’eres and ’“damd serve together with the greatest significance (esp. in Deut). On the one hand, a few phrases occur in which ’eres and ’“damd occur exclusively (or most fre-

quently). A few examples from Deut must suffice: ’eres—the good land (1:35; 3:25; 4:21, 22; 6:18; 8:7, 10; 9:6), a land flowing with milk and honey (6:3; 11:9; 26:9, 15;

27:3), and most of the statements/commands about possessing (yrs) the land or promises that Yahweh has sworn (5b‘) or will give (ntn) the land (see Ploger, 125-26, for a full citation of examples); ““dama—fruit of the land (7:13; 26:2, 10; 28:4, 11, 18, 33, 42, 51; 30:9), live in the land (4:10; 12:1; 31:13), live long (lit., lengthen days) in the land (4:40; 5:16; 11:9; 25:15; 30:18; 32:47). On the other hand, Ploger (125-29) points

out several passages where ’eres and ’“damd serve as synonyms for the Promised Land

(4:38-40; 11:8-9; 12:1; 26:2, 15; contra Rost [70], who argues that these two terms are

not synonyms at all).

273

1718# 149) The generalization that “dam, unlike ’eres, does not carry political overtones appears to be valid. For example, in Deut only ’eres occurs with national or personal names (e.g., Ammon, 2:9, 37; Sihon, 4:46). When ’*4dama does occur with Israel (see above), it signifies religious/theological rather than political nuances.

P-B_ The LXX translates ’“damd most often with gé, earth, a translation it also provides for most occurrences of ’eres. The DSS continue the OT categories of usage. NT _ As with the LXX, the NT translates both ’eres and ’“dama with gé frequently. Field, ground, rural area: > ’d4dam IV (ground, #135); > bar IV (wild, open country, #1340); > gazér (infertile land, #1620); > hisdt (open fields, #2575a); > yagéb (field, # 3321); > m*léhd (barren land, salt-plain, #4877); > mimSaq (ground overrun with weeds, #4940); > m®° Grd II (bare field, #5118); > nir Il (ground newly broken & cleared, # 5776); ~ ‘aqob (ground [uneven and bumpy], crafty heart, # 6815); > p*raz6n (fertile field, #7251);

> rekes (rugged ground, # 8221); > sadeh (open country, open field, fields, domain, # 8441); > §déma (terrace, # 8727); > Saman (fertile field, # 9044) Land, earth: > ’“damd (ground, piece of land, soil, earth, realm of the dead, # 141); > ’eres (earth, land, # 824); > tébél (world, # 9315) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 1:88-98; THAT 1:57-60; TWOT 1:10-11; J. Collins, Daniel, 1993; W. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 1984; G. Fohrer, Das Buch Hiob, 1963; M. Greenberg, Ezekiel, 1-20, 1983; L. Hartman and A. DiLella, The Book of Daniel, AB, 1978; W. Janzen, “Land,” ABD, 1992, 4:143-54; B. Keller, “La terre dans le livre d’Ezechiel,” RHPR 55, 1975, 481-90; E. Merrill,

Deuteronomy, NAC, 1994; P. Miller, Jr., “The Gift of God: The Deuteronomic Theology of the Land,” Interp 23, 1969, 451-65; J. Ploger, Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche und stilkritische

Untersuchungen zum Deuteronomium, 1967, N. Ridderbos, “EY als Staub des Totenortes,” OTS, 1948, 174-78; L. Rost, Das Kleine Credo und andere Studien zum Alten Testament, 1965; F. Spina, “The ‘Ground’ for Cain’s Rejection (Gen 4): ’"“damdah in the Context of Gen 1-11,” ZAW 104, 1992, 319-32; K. Tallqvist, “Sumerisch-akkadische Namen der Totenwelt,” Studia

Orientalia, 1934, 1-47; N. Tromp, Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether World in the Old Testament, 1969; M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1-11, 1991; C. Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 1984; W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 1979; idem, Ezekiel 2, 1983. Michael A. Grisanti

144 (admda, Admah), > Sodom 145 ('adméni, red), > # 131

149

Tas

Ts (eden), nom. pedestal (# 149).

OT The word is used for the supports of the tabernacle (Exod 26-27; 35-36; 38-40 [51x]; Num 3:36-37; 4:31-32). Figuratively the term is used for the footings of the earth set by God (Job 38:6), and also for the lover’s legs (S of Songs 5:15). Foundation: > ’eden (pedestal, # 149); > ysd I (set up, establish, lay the foundation, # 3569); ~ kwn (stand firm, stand fast, be durable, prepare, establish, #3922); > masiiq (pillar, foundations, # 5187) I. Cornelius

274

"ITN 151)

I51 ANE

7aN

"3758 (“dénay), (My) Lord (#151); < ys

|: Cadén), lord. # 123),

Cognates exist in other Sem. languages with essentially the same meaning for

both gods and human beings (see TDOT 1:59-61). OT

The name “donay (449x) may be a modified pl. form of ’adén (30x > # 123),

with a first person sing. suff.; the vocalization is changed slightly (long final @) so as not to be confused with “my lords.” Yet its usage suggests it is (or has become) another name for Yahweh, “Lord”; hence the ending may be a nom. afformative rather than a

suffix. Either way, the form may signify majesty or intensification; sing. vbs. are used. Because its meaning was similar to ba‘al (> #1251), it may have emerged as the suitable alternative. In a great majority of instances “dén@y is directly linked to Yahweh (315x). It is rarely used in divine speech (5x). The human analogy may have more to do with authority than rule, ownership, or power in itself (Abraham, Gen 18:12; Laban, Gen 31:35; Joseph, Gen 45:8; Eli,

1 Sam 1:15). A large percentage of the occurrences of "“donay for God are in the prophets (320x, 217x in Ezek) and the Ps (55x). Prominently featured in prophetic messenger formulas (Isa 3:15; 10:24), it may be esp. associated with the authority of the word of God. In some texts ’“d6n or ’“dondy has a more universal reference, the “Lord of all the earth” (Josh 3:13; Ps 97:5; Mic 4:13) or “Lord of lords” (Deut 10:17;

Ps 136:3); this and other factors have led to the suggestion that ““dénay means “Lord of all” (see TDOT 1:70). The universal authority of God may thus be the basic sense of the word. God: > ’ab (Father, #3); > ’abir (Mighty One, #51); > ’“dénay ([My] Lord, #151); > ’éV (God, # 446); > ’“lohim (God, #466); > ba‘al (Master, #1251); > gibbér (Divine Warrior, # 1475a); > pahad I (Fear [of Isaac], #7065); > sir I (Rock, #7446); > gad6s (Holy One,

#7705); ~ Yahweh: Theology Terence E. Fretheim

158

TUS

TN Cdr), ni. be magnificent, majestic, splen-

did: hi. make ‘magnificent, splendid (# 158);

"IS (addir), adj., magnificent, excellent, splendid (# 129); 78 (eder), nom. garment(?), majesty (?) (# 159); NTN (adderet), nom. splendor, robe (# 168).

ANE Cognates are attested in Ugar. (adj. ’adr, splendid, excellent, vast), Phoen. (adj. *dr, powerful; vb. ’dr, to be powerful, pi. to make powerful), and Jewish Aram. (nom. idraita’, glory, distinction; vb. ’dr, pa. to distinguish). The assertion of some that the original meaning of this root is “wide, great” (cf. Waltke at Mic 2:8) cannot be shown from these data.

OT © 1. Verb. (a) The ni. is attested twice (both in the Song by the Sea, Exod 15) in

the syntax A ne’dar b°-B, A is magnificent or splendid in quality B: The Lord’s right hand is magnificent in strength (koah, v. 6), and the Lord is magnificent in holiness (qodes, v. 11). The identification of gédes as holiness rather than sanctuary, as Ahlstrom suggested (TDOT 1:73), is made secure by the context of v. 11 (where other

275

VAN(# 158) ig

Re

ee

ee

SE

SSS

phrases describe God’s qualities: awesome in praises, doer of wonder) and by Sir 43:11, which uses this syntax with kabéd, glory, as the B-element. (b) The hi., to make magnificent, appears once, Isa 42:21: yhwh ... yagdil tora

w‘ya dir, the Lord ... will make the law great and magnificent. 2. ’addir. See Joiion-Muraoka (§88 Ib) for morphology; the fem. is ’adderet (as with Sallit, Salletet). The adj. has the sense magnificent, excellent, splendid, usually

with the implication of mighty or powerful. It is applied to God or his name: Ps 93:4b, ‘addir bammarém yhwh, the Lord is magnificent in the height (compared to the magnificent waves, v. 4a); 76:4[5], ’addir méhar“ré tarep, he is more magnificent than the mountains of prey; cf. 8:1, 9[2,10]; Isa 10:34; 33:21a (contrasted to magnificent or

mighty ships, v. 21b). In 1 Sam 4:8 the Philistines are dismayed by the report of the ark’s arrival into the Israelite camp and speak of ha’“lohim ha’ addirim ha’ élleh, these magnificent (i.e., mighty) gods (of Israel). The adj. can be applied to kings (Ps 136:18, where God slew m*lakim ’addirim,

magnificent kings; || m°lakim g°dolim, great kings; cf. Phoen. mlkm ’drm, Kilamuwa i.5-6), or to nations (Ezek 32:18). Other applications include water and waves (Exod 15:10, cf. vb. in vv. 6, 11; Ps 93:4a, comparison with God, v. 4b); ships (Isa 33:21b, cf. above on v. 21a); vines and trees (Ezek 17:8, 23; Zech 11:2). It is probably better con-

textually to treat the form ’adderet in Zech 11:3 as the fem. of the adj., with an understood sheep (s6’n) as its nom., than to list this under ’adderet (below). Thus in v. 2 the

magnificent (trees) have been destroyed (pu. Sdd), while in v. 3 the shepherds wail because their magnificent (sheep) have been destroyed (pu. Sdd). A special substantive use of the adj. is as nobles (1.e., excellent ones, cf. Eng.

“Your Excellency’). In preexilic material this is poetic only and is used of Israelite and gentile nobles: Judg 5:13, 25; Jer 14:3; 25:34-36; 30:21; Nah 2:5[6]; 3:18; while in

postexilic material it is a prose word: 2 Chron 23:20; Neh 3:5; 10:29[30] (all of nobles in Judah). A difficult case is Ps 16:3, lig’ddSim ’*Ser ba’ares hémmda, w*’addiré kol-hepsi-bam, lit. to/as for the holy ones which are in the land, and the excellent ones

of [whom] all my delight is in them (for a survey of some of the difficulties see Bratcher-Reyburn; even Delitzsch opts for a small textual emendation here). Contrary to Ahlstrém (TDOT 1:74), the adj. gad6¥, holy, is often used in the OT of people (but not of pagan priests or deities), as is the adj. ’addir, excellent, magnificent; hence the

RSV, NIV, and NASB interpretation (NIV “As for the saints who are in the land, they are the glorious ones in whom is all my delight’) is warranted (but not NIV margin,

taking q°d6sim as pagan priests).

:

3. ’adderet. This nom. is morphologically the fem. of ’addir, magnificent (see sec. 2), used substantivally. It always refers to a mantle or robe (the other instances usually listed under ’adderet are better treated under the adj. as above): Gen 25:25 (Esau’s skin is like ’adderet §é‘ar, an impressive fur robe; cf. Zech 13:4, where this is

a prophet’s garb); Josh 7:21, 24 (an especially beautiful robe from Shinar); 1 Kgs 19:13, 19; 2 Kgs 2:8, 13, 14 (Elijah’s mantle). It is not clear why this word is used in

place of, say, Simla or m* @l (common words for robe); perhaps the mantle referred to is a magnificent or impressive one. 4. ’eder. This word appears only twice and presents dificulties: in Mic 2:8 it is commonly emended to ’adderet, robe, since it is the object of tapXitin, you strip (cf. 276

=r 18 (# 170) Waltke: you strip off the rich robes); but this is unnecessary if the tradition of seeing ‘eder as an alternate form of ’adderet is followed (cf. Even-Shoshan; Zaydel). In Zech 11:13 the thirty pieces of silver are called ’eder hay°qar, the magnificence of valuation (NIV the handsome price). P-B_ The Heb. frgs. of Ben Sira attest the vb. ’dr in ni. and hi., and the adj. ’addir. Things that are called magnificent or mighty are God’s hand (33:7 [G. 36:7]), a stream (40:13), a crash of thunder (46:17), the rainbow (43:11), the memory of Nehemiah (49:13), and sound (50:16). The DSS attest a number of instances of the adj. ’addir, generally in the sense magnificent (cf. the description of God, gad6¥ ’addiréni, our magnificent one is holy, 1QM 19:1), and one example of the vb. in the hi. (1QM 17:6). The RL uses a vb, ’dr, to strip, of dubious relation to our vb.; the adj. ’addir, magnifi-

cent, mighty; and the nom. ’adderet, especially of the mantle of the Roman emperor. Glory, honor, majesty: > ’dr (be magnificent, majestic, splendid, # 158); > hdr (swell, adorn, #2075); > héd I (splendor, majesty, # 2086); — y°gdar (honor, riches, respect, splendor, # 3702); > kbd (be heavy, unresponsive, honored, #3877); > nésah I (luster, lastingness, successful, #5905); > p’r II (beautify, glorify, # 6995); > s°bi I (ornament, # 7382)

honor, price, glory, glory,

BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 1:73-74; THAT 1:38-41; G. W. Ahlstrom, “dr,” VT 17, 1967, 1-7; R. Bratcher and W. Reyburn, A Translator’s Handbook on the Book of Psalms, 1991; F. Delitzsch, Psalms (KD); A.

Even-Shoshan, Mill6n Hadas, 1955; E. H. Merrill, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 1994; B. Waltke, “Micah,” in The Minor Prophets, 2, 1993; M. Zaydel, “Micah,” in T°ré ‘Afar (Da’at Migra), 2, 1970.

C. John Collins

159 (eder, garment?, majesty?), > #158

163 (“darkonim, daric), > #3971, Money 168 (adderet, splendor, robe), > #158

IAS (hb), gq. love [part. ’ohéb, friend/covei ans nant-partner]; ni. be lovable; pi. love (# 170); IANO’ANS (’ohab/’°habim), nom. joys of love (Prov 7:18; #171); SON D208 (ahabl’“*habim), gifts of love (Hos 8:9), charm, loveliness | ww (hén), Prov 5: 19 (# 172); NAS (ah*ba), nom. love (# 173). ANE.

1. The most common word for love in ancient Egyp. is mry; also used of marital

love, and often with a sexual connotation. The substantive mrw.t carries the meaning

both of love and favor. Love (mry) also describes the ideal relationship between a king and his subjects, as well as the love of the chief god (e.g., Re) for the pharaoh (cf. Bergman, TDOT 1:100). 2. The most common Sumerian word for love is ki-ag. A king as the beloved of the national deity, as well as marriage partners and friends, are described as being objects of such love (e.g., dam-ki-dg, the beloved husband, and ku-li-ki-dg, the beloved friend).

277

28 @ 170)

3. In Akk. the term ramu expresses love in terms of the relationship between parents and children, between marriage partners, as well as that between kings (e.g., in the Amarna letters, where kings who are in an alliance are said to love one another—a similar use to that of ’hb as will be discussed in this article). As in Sumerian, the king in Akk. is called the beloved (naramu) of the gods, who also love their sanctuaries. The

gods love the cultic activities of the king; likewise a man can love the cult of the gods (cf. Muss-Arnolt, Handwérterbuch, 966-67). Significant is the fact that even here in

Akk. sources statements that are similar to well-known biblical pronouncements are to be found, namely, that the gods (cf. Tallqvist, Akkadische Gétterepitheta, 1938, 167) and/or the kings love justice and righteousness (see TDOT 1:101). 4. The root ’hb does not occur frequently in extrabiblical Sem. dialects. In Ugar. texts it occurs mostly with an erotic-sexual connotation (e.g.,

UT, 105; and WUS, 9 and

103). Wallis (TDOT 1:101) rightly points out that ’hb appears in the Aram. papyri from Elephantine only as part of a proper name, and in extant Punic material it occurs only once (cf. DISO, 6). D. W. Thomas (59, no. 5) points to a few occurrences in Sam.; see also THAT 1:60-73.

OT

The descriptive semantic terminology used in this article to define the semantic

content (or meaning) of ’hb as it functions in various contexts, in order also to spell out

its theological significance in each case, follows the general approach of Eugene Nida to the field of semantics. This approach, which can be described as componential analysis, analyzes the various semantic components,

functioning as diagnostic, second-

ary/supplementary components, etc. and then defines, in terms of syntag- matic -semantic relations in a particular linguistic context, the various terms that are of primary (or central) or secondary significance, semantically and theologically. Nida developed and applied this approach to semantic description specifically for use in terms of Bible interpretation and translation. Each term such as divine-emotive, associative, interpersonal

attitudinal event (-word), etc., designates a specific semantic

component or a relational aspect that determines the meaning of ’hb in each of its functions in context. When Nida analyzes the semantic content (and componential structure) of a word, he also investigates and defines the functioning and the proper categorization of that particular word in terms of the deep structure of that particular phrase or sentence by means of what he calls the four basic universal “‘semotactic classes” or categories: Object (-words) (O), Event (-words) (E), Abstracts and Relationals (R); cf. the publications of Nida in the bibliographical section for further orientation on the subject. For the theory and practice of linguistics, see the introductory article by Peter Cotterell: “Linguistics, Meaning, Semantics, and Discourse Analysis” (> Guide).

A. The Religious Use of the Root hb. Norman H. Snaith (1960, 132) presents the following (essentially accurate) sta-

tistical information on the religious use of ’hb. The vb. is used 32x of God’s love. Of these, two are of God’s love for Jerusalem (Ps 78:68; 87:2). There are 7x of God’s lov-

ing righteousness, judgment etc., and 23x of his loving Israel or particular individuals. On the other hand the vb. is used 22x of human love for God: 19x of loving God’s name, law, precepts etc., and 2x of loving Jerusalem (or 3x, if Lam 1:2 is included). Including nonreligious uses, the vb. forms of ’hb occur 140x in the OT. 278

218(# 170)

The nom. is used 4x of God’s love for his people and once of Jerusalem’s love for God. Summing up, we find the root used 27x when God loves persons, as against 24x when persons love God. This latter category includes the four cases of loving God’s name, and also Jer 2:2; i.e., Jerusalem’s love for God (Ps 5:11[12]; 69:36[37];

119:132; Isa 56:6).

The cases where the root is used of people’s love for God are largely due to the special and characteristic deut. use of the root: 12x in Deut itself (5:10; 6:5; 7:9; 10:12: 11:1, 13, 22; 13:3; 19:9; 30:6, 16, 20), 7x in deut. contexts, namely, Exod 20:6; Josh 22:5; 23:11; 1 Kgs 3:3; Neh 1:5; Ps 119:132; Dan 9:4. In addition, in Ps 31:23[24] all the Lord’s pious ones (h“sidim) are commanded to love him. This leaves only 4x (Judg 5:31; Ps 5:11[12]; 69:36[37]; Jer 2:2) out of 24x where the deut. influence is not

manifest. Further, of the 15x when people love God’s precepts, no fewer than 11x are in Ps 119. (> Deuteronomic: Theology) 1. ‘hb with God (Yahweh) as subject. The term ’hb expressing God’s love appears frequently within the circle of theology in which the deuteronomists, Hosea, and Jeremiah stood, and especially where the concept of divine election was present. Insofar as the covenant is the permanent expression of this elective and exclusive relationship between God and Israel, Yahweh’s love is one of the most important bases of the covenant (b°rit; > # 1382) itself, as is clearly portrayed in Deut. (~ Deuteronomy: Theology) Alan Richardson (131) may be correct when he says that the absence of ’hb with brit, covenant, may be due to the fear of blurring the distinction between God

and humankind by ascribing a creaturely feeling (as ’ah“bd) to God. Or it may be because ’hb played such a prominent part in the contemporary fertility cult, and that in the most crudely natural sense, or perhaps it was simply that the earlier OT writers were content with the fact of the covenant without asking about its nature. However,

the loving and/or gracious and merciful attitude of Yahweh towards men/women is often expressed by related terms at an earlier stage (cf. Bauer, 520); thus, e.g., by hén, attraction, favor, grace (> # 2834; e.g., in Gen 6:8; 19:19; Exod 33:12, 16) or hnn, be gracious to, confer upon (> # 2858; e.g., Gen 33:5, 11; 43:29; Exod 33:19), by hesed, fidelity/love, covenantal solidarity (> # 2876; e.g., Gen 19:19; Exod 20:6; Deut 5:10; 7:9, 12) and by rhm, have mercy on (> #8163; Exod 33:19; Deut 13:17[18]; 30:3) or

rah“mim, compassion (> # 8171; Deut 13:17[18]). Divine love (’hb/’ah*bd) predominates in Hosea (5x: Hos 3:1; 9:5; 11:1, 4; 14:4[5]). It is evident that ’hb functions in Hosea with direct reference to the divine-human covenant as is so often the case also in Deut, for in four of the five cases (Hos 3:1; 9:15; 11:1, 4), the root ’hb belongs to the semantic domain of divine-human

appropriate associative event, expressing Yahweh’s establishing and/or maintaining or, in one case (9:15), breaking up the covenantal relationship with Israel. A second or supplementary component belonging to the semantic domain of divine-emotive event expressing an emotion of love of God for Israel, his covenant partner, may also be assumed to be present in the semantic structure of ’hb. In one occurrence (1.e., 14:4[5]) ’hb belongs to the semantic domain divine-human interpersonal attitudinal event, again

with reference

to the covenant,

expressing

Yahweh’s

positive, affectionate,

and

forgiving attitude in restoring the covenant relationship with Israel. Hosea describes 2A9

=r iN # 170) ee

eee

ee

ees

ee

ee

ee

ee

ee

SS

Yahweh’s love under the metaphors of fatherly love (11:1, 4) and matrimonial love (cf. 3:1), but also directly without such metaphors (9:15; 14:4[5]).

Wallis (TDOT 1:113) is probably correct when he says: “It is worthy of note that Hosea’s use of the concept of love to express his understanding of God’s nature reflects the original meaning of the word ’ahabh as love between husband and wife.” And therefore, when Yahweh on account of Israel’s sin punishes them, his love breaks through in terms of lament, 11:8-9.

Quell sums up the significance of these verses: “In this basic statement we may justly see the final fulfillment of the Old Testament thought of love. A precedence of divine love over human is affirmed. It is to be found only in the fact that divine love does not let itself be affected by emotion or doubts which threaten it. It works irresistibly as an original force in the nature of God. When he acts in love, God demonstrates no less than his proper character as the holy God” (TDNT 1:32). It nearly seems as if God’s love is more powerful in its compelling force than he himself (Hos 11:8; cf. Reiche & Rost, 550). Snaith aptly summarizes the characteristics of Yahweh’s election-love expressed by hb, especially in Deut and Hos, when he says that God’s love for Israel is (a) an unconditional love, (b) a sovereign love, and (c) “a love in spite of,” an “over-plus” love.

It is noteworthy and probably not accidental that outside prophetic literature, this use of ’hb/’ah*bda occurs most frequently in Deut (6x). In the majority of these instances (4x), “hb in Deut, just as in Hos, belongs to the semantic domain of divine-human associative event-words and expresses Yahweh’s establishing and/or maintaining the covenantal relationship between himself and his people (Deut 4:37; 7:8, 12, 13; 10:14, 15). In some of these instances ’hb contains a supplementary component belonging to an emotive event, expressing a divine feeling of love. In the above-mentioned four of the six occurrences it also appears within the context of divine election and favor, since it functions in close conjunction with bhr, choose (> # 1047), and hq, delight in (> # 3137; 4:37; 7:6-8, 12, 13; 10:15). Ultimately, the

concept of the covenant is itself an expression, in judicial terms, of the experience of the love of God. Even the two instances (Deut 7:12-13; 10:17-18) where ’hb refers more to Yah-

weh’s attitude of goodwill, affection, and concern for justice are also directly linked to the divine-human covenant. In one instance, the contextual reference is to Yahweh’s acts of beneficence and protection on the basis of his love (23:5[6]), and in another, the

focus is on Yahweh’s

justice and benevolent care on behalf of the needy and the

sojourner (10:18). Although Richardson deals with the concept love and, therefore, with other terms also in addition to ’hb, it is worth noting which characteristics of God’s love he

enumerates, since most of them are also applicable to ’*hb when employed with God as subject: (a) Its personal quality: ’hb and the figure of marriage point behind and beneath the covenant to its motive and origin in the innermost personal being of Yahweh. His love is part of the mystery of his personality. In Hos 11 the OT comes near to saying that God is love. With the intensely personal quality of God’s love is connected the daring use of anthropomorphic expressions; e.g., Isa 63:16; Jer 31:20; Hos 11:8.

280

iS (# 170) (b) Its selectiveness. God’s love is a distinguishing, selecting love (cf. Exod 19:5; Deut 14:2; 26:18; Ps 135:4; Amos 3:2; Mal 3:17). Accordingly, the root bhr, choose, occurs in connection with God’s love (Deut 4:37; 7:6; 10: 15). (c) Its voluntariness. The emphasis on choice in terms of Yahweh’s elective

love (‘ah*b4) is in sharp contrast to the naturalistic ideas of contemporary paganism, according to which a god was bound to a particular people by a natural and necessary ~ solidarity. (d) Its spontaneity. It is not caused by any worth or attractiveness in its object, but rather creates worth in its object. The cause of God’s love for Israel lies not in any qualities or potentialities of Israel but in the personal being of God himself. God’s love has no cause prior to itself (Deut 7:7). It is a mystery and a paradox (Deut 9:4-5; Ezek 16), which when expressed in terms of the figure of marriage, must be indicated by a marriage that is to all appearances senseless and grotesque (Hos 1:2; 3:1). Although the OT portrays God’s love for Israel as being spontaneous in origin, there is observable a tendency to understand its continuance as being conditional on Israel’s behavior (e.g., Deut 5:10; 7:9-13; cf. Exod 20:6), and the possibility of regarding it as a reward for

human merit arises. (e) Although God’s love is undeserved, there is a sense in which Israel can

claim it, for God has bound himself by his covenant. So Israel can claim it by virtue of God’s faithfulness to his oath (e.g., Deut 7:6-11). This is why hesed, loyalty, is so

prominent in contexts where ’hb appears in conjunction with the divine covenant. (f) God’s love seeks what Richardson terms moral fellowship with Israel. It

cannot be separated from his righteousness. It is not mere sentimental love but involves a continuous personal fellowship (cf. the strong emphasis on knowing God in Hos [e.g., 2:20; 4:6; 6:6; 13:4]; the term yd‘, know (> #3359), occurs 20x in Hosea, byn,

understand (~ #1067) 4x. Basically the special position of God’s peculiar people goes hand in hand with the keeping of his commandments (Deut 26:18) as a true expression of human love for God. (g) Its exclusiveness. Yahweh’s love for his people Israel demands her undivided allegiance; see Exod 20:3-5; Deut 6:5; and the category below, on human love for God. (h) In terms of Israel’s sin, God’s love is expressed in judgment and forgiveness. God’s punishment of sin is no contradiction of his love; it was precisely because he loved so much that he took Israel’s sin so seriously (see, e.g., the “therefore” in Amos 3:2). God was willing to be hurt in order to save. But the severity was never separated from tenderness (Isa 63:9; Hos 11:9; etc.). That God should go on loving this

brazen-faced, stiff-necked people was sheer miracle and paradox. Justice and reason demanded her destruction, but God refused to destroy (Hos 11:9); the ground for his

refusal was the mystery of his divine being (“for I am God, and not man,” 11:9; cf. Isa 55:7), the nature of his divine love, and the fact that this love with which he loved his

people is everlasting (Isa 54:8; Jer 31:35-36; Hos 2:19). (i) The OT speaks mostly of God’s love for Israel (Jer 31:3); little is said directly of his loving individuals (though it is implied that the individual shares, as a member of the people, in God’s love for Israel). (j) One does not find it explicitly stated that God’s love reaches beyond Israel to other nations, but it is hinted at and implied (e.g., Amos 9:7; cf. Ruth), and in some

281

=r (# 170) books the hints become especially clear (e.g., Isa 19:19-25; 42:1-6; 49:6; Jon). How-

ever, the term is not used in this universal context, most probably because it was precisely covenantal and therefore a rather restricted, particularistic term. Jeremiah, although as much admonishing in character as Hosea, has but one

occurrence of ’hb with Yahweh as subject (Jer 31:2-3, as in Deut in relation to the establishment of the covenant). Isa 1-39 has none, and in Isa 40-66 are five such instances (i.e., Isa 41:8; 43:4; 48:14; 61:7-8; 63:9; all in association with the

divine-human covenant). Such statistics seem to confirm the widely held view that Hos and proto-Deut both originated in northern Israel. Elsewhere "hb expresses Yahweh’s attitude to Zion within a promise of restoration (Zeph 3:16-17). Twice in Malachi (1:1-2; 2:10-11) ’hb occurs in terms of the Sinaitic and Davidic-Zion covenant, and there expresses a definite act of election in sovereign grace, but not apart from a secondary semantic component of a feeling of affection. The exilic prophet Ezekiel does not mention ’hb with Yahweh as subject. As for other books of the OT, ’hb expresses Yahweh’s love (in the sense of his electing grace and covenantal faithfulness) in three instances that concern King Solomon and that are clearly influenced by deut. theology; i.e., 2 Sam 12:24 (Yahweh’s love for Solomon); 1 Kgs 10:9 (Yahweh’s love for Israel in connection with Solomon’s enthronement; i.e.,

his covenantal association with Israel); and Neh 13:26 (expressing Yahweh’s establishing and maintaining a personal royal-theocratic covenantal relationship with Solomon, granting him authority to rule, with a secondary semantic component of Yahweh’s feeling/attitude of personal affection for Solomon). Sometimes an individual is mentioned as the object of Yahweh’s love. The OT,

of course, as has been stated above, speaks mostly of God’s love for Israel; not much is said directly of his love for individuals, though it is implied (as remarked before) that the individual shares, as a member of the people, in God’s love for Israel (Richardson,

133). Some of the Psalms unmistakably imply it, though due allowance must certainly be made for a collective meaning of the Ist pers. sg. in many Psalms. The only other instances where a royal person is a recipient of divine love is in Isa 48:14, namely, Cyrus the Persian; Jenni (THAT 1:70) notes that there is a trace of ANE royal ideology reflected in this use of ’hb to describe God’s attitude to and relationship with this ruler. The only other individual who is mentioned by name as recipient of Yahweh’s

’ah%bd is Jacob in Ps 47:4[5] (which, however, could also be taken

here as an epithet for the people of Israel as a whole). There are, however, various categories of individuals who, on account of their state or behavior, became the object of Yahweh’s ’ah“bd, i.e., the stranger (gér) in Deut 10:18; “he who hates evil” (Ps 97:10, when this text is emended); the righteous person (146:8); the one whom Yahweh disciplines and loves (Prov 3:12); “those who pursue justice” (15:9); the one who has a pure heart (22:11). In the rest of the Writings besides Nehemiah, ’hb with Yahweh as subject occurs only in Prov (2x: 3:11, 12; 15:9) and in the Psalms (numerous occurrences). The term expresses Yahweh’s love (semantic domain of emotive attitudinal event) for the

person whom he chastises (Prov 3:11-12) and for the one who pursues righteousness (15:9). The use of ’hb with Yahweh as subject is unique in the book of Psalms because of the wide variety of animate and inanimate objects noted. ’hb expresses Yahweh’s

282

=ri8(# 170) love for persons in Ps 47:4[5] (i.e., for Jacob, Israel; sem. domain: divine-human inter-

personal associative event) and 146:7-9 (for “the righteous”; sem. domain appropriate interpersonal attitudinal event). In two instances, one preexilic and the other postexilic respectively, 78:67-68 (sem. domain: appropriate associative event) and 87:2 (sem. domain: appropriate associative event). "hb expresses Yahweh’s elective love for (the gates of) Mount Zion. But in the majority of instances (e.g., 11:5-7; 33:3-5; 37:27-28 and 99:2-4; sem. domain: emotive event) (nearly all of which are of a preexilic origin),

‘hb expresses Yahweh’s loving, associative attitude towards (a conduct of) righteousness (s°daqd) and justice (mixpat). Again it appears that divine affection for persons, expressed by the root ’hb, is of rather late origin, whereas Zion itself and righteous conduct do function as objects of this event-word at an earlier stage. Jenni (THAT 1:70) is correct in noting that election theology is behind those passages that speak of Yahweh’s love for the temple-sanctuary on Mount Zion (e.g., Ps 78:68; Mal 2:11; in the latter case ’hb functions as a parallel to bhr, choose; see also Ps

132:13). This idea of election and hence of a special relationship is especially evident in the comparative phrase of 87:2. 2. ‘hb expressing human love for God (Yahweh) or for things related to him. This is the second major category in which most instances of ’hb with a theological connotation occur. Jenni (THAT 1:70) is not necessarily correct when he declares that

*hb expressing human love for Yahweh is an even later phenomenon in the OT than the expression of Yahweh’s love for humankind. The difficulty arises because Deut and various Psalms are difficult to date. (> Deuteronomic/istic: Theology) (a) A perspective from Deut (and deut. literature). The majority of instances describing human love for God occur in those passages that represent or reflect deuteronomic/deuteronomistic theology. George Winter, as early as 1889 in an article in ZAW (220), already pointed out that ’*hb expressing human love for God (Yahweh)

occurs actually only in deut. or deut.-influenced parts of the OT, since there exists a good explanation for the only two instances outside deut. literature where ’hb has this meaning: Exod 20:6 and Judg 5:31 are usually, and on good grounds, regarded as deut. edited versions of the original texts. And the use of rhm in Ps 18:1[2], the only case where rhm (pi.) has the meaning love (of a human being for God), should perhaps be regarded as an Aramaism since it is lacking in the parallel (2 Sam 22), and since rm in practically all cases has the meaning to have compassion on rather than to love (HALAT suggests as a possible emendation for rim the reading ’“romimka). If these three cases can indeed be explained in this way, it therefore follows that ’hb, expressing human love for God, can be regarded as an exclusively deut. phenomenon. Winter emphasized (211) that love for God in the OT has an essentially religious content or significance (functioning, as it often does, in a context where love for other gods [i.e., idolatry] is condemned) rather than a predominantly moral (“sittliche”) content, as in the case in the NT, where it is contrasted to love for the kosmos, the world (cf. James 4:4; 1 John 2:15). It is, however, wrong, as Winter did, to draw such a clear-cut distinc-

tion between the moral and religious aspects of love. It was also the author(s) of Deut who were the first to establish a logical rela-

tionship between God’s love and human love, sometimes demanding Israel’s love for Yahweh on the basis of Yahweh’s love for the fathers (Deut 10:14-16) and sometimes

promising his love as a reward for covenant faithfulness (7:12-14). Not only did 283

=r 18 # 170) Yahweh love Israel first but he is also the one who has to bring about a change in the sinful heart of man to produce true love for himself. Such human love is really a miracle, brought about in a person by God (cf. K. Barth, Kirchliche Dogmatik, D 1/2, 1932, 410). The dominant and determining influence that the covenant theology of the deut. tradition exerts when this lexical morpheme ’hb expresses human love for God is evident in that in most of the 30x its occurs, ’hb nuances an interpersonal associative event, which generally expresses the (human) obligatory maintaining of the covenant relationship with the covenant God, Yahweh, in faithful service and obedient adherence to his commandments (i.e., in Exod 20:6; Deut 5:10; 7:6-8; 10:12-13; 11:1, 22; 13:3[4]; 19:9; 30:15-16, 19-20; Josh 22:5; Judg 5:31; 1 Kgs 3:2, 3; 2 Chron 20:7; Neh 1:5; Ps 5:11[12]; 69:36[37]; 31:23, 24[24, 25]; 119:132; 145:20; Jer 2:2, 33; Dan 9:4).

In most of these instances there is also a secondary or supplementary component belonging to the semantic domain of emotive event, expressing a personal feeling of love of the Israelite for Yahweh, in some instances as a grateful response to his deeds of redemption and care. Only 3x does the central or primary component of ’hb belong to the semantic domain of emotive event, expressing a feeling of personal love of the pious Israelite for Yahweh (Deut 6:4-5; 30:6; Ps 116:1). And in two of these ’hb has a secondary or supplementary component that belongs to the semantic domain of human-divine associative event. There is also one instance (Jer 2:33) where ’hb belongs to the semantic domain not of emotive, but of emotive-physical event, but is at the same time also the

only case where ’hb carries a negative connotation, expressing as it does an illicit love affair, involving sexual intercourse, as a symbolic portrayal of Judah’s apostasy and idolatrous behavior. It is significant that when a distinction is made between the indicative and imperative use of ’hb, it becomes evident that the latter usage is by far the most numerous. Hence, human beings/believers are commanded to love God. The motivation for and the nature of the human ’ah“bd can be categorized in summary fashion, though some occurrences of ’hb can be classified under more than one category. (i) Motivation for loving Yahweh is the fact that God alone is God and hence to him alone is such exclusive loving devotion due (Deut 6:4-5). (ii) But such human love (’ah*ba) for Yahweh is also motivated by presenting it as the fitting, grateful response of a human being (i.e., the devoted Israelite) to all that Yahweh has done for him/her in terms of election, redemption, and providential care, or for Israel as a nation (Deut 10:12-13; 11:1; Ps 31:23-24[24-25]; 116:1; cf. also Deut 7:6-9).

(iii) Such ’ah“bd is expressive of the exclusive service and total devotion to Yahweh that is his rightful due (Deut 6:4-5; 13:3[4]; cf. Exod 20:6; Deut 5:10).

(iv) Such ’ah*bd is also expressive of a definite choice between life and death, blessing and curse, which ’ah“bd entails (Deut 11:13; 30:15-16, 19-20). (v) In a number of instances ’ah“bd is also presented as a condition to ensure receiving benefits from Yahweh (Exod 20:6; Deut 5:10; 7:6-9; 11:22; 19:9; Neh 1:5;

Ps 145:20; Dan 9:4). In all these instances a definite choice is involved (Deut 11:13;

30:15-16, 19-20). (vi) In Deut 11:13, 22; 19:9; Josh 22:5, ’ah“bd is presented as being one of the

ways by which Yahweh’s commandments, his covenantal Torah, are fulfilled. Loving 284

TN (# 170) Yahweh and keeping his commandments go hand in hand (e.g., Exod 20:6; Deut 5:10; Neh 1:5; Dan 9:4), even though not related to each other in the same manner as in the above-mentioned instances; see also Deut 13:3[4]; 1 Kgs 3:2-3.

(vii) The incapability of the natural man to love God, which calls for his transforming action to bring such ’ah“bd into being, is acknowledged in Deut 30:6. (viii) ’ah*ba is uniquely portrayed in the book of Jeremiah as the obedient ~ dependency, trust, and exclusive attachment of Israel’s pristine love for Yahweh (Jer 2:2). (ix) In six instances ’hb appears in participle form expressing being a covenant-partner (or ally) of Yahweh (Judg 5:31; 2 Chron 20:7; Ps 5:11[12]; Isa 41:8) or as being linked to him in a covenantal relationship (Ps 69:36[37]; 119:132). The term 5mé, his name, as object of the event-word (’hb) in the case of Ps 69:36[37] and 119:132, can be taken as a representation of Yahweh himself. In all six of these instances ’hb belongs to the semantic domain of divine-human associative event. (x) In a number of significant cases ’hb, mostly in the form of a substantive having as semantic content covenant partner/adherent, is employed in contrast to the substantives haters (Sn’; > # 8533) or enemies (’yb; > # 366) of Yahweh (e.g., Deut 5:10 [and its parallel passage Exod 20:6]), Deut 7:9; Judg 5:31; and in deut. influenced passages [as the substantive ’6hab] Neh 1:5 and Dan 9:4; in the former case without

the contrasting concept enemies]). The very nature of these similar expressions, particularly in the set formula of deut. literature, seems to support the suggestion by Lohfink (1963, 78) that this may have functioned regularly as a cultic liturgical formulary in the “Bundeskult”

(cf. Scharbert, 130-50, for a comprehensive discussion of this formu-

lary). In a remarkable passage, Ps 145:20, ’hb in this nominal form appears in close association with the worshipers (v. 18) and God-fearing ones (v. 19) of Yahweh, in a contrastive relation to the r°Sa ‘im, the wicked ones. In Isa 41:8 (in relation to the Abrahamic tradition) and in 2 Chron 20:7, the covenantal theological significance of ’hb (functioning as substantives, ’6h“b?, my friend, and ’6habka, your friend) is particularly evident. There is one instance where ’hb expresses a royal individual (Solomon) maintaining the covenantal relationship of loyalty to, worship of, and adherence to Yahweh and his will (the latter having been expressed in the royal statute of Solomon’s devoted, God-fearing father, David; 1 Kgs 3:3).

There are two instances where ’hb functions neither in the indicative nor imperative but in the subjunctive mood, since such love for Yahweh is presented either as a condition for future well-being, divine blessing, and security (Deut 11:13, 22), or as a

result of Yahweh’s regenerating action (30:6). In both instances such ’ah“bd amounts to more than a mere feeling but also implies a certain type of behavior. Since Yahweh’s ’ah“bd is shown to Israel to be the basis of and hence inexplicably linked to his covenant, it is indeed not surprising (as Bauer [2:520-21] rightly points out) that the reciprocal love of men and women should likewise be conceived as consisting essentially in acceptance and faithful execution of the covenant obligations. That is why this reciprocal love is thought of in the first instance as a commandment, indeed as the commandment in an absolutely basic sense, one that is most intimately connected with the service of God (including the cult, Deut 10:12-13; Isa 56:6) and the

keeping of the rest of the precepts of the covenant-law (thus already in Exod 20:6; 285

28 (# 170) more fully in Deut 6:2-9; 7:9; 10:12-13; 11:1, 13; 30:10, 16; Josh 22:5; 23:6-16; 1 Kgs

3:3: Neh 1:5; Dan 9:4). Such ’ah%bd, which is to be expressed in ethical terms in obedience to God, is therefore also intimately, almost inextricably, linked with fearing God

(e.g., Deut 10:12; 13:3-4[4-5]), with walking in his ways (10:12; 11:22; 19:9; 30:16; Josh 22:5), and with honoring Yahweh as the one true God, to the utter exclusion of any kind of idolatry (Exod 20:2-6; 22:20; 23:32-33; 34:11-17; Deut 4:19-24). This

commandment to love—a paradox because it is ordered as a law (e.g., Deut 30:16 emphasizes “I command you”) but cannot really be the subject of legal enactment—can only be fulfilled by those who have the necessary inner renewal and the spiritual power to which the commandment refers. Hence 30:6 impressively teaches us to understand love for God as a deeply inward and ultimately God-given experience: Yahweh circumcises the heart of Israel so that his people may love him with all their heart and soul. Human love for God is therefore far from being expressed merely in sheer legalism or external observance of the cult; on the contrary, it engages the whole person, with all his/her powers; it must come from one’s whole heart (Deut 4:29; 6:5; 10:12; 11:13; 13:3[4]; 30:6) and must lead to a cleaving to God (dbq) that is living and dynamic (10:20; 11:22; 13:3[4]; 30:20; Josh 22:5; 23:8; 2 Kgs 18:6). Quell (TDNT

1:29) rightly paraphrases as follows: “Thou shalt recognize the totality of the power indwelling thee, producing from the emotion of love a disposition which determines the total direction of thy life, and placing thy whole personality, /ébab, heart (# 4213/4222) and nepe’, breath, life, desire (# 5883) in the service of the relationship to Yahweh, i.e., a thoroughly personal relationship (’“/6heyka).” Total self-entrusting and faithful love for God, then, is at the heart of what the OT regards as genuine piety and a love that necessarily includes an attitude of gratitude (Deut 8:1-10; Josh 22:4; cf. 24:1-18; 1 Sam 12:7-11; 1 Chron 16:7-36; 29:13), trust (Gen 15:6; Deut 10:12; 1 Sam 14:6; 2 Sam 24:14), and consistent solidarity (hesed). Abraham, called ’ohéb yhwh, the friend of Yahweh, on account of his intimate relationship with God, is seen as the model of piety (Isa 41:8; cf. 2 Chron 20:7).

As Bauer rightly points out, it is precisely upon these deeper impulses that the prophets have laid the greatest possible emphasis, throwing them into bold relief by their condemnation of externalism in the sacrificial forms of worship and of piety that is merely superficial (e.g., Isa 1:10-15; 29:13; 58:1-5; Jer 7:21-28; Ezek 33:10-20; Hos 6:6; Mic 6:6-7) and by demanding genuine covenantal piety (hesed) in its place (Hos 4:1; 6:4-6; 10:12; 12:7). Hence, they call again and again for true conversion of the heart (Isa 1:16-20; 55:6-8; Jer 3:12-15; Ezek .18:30-32; Joel 2:12-14; Amos 5:14-15; Jon 4:2). “In all this, the love of God continues to mean in essence faithfulness to Yah-

weh’s covenant, which must be made real by keeping the commandments”

(Bauer

2:529; see in this regard the functioning of ’ah“bd in Jer 2:2; and ’hb in Isa 56:6; see also Jer 11:1-5; 26:3-6; 31:31-34).

This line of thought is also to be found in the cultic literature, particularly in the Psalms, which, in accordance with their literary character as prayers or hymns, are intended to express chiefly the love of thankfulness and trusting devotion (’hb) towards God (e.g., Ps 5:11[12]; 31:23[24]; 97:10; 116:1; 138:2; 145:20). The interior depths of

this love is emphasized by the use of rhm (18:1) and h¥q (91:14). The request for God

to be near and to be seen is particularly prominent in these chants (28:8; 42:2-3: 63: i,

286

28 (# 170) 8; 73:23-28) (see Bauer 2:529): “Love finds salvation in the Godhead, and is the strongest basis of confidence” (cf. 40:16; 70:4[5]; Quell/Stauffer, TDNT 1:28).

In 8x in the deut. history ’hb functions as an imperative, as part of general exhortations directed to the people of Israel as a whole to serve Yahweh faithfully and to adhere to his commandments. The fact that love could be commanded indicates that ‘hb in Deut 6:5; 10:12;

11:1, 13, 22; 19:9; 30:15,

16, 19-20; Josh 22:5; 23:10-11

expresses not primarily feeling, but rather a certain behavioral pattern, i.e., obedience (in gratitude) to Yahweh’s covenantal commandments and faithful and total commitment to him. ’hb occurs in these and similar instances in the deut. history in conjunction with other terms that express a faithful relationship with and obedient service rendered to Yahweh. These lexemes and expressions include yr’, fear (> # 3707; cf. R. Sander,

Furcht

(> #6268; cf. Lohfink,

and Liebe

im palastinischen

Judentum,

1935),

‘bd, serve

1963, 73ff., Tabelle, 303-4), dbg, cling (> #1815; Deut

11:22; 13:4[5]; 30:20; Josh 22:5; 23:12); hlk, walk (> #2143), in the idiom walking in

his ways, and Smr, keep (> # 9068), in the idiom keeping Yahweh’s commandments. Such ’ah%bé is then presented as a positive and appropriate reaction in faithfulness and obedience to Yahweh’s love (’ah“bd), in terms of the divine-human covenantal rela-

tionship. In the light of this covenantal background of the functioning of ’hb in Deut, W. L. Moran (1963, 77-87) seems to be justified in connecting this with the diplomatic treaty-terminology of the ANE. He also, therefore, rightly rejects the idea that Deut is originally indebted to the prophet Hosea. “It is, of course, possible that the emphasis placed on love in the deuteronomic tradition is to be partially explained by the prophets’ influence. But the deuteronomic love (in terms) of service is older, probably as old or almost as old as the covenant itself.” Moran substantiates his point of view by indicating certain fundamental differences between Hosea’s preaching on love and ’hb as it functions in Deuteronomy: (i) Hosea speaks of Yahweh’s love (hb) for Israel, but never of Israel’s love for Yahweh (not as a fact, or as present duty, or as an ideal to be realized in the future restoration). This seems to be a conscious, intentional avoidance of the term hb for human love towards God on Hosea’s part. In Deut, however, such human love (hb) for

Yahweh is a prominent feature of its message and, indeed, epitomizes the book’s central preoccupation, namely, observance of the law. (~ Hosea: Theology) (ii) In Hos God’s love for Israel is either that of a husband for his wife (3:1) or of a father for his son (11:1). In Deut, however, we find the father-son relationship (8:5; 14:1, etc.) but never in connection with love (hb; against G. von Rad, Theology des AT, 1:223), and of the marriage analogy there is not a trace. This absence of all

allusions to marriage, says Moran, is the more striking in that ’hb is the vb. most apt to express conjugal love. Moran then proceeds to show that such a notably different view of love in Deut is not merely to be accounted for simply as the result of Deut’s “originality,” but is most probably also due to the external influence of ANE diplomatic-linguistic usage. Other interesting insights are those of D. J. McCarthy (1965, 144-47) and McKay. The former defines love for God in Deut as an attitude of the reverential fear,

loyalty, and obedience that a son offers his father, an old covenantal notion found elsewhere and paralleled in the ANE treaties (McCarthy, 1972, 33). McCarthy states, “And there is no doubt that covenants, even treaties, were thought of as establishing a kind of 287

ark(# 170) i

quasi-familial unity. In the technical vocabulary of these documents a superior partner was called ‘father,’ his inferior ‘son’ and equal partners were ‘brothers,’”’

McKay (1972, 427-29) develops the idea of the importance of the father-son relationship in Deut and takes it one step further by asserting that the D defined this relationship “not so much in terms of the treaties as of wisdom.” He, for instance,

points out how Deut 6:4-9, the first and classic demand for human love (’hb) of Yahweh (6:5), contains many wisdom motifs. This fact was already noted a century ago by Delitzsch

(The Proverbs

of Solomon,

1874/5,

1:34), who

pointed out stylistic

resemblances between 6:4-9; 11:8-21 and elements in Prov 1-9. McKay also acknowledges that the phrase “with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength” (6:5) finds parallels in the vassal treaties of Esarhaddon. Such parallels have been noted by Frankena (122-54, ref. 136-38; cf. also lines 52, 98-99, 152, 168-69, 310, 386; cf. Wiseman, 1958; cf. also the translation of Reiner in ANET [Sup],

534-41); the repeated use of this phrase by the D may reflect his (or the editor’s) familiarity with the terminology of ANE treaties. McKay also points out several wisdom motifs in various linguistic contexts in Deut where ’hb occurs and where the prominent or overriding ideas co-occurring with *hb are that of Yahweh’s testing (nsh; > #5814; cf. Deut 13:3[4]) or disciplining (ysr; > #3579; cf. 8:5) Israel and the faithful obedience to his commandments and statutes

that he expects of them, as the expression and proof of their love for him (cf. 11:13; 30:16) and as the way by which they should choose life rather than death. In this way love (hb) and obedience (Sm‘) are paired in a manner that is typical and characteristic

of the teacher-student relationship in the context of wisdom and of education in the ANE. The picture of Yahweh here, says Mckay, “is that of wisdom teacher/father and since Israel’s relationship to him must be that of student/son, ‘love’ in this context is not a sentiment of the emotion, but pietas, the filial love and obedience that the son

offers to the pater familias, and this is something which can be commanded” (see also 8:5; Prov 3:11-12).

McKay also states that although the Wisdom writers do not use the vb. ’hb with a human as subject in precisely this setting (father-son relationship), yet the instruction is entirely comparable to the wisdom father’s (= teacher’s) exhortation to his-son to uphold and cling to his teaching (e.g., the vb. is used of the student’s loving wisdom personified as a female being, Prov 4:6; 8:17, 21). While there are overtones of emo-

tional love in these passages, the same basic notion of obedience to wisdom’s precepts is not lacking, particularly in 4:4-9, where the exhortation to love wisdom is prefaced

by a call to obedience (see also the parallel between Deut 5:10 and Prov 8:33-36, where in both cases obedience vs. disobedience is portrayed as a love-hate contrast). Taking all the available data into account, one observes that whereas a possible

trace of wisdom’s influence with regard to the functioning and meaning of ’hb in Deut cannot be excluded or denied, one must conclude that taken as a whole, the dominant

context within which the nature of human love for God must be defined in Deut and deut. literature is more that of the (covenantal) vassal-overlord relationship than the wisdom-educational sphere (so also Weinfeld). (b) A perspective from the Psalms. The book of Psalms, related to the context of

the cult, is unique in that, unlike any other biblical book, in the majority of its 41x, ’hb expresses a person’s affectionate attitude towards Yahweh and matters associated with 288

=r iS (# 170)

him (Ps 26:8; 40:16[17]; 119:47, 48, 97, 113, 119, 127, 140-41, 158-60, 163, 165,

167). There are also 3x in the Psalms (and one elsewhere) where ’hb expresses human love for Yahweh’s name (5:11[12]; 69:36[37]; 119:132; cf. Isa 56:6). The “name” is a hypostatization of God’s being. Jenni is probably correct when he asserts that this reflects a hesitancy to apply ’hb, which originally functioned within the human erotic

sphere, to Yahweh himself as object. There are only 3x in the Psalms where ’hb is related to Yahweh as object or goal (Ps 31:23, 24[24, 25]; 116:1; cf. 97:10 (97:10 is text-critically uncertain and is perhaps to be read with Yahweh as subject of ’hb). In 31:24-25 and 97:10 ’hb belongs to the semantic domain of divine-human interpersonal associative event, expressing maintaining (as a response to Yahweh’s actions) trustingly and faithfully a close covenantal relationship with him, and in the case of 116:1 it belongs to emotive event-words, expressing a feeling of personal affection. There is only one other instance, 18:1[2], where a feeling of human love for Yahweh is intimated, but with

rhm, not ’hb, as the functioning event-word. As a concluding evaluation one may say that although in many psalmodic and deut. texts a component of emotive event is secondarily present in the semantic structure of hb, only 3x is the semantic component of emotive event the prime and central diagnostic component (Deut 6:4-5; 30:6; Ps 116:1). However, the significance of these three instances of a human feeling of love for Yahweh should not be minimized or even discounted, as Jenni does (THAT 1:72). The undoubted hesitancy, however, to make Yahweh the direct object of the

event-word did lead to a high number and variety of circumscriptions of the relevant objects, not only of Yahweh by hypostatizing “his Name” (in Ps 5:11[12]; 69:36[37]; 119:132; Isa 56:6), but also of entities belonging to or related to him: his salvation (Ps 40:16[17]; 70:4[5]), his sanctuary (26:8; cf. 122:6), Jerusalem (Isa 66:10), and his law, commandments, testimonies, etc. (Ps 119:47, 97, 113, 119, 127, 140, 159, 163, 167). Of these thirteen occurrences of ’hb, only three belong to the semantic domain of emotive event (119:47, 48, 97), two to appropriate-behavioral event (119:158-60, 165), and nine to the semantic domain of associative event (26:8; 40:16[17]; 70:4[5]; 119:113,

119, 127, 140, 141, 163, 167). This proves once again that even within this category where ’hb has as its object entities associated with Yahweh, this event-word expresses not so much a feeling of love, but rather an appropriate associative relationship and behavior pattern in consonance with Yahweh’s covenant. In contrast to this correct conduct of loving Yahweh and the things that are associated with him, ’hb also expresses the spirit and practice of Israel’s illicit loving

of certain things, actions, or abstract qualities. Since precisely such loving/liking constitutes Israel’s unjust, unfaithful, and idolatrous ways, ’hb may carry a negative connotation. "hb also expresses an emotive-associative event, including a semantic component of sexuality relating to foreign gods, in the context of the typical (Canaanite) fertility rites (Jer 2:2); ’*hb expresses Jerusalem’s religious apostasy and illicit diplomatic relations with foreign nations (Ezek 16:36-37) and Ephraim’s similar illicit conduct (Hos 8:9). In the latter case ’hb, occurring in a nominal form ’“habim, on the surface level also portrays sexual favors/enjoyments, or it could be interpreted as “Jove gifts” given by the adulterous woman to her lovers, instead of the more usual reverse practice. ’hb is here, therefore, evidently employed metaphorically to express

289

28 (# 170) unfaithful, idolatrous behavior (so also in the use of ’hb in Jer 8:2 and Hos 9:1; the former case expresses entering into an associative relationship with heavenly bodies regarded as gods). 3. Love for fellow human beings as commanded by God. It is remarkable that although there are many injunctions in the OT to treat a fellow human being, especially the fellow Israelite, in a positive, affectionate, and just manner, there are surprisingly few cases where ’hb is employed to express God’s command to love fellow human beings. These

instances

occur

only in the Pentateuch,

i.e., in Lev

19:18,

34 and

Deut 10:18-19. The most famous of these cases, Lev 19:18, which is often quoted in the NT (Matt 5:43; 19:19; 22:39; Mark

12:31; Luke

10:27; Rom

13:9; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8),

expresses the divine command to love a fellow human being in the face of injustice/harm done. It is against the background of such a context, dealing with justice/injustice, that this injunction must be seen. The semantic content of v. 17 (in a antithetical [contrastive] parallel relation to v. 18) seems to strengthen our point of view that the love commanded in v. 18 should be expressed as a response to injustice done. Both injunctions, i.e., of vv. 17 and 18, intend to prevent a breakdown in human

relationships between covenantal partners and demand a certain appropriate behavioral pattern on the basis of the covenant bond, i.e., ’ah“bd of the human covenant partner,

even in situations that normally call for a feeling and act of vengeance, grudging, and hatred. The opposite of ’ah“bd is “hating (fn’) your brother in your heart (Jébab),” which is characterized as sin (v. 17), hence not only a transgression against another but against Yahweh himself. Verse 18c presents the basis for this appeal or commandment: Yahweh himself, the covenant God, commands it, and therefore this should be obeyed

unreservedly. It is evident, taking into account the parallelism between réa‘, neighbor, friend (> #8276) and ‘am, people (~ #6638), that the neighbor in this case is restricted to the fellow Israelite, and unlike the NT does not yet involve the total ethics of appropriate conduct with respect to all human beings and all aspects of one’s life, as is already the case with the command to love God in Deut 6:5. The fact that ’hb functions here in a linguistic context of juridically determined interhuman conduct shows that this term here, as so often, does not express a mere

emotion or feeling or attitude but rather a certain behavioral pattern in actual practice. The circle of such conduct is, of course, widened by deut. theology. In Lev 19:34 and Deut 10:19 the linguistic context deals with juridical matters in conjunction with the ancient Israelite obligation to treat the weak and needy in a just and merciful manner

(cf. e.g., Exod

22:21-22[20-21]).

The object of ’hb in both cases

is the

sojourner (gér), who is to be treated with exactly the same covenantally determined attitude as is due to the fellow Israelite. The significant motivation for such love in Lev 19:34 is Israel’s own precarious sojourn as foreigners in Egypt, and in Deut 10:19 it is the fact that this God who commands it is himself just and merciful towards the orphan and widow and loves (hb) the sojourner in giving him/her bread and clothing. Even such divine ’ah“bd is, therefore, no mere attitude or emotion but is intensely practical in its effect. This love includes the sojourner as object but excludes (unlike the NT) the foreigner, nokri (> #5799), for whom other norms applied (cf. the covenantal context

of this commandment and the significance of the comparative phrase “as yourself” (THAT 1:62-63; van Oyen, 101).

290

TN

170)

The only case outside the Pentateuch and the legal material of the OT where ’hb is employed in a manner similar but not identical to the above-mentioned instances is Mic 6:8. Although the direct object of ’hb is not a human being but a certain juridically determined behavior pattern, the functioning and meaning in terms of interhuman relations, of hesed (with the underlying implication of a correct and just attitude and behavior towards a fellow human being), is the same as that of ’hb in the case of the _

command of Lev 19:18, 34. In Mic 6:8 the concern of the command is again both with

correct human-divine and interhuman relationships, but with the scope of inter-human justice and benevolence no longer (as in the case of Lev 19:18) merely restricted to the fellow Israelite, and with this whole injunction presented in the context of divine demands and hence of cultic acceptability before Yahweh. B. The Secular Use of the Root hb 1. Heterosexual love. Quell’s assertion (TDNT 1:22), supported by Wallis (TDOT 1:107), “that the original use of the concept of ’ahabh belongs to the realm of sexual love, of physical desire, of lust and even of sensual pleasure (cf. Kalt, 2:56)” at first sight seems to be acceptable, not only because this root is clearly so used in the early Ugar. literature, but especially because it appears with this semantic content (emotive-erotic) in the majority of its occurrences in the early patriarchal traditions presented in Gen (24:67; 29:16-18, 20, 30, 31, 32; 34:2, 3, 8). The only other use of ’hb concerns 4x where it expresses parental love (22:2; 27:27-29; 37:2-4; 44:20; for exam-

ples of the occurrences of the general semitic root ’hb in Ugar. mythological literature, see Hirschberg, 373; Tushingham, 151). In CTA, 4(IAB) IV-V 38: “Truly the male organ of King EL will have intercourse with thee,” the love (hb).isemployed as a synonymous parallel to yd, the male organ of EL, which clearly reveals its highly erotic semantic content. See also CTA, 3 (VAB), c3f, and CTA, 5(IAB) V, 18 (Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook, 1002 PRU I 8-11, 46).

Our research has revealed that although ’hb in certain instances has a definite erotic-sexual semantic content (other terms more frequently used to express sexual intercourse are, of course, yd‘ and bw’), the emphasis in the majority of instances where ’hb describes heterosexual love is not on the sexual experience as such but rather on experiencing and desiring love in an all-encompassing or more general sense (see also Tushingham, 151). Examples of such all-encompassing heterosexual love are, e.g., Isaac/Rebekah (Gen 24:67); Jacob/Rachel (29:18, 20, 30); Samson/a Philistine woman and Delilah (Judg 14:16); Elkanah/Hannah (1 Sam 1:5); and in the royal sphere, King Rehoboam loving Ma’acah (2 Chron 11:21) and King Ahasuerus loving Queen Esther (Esth 2:17). Love, however, is destined to lead to grief when several rival wives belong to one man, especially when he prefers one above the other. This may end up in an unhappy state of affairs of which we have several examples in the OT (2 Chron 11:21; see Wallis, 1:109). In the final analysis the husband’s preference would not necessarily be because a particular wife was blessed with a greater number of children, but in spite of her barrenness. In such cases a regular theme is the fact that Yahweh, who alone determines fertility, would compensate the unloved wife (§*nit’ad) for her loveless plight by blessing her with children; examples are the tension between Sarah and Hagar after Ishmael’s birth (Gen 16; 21:9-14); Jacob-Rachel-Leah (Gen 30), and Elkanah-Hannah-Peninah (1 Sam 1). For this very reason ANE and OT lawgivers 291

28 # 170)

considered it necessary to establish specific laws to protect the children of a wife who is less loved (Deut 21:15-17) (see also the preferential love of father Jacob for Joseph, the son of his favorite wife (Gen 37:3-4). ’hb is employed to describe both intramartial and premarital or extramarital love; the wondrous nature of it all is clearly emphasized. The teacher (Qohelet) of Ecclesiastes knows nothing better to recommend than the time that a man enjoys with the woman whom he loves (Eccl 9:9). There is praise metaphorically stated for the feeling of marital devotion: “May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely (’“habim) doe, a graceful deer—may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be captivated by her love” (Prov 5:18-19). And the strength aroused by love is regarded as fundamentally a marvel (Prov 30:18-20). Without reservation S of Songs praises the rapturous experience of sexual love as a motivating power that is plainly supernatural. Indeed a man can nearly become sick from insatiable longing ’ah"bd (S of Songs 2:5; 5:8). Love (’ahbd) is stronger than floods, stronger even than death; i.e., irresistible and inevitable (8:6-7). On account of its all-encompassing and desperately demanding nature such erotic love is holy, in a sense “taboo,” and should not be awakened and indulged in before the person involved is

capable and mature enough to handle and appreciate it: “Do not arouse or awaken love ('ah®b@) until it so desires.” This refrain is interspersed 3x in the description of heterosexual love in S of Songs (2:7; 3:5; 8:4). Such love involves the total personality and amounts to a total sensual-spiritual experience; it is not restricted to mere superficial sexuality. Although such heterosexual love is often portrayed as being evoked by and based on physical beauty, it must involve complete reciprocity to be truly meaningful. “The young maiden also loves her chosen one intimately and passionately (S of Songs 1:3), wants to be near him (1:7), seeks him on her bed by night, but does not find him (3:1), wants to rise to seek him at once in the streets and squares of the city (3:2), in order, after lengthy asking and searching, at last to find him and bring him into her father’s house (3:4). The love-experience is a joy produced by fulfilled yearning and is to be experienced to the greatest depth” (Wallis 1:108). The fact that in the majority of instances ’hb in S of Songs has a female as subject, expressing female love for a male, is highly exceptional for the ANE world, in which the woman was generally in the background. That this is a unique feature of the book S of Songs is better appreciated when it is realized that in the rest of the OT there is only one other case of a woman’s love for a man expressed by ’hb , that of Michal for David (1 Sam 18:20, 28). In the case of Solomon, the number and varied origin of

the wives (1 Kgs 11:1) suggests that "hb has a more formal connotation, i.e., that of entering into marriage with evident international diplomatic significance. A number of instances where ’hb expresses male love for a female portray how disastrous it could be when a person does not control his emotions of love, but in unbridled passion acts in a manner contrary to genuine love, thus lusting after the one whom he loves and so transgressing the (Israelite) law of chastity. One such example is the narrative of Shechem and Dinah, which, although in etiological fashion describing intertribal relations, nevertheless has a personal side to it (Gen 34). A transgression of

the Israelite law of premarital chastity is involved here. This case is exceptional inasmuch as ’hb has the semantic content of passionate desire (h¥q [> # 3137], v. 8), love 202

=r (# 170) (“spoke tenderly to her,” v. 3c), and inner attachment (co-occurrence of dbql’hb as parallels).

A stark contrast is posed by the rape of Tamar, daughter of David, by her royal half brother Amnon (2 Sam 13), where ’hb, belonging to the semantic domain of emotive event-words (erotic-sexual), expresses passionate love involving sexual desire based on physical beauty and their love being rather superficial and lustful in its nature. _Unfulfilled erotic desire of this kind causes here frustration, emotional disturbance, and even psychosomatic illness (cf. Amnon in v. 4a). Subsequently forced fulfillment of such erotic love finally breeds contempt and hatred, the intensity of the hate being greater than the initial erotic love. The point made by the narrative, then, is that such unrestrained

behavior,

the intention

of which

is not

active

mutual

affection

but

self-gratification, will ultimately change into the opposite emotions, anger and hate, bringing about unforeseen and sometimes wide-ranging disastrous results, in this case in the family-and throne-succession history of David’s royal house. (Although ’hb is not employed in the David-Bathsheba episode [2 Sam 11], the narrative reveals that the father himself, David, was guilty of a similar sin of no less a heinous nature, disturbing in its religious and juridical-social illegality the stability both of his relationship with his God and of his dynasty.) The unique moral character of the Israelite religio-social demands required premarital chastity and matrimonial fidelity. This is true even in those cases where ’hb functions with a strongly erotic connotation. It is made abundantly clear in the OT that “love that is not consciously aware of the importance of behavior, but strives only to enjoy life without any self-restraint, must inevitably lead to complications and is to be rejected” (Wallis 1:108). It is therefore no surprise, but rather to be expected, that where the educative,

admonishing book Prov employs the term ’hb, it is in connection with warnings in Prov 5-7, against having unchaste relations with an immoral person and/or a prostitute. Such sexual relations are clearly portrayed as being the opposite of genuine satisfying heterosexual love (’ah“bd; 5:16-20); and the very deceitfulness of such an immoral

woman’s seemingly attractive offers is poignantly highlighted when she (ironically) dares to call such illicit sex ’“habd, love (7:18b), when the very parallelism of ’“habim with dédim reveals the semantic content of ’hb here to be mere physical sexual gratification and nothing more. That such illicit erotic activities are not merely socially and psychologically damaging but religiously condemnable is evident: “For a man’s ways are in full view before the LORD, and he examines all his paths” (5:21).

2. ‘hb expressing love of parents (as partiality) and affection among friends. In all instances where ’hb expresses parental love, it amounts to special or preferential love, motivated either by the uniqueness of the child itself (cf. Abraham's love for Isaac [Gen 22:2]), by the fact that its mother happens to be the favorite wife of the father, because of the circumstances of its birth (cf. Jacob’s love for Joseph, son of his old age [37:3], and for Benjamin, last son of his favorite wife Rachel, 35:16-19), or by

the nature and/or skill of the son himself (cf. Isaac’s and Rebekah’s preferential love for Esau and Jacob respectively, 25:27-28). A girl is never mentioned as such a recipient of parental love. The psychological damage and/or strained domestic relations that unwise preferential love and parental favoritism can cause is pictured in a subtle but most illuminating manner in the patriarchal narratives (e.g., 25:27-34; 37:3-4).

293

28 (# 170) However,

on the other hand, the beneficial and sound educative

value of genuine

self-sacrificing fatherly love and concern is equally clearly presented in the OT: “He

who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him” (Prov 13:24).

‘hb is also employed in a considerable number of instances to express genuine affection between friends, as well as in other cases, a more formal allegiance between partners in a particular venture or in terms of an in-group. Some of the most noteworthy and interesting cases of a description of mutual friendship by ‘hb derive from the royal-social-political sphere and are described in the books of Samuel. The first instance occurring here concerns ’ah“bd, affection/friendship/favor, based primarily on the valuable service that the beloved friend, David, could render to his royal friend

Saul (1 Sam 16:14, 21; cf. v. 21). This story illustrates that such superficial utilitarian friendship could (and did indeed!) quickly change into enmity when the beneficial manipulated service and usefulness to Saul’s endeavors was no longer forthcoming (cf. 18:8-9). In contrast to such fickleness, Jonathan’s proverbial friendship with David is genuinely deep-rooted and thus of far greater stability; he is even, at great risk for his own well-being, ready to help David, who is being pursued by Jonathan’s suspicious father (1 Sam 20:17; cf. 18:3; 2 Sam 1:26). (In this respect interhuman love expressed and made permanent in a mutual covenant [b*rit] corresponds to God’s ’ah*ba for humankind, which was, of course, likewise made permanent by means of a covenant.)

That love love: than

heterosexual love between a man and a woman is the basic and even normative relationship is cogently put forward when David declares concerning Jonathan’s “You were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful that of women” (2 Sam 1:26). In four instances, all in late preexilic and postexilic literature, such love has as its semantic content (in terms of its central diagnostic component) not the concept friend/friendship but rather that of partner/associate/supporter (Esth 5:14; 6:13; Jer 20:4, 6). In all other instances ’hb expresses either the essence or the beneficial consequences of genuine interhuman friendship (Job 19:19; Ps 38:11[12]; 88:18[19]). “hb

expresses in 3x in Prov the main characteristics and indications of genuine friendship to be that of genuine concern (Prov 27:5, 6), consistent assistance (17:17), and unselfish solidarity (18:24).

3. The OT also recognizes and juridically regulates the occurrences of a special master-servant relationship of affection (Exod 21:5; Deut 15:16). 4. Other instances where ‘hb expresses affection/love between human beings (diverse objects). (a) ‘hb in the royal political sphere. The young warrior David is the object or goal of the vb. ’hb. The lexeme belongs to the semantic domain of emotive-attitudinal event-words and expresses a feeling and attitude of admiring and supportive affection on the part of all Israel and Judah (1 Sam 18:16) and of Saul’s servants (18:22). The reason for this attitude towards David lies in his proven charismatic qualities and military feats. Elsewhere ’hb in the context of the royal political sphere has a negative connotation of expressing unwise, illogical love. David persists in unwise love for his rebellious son Absalom, who hates him (semantic domain: emotive event) while he seemingly disregards the love (’ah“b), i.e., the loyal, self-sacrificing, supporting affection of his own soldiers (2 Sam 19:7). In the other instance where ’hb

294

=r8(# 170) bears a negative connotation, it does not express a mere feeling of friendship but rather the entering into and maintaining by one king, Jehoshaphat, of a treaty relationship with another king, Ahab—a deed that had serious religious implications, since the latter king had come under the wrath and judgment of Yahweh on account of his apostasy and transgression of the divine covenant (2 Chron 19:2). The common element in all these uses of ’hb with reference to the royal politi. cal sphere seems to be the fact that ’ah"bd between king and citizen, or even in a diplomatic relationship in which heads of state are involved, above all implies loyalty, whereas the opposite semantic element, hate, sn’ implies disloyalty. (b) “hb in the context of wisdom (hokmé). ’hb as expressing interhuman love/affection as portrayed by the sayings of the wise men in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes highlights the following aspects of such love: love as an attitude of appreciative and favoring affection of a king for a person who speaks in a just and upright manner (Prov 16:13); love ('ah“bd) implying and involving a willingness to forgive wrong done, with a consequential conciliatory effect (10:12); ’ah“bd as being a satisfying peaceful state of wholeness (i.e., an absence of tension and strife) (15:17); love (‘ah“bd) as a positive attitude of appreciative affection, and hence involving a resultant friendly relationship, in contrast to $n’, hate, as an injurious attitude of unappreciative and detrimental enmity, with a resultant breakdown in human relationships (17:9). In an exceptional instance hb carries a negative connotation expressing insincere affection (14:20). The occurrences of ’hb in Eccl 3:8; 9:1, 6 belong together inasmuch as the function of the antonymns ’hb and sn’ is exceptional, for they express the totality of all that is involved in positive and negative interhuman relationships, i.e., in experiencing in life a positive, enjoyable, and harmonious interhuman relationship, in contrast to hatred (Sin’d; > #8534) expressing a life experience and interhuman relationship that is evil, disharmonious,

and injurious. In all the cases discussed above, except Prov

16:13 and Ps 109:4-5 the constituents ’hb and sn’ function as direct semantic opposites of one another and exert, semantically, a reciprocal influence.

(c) There is only one instance where ’hb, expressing interhuman love, relates to a situation of interhuman strife (Ps 109:4-5). The psalmist complains of being unjustly mistreated by people in response to his attitude and conduct, wherein sincere love is not recognized but on the contrary evokes a negative response: “In return for my friendship (love) they accuse me, but I am a man of prayer. They repay evil for good, and hatred for my friendship (love).” ’hb expresses an attitude of interhuman affection and goodwill, issuing forth in beneficial deeds on behalf of the recipient, here contrasted by Sin’G, hatred, and ra‘G, evil, which are attitudes and deeds detrimental, unde-

served, and destructive to the unfortunate recipient.

There are two final categories into which the remaining occurrences of ’hb can be classified and which can be dealt with briefly and in summary fashion, i.e., love of human beings for places or things and love of human beings for certain actions or behavioral patterns, abstract qualities, or abilities. 5. Love of human beings for places or things. (a) Jerusalem functions as the object of the vb. Ab (or 3x its part., 6héb, two of which relate to the cultic-national sphere of Judah’s life). The vb. occurs with reference to Jerusalem in Ps 122:6; Isa 66:10; Lam 1 (the last two occurrences dating from the [post]exilic period), expressing

295

=r # 170) an affectionate and concerned attitude/feeling of association of the inhabitants of Jerusalem with this city and its well-being. The use of hb in Lam 1, however, differs from that in Ps 122:6 and Isa 66:10,

inasmuch as it relates to the international diplomatic sphere and belongs to the semantic domain of interstate associative event, expressing being in a diplomatic association in an interstate alliance. The functioning of ’hb brings it in line with a number of other instances where ’hb expresses international treaty relations. (b) Only 3x ’hb has food as an object, belonging to the semantic domain of sensory event-words, with the meaning “liking the taste of’ (Gen 27:4, 9, 14). In four other instances (of which three appear with a negative connotation), ’hb (belonging to the semantic domain of emotive-attitudinal event) expresses liking in the sense of desiring: a bribe (Isa 1:23), money (Eccl 5:10[9]), pleasure, wine and oil (= luxurious living; Prov 21:17), and a long life (Ps 34:12[13]). (c) In two cases, hb (belonging to the semantic domain of emotive-attitudinal event), has a positive connotation and expresses love in the sense of being fond of/having a special interest in: love/fondness for oneself (Prov 19:8), and fondness for/interest in the soil, i.e., agriculture (subject: Uzziah) (2 Chron 26:10). 6. Love of human beings for certain actions or behavioral patterns and for

abstract qualities or abilities. The occurrences of ’hb in this category may be divided into three subcategories according to the linguistic and situational contexts to which they relate: prophetic literature, Wisdom literature (specifically Prov), and the Psalms. All occurrences of ’hb in this category that appear in the prophetic literature of the OT have this in common, namely, that they relate to a context of divine condemna-

tion of the Israelite people’s (or their leaders’) unjust behavior and/or religious apostasy (Isa 56:10; 57:8; Jer 5:31; 14:10; Hos 4:17-18; 10:11; 12:7[8]; Amos 4:4-5; Mic 3:1-2); in certain cases Yahweh calls them to repentance and transformation (Amos 331415 Mic 6:82 Zech S799).

Whereas the classification above is done in terms of linguistic and situational context, the occurrences of ’hb with regard to its semantic content can be categorized

as follows: (a) In Isa 56:10; 57:8; Jer 5:31; 14:10; Hos 4:17-18; 12:7[8] ’hb belonging to the semantic domains of emotive event (Isa 56:10; Jer 5:31; 11:10; Hos 4:17-18), emotive-behavioral event (Isa .57:8; Hos 12:7[8]), or emotive-attitudinal event (Hos

10:10-11) has as its semantic content (in terms of its central diagnostic component) the Israelite people or her leaders being fond of in the sense of liking: (i) slumbering (Isa 56:10); (ii) a seemingly comfortable and beneficial but false and deceitful situation of apostasy under the leadership of false prophets and degenerate priests (Jer 5:31); (iii) wandering (i.e., to apostatize) (14:10); (iv) exercising shameful behavior (which in this

context consist of illicit amorous/sexual activities as expression of illicit syncretistic cultic activity [Hos 4:17-18]); (v) engaging in sexual intercourse, here employed as a

metaphor for religious apostasy (Isa 57:8); (vi) wronging one’s fellow human being, especially in business transactions (Hos 12:7[8]); (vii) and, in contrast to the former,

being willing to render service (metaphorically described as threshing like a heifer; 10:11). (b) The occurrences of ’hb in Amos 4:4-5; 5:14, 15; Mic 3:1; 6:8; Zech 8:17, 19

can be grouped together because the context in which all of them appear involves an

296

TN 170) earnest divine appeal for repentance and change, and since at least the last three cases relate to the cultic sphere (Amos 4:4-5; Mic 6:8; Zech 8:17, 19). The semantic content

of *hb in these cases distinguishes itself from those of the previous category since ’hb expresses here not merely a positive attitude or feeling of fondness or a liking of, but also actual association with and/or conduct (or behavior) accordingly. In three of these contexts there is also present the well-known §n’/’hb contrast. (i) "hb expresses being in association with that which is regarded as good (ethically and juridically) by Yahweh and realizing such behavior in one’s own life and in the community. In Amos 5:14-15, in contrast to Mic 3:1-2, ’hb expresses behaving contrary to Yahweh’s will by being (as a national leader) in association with evil (i.e., with unjust and exploitative practices) instead of ensuring and realizing the God-willed covenantal miSp&t (normative and just behavior).

(ii) "hb functions with reference to the judicial-religious (= covenantal) and cultic spheres in conjunction with truth (’“mer) and peace (416m), i.e., that which furthers justice, well-being, and sound interhuman relationships (Zech 8:17, 19). In Zech 8:17

*hb is used in a negative transformation, belonging to the semantic domain of attitudinal behavioral event, and expresses the maintenance of an attitude of nonassociation and nonutilization of a false oath, since the latter would be detrimental to fellow human

beings and condemnable in God’s sight, and in contrast, being favorably disposed to and endeavoring to realize peace (Salém) and truth (’°met) in interhuman relationships (8:19). (iii) "hb in Amos 4:4-5, relating more specifically to the Israelite cult, expresses a habitual liking for participation in the syncretistic and, therefore, illicit cult of Bethel (i.e., a fondness/liking for that which amounts to a transgression of the covenant and of unfaithfulness to Yahweh). (iv) In Mic 6:8, ’hb relates to the covenantal-cultic sphere—in a context that concerns human-cultic acceptability—and expresses having a positive attitude of preference for hesed (i.e., covenantal obligation and solidarity); this includes correct behavior in the form of upholding and positively applying the covenantal requirements in interhuman affairs as part and parcel of appropriately fulfilling the cultic and general demands made upon humankind by Yahweh in the divine-human relationship.

C. Wisdom Literature Nearly all occurrences of ’hb in the book of Proverbs have this in common, that

they concern character traits as reflected in or influenced by right and wrong conduct. They can be divided into two subcategories: those that appear in admonitory expressions, and those that appear in sentences which, although implicitly containing an

admonition or exhortation, are coined in the form of statements of fact. As may be expected in Wisdom literature, in several instances (four out of twelve) hb has hokma itself as its object (e.g., Prov 4:5-6; 8:17, 21; 29:3).

1. ‘hb appearing in admonitory/exhortative expressions. In Prov 4:5-6 ’hb (belonging to the semantic domain of attitudinal-behavioral event) expresses having an attitude of total affectionate commitment and devotion to wisdom, including intense

concentration upon it and utilization of the means to obtain it. In 1:22 and 20:13 "hb is used in a negative situation; it expresses behavior patterns that are wrong (1:22) and foolishly resorting to sleep—which implies laziness—resulting in poverty.

2917

28 (# 170) 2. ‘hb in linguistic contexts that contain statements of fact. In many cases these in such a way so as to shock—and in so doing stimulate reflection on the presented are consequences of the described character traits or behavior patterns. In Prov 8:17, 21, 36 hokmd, the object of ’hb, is personified as a female figure who rewards those who desire and seek her, e.g., with increasing wealth (8:21). Within

the structure of an antithetical parallelism in 29:3, ’hb, belonging to the semantic domain of emotive-behavioral event, portrays that having an appreciative liking/affection for wisdom, which also involves wise conduct in terms of sexuality, leads to a sat-

isfying child-parent possessions.

relationship

and

to the responsible

In contrast to the above-mentioned

cases,

handling

“hb functions

of inherited

in a description of

wrong or unwise conduct with detrimental consequences in 8:36, and expresses here being associated with/being in the realm of death to the subject’s own detriment, as a direct consequence of not associating with and therefore lacking hokmd. The use of ’hb in Prov 17:19; 18:21; 22:11 may be grouped together, inasmuch

as the object of ’hb in all three cases is either an activity or a behavior pattern that produces direct positive or negative results. In 22:11 ’hb expresses the pursuit and behavior in accordance with purity/integrity of heart (i.e., being), which, when reflected in gracious (or pleasant) speech, wins even the admiring friendship of a king. Prov 17:19 describes an opposite situation, characterized by strife and transgression, resulting in a breakdown of sound human relations. ’hb here describes having a liking for revolt (or transgression [pesa‘] and strife [massd]) and so to participate in action that causes a breakdown in human relations. In 18:21 ’hb portrays the well-known powerful effect of human speech, which may be able, in certain cases, even to determine life or death;

here, to be fond of the tongue, 1.e., to like speaking that would inevitably lead to positive or negative results. The two occurrences of ’hb in Prov 12:1 and 15:12 belong together for they describe the value of discipline and reproof. ’hb expresses being favorably disposed towards discipline so as to be willing to be subjected to it on account of the person’s cherishing knowledge and wanting to obtain it (the inevitable consequence of being disciplined); this is a reasonable/rational human attitude in contrast to animal-like, i.e., stupid and brutish, behavior (12:1). In 15:12 *hb, in a sort of fundamental sense, expresses the well-known fact that a scoffer, i.e., a fool, does not like reproof and is

therefore not willing to be subjected to the same and hence does not go to the wise man (hakam), who would certainly reprimand him. Love, loyalty: > ’hb (love, be lovable, #170); > dbq (stick, cling, cleave, pursue, # 1815); > hbb (love, #2462); > hsd II (show o.s. kind, #2874); > yadid (beloved, # 3351); > rhm (love, have compassion, # 8163)

BIBLIOGRAPHY TDNT 3:21-55; TDOT 1:99-118; THAT 1:60-73; J. B. Bauer, Bauer Encyclopedia of Biblical Theology, 2, 1970; F. Buck, Die Liebe Gottes beim Propheten Osee, 1953; J. Deak, “Die Got-

tesliebe in den alten semitischen Religionen,” diss., Basel, 1914, 81-83; R. Frankena, The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy, 09 OTS 14, 1965, 122-54; F. Hesse and H. W. Huppenbauer, “Liebe,” BHH 2:1083-85; H. H. Hirschberg, “Additional Arabic Etymologies in Old Testament Lexicography,” VT 11, 1961, 373-85; E. Kalt, Biblisches Reallexikon 2:56-71; N. Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot, 1963; idem, “Hate and Love in Hosea 9:15,” CBQ 25,

298

MAMN(# 174) 1963; F. Maas, “Die Selbstliebe nach Leviticus 19:18,” Friedrich Baumgéirtel zum 70 Geburtstag, Erlanger Forschungen, R.A.: Geisteswissenschaften 10, 1959, 109-13; D. J. McCarthy, “Notes on the Love of God in Deuteronomy and the Father-Son Relationship Between Israel and Yahweh,” CBQ 27, 1965, 144-47; idem, Old Testament Covenant, A Survey of Current Opinions,

1972; J. W. McKay, “Man’s Love for God in Deuteronomy and the Father/Teacher-Son/Pupil Relationship,” VT 22, Oct 1972, no. 4; W. L. Moran, “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” CBQ, 25, 1963, 77-87; Muss-Armolt, Handwérterbuch, 1895;

G. Nagel, “Crainte et amour de Dieu dans |’ AT,” RTP, 33; E. A. Nida, Componential Analysis of Meaning: An Introduction to Semantic Structures, 1975; idem, Exploring Semantic Structures, 1975; idem, Morphology: The Descriptive Analysis of Words, 1961; idem, and C. R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation, 1969; B. Reicke and L. Rost, Biblisch-historisches Handworterbuch, 1979; A. Richardson, A Theological Wordbook of the Bible, 1950; J. Scharbert, “Formgeschichte und Exegese von Ex. 34:6f und seiner Parallelen,” Bib 22, 1957, 130-50; O. Schilling, “Die alttestamentliche Auffassung von Gerechtigkeit und Liebe,” Worte des Lebens, Festschrift fiir M. Meinertz, 1951, 9-27; H. Seebass, “Liebe,” Theologische Realenzyklopddie (ed. G. Miiller) Band 21, 1991; N. H. Snaith, The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament, 1960; idem, “The Triennial Cycle and the Psalter,’ ZAW, Band 10, Heft 3, 1933; D. W. Thomas, “The Root S78 ‘Love’ in Hebrew,” ZAW 57, 1939, 57-64; A. T. Tushingham, “A Reconsideration of

Hosea,” JNES 12, 1953, 150-59; H. van Oyen, Ethik des Alten Testaments, 1967; M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 1972; G. Winter, “Die Liebe zu Gott im Alten Tes-

tament,”

ZAW 9, 1889, 220-21; D. J. Wiseman, “Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon,” [rag 20, 1958.

P.J.J_S. Els

171 (ohéb, joys of love),

> #170

172 (ahab, gifts of love, charm), > #170

173 (ah*bd I, love), > #170 MIMS Cah*ba I), (2x), nom. leather (#4 174). eens Anise BIOS el NIV does not recognize this homonym of ’ah*ba I, love, and translates all occurrences of ’ah“bdé in BH with words from the semantic field of “love.”

ANE. Arab. ’ihab skin, hide, raw leather. OT

It was G. R. Driver who suggested that ’ah“bd in S of Songs 3:10 and in Hos

11:4 should not be “love” but “leather” (JBL 55, 1936, 111; FS Bertholet, 1950, 135 [in

n.3 he cites the work in which he discussed Hos 11:4; for a treatment of this text + # 133]). In S of Songs 3:10, the precedent of concrete terms—gold, silver, and purple—led him to search for something else concrete. Driver suggested as a cognate Arab. ’ihab, “skin, hide, raw leather.” Grossberg has drawn attention to a conjugal bed

described by Homer as lashed with oxhide and dyed bright with purple, thus combining leather and purple in co-text with a conjugal bed—elements in S of Songs 3:10-11 (Grossberg, 74-76). Barr, who accepts Driver’s proposal, has correctly observed that one can hardly ignore the prominence of love in the S of Songs and that a play on words is likely in S of Songs 3:10 (CPTOT, 154). In S of Songs 3:10, Solomon's canopied bed (NIV carriage) is not so much to be seen as “Jovingly inlaid” (NIV) but as

299

Om (# 185) “upholstered with leather (and love).” One cannot rule out Othmar Keel’s suggestion that ’ah“bd here be understood as ’ah“bd I and refer to “love-scenes.” Solomon’s canopied bed may have been “inlaid with scenes of love(making)” (Keel, see 3:10), a concrete sense in line with the other concrete terms. Skin, leather:

> ’adam II (leather, # 133); > ’ah“bd II (leather, # 174); > ’6b I (wine-skin,

#199); > géled (skin, # 1654); > hémet (waterskin, #2827); > no’d (bottle, scroll, #5532); ~ ‘6r (skin, hide, #6425); > shi II (shine [of healthy skin], #7413); > tahra’ (leather collar?,

# 9389); > tahasI (leather?, # 9391)

BIBLIOGRAPHY G. R. Driver, “Hebrew Notes on ‘Song of Songs’ and ‘Lamentations,’” Festschrift Alfred Bertholet Zum 80. Geburtstag gewidmet von Kollegen und Freunden, 1950, 134-46; idem, “Supposed Arabisms in the Old Testament,” JBL 55, 1936, 101-20; D. Grossberg, “Canticles 3:10 in the

Light of a Homeric Analogue and Biblical Poetics,” BTB 11, 1981, 74-76; O. Keel, Das Hohelied, 23, ZB 18, 1986. Gary Alan Long

177 (%hah, [a cry]), > Particles 182 (hl, settle down, have grazing rights), > # 185, # 8286

OaN (odhel), nom. tent, tent-dweller (# 185); Rechabites: Theology) 2. The nom. ’dhel, and especially the phrase ’6hel md’éd, tent of meeting (# 4595b), is frequently used to designate the pre-Solomonic sanctuary (generally in verses ascribed by many scholars to the E and P Pentateuchal sources; elsewhere the entire structure is often called the mixkan, tabernacle [# 7267]). The phrase “Tent of

Meeting” probably derives from the belief that this structure served as the meeting

300

Om (# 185) place between God and Moses (Lev 1:1) and also between God and the people of Israel: “There I will meet you and speak to you; there also I will meet with the Israelites” (Exod 29:42b-43a, NIV; cf. Exod 33:7). The Tent of Meeting was actually a series of enclosures, the ’dhel itself being the outer covering of the tabernacle (mixkan) in which was housed the Ark of the Covenant (Exod 26:7-14). Like other tents, this structure was covered with goat hides (Exod 26:7), but it then received an extra outer covering of ram’s hide and f°hasim skins (Exod 26:14; the meaning of the latter term is disputed, the NIV translating it “sea cows,” the NASB “porpoise,” while the NRSV translates “fine leather’). The historicity of the tent of meeting was once widely doubted, since Wellhausen and others regarded the structure to be a projection of the Solomonic temple into preexilic times (cf. Childs, 530-31). Now, however, based on

the detailed descriptions in the narratives, the similar structures used by ancient and modern nomadic peoples, and other factors, scholarly opinion largely favors the historicity of the Tent of Meeting (Cross, 217-19; Morgenstern, 157-229). 3. The nom. is also used as a variant of the nom. “house” (bayit; > # 1074), although almost exclusively in poetic contexts (Ps 78:51; 91:10; 132:3; Lam 2:4) and

in the formulaic phrase “every man went to his tent” discussed below. The exception would seem to be Judg 19:9, where a traveling Levite seeks to “return to his tent,” i.e.,

go home; but the story could assume that this Levite, who lived in the remote hill country of Ephraim, actually was a tent-dweller. There is little basis for assuming that the nom. could generally be used to mean house or dwelling.

4. The formulaic phrase, “(he went) every man to his tent,” probably originated in a military context (von Rad, 50). It is frequently used in dismissing men from military service, as when Gideon tells the men who were not numbered among his 300 to

return each to his tent (Judg 7:8; cf. 1 Sam 13:2). In 2 Kgs 13:5, after repelling the Arameans, “all Israel dwelt in their tents as before,” probably meaning that they were released from service. In Judg 20:8 the tribes of Israel swear not to return to their tents before making war against Gibeah; i.e., they will not retire from service. The phrase is also used of routed armies: “Israel was defeated, and they fled, everyone to his own home” (1 Sam 4:10, NRSV; lit., “tent”; see also 2 Sam 18:17; 2 Chron 25:22). Israel

renounced its allegiance to David with the cry, “Every man to your tent, O Israel” (2 Sam 20:1 and 1 Kgs 12:16). They were apparently announcing their intention not to serve in his armies, which was tantamount to secession from the kingdom (McCarter,

107). A similar phrase, however, is used in the dispersal of a peaceful gathering (1 Kgs 8:66), which may demonstrate a “watering down” of the formula’s significance to mean the dismissal of any national assembly (cf. Soggin, 138).

5. The tent and its inhabitant are sometimes so closely identified that the nom. “tent” is used as a virtual synonym for “tent-dweller.” “The tents of the wicked will be no more” means that the wicked will cease to exist (Job 8:22). Ps 84:10[11] speaks of the “tents of wickedness,” attributing the character of the inhabitants to the dwelling

itself. A closer identification is made in Zech 12:7, which predicts that God will save the “tents of Judah” before the “house of David” and the “dwellers in Jerusalem.” Here the nom. identifies the Judean pastoralists who lived in tents outside Jerusalem. Likewise, the tents of Edom are the Edomites (Ps 83:6[7]); tents of the Hamites are Hamitic shepherds near Gedor (1 Chron 4:41).

301

348(# 199) 6. Isaiah speaks of the restoration of the Davidic dynasty after the oppressor has been banished from the land (16:5), and of the throne that will be established in the

“tent of David.” This phrase is probably a poetic variant on the common “house (> bayit) of David,” but the phrase “tent of David” might also play on the idea that going to the tent was a formulaic phrase for release from military service. Its use here could be an allusion to the peacefulness of this future reign. A similar allusion may lie behind the promise to restore the “tents of Jacob” in Jer 30:18. (> David: Theology) 7. Metaphorically, the nom. is frequently used of the heavens. The psalmist speaks about the heavenly panorama that displays the glory of God: “In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun” (Ps 19:4[5]). The text is clearly metaphorical rather than mythological: the sun is not a deity or a spirit, but is merely compared to a tent-dweller. The Isaianic corpus, too, compares the heavens to a tent (Isa 40:22), once again emphasizing the might of God, who has the power to manipulate the celestial fabric. Since ancient cosmology regarded the sky as a material barrier between the “water above” the expanse and the “water under the expanse” (Gen 1:7-8), the comparison to tent fabric, stretched out like a dome over the earth, was an apropos image. P-B.

The LXX translates the nom. by skéné, tent, dwelling, or oikos, house. In some

postbiblical texts, the temple is identified as a tent, applying the terminology of the tabernacle to the later, more substantial structure. The Heb. text of Sir 50:5 speaks about the high priest Simon coming forth “from the Tent,” i.e., from the second temple. In Tob 13:10 (a text set within the time of the Babylonian Exile), Jerusalem is enjoined to offer praise to God, so that his tent would be rebuilt within her, i.e., so that the temple would be rebuilt. In 2 Macc 2:4-8, however, the actual “Tent of Meeting” is meant, the

portable shrine that housed the Ark of the Covenant. This text records a legend that Jeremiah hid the Ark and Tent of Meeting in a cave. In Wisd 9:15, the human body is called a tent, an earthly shelter that actually burdens the eternal soul (an image also used in 2 Cor 5:1-4). The nom. is widely attested in RL; see Jastrow 1:20. Camp, encampment:

~ ’azén (equipment, #266);

> hnh I (decline, encamp, pitch an army

camp, # 2837); > Warfare: Theology BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABD 6:292-300; IDB 4:573; NIDNTT 3:811-15; TDNT 7:368-84; TDOT 1:118-30; TWOT 1:15; B. S. Childs, Exodus, OTL, 1974; F. M. Cross, “The Priestly Tabernacle,” BARev 1, 1961, 201-28; M. Haran, “The Priestly Image of the Tabernacle,” HUCA 36, 1965, 191-226; P. K.

McCarter, J Samuel, AB, 1980; J. Morgenstern, “The Ark, the Ephod, and the ‘Tent of Meeting’, HUCA 17, 1942/43, 153-266, and 18, 1944, 1-45; C. Rabin, “Etymological Miscellanea,” : ScrHier 8, 1961, 384-400; G. von Rad, Holy War in Ancient Israel, 1991; J. A. Soggin, Judges, OTL, 1981. Anthony Tomasino

195 ('ah“rén, Aaron), > Aaron

199 OT

302

258

258 (6b D, nom. wineskin (hapleg.; # 199).

Through simile, Elihu compares himself to new wineskins about to burst—a

218 (# 200) meaningful image that captures the extent of his desire to speak and address Job and the other comforters (Job 32:19). Skin, leather: > ’adam II (leather, #133); > ’ah“ba II (leather, #174); > ’db I (wine-skin, # 199); > géled (skin, # 1654); > hémet (waterskin, #2827); > nd’d (bottle, scroll, # 5532); > “6r (skin, hide, #6425); > shl II (shine [of healthy skin], #7413); > tahra’ (leather collar?, # 9389); > tahasI (leather?, # 9391) BIBLIOGRAPHY TWOT 1:16-17.

Gary Alan Long

200

35x

= 8 (6b I), nom. medium, spiritist, necromancer, wizard, spirit of the dead, ghost (# 200).

ANE The etymological origin of this word is disputed. Hoffner records the following three options: (1) from the same word meaning “wineskin” in Job 32:19, (2) from the Arab. root ’aba, return, and (3) from ’obh, a non-Semitic cultural loanword attested in Sum., Akk., Hurr., Hitt., Ugar., and Heb. meaning sacrificial pit (TDOT 1:131).

According to Hoffner, the first option “would mean that the technique of necromancy was labeled as ventriloquism” (TDOT 1:131). Supporting this option is the LXX translation of ’6b as engastrimythos, meaning ventriloquist. The second view is opposed by Hoffner because of the lack of older cognate evidence. Therefore, Hoffner prefers the

third option because of the large amount of existing cognate evidence. The implications of such a position are explained by Hoffner in TDOT 1:130-33. OT

This nom.

’6b occurs some

16x in the OT to depict a medium of some sort,

some 11x together with yidd* ‘Oni, spiritist (# 3362). The consultation of such individuals was strictly prohibited according to the Law of the Pentateuch: “Do not turn to mediums or seek out spiritists, for you will be defiled by them. I am the LORD your God”

(Lev

19:31; cf. 20:6, 27; Deut

18:10-11).

The most

vivid description of a

medium and his or her craft is recorded in 1 Sam 28, the infamous witch of Endor consulted by King Saul. Such individuals practiced witchcraft, sorcery, divination, or cast spells (Deut 18:11; 2 Kgs 21:6; 2 Chron 33:6). It seems, however, that the primary craft of the medium consisted of conjuring up and consulting the dead or ghosts on behalf of others (Deut 18:11; 1 Sam 28; Isa 8:19; 29:4). According to 1 Sam 28, this

could and did actually take place. However, that could have been the exception and not the rule. It is likely that in most cases the medium deceived or tricked an individual with some sort of ventriloquism. This is supported by the LXX, which translates ’6b as engastrimythos, ventriloquist, 15x out of the 16x. Further support issues from Isaiah, who describes mediums as individuals who whisper and mutter: “Brought low, you will speak from the ground; your speech will mumble out of the dust. Your voice will come ghostlike from the earth; out of the dust your speech will whisper” (Isa 29:4). The fate of the medium was that of being cut off (Lev 20:6) and put to death by stoning (Lev 20:27). Not only are the mediums and spiritists an abomination to the Lord, but also those who consult them are said to be defiled and doers of evil (Lev 19:31; 2 Kgs 21:6; 23:24). Those who consult mediums are as liable as the mediums

themselves. This is the fate of Saul himself: “Saul died because he was unfaithful to the

303

“TAN # 202) ie eee) a ta le a

LORD;

he did not keep the word of the LORD

and even consulted

a medium

for

guidance” (1 Chron 10:13). For a general discussion on divination ~ gsm (practice divination, > # 7876). Spirit, ghost, demon:

~ ’6b II (medium,

spiritist, necromancer,

ghost, #200);

— ’ittim I

(ghosts, ghosts of the dead, spirits, #356); > Jiit (night monster, night creature, #4327), + ‘“7q’zée] (Azazel, demon, scapegoat, # 6439); > s? II (desert dweller, crier, yelper, wild beast, #7470); > bs (wind, breath, transitoriness, volition, disposition, temper, spirit, Spirit, #8120); > r°pa’im I (shades, departed spirits, # 8327); > $a ér III (satyr, goat demon, goat idol, # 8539); > ed (demon, # 8717) Mantic, divination: ~ ’axsap (conjurer, #879); > bad V (diviner, # 967); > hbr (engage in astrology, # 2042); — hartom (soothsayer priest, #3033); > yidd* ‘dni (soothsayer, #3362); ~ kaSdim (Chaldeans, astrologers, # 4169); > lh¥ (conjure, whisper, # 4317); > nh¥I (practice divination, # 5727); > spp I (whisper, chirp, # 7627); > qsm (practice divination, # 7876)

BIBLIOGRAPHY TDNT 2:1-20; TDOT 1:130-33; TWOT 1:16-17. M. V. Van Pelt/W. C. Kaiser, Jr.

202

TAN

“TN (ad), nom. log, burning stick (# 202).

OT The nom. referring to a piece of burning wood is used figuratively to typify the potential danger of Rezin, Aram, and the son of Remaliah (Isa 7:4; > Syro-Ephramite War). The figure in Amos 4:11 and Zech 3:2 suggests that Israel as a nation had been rescued from the furnace of Babylon to become a torch to enlighten the nations. Fire, flame: > ‘dd (log, burning stick, # 202); > ’esI (fire, # 836); > b‘rI (burn, blaze up, be

consumed, # 1277); > gahelet (burning charcoal, # 1625); > goprit (sulphur, # 1730); > yst (kindle, burn, set on fire, #3675); > yqd (burn, be burning, kindled, # 3678); > kidéd (spark, # 3958); > lbb II (bake cakes, #4221);

> lahab (flame, blade, #4258);

> lht I (glow, burn,

#4265); > lappid (torch, lightning, #4365); > nisds (spark, #5773); > peham (charcoal, #7073); > resep I (live coal, # 8363); > reSep I (flame, glow, arrow, plague, # 8404); > Srp (burn, be burnt, # 8596); > sSabib (flame, # 8663) Jackie A. Naudé

203

aan

TIS8 (wh), ni. regard as beautiful or desirable;

pi. want, crave; hitp. crave (# 203); 18 (awwa)

and 1351 (haww4@), longing (# 205; # 2094); oer isi (ma’“wayyim), desires (# 4397); MINT (1a’wa), desire (# 9294). OT

1. The root ’wh is found only in the West Semitic languages (HALAT 20;

G. Mayer, TDOT

1:134) and has as its basis the notion of “desire,” whether that be

good (as in the will of Yahweh expressed by the vb. in Ps 132:13, 14; pi.), bad (as in Prov 21:10; pi.), acquiring the sense of “lust, covet” (as in Deut 5:21; hitp.) or neutral (as in Deut 14:26; pi.). Aside from Ps 132:13, 14, the subject of the vb. in the pi. is always nepes (> #5883), denoting a desire that springs from the depths of one’s very being (Deut 12:20; 14:26; 1 Sam 2:16;

2 Sam 3:21; Job 23:13; 1 Kgs 11:37; Prov

21:10; Isa 26:9; Mic 7:1; note analogous construct relation of the nom. below). In the

304

TN (# 203) hitp., however, a reflexive or middle voice is apparent, and the vb. itself is nuanced toward one’s own person. In context it accordingly acquires the meaning “desire selfishly, lust, crave” (as in Num 11:4, 34; Prov 13:4; 21:26; 23:3, 6 [Q]; 24:1 [Q]) or “covet [lustfully]” (as in Deut 5:21[18], where ’wh is paralleled by hmd, covet [> #2773], the vb. used for both clauses of Exod 20:17). The two vbs. are commonly

distinguished one from another as more objective versus more subjective: “the former (hmd) denotes the desire as founded upon the perception of beauty, and therefore excited from without; the latter (’wh), desire originating at the very outset in the person himself, and arising from his own want or inclination” (Schultz, cited by KD 2:125). Nevertheless, even in the hitp., ’wh does not lose the idea of neutral (Eccl 6:2) or legit-

imate desire (2 Sam 23:15; 1 Chron 11:17 [Q]). In Amos 5:18 the hitp. refers to a wrongly motivated desire to see the Day of the Lord; in Jer 17:16 the prophet denies wanting to see the destruction of Judah. In Ps 45:11[12] the king desires the beauty (y°pi) of his bride. The strange whit’ awwitem found in Num 34:10 should be emended with Budd (366) and HALAT to a hi. from the root t’h/y(ie., w°hit’étem or w°té’item [BHK, BHS apparatus]) to correspond with the vbs. from the same root found in 34:7-8. 2. The nom. ’awwd means “desire, longing” and is, except for Hos 10:10, invariably linked with nepeS in a construct relation, thus denoting a desire springing from the totality of the person (see JLC 1:147) and yielding the meanings “appetite” (Deut 12:15, 20, 21) and, more generally, “eagerness or passionate desire” (Deut 18:6; 1 Sam 23:20; Jer 2:24 [Q]; Holladay, 101). It is possible that the curious construction in Hos 10:10 (b°’awwat?; NIV: “When I please’’) is incorrect and should be read as ba’“téti, an infinitive construct from ’th/y, “to come,” hence, “when I come” (Andersen

and Freedman, 565-66). Probably the strange form 8 (K) / 8 (Q) found in Prov 31:4 should be treated here, perhaps to be spelled ’@w or ’éw (cs.) and read as a masc. variant for ’wh. 3. The related nom. hawwd is connected to nepe§ once (Mic 7:3) and appears in Prov 10:3 and 11:6 to express the desires of the wicked and the treacherous (bég“dim,

> #953) respectively. 4. The nom. ma’“wayyim appears to mean “desires” in a distributive, rather than collective, sense (Ps 140:8[9)). 5. The nom. ta’“wé represents “desire” in the form of a craving for someone or something. When used as a cognate accusative, the tone is decidedly negative, as in references to Israel’s desire for food in the desert (Num 11:4; Ps 78:29-30; 106:14); the

nom. is picked up as a part of the place name, Kibroth Hattaavah (Num 11:34-35; 33:16-17), “Graves of Craving,” so named to commemorate the event. When construed in a construct relation with either nepes (Ps 10:3; Isa 26:8; > #5883) or l@b (“heart’; Ps 21:2[3]; > #4213), this nom. can also speak of the most fundamental of desires.

The phrase ta’“wd hi’ la‘énayim, it was pleasing to the eye (Gen 3:6), connotes a physical beauty that evokes a desire that is less superficial. It is possible for the word to express a fulfilled longing (Prov 13:12, 19) as well as a longing for certain types of food (Job 33:20). The nom. also bespeaks “desire” in Prov 18:1 (but see commentar-

ies). Such desire may be that of the righteous (Ps 38:9[10]; Prov 10:24; 11:23), the slothful (Prov 21:25-26), the afflicted (Ps 10:17), or the wicked (Ps 112:10). In Gen 49:26 the word means “boundary,” derived from the root ?’h, draw a line (KD 1:408;

305

S78 (#211) see Num 34:7-8). Whether Prov 19:22 expresses a good or bad desire is uncertain (see commentaries). Desire, coveting, craving, delight, happiness, longing, pleasure: > “reset (desire, request, # 830); > hmd (desire, crave, long for, covet, treasure, #2773); > hps I (want, desire, wish, care, #2911); > hq (desire, longing, lust, #3137); > y’b (long for, yearn, desire, #3277); ~ kaleh (longing, # 3985); > kmh (long after, lust for, #4014); > ksp IL (desire, long after, # 4083); > méra¥ II (wish, desire, # 4626); > ‘rg (long after, pant after, #6864); > 5’/ (ask, request, wish, # 8626); > t’b I (desire, long after, #9289), — t°siigd (desire, longing, appetite, # 9592) Beauty, beautiful, desire, desirable, fair: > ’wh (desire, regard as beautiful, desirable, # 203); ~ hemed (grace, comeliness, beauty, #2774); > yph (become fair, beautiful, adorn, # 3636); > n’h(be lovely, #5533); > p’r (beautify, glorify, # 6995); > Spr (be beautiful, # 9182) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 1:134-37; F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Hosea, AB, 1980; G. W. Buchanan, “The ‘Spiritual’ Commandment,” JAAR 36, 1968, 126-27; P. J. Budd, Numbers, WBC, 1984; P. C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, NICOT, 1976; W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1, Hermeneia,

1986; F. Landy, Paradoxes of Paradise, 1983, 177-79; N. Lohfink, “Zur Dekalogfassung von Dt 5”? BZ, 9496571 7-32: William C. Williams

205 (‘awwad, longing), > #203 208 (dy, woe), > Particles

me

ae “

D8 (wil 1, foolish, fool (#211); *I8 (’“wili), foolish (# 216); M238 Ciwwelet), fool-

ishness (# 222); oy? (y’/), ni. behave foolishly (# 3282). ANE

“wil may

be derived

from the Arab.

’wil, “congeal,

be thick,” therefore

“thick-brained” or “stupid” (TWOT 1:19; HALAT 21). A similar meaning is attested by Eth. ’ewil. A relationship with the South Arabian word ’wl, “‘to lead back,” has been suggested, but there is no clarity (TDOT 1:137; THAT 1:77). Though it is sometimes

suggested that y’/ is derived from “wil (TDOT 5:358), the relationship between y’/, ’wl, and ’“wil is unclear (HALAT 365; THAT 1:77). However, the terms are certainly in

the same semantic field and may, therefore, have been popularly associated. OT

1. The word ’*wil occurs 26x in the OT (Prophets [4x], Job [2x], Psalms [1x],

Proverbs [19x]). Among these occurrences itis used only once, with certainty, as an adj., “foolish,” in Prov 29:9, where “wil is an attribute of ’7¥, “man”

(THAT 1:78;

HALAT has also Jer 4:22 and Hos 9:7). The rest of the occurrences are commonly

translated as a nom. “fool.” Sometimes the nom. ’*wil is used in the pl. °wilim or ‘wilim, but never in the feminine. The adj. ’°wil?, “foolish,” a derivative of ’¢wil, occurs only once (Zech 11:15). However, some think that ’°wil? is the nom. °wil with the suffix -? (THAT 1:77). The nom. ’iwwelet, “folly,” is a rather rare qittelet form (GKC §84b,c), and occurs 25x in the OT (Psalms [2x], Proverbs [23x]). Overall the

seventy-three percent and ninety-two percent of the occurrences of °wil and ’iwwelet, respectively, are found in Proverbs.

306

ON #211) The vb. y’l occurs 4x in the OT, all outside Proverbs (Isa 19:13; Jer 5:4; 50:35-36; Num 12:11), only in the ni., meaning “to behave foolishly” or “to become a fool.” It is the opposite of the behavior of the h“kamim, wise men (> #2682; Isa 19:11-13;

Jer 50:35-36;

cf. Sir 37:19); it is used in connection

with hatta’t, sin

(> #2633; Num 12:11). Those who do not know the way of the Lord behave foolishly (Jer 5:4).

2. In Proverbs there are many similarities between the ‘wil and the k°sil, fool-

ish; both words are glossed by “fool.” A distinction between them is difficult to draw because they describe the same moral deficiencies. Comparing "wil with k¢sil, one notes that both are characterized by ’iwwelet, foolishness (16:22; 27:22; cf. 12:23; 13:16; 14:8, 24; 15:2, 14; 17:12; 26:4, 5, 11), despise discipline and correction (15:5; cf. 15:20), lack wisdom (10:13-14, 21; cf. 14:33), have bad manners in speech (10:8, 10; 17:28; 27:3; cf. 10:18; 12:23; 15:2; 19:1), lack self-control and are hot tempered (12:16; 20:3; cf. 29:11), are morally insolent, intractable, and incorrigible (12:15; 27:22; cf. 15:14; 17:10; 18:2; 26:5, 11; 28:26), are incapable of managing their

finances and property (11:29; cf. 21:20), and are punished for their folly (10:14; 14:3; cf. 19:29; 26:3). Kidner (41; cf. Mandry, 56) suggests that the wil is “darker” than the

k‘sil. The sage appeals to the latter (8:5) but not to the former. According to Donald (287), however, the “wil is more like the pefi, “simple,” whereas the k‘sil “is akin to

the /@s, mocker (> # 4370), an extreme type of fool who “debunks” the sage. However, “wil and lés do have some similarities. Both are said to mock (14:9; 29:9; cf. 13:1; 15:12; 19:25) and are arrogant (1:7; 12:15; cf. 21:24) and incorrigible (27:22; cf.

9:7-8). 3. The nom.

’°wil is the antithesis of hakam, wise man (Prov 10:8, 14; 11:29;

12:15; 14:3; 17:28; 29:9). The ’“wil always speaks the wrong things or at the wrong time and gets himself into trouble (14:3; 17:28). In contrast to the wise, the fool is

shortsighted, poor in management, and not receptive to advice (11:29; 12:15). Therefore, he and his household will end up in poverty or even slavery (W. McKane, Proverbs, OTL, 1970, 429; C. H. Toy, Proverbs, ICC, 1916, 238). Wisdom is too high for the ’“wil; at the city gate he does not open his mouth (24:7). McKane (398) com-

ments, “wisdom expresses itself in practical competence. Such wisdom is above the grasp of the fool because he is not amenable to educational discipline and does not attain the maturity of character and nicety of judgement which lend weight to public utterance.” The result is that the “wil will never be made a leader or become a decision-maker in the community. When “wil is used as the antithesis of ‘artim, “prudent

man,” the fool’s hot temper (12:16) and arrogance towards parental discipline (15:5) are in focus.

4, The word ’iwwelet, folly, is the opposite of da‘at, knowledge (Prov 12:23; 13:16; 14:18; 15:2, 14), hokmd, wisdom (14:1, 8), t“biind, understanding (15:21), and

§@kel, prudence (16:22). Folly is the unchangeable nature of the ‘wil (27:22) and the main characteristic of the k°sil, fool (14:24; 15:14; 26:11). The ’iwwelet of the fool is

exposed by his poor manner of speech (12:23; 15:2) and his foolish deeds (13:16). The ’iwwelet of the fool misleads him and others (14:8; cf. McKane, 466-67). It is more

dangerous to meet the fool in his ’iwwelet than a bear robbed of her cubs (17:12). When answering the fool, sometimes one has to answer him according to his ‘iwwelet

(26:5), though at other times one should not answer him according to his ’iwwelet

307

SNS #211) ee

es

ee

ee

(26:4). Folly is also the nature of the peti, “simple” (14:18), and of him who is senseless (15:21). If a person answers before he listens, it is his ’iwwelet and shame (18:13).

5. In Proverbs ’*wil and ’iwwelet mostly connote low mental endowment; however, sometimes the two words connote moral disposition. There are two occasions where ’“wil is used as the antithesis of yasar, upright one (> #3838; 14:9), and saddiq, righteous man (10:21). In Prov 10 saddig (> #7404) is used 14x, 11x as the antithesis of raxa‘, “wicked man.” Therefore, in the context of Prov 10, ’°wil is synonymous to rasa‘. In 24:9, the word ’iwwelet is used close together with words with moral/religious overtones, zimmd, scheme, and hatfa’t, sin, to describe the sinful incli-

nation of folly. Similarly, ’iwwelet is used close together with the words ‘awénét, iniquities, rasa‘, wicked, and hatta’t, sin, to describe the end of the one who is led astray

by folly (5:22-23). 6. Outside Proverbs, in Jer 4:22, the foolish (’“wil) people are those who do not

know God; they do not have spiritual and ethical understanding, they are clever to do evil but do not know how to do good. The way the redeemed of the Lord will walk is the way of holiness, where the unclean and ’°wilim will not walk (Isa 35:8). The shepherd in Zech 11:15 is foolish, ’°wili, not because he is mentally foolish, but because he oppresses the people. The officials of Zoan and the wise counselors of Pharaoh are professionals, but they are ’“wilim who give senseless advice; they do not know the Lord and his plan for the nations (Isa 19:11). The psalmist says that he suffers because of his hatta’t, sin, ‘“w6ndt, iniquities, and ’iwwelet (Ps 38:3-5[4-6]). God knows the psalmist’s ’iwwelet, and his ’“Samét, wrongs, are not hidden from him (Ps 69:5[6]). In these

passages ’°wil and ’iwwelet do not connote the meaning of mental deficiency but moral deficiency. However, in Hos 9:7, ’’wil refers to one who is a blockhead and talks fool-

ishly and arrogantly like a m°Sugga‘, madman. The term ’°wil is missing in Mish. and Midr. Heb. (TDOT 1:140). Folly, fool, madness, shameless: > ’wil I (foolish, fool, #211); > b‘r IV (be stupid, # 1279); > All Ill (be confused, foolish, behave like mad, #2147); > ksl I (be foolish, # 4071); > lhh (behave like a madman, # 4263); ~ nbl II (act disdainfully, #5571); > ski (behave foolishly, make foolish, frustrate, # 6118); > pth I (be inexperienced, be naive, deceive, persuade, # 7331);

> §g‘ (raving, crazy, # 8713); > tpl I (talk nonsense, # 9520) Bad, vicious, wicked: ~ zmm (plan, purpose, plan evil, # 2372); > kilay (scoundrel, # 3964); > ‘wl I (act wrongly, #6401); > sdh I (act intentionally, #7399); > r‘‘ I (be bad, injure, # 8317); > rs‘ (act wickedly, unrighteously, be guilty, pronounce guilty, # 8399) Knowledge, discernment, shrewd, wisdom: ~ byn (understand, discern, # 1067); > hkm (become wise, act wisely, # 2681); > t‘m (taste, test, sense, discern, # 3247); > yd‘ I (observe, care about, #3359); > nkr (pretend, be recognized, #5795); > ‘rm II (be cunning, be crafty, make crafty, # 6891); > skl I (have success, understand, make wise, act with insight, # 8505)

Sin, guilt, rebellion, transgression, wrong: > ’Gwen (mischief, iniquity, deception, #224); > hf’ (sin, commit a sin, purify, #2627); > ‘wh (do wrong, pervert, #6390); > ‘wi I (act wrongly, #6401); > ps (rebel, violate, transgress, #7321); > Fall: Theology Wisdom, knowledge, skill: > byn (understand, discern, # 1067); > hkm (be wise, become wise, act wisely, # 2681); > yd‘ (understand, know, # 3359); > ysr I(admonish, correct, discipline, #3579); — leqah (teaching, gift of persuasion, # 4375); > m°zimmd, consideration, plan, evil plan, plot, # 4659); > ‘oqbd (cunning, craftiness, # 6817); > ‘rm II (be cunning, be crafty, make crafty, #6891); > ski I (have success, understand, make wise, act with insight, # 8505); > tahbul6t (advice, guidance, # 9374)

308

SOON(#212) BIBLIOGRAPHY

IDB 2:303-4; ISBE 2:331; TDOT

1:137-40; 5:358; THAT

1:77-9; TWOT

1:19-20, 357; T.

Donald, “The Semantic Field of ‘Folly’ in Proverbs, Job, Psalms, and Ecclesiastes,” VT 13, 1963, 285-92; D. Kidner, Proverbs, 1964, 39-41; S. A. Mandry, There Is No God! A Study of the Fool

in the OT, Particularly in Proverbs and Qoheleth, 1972; W. O. E. Oesterley, The Book of Proverbs, 1929, Ixxxiv-vii; C-W. Pan, A Study of the Vocabulary of Education in Proverbs 1-9, an

unpublished Ph. D thesis submitted to the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, 1987, 124-62. Chou-Wee Pan

212

ON

5-8 (’wil ID, nom. citizenry (#212).

ANE The Heb. nom. is derived from an Akk. loanword aw/milu, meaning person, citizen. OT _ It is probable that the text of 2 Kgs 24:15 refers to the citizens (’°wil) of the

land, but it has been vocalized as the “mighty” (’2/é) of the land (élé < ’ayil I, > #380). Citizen: > ’°wil II (citizenry, #212); > ’ezrah (native citizen, # 275); > ‘am I (citizen, kinsman, relative, # 6638); > ‘amit (citizen, community member, # 6660); > Sakén (resident, inhabitant, neighbor, # 8907); > t6sab (resident, # 9369) A. H. Konkel

a The fil refers to the apparent “vigor” of the wicked (Ps 73:4). The precise naghae of al is uncertain. For the connection between Ugar. ul, might, see M. Dahood, 2:189. Abdomen, belly: > ’i/ (belly, body, #214); > beten I (belly, # 1061); > gahdn (belly [of a reptile], # 1623); > homes II (belly, #2824); > karés (belly [of an animal], # 4160); > mé‘eh (body, bowels, # 5055); > gébd (belly, maw, # 7687); ~ Sor (navel, umbilical cord, # 9219) BIBLIOGRAPHY

M. Dahood, Psalms, AB, 1968, 2:189; A. Murtonen, Hebrew in Its West Semitic Setting, Part 1:

A Comparative Lexicon, Section Ba: Root System: Hebrew Material, 1988. Cleon L. Rogers, Jr.

216 (’°wil?, foolish), > #211 218 (‘alay, perhaps), ~ Particles

221 (alam, porch), > # 1215 222 (’iwwelet, foolishness), > #211

ae ment (# 224).

ie)

28 (Gwen), nom. evil, iniquity; wicked man, evildoer; mischief, sorrow, calamity; punish-

309

TIN G 224) ANE.

The root has not been found in any of the cognate ANE languages.

A parent vb. form for ’awen does not exist in the OT. The nom. occurs about OT including its usage in place-names, see below), depending on decisions one (not 74x makes regarding certain problematic texts (see TDOT 1:141). Over two-thirds of its instances occur in Ps (29x), Job (15x), and Prov (10x). ’@wen occurs predominantly in

poetic passages and most often has the worshipers (or worship) of Yahweh as its backdrop. The doer of ’awen seeks to unsettle or even kill any faithful member of the covenant community, esp. the less fortunate individuals. Although ’Gwen has no ANE cognates, it appears to derive from the same parent root as ’6n (power, # 226). Consequently, ’awen could highlight a negative aspect of power, i.e., the abuse of power that brings harm and destruction (TDOT 1:141-42). Heb. words for trouble, calamity, and sorrow (e.g., Gwen [# 224], ra‘a [# 8286], ‘amal

[# 6662]) frequently overlap with sin because, in Hebrew thought, sin inevitably leads to hardship and suffering (ABD 6:32). 1. A general term for evil. ’Gwen can signify wicked conduct in the realms of worship (Isa 1:13; Zech 10:2), politics (Isa 31:2), legal relationships (10:1; 29:20), or warfare (Ps 56:7[8]). It is not connected with a particular category of wickedness, but it

denotes a fundamental religio-ethical condition that collectively influences a person (TDOT 1:143). The parallel or contextual proximity of ’4wen with several other words for sin demonstrates its moral perversity: hamdas (violence, Isa 59:6; Hab 1:3, > #2805), ‘awel (iniquity, Job 11:14; Prov 22:8, > #6404), ra‘ (wickedness, Ps 28:3; 36:3[4]; 94:23: 141:42"°ProveGslS 1221 ilsa Silke 209372 Wer 4:14 Ezek el eae Mic =20 8 > # 8273), ra‘a (wicked, Ps 64:2[3]; 94:16; Prov 17:4; Isa 31:2, > # 8288), and rasa‘ (wicked? =Ps°2873" *55:3/4|: 92:71 ole WOl:S2 -Erov alle). 12-2 O28 sda ae

> #8401). The practice of ’Gwen is not spontaneous or accidental. It springs forth from the heart given over to ’4wen. The enemy of the psalmist (Ps 41:6[7]) accumulates “Gwen in his heart, i.e., ammunition for his slanderous comments. According to Isa (32:6), it is the fool’s heart that practices "Gwen. One of the things that Yahweh hates is a heart that devises/plots (hb) wicked schemes (mahs“bét ’Gwen). The wicked (ra¥a‘) never cease from their scheming in preparation for their opportunity to commit ’awen (Ps 36:4[5]; cf. Isa 59:7; Jer 4:14; Ezek 11:2; Mic 2:1). Wildberger (45) suggests that ‘Gwen signifies a “power which is at work with a destructive power, even if it is only thinking that comes out of an evil heart and that leads to hatching a plot to bring about disaster (Prov

6:18).”

-

Those who are devoted to ’Gwen will reap what they sow (Prov 22:8). Eliphaz (Job 4:8) responds to Job’s lament (and suffering) by affirming that those who plant iniquity (Gwen) and sow mischief (‘amdl) will reap the fruit of their planting. Clines (126) contends that Eliphaz draws on the dual significance of these two terms for the sowing and reaping part of his argument, i.e., those who plant iniquity and mischief will automatically reap punishment and sorrow. Eliphaz later adds that hypocrites conceive ‘amal and give birth to ‘Gwen (15:35; cf. Ps 7:14[15] for a close par.). Although Eliphaz incorrectly concludes that conduct and consequences always directly correspond, a causal connection between the two is often a reality.

310

TIS

224)

Because God knows (Job 11:11; 34:22) and hates (Ps 5:5[6]) those who commit ’awen, he promises to banish them from his presence (125:5). Evildoers whose abusive treatment of the righteous is compared to shooting an arrow (64:2[3]) will be shot with an arrow by Yahweh (64:7[8]). Although evil men might flourish for a brief time, Yahweh will destroy and scatter them (92:7-9[8-10]; cf. 141:9-10; Prov 6:12-15). The

answer to the psalmist’s agonizing question, “Who will take a stand for me against evildoers?” (Ps 94:16), is without doubt: God will be his refuge and will repay the evildoers for their sin (94:22-23). God offers evildoers the potential of restoration.:-They can repent from their vile conduct and be spared from certain judgment (Job 36:10; Isa 55:7; Jer 4:14). The psalmist prays that ‘Gwen will not be his master (Ps 119:133) and recognizes the disruptive impact of ’Gwen on his relationship with Yahweh (66:18). (a) Malicious verbal abuse. The juxtaposition of ’awen with verbs of speaking and terms for the mouth (peh), tongue (Ja56n), and lips (Sapa) manifests the verbal aspect of ’Gwen. The psalmist (Ps 10:7) declares that the wicked (ra5a‘) keeps trouble (Gmail) and evil (Gwen) under his tongue. In other words, his tongue is a powerful weapon that is either characterized by or is always ready to speak forth trouble and evil. Iniquity (’"a@wen) and deceit (mirmd, #5327) pervade his speech. The wise sage points out that the evil man (75 ’Gwen) has a corrupt mouth (Prov 6:12). The wicked man (raSa‘) listens to evil lips (S“pat ’Gwen) (Prov 17:4) and gulps down evil (’awen) with his mouth (19:28). The par. of speaking falsely (Saw’, # 8736), gathering ’@wen in one’s heart, and telling it abroad (Ps 41:6[7]) suggests that "Gwen can signify slander. In a prophetic indictment against Judah, Isaiah (Isa 58:9) conditions covenant renewal upon God’s people ceasing from their habit of speaking “Gwen. He later describes the thoroughgoing nature of their sin before Yahweh (involving their hands, fingers, lips, and tongue) (59:3). Sadly, God’s covenant nation was characterized by trusting empty arguments (1ohii, #9332), speaking lies (Saw’), conceiving trouble (‘amal), and giving birth to evil (Gwen) (59:4). Using similar terminology, Zech 10:2 affirms that idols speak deceit (’awen), and diviners see lies (Seger, # 9214), tell false dreams (h7l6mét ha¥Saw’), and give comfort in vain (hebel, # 2039). (b) Social atrocities. The psalmist witnesses the horizontal impact of the evildoers. Their oppression of the poor and righteous (Ps 14:5-6) is as commonplace as eating daily food (14:4; 53:4[5]). They revile the righteous and bring suffering into their lives (55:3[4]). The psalmist depicts the evildoers (who have ’Gwen and ‘amal under their tongue, 10:7, see above) as wild animals, waiting to ambush and gain control over their victims (10:8-10). They prowl on the city walls day and night, disseminating their malice and abuse (’Gwen and ‘amail, 55:10[11]).

The prophets pay special attention to social crimes of evildoers. Isaiah (Isa 10:1) rebukes the ruling class of his day for using their position of power to deprive the poor of their goods and property. Whether he envisions the promulgation of new, unjust social laws (Clements, 61; Kaiser, 227; Wildberger, 213), unjust decisions based on existing laws (Gray, 190-91), or both (Oswalt, 259; Ridderbos, 110-11), the rulings

enacted by these officials wreaked havoc on their less fortunate fellow citizens. The leaders twisted or made laws that created property rulings in their favor, at the expense of powerless people. Isaiah also indicts the covenant nation for being devotees of ’awen (Isa 59:4-7; cf. Job 15:35; Ps 7:14[15]). The prophet (Isa 58:9) later appeals that

311

JIN G# 224) Israel might cease from their abusive behavior (malicious [’a@wen] talk) and grant to the needy what the evil Israelites had desired for themselves (58:10). Micah (Mic 2:1; cf. Hab 1:3) directs his indictment against those Israelites who add to their land holdings through treacherous means (“who plan to get rich by violence,” Waltke, 634). Hosea (Hos 12:11-14[12-15]) pronounces Israel guilty of violating her covenant requirements. The first line of v. 11[12] refers to the ’@wen of Gilead and the second line concerns their idolatrous practices. Although some interpret both lines with reference to idolatry (e.g., Andersen and Freedman, 618-19), the lines more accurately delineate

Israel’s violent acts of bloodshed and her idolatrous practices respectively. Because of her reputation for violence and bloodshed (cf. 6:8) Yahweh promises to turn Gilead’s ) reproaches back on him (12:14[15]). (c) The evil of idolatry. In his rebuke of Saul’s incomplete obedience, Samuel affirms that Yahweh finds pleasure in heartfelt obedience rather than hypocritical sacrifices (1 Sam 15:22; cf. Isa 1:11-15; Jer 7:21-26). He continues by accusing Saul of rebellion (mer?, # 5308) and arrogance (psr, > #7210) (1 Sam 15:23a). He compares the latter element to the evil of idolatry (’awen ait’rapim). The juxtaposition of these

two noms. most likely functions as a hendiadys for “evil teraphim/idols” or “the evil of idolatry” (cf. LXX). Saul’s conduct is as abhorrent and reprehensible as apostate worship of other gods. Saul’s treachery constitutes a rejection (m’s, > #4415) of Yahweh’s word (15:23b). The prophet Zechariah (Zech 10:2) declares that the idols (teraphim) speak nothing but wickedness (’Gwen). (d) Nothing/emptiness. In various discussions of the meaning of ’Gwen a number of scholars contend that emptiness/nothingness (esp. in the realm of idolatry) serves a primary nuance of ’awen (e.g., TDOT 1:142; TWOT 1:48; Watts, 356). One of

the clearest examples of this nuance (Isa 41:29) might better be read as ’ayin (particle of nonexistence) rather than Gwen (cf. 1QIsa*%, Syr., Tg.; contra Motyer, 318). Although the activity of ’G@wen-doers is doubtless without ultimate substance, vanity is not a primary nuance of the nom. in most cases. In Isa 66:3, where the prophet addresses either hypocritical worship (as in 1:11-15, where the insincere offering of sacrifices to perpetuate a false sense of security for the worshiper) or syncretism (a person who intersperses the proper offering of various sacrifices with abhorrent criminal/religious activity), he condemns, among other things, the blessing, i.e., worshiping, of Gwen. In this instance ’Gwen seems to represent the vain/worthless object of worship, the pagan idol. It could also be that Isaiah uses ’Gwen in the present context to highlight the evil nature of this kind of conduct. It is utterly ’@wen-like. A In 2. Doers of iniquity. The expression pé “lé ’awen, doers of iniquity, occurs 24x in the OT and is the most common expression-in the Ps (16x) for wicked persons (3x in Job, 2x in Prov, and Ix each in Isa, Hos, Mic). A similar expression, ma“sé

’awen

(works of iniquity), occurs in Isa 59:6.

Although po ““lé ’Gwen can signify evildoers in the political realm (Isa 31:2), their plotting and abuse is normally directed against faithful worshipers of Yahweh, esp. the poor and needy of the covenant community. The psalmist’s reference to Yahweh and the God of Jacob (Ps 94:4, 16) alludes to the covenantal relationship that

forms that basis for his complaint (94:3). The evildoers’ oppression of God’s people, manifested

in their slaying

of the less fortunate

individuals,

the widow, alien,

and fatherless (94:5-7, people given special care because of their vulnerability, cf. 312

TUS @ 224) Exod 22:21-22;

Deut

10:18; 24:19; Jas 1:27), represents arrogant rebellion against

Yahweh. These evildoers are apostates, who have turned to crooked ways (Ps 125:5); they represent archetypes of those. persons banned from God’s presence (15:5[6]). The Opposite person is the one who does/works righteousness (15:2, po‘él sedeq), who

always does God’s words and will and does not rebel (mrh;, > #5286) or refuse (m’s,

# 4415) to follow his way. Drawing on Gunkel’s suggestion that biblical psalms were based on “sickness psalms” (Gunkel and Begrich, 201), Mowinckel (1-58, 121) maintained that individual

lament psalms recount the suffering of a sickness by an individual at the hands of a sorcerer/magician. Consequently, the doers of iniquity are enemies of the psalmist; they utilize magic manipulations and occult practices to conjure up destruction for the poor. Kraus (135-36) refers to the Mesopotamian portrayal of enemies in realm of magic and phenomenon of Egyp. execration texts as a possible ANE background for this idea. These doers of iniquity are those who carry out their abusive practices by means of magic powers (cf. TWOT, 23). Birkeland (93-94) contends that evildoers in the Psalms signify Gentiles. In each case a collective or representative body is in view. Israelite groups are included only as they cooperate with foreigners in this insidious activity. In the remaining psalms, Gentiles still provide the background for references to evildoers.

Although certain instances of evildoers (pd‘“lé Gwen) may refer to gentile oppressors, this background is not as widespread as Birkeland suggests. Mowinckel’s suggestion of evil conduct animated by magical powers, though present in Mesop. literature, is not clearly evident in any biblical psalm. These doers of evil represent individuals who, for their own advantage, harm innocent persons in precarious situations (TDOT 1:145). They cannot be distinguished from the wicked (m°ré ‘im/r°Sa‘im) and the enemies (’dy°bim) of God’s people. In most cases, the po“/é Gwen depict those who want to harm a Yahweh worshiper by misusing their power, esp. by slander, cursing, false accusations, and other sins of the tongue (TDOT 1:147). 3. Misfortune/trouble/adversity. In several instances “Gwen delineates some aspect of life’s troubles and sorrow. The par. of ’dwen and ‘amal (Nun 23:21; Job 4:8; 5:6; 15:35; Ps 10:7; 55:10[11]; 90:10) offers several examples of this nuance. In this

usage Gwen signifies vivid example of this (“son of my trouble”) Job that his wicked declares that suffering

not only the immediate act but also the resulting troubles. A meaning occurs when Rachel names her newborn son Ben-Oni with her dying breath (Gen 35:18). In his attempt to convince conduct has occasioned his experience of suffering, Eliphaz (Gwen) does not naturally spring up on its own (Job 5:6).

In his lament over Israel (Amos 5:1-17) the prophet Amos exhorts Israel to seek

Yahweh rather than the counterfeit religion practiced at Bethel, Gilgal, and Beersheba (5:4-5). These sanctuaries of false religion can offer no long-term assistance since they will soon be no more. Bethel will become characterized by trouble (’awen). Since Dan and the hills of Ephraim are located north of Jerusalem, a warning from Dan about an impending disaster (’Gwen) most likely refers to advance notice of

an invading army (Jer 4:15). The approach of this army represents divine judgment on Judah for their covenant treachery. In this instance and others, ’a@wen signifies punishment (cf. Job 21:19; Ps 90:10; Prov 22:8).

313

TIN

224)

4. Place-names with ‘awen. Beth Aven, a geographic name, occurs 7x. In Josh 7:2; 18:12 and 1 Sam 13:5; 14:23 it probably refers to a town located near Bethel. The prophet Hosea (Hos 4:15; 5:8; 10:5) equates the place-name with Bethel. In light of the prophetic use of Beth Aven, various scholars debate the meaning or integrity of Beth Aven in Josh 7:2, the only passage that distinguishes Beth Aven from Bethel. In light of the inconsistent rendering of this place-name in LXX and the prophetic equating of Beth Aven and Bethel, certain scholars have suggested that Beth Aven in Josh 7:2 is a later gloss (Gray, 87), the result of the conflation of two readings (McCarter, 227-28)

or a corruption of bét ’6n (Boling, 222). Regardless, one can retain the integrity of Beth Aven in Josh 7:2 and recognize that Hosea uses the name of this town near Bethel to make a sarcastic point about Bethel in his writings. Beth Aven, “house of trouble” (Stuart, 84) or “house of adversity,” serves as a

derogatory name for Bethel, which means “house of God” (Hos 4:15). After the division of the monarchy, Jeroboam I established Bethel as a major sanctuary of the northern kingdom, where the counterfeit form of Yahweh worship found expression (1 Kgs 12:25-33). Hosea (Hos 5:8) exhorts his fellow citizens of the southern kingdom to avoid Israel’s appetite for religious adultery. They should not go to Beth Aven (Bethel), which has been given over to the false worship centered around the calf-idol located there (10:5). His similar use of ’4wen in 10:8 (without the preceding bét, the high places of Aven) emphasizes its connotation of evil (McComiskey, 169). Amos 1:5 uses the expression Valley of Aven (biq‘at Gwen) to refer to a Syrian idolatrous center. 5. Summary. As the prophets evaluate certain aspects of Israel’s conduct, they describe various activities as characterized by Gwen. This misuse of power/opportunity is normally directed against those seeking to faithfully worship Yahweh or those who need special care because of their precarious situation. Consequently, an act characterized by ’@wen becomes synonymous with ’Gwen itself. The juxtaposition of Heb. words for trouble, calamity, and sorrow (e.g., “Gwen [#224], ra‘d [8286], ‘amal [6662]) and terms for sin enables ’Gwen to signify guilt or punishment as well. In

Hebrew thought, sin inevitably leads to hardship and suffering (ABD 6:32). An accusation of ’Gwen is leveled against persons who misuse power at their disposal. It signifies cunning and deceitful twisting of the law or misleading propaganda to accomplish their own agenda rather than open and brutal deeds of violence (TDOT 1:143-44). P-B

__Jastrow lists (’w) = (‘w) as the probable verbal root, meaning curve, be curved,

be hollow; to press, be pressed. The nom. meant (1) oppression, wrong (hence, it was closely tied to social/political settings), and (2) falsehood, vanity (= hebel; > #2039). It was used by R. Meir to describe the gospel, “falsehood of blank paper” (Jastrow 1:27). See also WTM, 1:41, who notes that this meaning is developed from a cacopho-

nous compound gospel.

word formation

’ewawngilyén,

playing off of the G evangelion,

NT The concept in the NT is carried on by the words indicated below. The concept of do wrong, act unjustly, violate the law, lawlessness, is at the center of the NT concern for acting righteously before God (Matt 5:43-45; Acts 24:15; Rom 1:29; 314

TIN

226)

2 Peter 2:9). For lawlessness, note Rom 4:7; 2 Cor 6:14; for evil, corruption, note Matt 7:11; 12:34-35; 15:19; Heb 3:12. Deception, falsehood, fraud, guile, iniquity, lie: > ’awen (mischief, iniquity, deception, # 224); > bd’ (invent, devise, lie, # 968); > kzb I (lie, be a liar, deceive, #3941); > khs (fail, deceive, grow lean, #3950); ~ nkl (knave, deceiver, cheat, #5792); > ni’ II (be deceived, deceive, cause a deception, #5958); > sara II (rebellion, crime, revolt, falsehood, # 6240); > “qb I (seize the heel, overreach, deceive, # 6810); > rmh II (betray, deal treacherously with, # 8228); — Swt (turn away to falsehood, entangled in lies, #8454); > Sqr (deal/act falsely, betray, # 9213); — tll (deceive, mock, trifle, # 9438)

Sin, guilt, rebellion, transgression, wrong: > ’awen (mischief, iniquity, deception, #224); > hf’ (sin, commit a sin, purify, #2627); > ‘wh (do wrong, pervert, #6390); > ‘wi I (act wrongly, #6401); > pS‘ (rebel, violate, transgress, # 7321); > Fall: Theology BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABD 6:31-40; TDOT

1:140-46; THAT 1:81-84; TWAT 1:151-59; TWOT

1:23-24; F. Andersen

and D. Freedman, Hosea, 1980; H. Birkeland, The Evildoers in the Book of Psalms, 1955; R. Boling, Joshua, AB, 1982; R. Clements, Jsaiah 1-39, NCBC, 1980; G. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah, ICC, 1912; J. Gray, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, NCBC, 1986; H. Gunkel and J. Begrich, Einleitung in die Psalmen, 1933; O. Kaiser, Isaiah 1-12, OTL,

1983; H. Kraus, Theology of the Psalms, 1986; E. Knauf, “Beth Aven,” Bib 65, 1984, 251-53; P. McCarter,

1 Samuel, 1980; T. McComiskey, “Hosea,” in The Minor Prophets, 1992, 1:1-237; J.

Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah, 1993; S. Mowinckel, Psalmen Studien 1, 1921; J. Oswalt, The Book

of Isaiah

Chapters

1-39,

NICOT,

1986;

J. Ridderbos,

Isaiah,

1985;

D.

Stuart,

Hosea-Jonah, WBC, 1987; B. Waltke, “Micah,” in The Minor Prophets, 1993, 2:591-764; J. Watts, Isaiah 34-66, WBC, 1987; H. Wildberger, Isaiah 1-12, Hermeneia, 1991; H. Wolff, Hosea, 1977.

Eugene Carpenter/Michael A. Grisanti

sn

ea

OT

I

iS (6n I), nom. generative power, sexual viril-

ity; physical strength; wealth (# 226).

The word occurs at least 12x, and possibly 13x. 1. In four texts, the nom. has the meaning generative power.

(a) In Jacob’s “blessing” (a misnomer in the case of some of the sons, who are censured rather than blessed), Reuben is described as b°k6r? ... koh? w°ré’ Sit Oni, my first-born ... my might, and the first fruits of my strength (RSV)/vigor (NEB; REB; NRSV)/manhood (JB; TEV) (Gen 49:3). It was in the firstborn that a father’s undiluted, manly vigor (Peake, 1920, 165; Westermann, 218; Hamilton, 644, 647, net: cf. Spence and Exell, 524; Delitzsch, 359, 372 [manly strength]; Wellhausen [male strength], cited by Anderson, 572)/virile powers (S. R. Driver, 1916, 382; cf. Skinner, 514; Tate, 1990, 283)/sexual potency (Hamilton, 647, n. 11) was/were manifest. How-

ever, Reuben had this vitality in such abundance that it manifested itself in the transgression of his father’s marriage rights (Gen 35:22). This act of incest—which may be a recollection of a severe crime, such as an attempt to wrest supremacy from Jacob (Davies, 298), or some unfriendly or treacherous act committed against the Bilhah tribe, Dan-Naphtali

(Bennett,

395; though

see Skinner,

515)—led

to his father’s

denouncing him and depriving him of his preeminence, i.e., his rights and privileges as

315

TIN (# 226) firstborn (Gen 49:4) (Peake, 1920, 165; Hamilton, 647). Reuben’s cardinal sin, according to his father, was weakness of will, lack of self-control, and irresolution (Hertz, 183). Given that the character of each of the ancestors foreshadows that of the tribe

(S. R. Driver, 1916, 379-80; Davies, 296), it is unsurprising that the tribe that bears Reuben’s name is depicted as comparatively insignificant, indifferent and/or ineffective (Judg 5:15-16), and threatened early on with extinction, almost certainly as a result of military pressures in Transjordan (Deut 33:6). (b) The privileged status of the firstborn son was widely acknowieaaea throughout the ANE. It is clear that the rights and privileges of the firstborn were

highly valued in Israel as well (cf. Gen 25:31-34; 27:1-45). However, there is evidence from Nuzi, Ugarit, and Alalakh that a father could select his “firstborn” (see Thompson, 229, n. 1, and the literature cited there; Mayes, 302). It would appear from some texts in the OT (Gen 48:8-20; 49:3-4; 1 Chron 5:1-2) that a similar custom was practiced in Israel (Smith, 255-56; Thompson, 229-30; Mayes, 302). To counteract this

practice, a law was formulated that sought to protect the inalienable right of the firstborn by stipulating that a man who favored one of his wives over another was not permitted to treat the son of the wife he loved as his firstborn in preference to the actual firstborn whose mother he disliked (Deut 21:15-17). The man had no legal right to alter the status of his sons; he was obliged to recognize the right of the true firstborn by giving to him a double portion or share (the Heb. seems to mean two-thirds [Phillips, 142; Mayes, 304]), when the estate was divided, on the ground that this son was hit’ ré’ Sit ’ond, the first issue of his virility (NRSV; cf. S. R. Driver, 1965, 246)/manhood (NEB; REB)/procreative power (Fohrer, 99; Mayes, 304; Craigie, 282-83) (Deut 21:17). (c) In a recital that contrasts God’s great deeds of salvation and gracious acts of

compassion with Israel’s grievous unfaithfulness and ingratitude, there is a description of the miracles wrought in Egypt by the Holy One of Israel, which culminated in the destruction of all the Egyptian firstborn, ré’ Sit ’6nim (Ps 78:51), the first issue of their vigor (Oesterley, 361; Dahood, 1973, 237, 245)/virility (JB; Tate, 1990, 279) or “the flower of their manhood” (NEB; cf. REB; NIV). (d) A parallel to Ps 78:51 is found in 105:36, where the words ré’ Sit I°kol-’6naém—the first issue of all their fertility (JB)/manhood (NEB; REB; NIV)/masculinity (Allen, 37)—occur. Here, the worldwide and nation-ruling power of Yahweh is extolled: the sovereign God guides his people through all crises, never forgetting his covenant, always fulfilling his word, and displaying his power and his grace in signs, wonders, and judgments (Kraus, 312). 2. The word is used of the physical strength of humans (Job 18:7, 12; Hos 12:3[4]; Isa 40:29; and possibly Prov 11:7), of God (Isa 40:26), and of Behemoth (Job

40:16). (a) In his second discourse (Job 18:1-21), where Bildad champions the cause of

black-and-white morality and simplistic retributionist theology (Clines, 414-15), the word occurs 2x (vv. 7 and 12). Bildad confidently asserts (v. 7) that the wicked man’s

vigorous stride (sa‘““dé ’6né, lit., the steps of his vigor) will be shortened, or become cramped (JB) or hobbled (Clines, 403). The translation suggested by Andersen (189)

conveys the meaning well: “His athletic pace becomes a shuffle.” According to Bildad, the way of life of the person opposed to God leads to self-destruction (Watts, 78). Some

316

take ’6n6é to be from

’Gwen, trouble, sorrow, wickedness.

NJPSV

reads “his

TIN (# 226) iniquitous strides,” and G. R. Driver (1945-46), emending the text from yés°rit sa‘“dé

’6n6 to yasar sa“da(y)w ’6nd, translates “his wickedness encompasseth his steps.” However, it is preferable to retain MT and to take ’6nd as his vigor. The implication of the image of the wicked person being reduced to a hobbling gait may be that he will be crippled by disease (Clines, 414) rather than afflicted with premature aging (cf. Pope, 134). What is certain is that whereas spaciousness signifies salvation, narrowness symbolizes trouble and danger (Sawyer; S. R. Driver, 1906, 50; Davidson, 156; Dhorme, 260-61; Gordis, 1978, 191; Clines 414). Those who can take long strides are much less

likely to stumble than those whose steps are hampered (Ps 18:36[37]; Prov 4:12). The words y*hi-ra‘éb ’6né in Job 18:12 have been variously translated. If the text is retained, then Bildad goes on to say that the wicked man’s strength is hunger-bitten (RSV), ie., depleted (Hartley, 277-78; cf. Davidson, 157), consumed (NRSV), or exhausted (Dummelow, 305). On this translation the meaning would prob-

ably be that the evil person’s energies and drive are so eroded—whether by terrors that unnerve him (so Hartley, 278), or, less likely, by his cravings (Watts, 78)—that he has no reserves when calamity strikes. Several scholars (e.g., Moffatt; JPS; NIV; Strahan, 165; Clines, 403, 405; cf. Terrien, 1038) take ’6nd to be from ’Gwen rather than from ’On, So that the text reads “ruin [or misery] is [or shall be] ravenous for him,” which

would certainly provide good parallelism to v. 12b (“and calamity [stands] ready for his stumbling”). On this translation, the meaning would be that the forces of chaos waylay the evil man even while he is in good health and enjoying good fortune (cf. Clines, 416).

Some emend the text of Job 18:12a. Dhorme (263-64; cf. BHS) reads b°’dnd,

“(He is hungry] amid his wealth.” BHK suggests the emendation yir‘ab ’awen I6, trouble is hungry for him (cf. Driver and Gray, 2:119, who suggest that, had the sense been that trouble is ravenous for the evil man, then one would have expected yir ‘ab 16 ’ 6nd,

his trouble is hungry for him). Dahood (1966, 230, 237) translates, “Let the Hungry One face him,” arguing that ra‘éb, “the Hungry One,” is a poetic name for death (1966, 200, 203, 237) and that ’6nd is derived from his ’nh II, to meet (1966, 230, 237). Following Dahood, Pope (132, 135) translates, “The Ravenous One confronts him,” and Habel (97) reads “The Hungry One meets him.” This approach is unconvincing (see

Clines, 405), as is that of NEB and REB, which, following the dubious claim made by G. R. Driver (1953, 260) that there is a root r‘b meaning to be bewitched, translate,

“For all his vigour he is paralysed with fear.” A traditional Jewish interpretation sees in ’6nd a reference to offspring and in sela‘, side/rib, a metaphor for wife (see Clines, 405; Hartley, 278, n. 10 and the literature cited there). According to this interpretation,

which is as fanciful as it is ingenious, the evil man’s children will go hungry and

calamity

awaits his wife (Gordis,

1978,

192). Many

commentators

(e.g., Gibson,

143-44) maintain that, in his second discourse, Bildad is casting Job as one of the wicked. However, Clines (409) argues that Bildad does not mean to imply that Job is the person he is depicting; rather, Bildad sees Job as a rescuable sinner and seeks to encourage him to turn to God. (b) Israel in Hos 12:3[4] seems to be enjoined to hold fast to Yahweh’s love and justice as the persevering Jacob clung to his brother’s heel and, in his manhood (aib°’6nd; RSV; NRSV;

NEB; REB), or vigor (Andersen and Freedman,

593, 596,

607), or virility (Landy, 147, 150), held on tenaciously to his divine opponent at the 317

TIN (# 226) river Jabbok (cf. Cheyne, 113-15; Kraft, 459; May and Metzger, 197). Stuart (185) translates #b°’ 6nd as “When he was powerful.”

1098; Stuart, 191,

(c) The despairing, weary, and self-pitying exiles who complain that God has abandoned them (Isa 40:27) are given the assurance that the incomparable Yahweh—the everlasting, sovereign Creator (v. 28a), whose might is inexhaustible and whose understanding is unsearchable (v. 28b)—empowers the faint and increases the vitality and energy of those lacking innate strength (a/°’én ’6nim ‘osma yarbeh, lit., and to the one/those who has/have no vigor/vitality he will increase power [v. 29]).

Heb. lacks a word for “omnipotent,” but the idea is expressed in v. 26 by periphrasis (North, 88), where Yahweh is said to have an abundance of power (mérob ’dnim). Yahweh, whose power is infinite and whose grace is unfailing, is the sole source of

renewal and vigor. All those who wait in hope, trust, and faith for his intervention will be empowered and will experience a complete reversal of fortune (v. 31) (Jones, 518). Yahweh always acts with full vigor, and those who trust in him will be empowered by having their vigor renewed (McKenzie, 25). (d) The words w°téhelet ’dnim ’abada (lit., and the hope/expectation of vigor perishes) in Prov 11:7b have been variously translated. It has been argued that v. 7b does not provide the expected antithesis to v. 7a (“When the wicked dies, his hope perishes”), and that perhaps the LXX (“[When the righteous man dies his hope does not perish,] but the boasting of the wicked perishes”) preserves the original text (Hooke, 403; Rylaarsdam,

450-51; Tate, 1972, 39). RSV,

which

seems

to follow LXX

ton

asebon = ’°wilim, ungodly ones (cf. BHS), reads, “and the expectation of the godless comes to nought” (cf. NRSV; JB). Others (e.g., Martin, 77-78) maintain that LXX ought not to be followed. Reider (124; cf. BHS) achieves antithetical parallelism by emending ’6nim to ’“miinim (faithful ones) and connecting ’abaddé with Arab. ’abada,

to last, be enduring: “But the expectation of the faithful is everlasting.” McKane (439-40) considers it unlikely that, in a single verse, there should be a scribal error and

a use of a vb. unparalleled in BH. Among those who accept MT and retain the synonymous parallelism, opinion is divided as to the meaning of ’é6nim. RV (cf. Fritsch, 847) takes ’énim to be the pl. of ’Gwen, trouble, sorrow, wickedness, but this meaning is

most improbable (Martin, 77). NEB takes the phrase téhelet ’6nim as “the hope of affluence” (cf. REB; McKane, 227, TEV), but NIV translates v. 7b as, “all he expected

from his power comes to nothing.” The meaning seems to be that the presumptuous reliance of the wicked on his wealth or his power does not avail him at death. Whatever advantage(s) the wicked may enjoy is (are) purely transitory. Ultimately, power and/or wealth will be lost so that the virtuous man has no need to envy the powerful, wealthy wicked (Collins, 38). Perhaps, though, v. 7 is also suggesting that, in contrast to the wicked, the righteous person has hope beyond death, either of a blessed immortality or of a good name or enduring reputation (McKane, 440).

(e) In contrast to the puny strength of humans, the infinitely powerful Creator, Yahweh, made all things, including the enormous and terrifying Behemoth, which has awesome strength in his loins and power in the muscles of his belly, [w°] ’6ndé bisriré bitnd (Job 40:16)—the reference is to sexual potency (Terrien, 1187; Pope, 323; MacKenzie and Murphy, 488) as well as to physical strength (Driver and Gray, 1:354-55; Dhorme, 620; Good, 431; Hartley, 525)—and which human beings can nei-

ther capture nor tame. The word b®hémét, which is the pl. of a nom. meaning cattle or 318

JIN # 226) beast, is probably an intensive pl. or pl. of majesty conveying the sense, The Beast par excellence (Davidson, 321; Pope, 320; Watts, 1972, 145; cf. Strahan, 338),

a mammoth

creature that is probably more mythological than zoological (Terrien, 1186; Pope, 320-22; Habel, 221-22; pace Andersen,

288-89; see, further, Watts,

1972, 145-46).

Behemoth seems to have been a symbol of primordial chaos, a great, ominous primordial power that God overcame when he established order in the universe (Habel, DOD,

3. In two texts, ’6n means wealth (Job 20:10; Hos 12:8[9]). (a) Many think that, in his second discourse (Job 20:1-29), Zophar observes (v. 10) that, at death, the bereaved children of the wicked man will be compelled to use

their wealth to compensate those who had been the victims of their-deceased father’s extortion. Some of those who take this line understand the vb. rsh in v. 10a to mean satisfy (a debt), pay off (on this, see Dhorme, 299; Clines, 487) and, following Budde, emend yadayw, “his hands” in v. 10b, to y“lada(y)w, “his children” (so JB; cf. TEV). The vb. rsh is understood to mean seek the favor of by some translators (e.g., RSV; NRSV), court the favor of (Driver and Gray, 1:177), pay court to (NEB), curry favor with (REB), appease (Gordis, 1978, 210, 215), or ingratiate oneself with (NJPSV). Many

translators

and commentators

(e.g., Peake,

1905,

198-99;

Strahan,

184-85;

Franks, 357; Terrien, 1061) understand the v. to be saying that it is the children who will be required to make restitution of their father’s ill-gotten gains to their rightful owners. However, according to Dhorme (299), while the children must make amends to the impoverished victims, the father, too, will have to return the riches he has fraud-

ulently amassed. It is possible that Job 20:10 means that not only will the evildoer have to restore the goods of the poor prior to his death, but his children will be obliged to continue to make amends after his death. In this case, however, the question arises as to why the children’s act is referred to before the father’s (on this, see Clines, 487). Other transla-

tions (e.g., Pope, 149; NIV) are similar to that of Dhorme. In the case of NIV, it may be that the children are considered an extension of their father so that “his own hands” refers to the hands of the children (see, however, Peake, 1905, 199). It is more likely, though, that, in common with Hartley (301), NIV is following Gordis (1943; 1978,

215-16), who has suggested that yad can mean offspring. On this interpretation, it will be the children only who will have to redress those whom their evil father has impoverished by unlawful and violent means. According to Driver and Gray (2:137), v. 10b furnishes the reason for the impoverishment of the children: their father had to return to its rightful owners the wealth he had wrongfully seized. But it seems strange that there is no indication as to who it is who compels the children to make amends for their father’s malpractice(s) by returning the wealth to those from whom he had stolen it (cf. Clines, 487). Clines (487) makes the interesting suggestion that the words w*yadayw taxébnd ’6no in v. 10b mean simply that the father’s hands relinquish their strength, i.e., the father dies. On this interpretation, there is no reference at all to the father’s

property. The man’s children are reduced to penury as a result of his premature death.

The verse is awkward and may be misplaced (see, Dhorme, 293, 299; MacKenzie and Murphy, 478; NEB; REB). It is omitted by NAB.

(b) Arrogant and perfidious Israel (referred to as k°na‘an, Canaan = trader in v. 7a[8a]!) boasts of the wealth (’6n; Hos 12:8[9]) that has been acquired by fraudulent and (if MT be retained) violent means (v. 7[8]). Some follow LXX, which by reading

SLO

TIN (# 226) Nene

eee

eee

ee

kol-y°gt‘ayw 16’ yims®’a-lé (all his gains will not be sufficient [for the guilt he has

incurred]) changes the first person common sing. suff. attached to y°gi‘ay (my labors) and (i (lit., to me) to that of the third person masc. sing. On this interpretation, the words of v. 8b[9b] may be an indictment spoken by the divine prosecutor or by his representative, the prophet, pointing out that no amount of riches (’6n) can buy off guilt/iniquity (‘@w6n) before God (v. 8b[9b]) (Mauchline, 700; Stuart, 193; cf. Cheyne, 115; Hindley, 714). If, however, the MT be retained, then unscrupulous Israel is argu-

ing in this v. either that the charge of deceit against him is refuted by the evidence of his material success, which indicates that he has been manifestly blessed (Pusey, 78; cf, Mauchline, 699), or that the iniquity that underpins the wealth amassed will never be discovered (cf. Honeycutt, 53) or will never catch up with its perpetrator (Andersen and Freedman, 594).

P-B

The nom. ’6n occurs with the meaning possession, power (Jastrow 1:28). IA

Power, strength: > ’abir (strong, powerful, #51); > ’6n I (generative power, strength, # 226); > ’ayil I (man of power, #380); > ’él IV (strength, power, #445); > ’ms (be strong, strengthen, be superior over, #599);

> ’Gpiq II (strong, # 693); > ’5¥ (take courage, # 899); ~> gbr (accomplish, excel, swell, rise, be strong, # 1504); > dobe’ (strength, # 1801); > zimra II (strength, # 2380); > hzq (be strong, overpower, support, seize, # 2616); > hayil (capacity, power, property, # 2657); > has6n (strong, # 2891); > ykl (able, endure, be victorious, conquer, # 3523); > ysr II (strengthen, # 3580); > kabbir (strong, # 3888); > kdah I (strength, power,

possession, means, # 3946); > kellah I (maturity, full vigor, #3995); > m®’dd (power, might, # 4394); > ma’“mas (exertion, #4410); > n&g (overtake, be able to, afford, appear, #5952); > ‘zz (be strong, defy, show a shameless, #6451); > ‘sm I (be mighty, vast, numerous, make

strong, # 6793); > tgp (overpower, # 9548) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDNT 3:397-402; L. C. Allen, Psalms 101-150, WBC, 1983; F. I. Andersen, Job: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC, 1976; F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Hosea: A New Translation With Introduction and Commentary, AB, 1980; A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms. Vol. 2: Psalms 73-150, NCBC, 1972; W. H. Bennett, Genesis, CB, n.d.; T. K. Cheyne, Hosea With Notes and Introduction, CBSC, 1889; D. J. A. Clines, Job 1-20, WBC, 1989; J. J. Collins, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, KPG, 1980; P. C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, NICOT, 1983; M. Dahood, Psalms I: 1-50. Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 1966; idem, Psalms IT: 51-100. Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 1973; A. B. Davidson, The Book of Job With

Notes, Introduction

and Appendix, CBSC,

1962; G. H. Davies, “Genesis,” in BBC,

1970,

1:101-304; F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Psalms. Vol. II, KD, 2d ed., 1889; E. Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job, 1967; G. R. Driver, “Mistranslations,” ExpTim

57, 1945-46,

192-93; idem, “Some

Hebrew

Medical Expressions,” ZAW 65, 1953, 255-62;

S.R. Driver, The Book of Job in the Revised Version, 1906; idem, The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes, 10th ed., 1916; idem, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuter-

onomy, ICC, 3d ed., 1965; S. R. Driver and G. B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job Together With a New Translation, ICC, 1964; J. R. Dummelow, ed., A Com-

mentary on the Holy Bible, 1909; G. Fohrer, “Twofold Aspects of Hebrew Words,” in Words and Meanings: Essays Presented to David Winton Thomas on His Retirement From the Regius Professorship of Hebrew in the University of Cambridge, 1968, 95-103; R. S. Franks, “Job,” in Peake, 1920, 346-65; C. T. Fritsch, “The Book of Proverbs: Introduction and Exegesis,” in JB, 1955, 4:765-957; J. C. L. Gibson, Job, DSB, 1985; E. M. Good, “Job,” in HBC, 1988, 407-32:

320

BIN

en ee Re

234)

R. Gordis, “A Note on Yad,” JBL 62, 1943, 341-44; idem, The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation and Special Studies, 1978; N. C. Habel, The Book of Job, CBC, 1975; V. P: Hamil-

ton, The Book of Genesis Chapters 18-50, NICOT, 1995; J. E. Hartley, The Book of Job, NICOT, 1988; J. H. Hertz, ed., The Pentateuch and Haftorahs: Hebrew Text, English Translation and Commentary, 2d ed., 1969; J. B. Hindley, “Hosea,” in NBC, 1972, 703-15; R. L. Honeycutt, “Hosea,” in BBC, 1972, 7:1-60; S. H. Hooke, “The Proverbs,” in Peake, 1920, 397-410; D. R. Jones, “Isaiah—II and III,” in Peake, 1964, 516-36; C. F. Kraft, “The Book of Hosea,” in The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, 1971, 451-60; H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 60-150: A Commentary, 1989; F. Landy, Hosea, Readings, 1995; W. McKane, Proverbs: A New 1970; J. L. McKenzie, Second Isaiah: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 1968; R. A. F. MacKenzie and R. E. Murphy, “Job,” in NJBC, 1990, 466-88; G. C. Martin,

Approach, OTL,

Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs, CB, 1908; J. Mauchline, “The Book of Hosea: Introduction and Exegesis,” in JB, 1956, 6:551-725; H. G. May and B. M. Metzger, eds., The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1973; A. D. H. Mayes, Deuteronomy, NCBC,

Second

Isaiah:

Introduction,

W. O.E. Oesterley,

A. S. CBC, E. B. tions 1952,

The Psalms

Translation Translated

and

Commentary

With Text-Critical

to

1979; C. R. North, The

Chapters

XL-LV,

and Exegetical Notes,

1967; 1959;

Peake, Job, CB, 1905; idem, “Genesis,” in Peake, 1920, 133-67; A. Phillips, Deuteronomy, 1973; M. H. Pope, Job: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 3d ed., 1979; Pusey, The Minor Prophets With a Commentary Explanatory and Practical and Introducto the Several Books, 1891; J. Reider, “Etymological Studies in Biblical Hebrew,” VT 2, 113-30; J. C. Rylaarsdam, “The Proverbs,” in Peake, 1964, 444-57; J. F. A. Sawyer, “‘Spa-

ASTI 6, ciousness: An Important Feature of Language About Salvation in the Old Testament,” 1967-68, 20-34; J. Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, ICC, 2d ed., 1969; G. A. Smith, The Book of Deuteronomy, CBSC, 1918; H. D. M. Spence and J. S. Exell, Genesis, Pulpit, new ed., 1909; J. Strahan, The Book of Job Interpreted, 1913; D. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, WBC, 1987; M. E. Tate, “Proverbs,” in BBC, 1972, 5:1-99; idem, Psalms 51-100, WBC, 1990; S. Terrien, “The Book of Job: Introduction and Exegesis,” inJB, 1954, 3:875-1198;

J. A. Thompson, Deuteronomy: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC, 1974; J. D. W. Watts (with J. J. Owens

37-50:

and M. E. Tate), “Job,” in BBC,

1972, 4:22-151; C. Westermann, Genesis

A Commentary, 1986. Robin Wakely

230 (’6ni, lamentation), > # 627

234 OT

DIS

“"DIN( dpir I), Ophir, gold of Ophir (# 234).

1. The eleventh son of Joktam was named ’6pir (Gen 10:29) or ’dpir (1 Chron

1:23). The list of thirteen names applied to the “sons” of Joktam are not personal

names, but tribes (see Speiser, 70; Westermann, 526). Cassuto (222) doubts whether

there is any connection between the Ophir mentioned in the list and the gold-producing land of Ophir. However, it is significant that the names of Ophir and Havilah, which appear side by side in Gen 10:29 (par. 1 Chron 1:23), are both used elsewhere of places famous for gold. Genealogical lists are often of profound theological significance and are not to be dismissed as dull and lifeless (Richardson, 123). The theological importance of the table of nations in Gen 10 is its assertion that the whole of humankind is 321

DING 234) created,

preserved,

and blessed

by God

(Westermann,

529; cf. Richardson,

117;

Gowan, 114; Coats, 93; Brueggemann, 93-94). 2. The word is used of a place famous for the high quality of the gold it produced (see Job 28:16). Various sites between South Africa and India have been proposed as the site of Ophir, but South Arabia seems to be the most probable location (see Snaith, 95-96;

Gray, 256; Westermann,

Bratcher and Reyburn, 427; cf. Montgomery

527; Wenham,

231; McCarter,

313;

and Gehman, 212; Kirkpatrick, 250;

Anderson, 422; Dahood, 274; Eaton, 125; Kaiser, 18; Jones, 220). In 1 Kgs 9:28 (par.

2 Chron 8:18) and 1 Kgs 10:11 (par. 2 Chron 9:10), reference is made to the fleet of ships (Solomon’s, according to 1 Kgs 9:26-27; Hiram’s [or Huram’s] according to 1 Kgs 10:11 and 2 Chron 8:17-18) that brought back gold (zahab) from Ophir to

Solomon. Jehoshaphat made ships of Tarshish for the purpose of getting gold (zahab) from Ophir, but the vessels were wrecked at Ezion Geber (1 Kgs 22:48[49]).

3. The word Ophir was used to describe gold of very high quality. According to 1 Chron 29:4, David made a huge donation, his personal treasure, including 3,000

talents of gold (zahab) of Ophir, to help finance the building of the temple. The Chronicler’s enthusiasm to show that the temple was basically David’s achievement is obvious. The enormous sums listed in | Chron 29 serve to stress both the magnificence of the temple and the generosity of David and those who, following his example, contributed to its construction (Coggins, 142; cf. Myers, 193; Williamson, 184).

Ps 45:9[10] refers to an Israelite king’s bride wearing gold (ketem) of Ophir. According to Job 28:16, wisdom is beyond price; its value cannot be compared

even with the most precious and exotic gemstones or metals, including gold (ketem) of Ophir. When Yahweh comes to punish the arrogant, ruthless, and wicked throughout the world (not just the Babylonians; cf. Skinner, 105, 107-8; Wright, 53-54; Watts, 197-200 [contra Kissane, 154]), there will be such widespread slaughter that: the

human race will be almost exterminated; human beings will be rarer even than the gold (ketem) of Ophir (Isa 13:12). 4. In Job 22:24, the word stands for fine gold itself. The point made by 22:24-25 is that one should value divine treasure above all else, including the most precious metals (gold and silver) that the earth produces. Gold:

> ’dpir (gold of Ophir, # 234); > beser I (gold ore, # 1309); > zahab (gold, # 2298); > hariis I (gold, #3021); > ketem (gold, #4188); > sagiir (pure gold, #6034); > paz (pure gold, # 7058); > srp (melt, smelt, refine, # 7671)

BIBLIOGRAPHY G. W. Anderson, “The Psalms,” in Peake, 1964, 409-43; R. G. Bratcher and W. D. Reyburn,A Translator’s Handbook on The Book of Psalms, 1991; W. Brueggemann, Genesis, 1982; U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Part II: From Noah to Abraham, A Commentary on Genesis VI 9-XI 32, 1974; G. W. Coats, Genesis, With an Introduction to Narrative Literature, 1983; R. J. Coggins, The First and Second Books of the Chronicles, 1976; M. Dahood, Psalms I: 1-50. Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 1966; J. H. Eaton, Psalms: Introduction and

Commentary, 1972; D. E. Gowan, From Eden to Babel: I-11, 1988; J. Gray, I & Il Kings:

A Commentary on the Book of Genesis

A Commentary, OTL, 2d, revised, ed., 1970; G. H. Jones, /

and 2 Kings. Volume 1: I Kings 1-16:34, NCBC, 1984; O. Kaiser, Isaiah 13-39: A Commentary, OTL, 1974; A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms, 1957; E. J. Kissane, The Book of Isaiah

322

PIN # 237) Translated from a Critically Revised Hebrew Text with Commentary. Vol. I (I-XXXIX), 1960; P. K. McCarter, “1 Kings,” in HBC, 1988, 305-22; J. A. Montgomery and H. S. Gehman,A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings, ICC, 1967; J. M. Myers, I Chronicles: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 1973; A. Richardson, Genesis 1-11: The Creation Stories and the Modern World View, 1966; J. Skinner, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah Chapters

I-XXXIX, CBSC, 1909; N. H. Snaith, “The First and Second Books of Kings: Introduction and Exegesis,” JB, 1954, 3:1-338; E. A. Speiser, Genesis: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 1964; J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1-33, WBC,

1985; G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, WBC,

1987;

C. Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Commentary, 1987; H. G. M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, NCBC, 1982; G. E. Wright, Isaiah, LBC, 1965. Robin Wakely

236 (’6pan, wheel), > # 8206

YS Cws), q. to urge, hurry, be narrow; hi. cause ae ANE

ie,

to hurry (# 237).

The Arab. ’atta, press, urge, is the only known cognate.

OT 1. In Josh 17:15, the tribe of Joseph complained that the hill country of Ephraim would be “too narrow” for their numerous people. The vb. here reflects what may have been the original concrete sense of the root, the idea of “putting pressure on” someone. A more metaphorical use of the term with a similar meaning appears in Exod 5:13. Here, the Israelites’ taskmasters “pressured” them to produce the same number of bricks while gathering their own straw. 2. The vb. frequently means to hasten or hurry. Thus, in Josh 10:13, it is reported that the sun did not hurry to leave for about a whole day during the battle at Gibeon, a phenomenon that somehow gave Israel the advantage in the skirmish. Jeremiah laments that he had not hastened away from the charge that the Lord had laid upon him (Jer 17:16; so the NIV, although many scholars would emend the difficult text to read, “I never urged you to send disaster” [reading ra‘d, disaster, for MT rd‘eh, shepherd]; others have proposed still different emendations). The angels caused Lot to hurry (vb. in hi. stem) out of Sodom (Gen 19:15). A grammatically obscure use of the

vb. appears in Isa 22:4, where the prophet orders his friends not to “hasten to comfort” him over the destruction of his people. The meaning here is probably that they should allow him to linger over his grief, rather than attempting to rush him through the grieving process. 3. The vb. is frequently used in Proverbs of those who hasten through their work. In contrast to the praise of the “quick (~ mahir) scribe” in Prov 22:29, the hasty are usually portrayed as those who do not give sufficient attention to their task and so make mistakes (Prov 19:2). Though they strive after it, these impatient souls will receive no financial gain for their labor (Prov 21:5; 28:20). The worst criticism is reserved for the one who is hasty with his words (i.e., who talks before he thinks), who has less to look forward to than does a fool (Prov 29:20).

The vb. appears in the Qumran War Scroll (1QM) in its description of the final P-B_ day of battle between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Belial. In 1QM 18.5, the

323

“VIN (# 239) i

subject of the vb. is the sun, as in Josh 10:13. Here, the “hastening” of the sun indicates the passing of the day. In 1QM 18.12, the day “hastens” (vb. in hi.) the Sons of Light to pursue their enemies and destroy them. Hurry, speed: ~ ’ws (urge, # 237); > dhp (hurrying, # 1894); > hw¥ (hurry, # 2590); ae hpz (be in a hurry, # 2905); > tw (rush, dart, #3216); > mhr I (hurry, # 4554); > gal (light, agile, quick, swift, # 7824) BIBLIOGRAPHY

R. Boling, Joshua, AB, 1982, 283-85; J. Bright, Jeremiah, AB, 1965, 116; J. Holladay, “a he Day(s) the Moon Stood Still,” JBL 87, 1968, 166-78; W. Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 1986, 504-6.

Anthony Tomasino

238 (’dsGr, treasure), > #732 739

=38

“8 (wr), q. be light, bright, shine; ni. be light,

bright; hi. give light, shine, cause to shine, kindle, enlighten, show favor (#239); TiN (’6r), nom. light, daylight, dawn, lightning (# 240); TIS (ar I), nom. fire, east (# 241); mas (6réa I), nom. light (# 245); ND (ma@’6r), nom. light-bearer (# 4401).

ANE. Cognate with the common Akk. nom. urru day, light, and the much rarer Ugar. form ’r, be light, bright.

OT 1. The vb. ’wr occurs mainly in hi., where it is used of physical light, of God’s light, and in a metaphorical sense. Whatever its meaning in individual passages, it has a consistent theological emphasis that the means by which light shines is ordained by God and does not exist independently of him. It is by God’s power that the sun and moon give their light (Gen 1:15, 17), and it is his presence that will ultimately replace them (Isa 60:19; Ezek 32:7). Light emanating from other light-bearers is treated similarly. Lightning, for example, is described as “his [i.e., God’s] lightning” (Ps 97:4; cf.

77:18[19]), by which God lights up the world. The pillar of fire that gave light in the desert at night was really a manifestation of God’s presence (Exod 13:21; 14:20). God created the Leviathan (~ liwyatan, #4293), whose wake shines in the water (Job 41:32[24]), and he can even make night shine as bright as day (Ps 139:12). (a) The idea of God as the provider of light was a regular feature of Israel’s

worship. God’s gift of light in the Exodus and the desert is highlighted in the Psalms (Ps 77:18[19]; 105:39), which seem also to have influenced Nehemiah’s reminder about God’s unchanging power (Neh 9:12, 19). (b) Several passages speak of God shining on his people, usually in the context of temple worship (Ps 76:4[5], ni. na@’6r; 118:27). In Ezekiel’s vision of the future tem-

ple, this becomes a promise extended to everyone living in the Promised Land (Ezek 43:2). God’s shining presence is often said to be communicated through his face. This is particularly significant in the Aaronic blessing (Num 6:24-26), where the prayer for God’s face to shine (v. 25) is followed by a request for God to “turn his face toward you” (turn, Heb. ns’, lit. lift up [> #5951], is used only here with God as its subject). The form of the blessing assumes the specific benefits of God’s favor (cf. Prov 16:15), grace, and peace will result from God’s moving towards his people (P. D. Miller, 324

“VAS# 239) Int 29, 1975, 245). The Aaronic blessing has also influenced a prayer for worldwide blessing in Ps 67:1[2], which is one of several prayers for God’s face to shine. The anticipated consequences in all these prayers are quite general, ranging from deliverance in trouble (Ps 31:16[17]; Dan 9:17) to increased knowledge of God and of his ways (Ps 67:2[3]; 119:135). Israel clearly regarded God’s shining face as a guarantee

of blessing that was sufficient for many different circumstances. (c) God is also said to give light to people’s eyes. This is a different concept from God’s shining face, since Yahweh gives light (mé’ir; NIV gives sight) to the eyes of everyone, to oppressors as well as to the poor (Prov 29:13). The underlying meaning of the phrase seems to be to give life, since a prayer for God’s light to be given to the eyes is really a plea to escape death (Ps 13:3[4]). In this sense it recalls the similar expression “the light of life.” Receiving light in this way is dependent on God’s face being turned towards a person. The problem in Ps 13:3[4] is that God’s face is hidden (v.1[2]), i.e., the light of God’s face is not shining on the one who prays.

In some contexts, the meaning of light given to the eyes is defined more precisely. In addition to the gift of physical life (Prov 29:13), it can refer to moral and spiritual understanding derived from God’s word (Ps 19:8[9]; 119:130), hope for those in trouble (Ps 13:3[4]; 18:28[29]), and respite enjoyed by the postexilic community

under Persian rule (Ezra 9:8). A slightly different expression about giving light to someone’s face occurs in Eccl 8:1, where the subject is human wisdom. Here wisdom either enables persons to disguise their true feelings (R. Gordis, Koheleth, 1968°, 286),

or, more probably, changes the outward expression as well as enlightens the mind (cf. v. la).

2. The nom. ’6r refers ultimately to a divine quality. All light is said to come from God, not just because he created it, but because it is part of what God is. The absolute idea that God is light is rare, being confined to two hymnic passages that develop earlier concepts, viz., Ps 104:2 and Dan 2:22 (> nhr II, #5642). In Ps 104,

light as a divine quality is inspired probably by God’s creation of light in Gen 1. The expression “he wraps himself in light as with a garment” suggests this light represents God’s splendor and majesty (it is unnecessary to translate ’6r as “sun” here or to assume that Yahweh is identified with the sun (against M. J. Dahood, Psalms, AB, 1966-70 3:33-34). In Dan 2:22, the phrase “light (Aram. n°hérd’) dwells with him”

(i.e., God) effectively treats light as an attribute of God, in the context of the well-known truth that God reveals hidden things. Other divine attributes are indicated by similar expressions, such as “love and faithfulness go before you” (Ps 89:14) or wisdom is “rejoicing always in his presence” (Prov 8:30). Some Jewish commentators also cite Dan 2:22 as evidence that “Light” is one of the Messiah’s names. (a) The idea that God is light is more commonly expressed in terms of covenantal relationships. Individuals (“The LorD is my light,” Ps 27:1; cf. Mic 7:8) and the nation of Israel (The Lord is “the Light of Israel,” Isa 10:17; cf. 60:19-20) can rely on

God’s light for help and salvation, whether as vindication for the oppressed (Mic 7:8-9), the fire of judgment against attackers (Isa 10:17), or a future hope that will outlast the sun and the moon (Isa 60:19-20). Though God saves in many different ways, the emphasis is always on God as light, as in the unique prayer to “let the light of your face shine upon us,

O LORD” (Ps 4:6[7]; cf. Num 6:25; Ps 67:1[2]; 80:3, 7, 19[4, 8,

20)). 323

TS

239)

(b) The idea of God’s presence can be indicated by light as such (Ps 89:15; cf. ma’or in Ps 90:8) or by specific manifestations of light, such as the pillar of fire (Exod 13:21; cf. also the angel of God and the pillar of cloud, Exod 14:20) or a theophany (Ezek 1:4, 27). Lightning is particularly commonly associated with God, notably in Job 36-38, where ’Or is used rather than the more usual baraq (> # 1398; cf. also 2 Sam 22:13 ll Ps 18:12[13]). Such varied symbols indicate that God’s presence and power

could be experienced anywhere, whether as expected at the temple (Ps 118:27) or far away in the desert (Exod 13:21) or in exile (Ezek 1:4, 27).

(c) God has absolute control over all forms of light. Before him light and darkness have equal status, and the night shines just like the daylight (Ps 139:12). Yahweh creates light (Gen 1:3-4; Isa 45:7) and the light-bearers (Ps 136:7-9), he can turn darkness to light (2 Sam 22:29; Isa 42:16) and vice versa (Jer 13:16), and he may withhold light if he so wishes (Job 9:7; 30:26). There is, therefore, no dualistic conflict between light and darkness either within Yahweh or between him and other deities. Whereas in

the rest of the ANE the major light-bearers were often regarded as important deities (especially the moon in both Canaan and Mesopotamia), in Israel they were subject to the will of Yahweh. In contrast with Yahweh, who alone has true light (“In your light we see light,” Ps 36:9[10]; cf. Isa 2:5), the light-bearers are temporary (Isa 60:19-20) and dull (Job 25:5; 26:9), and God’s people are unable to produce their own light (Isa 59:9).

(d) God also generously gives to others the light that is his. It is available to all (Job 25:3), but is especially given to his people. His gifts may include physical light (Exod 10:23; 13:21-22; 14:20), light in a metaphorical sense (Ezra 9:8), and the light that is God himself (Isa 10:17; 60:1-2, 19-20). For individual believers, light may provide guidance (Ps 43:3; 78:14; 119:105), reveal what is hidden or obscure (Job 28:11; Ps 90:8), and rescue from the darkness of exile (Ezra 9:8; Isa 42:16) or even from the shadow of death (Isa 9:2[1]).

3. Angels are occasionally called morning stars and are therefore regarded as creatures of light. In Job 38:7 they sing for joy over creation, but in Isa 14:12 a particular morning star, called hélél in Heb. and Lucifer (= “bearer of light’) in the Vg., is said to fall from heaven. The passage seems to combine a historical reference to a king of Babylon with an eschatological allusion to a fallen angel. The use of this passage to refer to Satan’s fall in the teaching of Jesus remains a later interpretation. 4. The sun, moon, and stars are the most prominent of the light-bearers. The

sun, however, was no more than the greater light-bearer, for the moon as the lesser light-bearer and the stars also provide light (Gen 1:14-18; Ps 136:7-9). A distinction is usually made. between light and the sun. Though ’6r occasionally means bright daylight or sunlight (e.g., Job 37:21; Isa 18:4) and may be identified with the sun in Job 31:26, the inclusion of light (or daylight) alongside the sun, moon, and stars in Eccl 12:2 well illustrates this distinction.

The OT’s reluctance to link light with the sun may be a reaction against the solar worship that was so popular in the ANE and from which the Israelites themselves were not immune (cf. 2 Kgs 23:11; Ezek 8:16). It is significant that Yahweh is only once compared with the sun (as “the sun of righteousness,” Mal 4:2[3:20]; cf. Ps 84:11[12]; > Semes, # 9087).

326

TIN (#239) 5. The nom. ’ér is, in fact, usually associated with daylight. From the beginning, the day is characterized by light (cf. Gen 1:5, 18), and the frequent contrast between light and darkness suggests ’dr often really means daylight (e.g., Exod 10:23; Job 3:16; 24:13; Isa 5:30). It is sometimes difficult, however, and especially in Ps and

Job, to make a clear distinction between ’6r as daylight and as light. For example, are those who trust in their riches deprived at death of daylight, the “light of life,” or of light itself (Ps 49:19[20]; cf. 37:6; Job 3:16; 33:28)?

Light is often linked with the various aspects of daylight, including dawn (Neh 4:21; Dan 6:19), morning (1 Kgs 3:21), noon (Isa 58:10), and twilight (Prov 7:9). It has a special association, however, with the dawn, as in the common phrase ’6r habbéger, morning light. Dawn rather than sunrise marks the transition point between night and day (2 Sam 17:22; Dan 6:19), when the day’s activities can begin, both good (Neh 8:3; Zeph 3:5) and evil (Judg 16:2; Mic 2:1). The light of dawn also gives rise to fresh hope and expectations. It is a time for putting things right (2 Sam 23:4; Ps 37:6), especially

when Yahweh himself comes to his people (Isa 60:1-2). The OT may contain the idea that light is a cosmic substance, independent of any particular manifestation of light. It is not certain, however, whether this idea represents an actual belief or is merely a metaphor. The idea that light has a place and a way (Job 24:13; 38:19-20) and the separate creation of light (Gen 1:3-4) might indicate that light is an independent substance. But since Job also speaks of the place and way of wisdom to show that wisdom is close to God, these passages may mean that light is to be found where God is. 6. The nom. ’6r is frequently used metaphorically, especially to represent that quality of life that is pleasing to God. This connection is explicit in the phrase “light of life” (Job 33:30; Ps 56:13[14]) and finds support in the use of a household lamp to symbolize ordinary life (Jer 25:10). This idea is reflected in two common expressions, viz., to see light (Ps 36:9[10]) and to walk in the light (Ps 89:15[16]; Isa 2:5; cf. 1 John 1:7). The latter means to live according to what God provides (cf. Ps 119:105), especially his law or his word (Ps 19:8[9]; 119:130; Isa 8:20). To see light is to experience the blessings of life, which can even take place after death (Isa 53:11, LXX, 1QIsa*).

Seeing God’s light is especially prominent in Job, though the idea is deeply ironic. Job sees his sufferings as an experience of darkness, but he wants both to turn his remaining light to darkness (Job 3:4-6) and to see light from God (Job 30:26). His turmoil is made worse by knowing that he has God’s light (Job 12:22; 29:3) and yet by being aware that the light he possesses brings only misery (Job 3:20). His friends assure him that darkness is merely the consequence of wickedness and that if he repents, he will find the light he longs for (Job 18:6; 33:27-30). Relief comes only when Yahweh confirms that he knows the way to the place of light (Job 38:19-20), enabling Job eventually to see God for himself (Job 42:5). Light represents various aspects of the covenant blessings. It can be synonymous with salvation (Ps 27:1; Isa 49:6), prosperity and peace (Isa 45:7, Heb. Saldm, ~ #8934), God’s covenant (Isa 42:6), justice and righteousness (Isa 59:9), or blessing (Ps 89:15[16]). In a few particularly significant passages, God and the Servant actually personify the light of salvation. God is “light and...salvation” (Ps 27:1), while the Servant as the “light for the Gentiles” brings God’s salvation (Isa 42:6; 49:6). In the prophetic literature (and especially in Isaiah), light becomes a characteristic of Israel’s future hope, applicable to both the Messianic kingdom (Isa 2:5; 9:2[1])

327

“iN(#239) and the work of the Suffering Servant (Isa 42:6; 49:6; 53:11 [LXX, 1QIsa*]). God’s

light will replace not only the darkness but also every physical form of light on earth (Isa 30:26; 42:16; 51:4). It will culminate in a permanent theophany when Yahweh will reveal himself as everlasting light, so establishing a new world order in which all suffering will be banished (Isa 60:1-2, 19-20). 7. In contrast, God’s judgment is the absence of light. In several passages, the phrase “no-light” (Jo’-’6r) expresses not just darkness but the nonexistence of light. Though this is sometimes applied in Job (Job 12:25; 18:5-6, 18; 38:15) and Proverbs

(Prov 13:9) to the fate of individual sinners, it is more commonly used of Israel’s experience. Israel has to be confronted with the dreadful possibility that the anticipated light of the day of Yahweh will be turned into the darkness of invasion and exile (Jer 4:23; Lam 3:2; Amos 5:18-20). One apocalyptic passage, however, does seem to envisage a time when the blackness will be turned to light again in the evening of the day of Yahweh (Zech 14:6-7). 8. The nom. ’6rd is a rare synonym of ’6r. The “dew of light(s)” may allude to the dawn that follows the darkness of death (Isa 26:19).

9. The nom. m@’ér is used for light-bearers, primarily the sun, the moon, and the tabernacle lampstand. The references to the latter are purely functional, but the sun and moon are always treated theologically (cf. Ps 74:16). God has power to create or remove them, which in the latter case means plunging the earth into darkness (Gen 1:14-16; Ezek 32:8). ma@’6r may also refer to a divine (Ps 90:8) or human (Prov 15:30) face as a source of light. 10. The nom. ’ar usually refers to the light of fire. Theologically it describes the brightly burning fire of Yahweh’s judgment (Isa 31:9), and possibly the worship of a fire-god (Isa 44:16; 50:11).

P-B The concept of light at Qumran is similar to that in much of the OT, except that it is no longer regarded as a divine quality. Both the physical and metaphorical aspects of light depend on God, but the major emphasis at Qumran involves an ethical dualism between light and darkness. God’s light is a gift of salvation to the sons and spirits of light in their conflict with the sons and spirits of darkness, so enabling his people to understand and follow his ways. NT

The OT’s emphases are also developed in the NT. It is now made explicit that

God is light (1 Tim 6:16; 1 John 1:5), and that Jesus is the “true light” (John 1:9; 1 John 2:8) and the “light of the world” (John 8:12; 9:5; cf. 12:35-36). Jesus also fulfills the messianic hope of light at his first coming (Matt 4:16; cf. Isa 9:2[1]; Luke 2:32; cf. Isa 42:6; 49:6) and at his return (Rev 21:23-22:5; cf. Isa 60:1-2, 19-20).

The NT makes the same connection as the OT between light and salvation. Particularly in John, the word of God is bound up with light and life, so that to believe in the light is to believe in the gospel (John 12:36, 46). Believers are described as “‘children of light,” a phrase absent from the OT but common in Jewish literature, especially at Qumran. Its main impact is an ethical requirement that God’s people must “walk in the light” (1 John 1:7; cf. John 12:35; Eph 5:8). Believers are also called “the light of the world” and so must shine out to those who are still in darkness (Matt 5:14-16; cf. Phil 2:15). 328

EN (# 242) 2

TTT ee See LESS

Sa

ne

In place of the OT’s emphasis on theophany, the NT concentrates on Jesus, who

is the true light and shines in the darkness of the world (Matt 17:2; John 1:5; 1 John 2:8). The gospel has a similar effect (2 Cor 4:6; 2 Peter 1:19). Christians are encour-

aged to live shining lives so that others may receive God’s light (Matt 5:16; Luke 11:36). Angels are also described as shining beings (Matt 28:2-3; Acts 10:30). The OT’s hope will be fulfilled when God’s glory will fill the new heaven and new earth with light (Rev 21:23-25; cf. Isa 60:19-20).

Light, radiance, brightness: > ’wr (be light, bright, shine, # 239); > bahir (bright, brilliant, # 986); > zrhI (rise [of sun], shine, #2436); > yp‘ I (shine out, #3649); > ngh (shine, cause to shine, #5585); > nhr II (be radiant, # 5642); > grn (send out rays, be radiant, # 7966)

Lamp: ~ m‘nérd (lamp, lampstand, # 4963); > nér I(lamp, light, # 5944) Sun: > hamma (glow, #2780); > heres (sun, # 3064); > Seme¥ (sun, # 9087) BIBLIOGRAPHY

NIDNTT 2:484-96; TDNT 4:16-28, 324-27; 9:310-58; TDOT 1:147-67; THAT 1:84-90; TWOT 1:25-27; S. Aalen, Die Begriffe “Licht” und “Finsternis” im AT, im Spdtjudentum und im Rabbinismus, 1951; A. M. Gierlich, Der Lichtgedanke in den Psalmen, 1940; W. D. Reece, The Concept of Light in the Old Testament: A Semantic Analysis, 1989; J. G. Taylor, Yahweh and the Sun,

1993; G. Vermes, “The Torah Is a Light,” VT 8, 1958, 436-58. Martin J. Selman

240 (6r, light, daylight), > #239

241 (ar I, fire, east), > #239

242

=: ois

DAN (arim), Urim (# 242; in HALAT 24, sub

‘dr I); O°72T\ (tummim), Thummim (# 9460).

ANE. By the end of the nineteenth century, some rejected the traditional meaning of ‘trim and tummim, “light(s)” and “perfection(s)” respectively. In an apparent attempt to solve the mystery of the identity and functioning of the Urim and Thummim, derivations were suggested from Akk., Arab., and Egypt. roots, none of which appears to find support today. See further, C. Van Dam, Urim and Thummim, 73-76. OT 1. These two terms are normally used together and refer to a means of revelation involving the high priest. The prevailing view is that their meaning and origin is either uncertain or unknown. However, it can be demonstrated that in antiquity these terms were consistently understood as being related to Heb. ’6r, “light,” and tom, “perfection” (Van Dam, Urim and Thummim, 76-79; idem, ISBE 4:957a). Traditionally the translation has thus been “‘light(s)” and “perfection(s).”

2. Only in Ezra 2:63/Neh 7:65 do the terms ’érim and tummim occur without article or pronominal suffix. The terms usually occur together (Exod 28:30; Lev 8:8;

Ezra 2:63; Neh 7:65), but ’drim occurs alone, pars pro toto in Num 27:21 and 1 Sam 28:6. Because this oracular means was stored in the high priestly breastpiece that was fastened on the ephod (Exod 28:30; Lev 8:8), the Urim and Thummim

can also be

referred to with the mention of the ephod in the context of inquiring of God (1 Sam 23:9-12; 30:7-8).

329

DTN(# 242) 3. Nowhere is this oracular means described, but one can assume from descriptions of its being placed in the breastpiece (Exod 28:30; Lev 8:8) that it was tangible and consisted of one or more objects of some sort. A precious gem or two gems (for the two parts of the name) are often suggested. 4. The

Urim

and Thummim

are characterized

as belonging

to God,

who

entrusted this revelatory means to Levi (Deut 33:8) in the person of the high priest. The civil ruler was expected to inquire of Yahweh through the high priest about all matters pertaining to the execution of his office. (See the principle in Num 27:21.) There is general agreement that usage of the Urim and Thummim can be indicated by the employment of the vb. “to inquire of” (51 b*), followed by “Yahweh” or “God” when no other means of revelation is mentioned. Such a usage is found at important junctures when additional revelation is of vital importance (e.g., Judg 1:1; 1 Sam 14:37; 23:2, 4). There is no clear indication that this oracular means was used after the time of

David. 5. The present consensus is that the Urim and Thummim were a form of a lot oracle. Significant factors, however, argue against this. There are great difficulties with the key evidence, viz. the LXX of 1 Sam 14:41 (Van Dam, Urim and Thummim, 106-9; idem, ISBE 4:958). Also, terminology associated with lot casting (npl, lkd) are never incontrovertibly used with the Urim and Thummim. Furthermore, when revelation was

given, it was always passed on in terms of God’s speaking and could include more than the question contained in terms of information (e.g., 1 Sam 10:22; 2 Sam 5:23-24) or

subtle nuances and encouragement (e.g., cf. Judg 20:18, 23 with v. 28). It appears that the gift of prophecy was involved. If one accepts “light” and “perfection” as the meaning of the Heb. terms and as descriptive of the oracle, the use of ’tirim by itself may indicate that light was a key feature in receiving a revelation. It can be further theorized that in an age when authenticating divine signs were not unknown, the revelation was accompanied by a confirmatory sign of a special or miraculous light (in connection with the gem or gems), constituting the oracular means that the message was indeed from God. It is conceivable that in this way “the judgment of the Urim [mispat ha’ itirim]’ (Num 27:21) was given. The Urim and Thummim belonged to God (Deut 33:8), and he alone could make this means function (cf. 1 Sam 14:37; Ezra 2:62-63/Neh 7:64-65, where a literal read-

ing suggests that the Urim and Thummim were probably available, but did not function; cf. b.Yoma 21b; see further Van Dam, Urim and Thummim,

126-31; idem, ISBE

4:958b). 6. The Urim and Thummim are never mentioned with illegitimate ephods. Teraphim (which are associated with divination and condemned, e.g., 1 Sam 15:23) appear to have been substituted (Judg 17:5; Hos 3:4; cf. F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Hosea, 1980, 306).

P-B Some references are found in Qumran documents. The Urim and Thummim are associated with light in 4Q376 1.i.3 and 4QpIsa4 frg. 1.5 and referred to in 11QTemple 58:18-21 in a variation on Num 27:21. Lots, division, Urim/Thummim: ~> ’a@rim (Urim, #242); > géral (lot, # 1598); > hig II (divide, obtain one’s share, #2745); > ydd I (cast, #3341); > par (lot, #7052); > tummim (Thummim, # 9460)

330

M718 ee de Ot eee te

246)

ee

BIBLIOGRAPHY ISBE 4:957-59; A. R. S. Kennedy, “Urim and Thummim,” in J. Hastings, ed., A Dictionary of the Bible, 1905, 4:838-41; E. Robertson, “The ’Urim and Tummim: What Were They,” VT 14, 1964, 67-74; C. Van Dam, The Urim and Thummim, 1986: idem, ISBE 4:497-98. Cornelis Van Dam

245 (6rd I, light), > #239

246 ANE Wi 5

78

m8

#246),

(6rd II), nom.

herb, mallow

(hapleg.;

The word is not well attested. Ugar. ’ur appears to mean “herb” (Aghat 19 ii 66,

OT The plant the Israelite set out to gather during the famine in Gad is termed ’Grot (2 Kgs 4:39). M. Zohary suggests the common salad herb, the Garden Rocket (Eruca sativa), while HALAT proposes the mallow (Malva rotundifolia). Isa 26:19 with the graphically similar ’6r6t is probably to be translated as “lights” (NIV morning).

P-B.

The LXX employs arioth, a transliteration of the Heb.

Herbs,

spices:

> ’6rd II (herb, mallow,

#246);

(cumin, #4021); > ginnamén (cinnamon, #7872); (cassia, # 7904); > reqah (spice, # 8380)

> gad I (coriander, # 1512);

> kammon

> gesah (black cumin, #7902);

> q°sia‘

BIBLIOGRAPHY

W. E. Shewell-Cooper, “Herb,” ZPEB 3:121; Michael Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 1982, 101. M. G. Abegg, Jr.

252 (’wt, consent, agree), > #5838

253

mis

MIS (dr D, nom. sign, mark (# 253).

ANE. The etymology of ’6t is uncertain (Helfmeyer, TDOT 1:167; Rengstorf, TDNT 7:209). Some (Keller, Das Wort, 149) associate it with the Akk. ittu (AHw 405f.; CAD 7:304ff.), which has a wide variety of meanings: “mark,” “characteristic,” “feature” (secular), “ominous sign” (religious). The Arab. ’ayat means “a sign, token or mark by which a person is known” (Lane, 1:135). A nonbiblical instance of ’6t is found in the Lachish Ostracon, IV, 10-12: “Let him also know that we are watching for the beacons of Lachish (interpreting them) in accordance with all the code-signals (h’tt) that my lord has given; but we do not see Azekah” (cf. Gibson, TSS/ 1:42). Already in this lat-

ter secular context a basic characteristic of ’6t is illustrated: it serves as a means of transmitting information. The content of this information is determined by the context in which it is used.

OT

1. ’6t appears 79x in the MT, and almost half of these occurrences (39x) are in

the Pentateuch. The other occurrences are fairly evenly spread over the rest of the OT.

The only attestation in the wisdom books is in Job 21:29. In the Aramaic parts of the OT the cognate ’Gt is encountered 3x (Dan 4:2-3[3:32-33]; 6:27[28]). The actions

331

MIS# 253) associated with ’6t are similar to those of mépét, which is also the most frequently used synonym. This combination is almost exclusive to the Deuteronomic literature and is connected particularly with the Exodus events (TDOT 1:168). Another associative word that can shed light on the function of ’6t is zikkarén (“memorial,” Josh 4:6-7; + #2355), something that prevents a particular event from being forgotten. (See also the “phylacteries” [5 below], worn on the hand and forehead, which have the same function [Exod 13:16; Deut 11:18].) On other occasions the “witnessing” (Isa 19:20) and “testing” nature (Deut 4:34; 7:19; 29:3[2]) of the signs is in the foreground. Some other contextual terms accentuate the divine power manifested in these signs: they are “great” (Josh 24:17), “awesome” (Deut 4:34; 26:8), and “mighty acts of judgment” (Exod 7:3-4; > mépét, # 4603). 2. ’6t is not limited to the religious sphere. In a variety of examples it is used in a secular sense as well: Cain received a “mark” of protection from the Lord (Gen 4:15); the blood on the door-frames of the houses of the Israelites serves as an identity sign (Exod 12:13); every tribe has its own tribal sign (“standard,’ Num 2:2); Rahab requested a “sure sign” from the spies (Josh 2:12); the sun and the moon function as dividing marks for seasons and days and years (Gen 1:14). In Job 21:29 ’6t signifies the “evidence,” “accounts” given by travelers. 3. But it is especially in the theological realm that the sign has found its widest usage. The salvation-history of the Israelites is one area where the application of the sign was particularly prominent (Exod 7:3; Deut 4:34; 6:22; 7:19; 11:3; etc.). As is the

case also with mépét (> # 4603, mdpét), the purpose of the sign was to impart knowledge (cf. occurrences of yd‘, know [> # 3359; Exod 7:5, 17; 10:2; 31:13; Deut 4:35;

Jer 44:29]) and to bring the people to the realization that “the LORD is God; besides him there is no other” (Deut 4:35). On two occasions at least the aim of the signs was to lead to faith (mn, > #586; see Keller, Das Wort, 57). Faith is based on the knowl-

edge of God, who reveals himself through signs in history. Human beings may accept this revelation, though at the same time they are dependent on God to give them a mind to understand (Deut 29:4[3]). But they may also reject the revelation, as in Num 14:11,

where the Lord says: “How long will they refuse to believe in me (’mn), in spite of all the miraculous signs?” Signs are further meant to motivate (Deut 11:1-7; 26:1-11, cf. mépét II) and to warn: the bronze sheets overlaying the altar (Num 16:38[17:3]) and the budding staff of Aaron (Num 17:10[25]) should, for instance, serve as monitory signs for those who wish to grasp the priestly prerogatives. 4. In the historical books especially the sign serves as a confirmation or authentication of the divine or prophetic word (1 Sam 2:34; 14:10; 2 Kgs 19:29 = Isa 37:30; 2 Kgs 20:9 = Isa 38:7). The sign as such has nothing to do with the content of the divine word (as is the case with the prophetic symbolic signs; see below). It merely functions as a legitimation or confirmation of its reliability (Wilms, Wunder, 38). In

the call narratives a sign is also given as confirmation of the divine commissioning (Moses: Exod 3:12; Gideon: Judg 6:17; Saul: 1 Sam 10:3ff.). 5. A sign could also have a mnemonic purpose that was closely related to faith signs referred to in 3 above (TDOT 1:179-81). This order of signs recalls and reminds of divine actions in the past. The custom of eating unleavened bread (massd@) points to the Exodus and should serve, figuratively speaking, as “a sign on your hand and a

382

THN #253) reminder on your forehead” (Exod 13:7-9). The same applies to the consecration of the firstborn (Exod 13:15-16). The twelve stones of Josh 4 are meant to be a sign and a “memorial”. (zikkar6n, vv. 6-7) to. the children of Israel to remind them of the miracu-

lous crossing of the Jordan. Another category of mnemonic signs relates to covenant-making: the rainbow (Gen 9:12), circumcision (Gen 17:11), and the Sabbath (Exod 31:13, 17; Ezek 20:12, 20). Each of these signs highlights some other aspect of the covenant idea. The sign of the rainbow let God recall (zkr, > #2349) the everlasting covenant that he had established between himself and all living creatures (Gen 9:14-16). Circumcision became a kind of confession of faith to distinguish between those who belonged to the Lord’s people and those who did not (Gen 17:11ff.). In Exod 31:12-17 the Sabbath acts as a “lasting” covenant (v. 16) between God and Israel so that “you [i.e., Israel] may know that I am the LORD, who makes you holy” (v. 13). 6. Prophetic symbolic signs and acts could also function as means of proclaming God’s message (e.g., Isa 8:18; 20:3-4; Ezek 4:1-3; > mépét, # 4603). 7. In Daniel the Aramaic equivalent, ’t (“sign”), appears 3x (4:2-3[3:32-33];

6:27[28]), in each case in combination with r°mah (‘‘wonder”), so producing a Deuter-

onomic type pairing of “signs” and “wonders” (cf. Deut 4:34, etc.). P-B In the LXX ’6t is normally rendered sémeion (74 of the 79 occurrences of the word are thus translated). In general the Qumran literature adopts the biblical usage. Most commonly ’6t is used in the sense of “standard,” as in Num 2:2 (several examples in 1QM II-IV). 1QH 27 frg. 1, col 1, 5 (Book of Mysteries) recalls the biblical prophetic authentication (see 4 above) through a sign (O. A. Piper, “The ‘Book of Mysteries’ (Qumran I 27): A Study in Eschatology,” JR 38, 1958, 96). In 1QH XII:8 (E.

Lohse, Die Texte aus Qumran, 19717, 157) the heavenly lights function as astronomical “signs” (TDNT 7:225; see also Gen 1:14 at 2 above). In 1QS III:14 the “signs” most

probably refer to certain characteristics (physical and moral), with whose help the spirits of truth and falsehood may be recognized (Leaney, Rule, 147). In RL ’6t retains its general character as “mark,” “identification,” or “sign,” but

it also developed new functions, such as indicating letters of the alphabet. In the former meaning it is almost completely replaced by the Rabb. siman, which is probably at root the Gk. sémeion (TDNT 7:227-28). Marvel, wonder: ~ ’6t (sign, mark, # 253); > t6fapot (symbol?, #3213), sign, # 4603); > pl’ (be wonderful, difficult, # 7098)

> mépét (marvel,

Sign: > ’6t (sign, mark, # 253); > t6tap6t (symbol?, # 3213); > mépét (marvel, sign, # 4603); ~ ‘édiit (statutes, stipulations, warning sign, reminder, # 6343); — pl’ (be wonderful, difficult, #7098); > tamririm II (roadmarkers, signposts, # 9477); > triad (signal [of alarm], shout [of

joy], #9558); > Sign: Theology BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDNT 3:27-42; 7:200-261; 8:113-26; TDOT 1:167-88; THAT 1:91-95; C. A. Keller, Das Wort OTH als “Offenbarungszeichen Gottes,” 1946; A. R. C. Leaney, The Rule of Qumran and Its Meaning, 1966; W. D. Stacey, Prophetic Drama Wunder im Alten Testament, 1979.

in the Old Testament,

1990; F.-E. Wilms,

Paul A. Kruger

255 (’Gz, then), > Particles

T35TN(# 257)

pas

a5t8

a

3518 (’2zdb), nom. hyssop (# 257).

ANE. The word occurs in Akk. zapu; Aram. ’@z6b, ’6z6b; Syr. z6pa’; Arab. ziifa; Eth. ‘azab, ’azob. Hyssop is a small, aromatic plant with many hairy stems and small white flowers. It was especially used in biblical times for rites of ceremonial purification. Once dipped in liquid (e.g., blood or water) its branches collected the moisture. When subsequently applied to or shaken in the direction of an object, the water or blood was effectively transferred to that object. The precise botanical identity of the plant is uncertain. DeWaal, in fact, complains that “never has there been so much divided opinion over a biblical herb as that over hyssop” (Medicinal Herbs in the Bible, 48; cf. H. N. and A. L. Moldenke, Plants of the Bible, 160). It is probably the Origanum syriacum. This is a small, bushy plant, usually about 2-2", feet in height and most often found in dry, rocky areas. In ancient times hyssop was regarded as having both medicinal and culinary value. Pliny (Natural History 20.15; 25.87) comments on the medicinal uses of this plant, as does Herodotus

(7.181). According to some observers, it is the organum that modern-day Samaritans continue to use for sprinkling blood during their Passover observance. (For an interesting eyewitness account, see Crowfoot and Baldensperger, 90-91.) Many believe that what modern Palestinians refer to as za ‘tar is the biblical hyssop. Other, less likely, possibilities include the Capparis spinoza, the Sorghum vulgare, and the Hyssopus officinalis. It should be noted that the latter plant is of European, not Middle Eastern, provenance. OT The word occurs 10x in the OT. In Exod 12:22 hyssop was used for sprinkling blood on the lintel and two doorposts of Israelite homes. When the Lord saw this blood, he spared those homes from the death experienced by the Egyptian households. The Exod account presupposes a readily available supply of hyssop in Egypt. In Num 19:18 hyssop is used in the ceremonial cleansing of those who have come into contact with a dead body. In a number of instances hyssop is used in ritual cleansing of either a person or a house from the contamination of leprosy (Lev 14:4, 6, 49, 51, 52). In Num 19:6 hyssop is burned with the ashes of a red heifer. In 1 Kgs 4:33[5:13] we learn that its size is small, since it is a plant that “grows out of walls.” Here it forms a fitting contrast to the large cedars of Lebanon. In Ps 51:7[9] the psalmist speaks of hyssop as an agent of moral purification. This metonymy has sometimes been misunderstood as implying a belief in magical powers of hyssop; rather, it is representative of the sacrificial procedures of the cult. The use of hyssop in contexts involving sacrificial sprinkling of blood may have to do with the aromatic properties of the plant, in which case it functioned as a sort of deodorant (so R. K. Harrison, 44). Claims that hyssop functioned as an anticoagulant for blood are unsubstantiated.

NT _ hyssdpos occurs twice in the NT: John 19:29 (cf. Matt 27:48; Mark 15:36); Heb 9:19. John 19:29 seems to indicate that a sponge containing wine was attached to a branch of hyssop and offered to Jesus while he was on the cross, although some scholars suspect that hyssopo here should be emended to hyssd, javelin. In Heb 9:19 the

334

MIDING# 260) word is used of Moses’ ritual sprinkling of both scroll and people. hyssdpos is the regular translation of this word in the LXX. P-B

The word is used in the Mishnah (e.g., Negaim 14:6; cf. Parah 11.7) in express-

ing cautions against using wrong types of hyssop. Unfortunately, the Mishnaic passages do not include a precise description of the type of hyssop that was acceptable. The Epistle of Barnabas, in explaining the Christological significance of the red heifer sacrifice of Num 19, says: “He who has pain in his flesh is healed by the foulness of the hyssop” (Ep.Barn. 8.6). Vegetation: ~ ’ézdb (hyssop, # 257); > d’ (become green, sprout, # 2012); > zr‘ (sow, scatter

seed, form seed, #2445); > hasir I (grass, #2945); > h°%a¥ (dry grass, #3143); > yereg (green, greenness, #3764); ~ nt‘ (plant, establish, drive, #5749); — ‘Gleh (leaf, leafage, # 6591); > ‘éseb (herb, herbage, weed, # 6912); > gigayén (plant of uncertain identity, # 7813); > ro’s II (bitter and poisonous herb, # 8032); > siah I (bush, shrub, # 8489); > Sittd (acacia,

# 8847) BIBLIOGRAPHY ABD

2:812; IDB 2:293; ISBE 2:790; TWOT

1:27-28; G. M. Crowfoot

and L. Baldensperger,

“Hyssop,” PEQ 63, 1931, 89-98; G. Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Paldstina, 1928-42, 1:543-45; Fauna and Flora of the Bible, 1972, 129-30; N. Feinbrun-Dothan, Flora Palaestina, 1966-86, 3:153; R. K. Harrison, Healing Herbs of the Bible, 1966, 43-45; idem, “The Biblical Problem of Hyssop,” EvQ 26, 1954, 218-24; E. King, Plants of the Holy Scriptures, 1948, 7-9; I. Low, Die Flora der Juden, 1924, 2:72, 84-101; G. E. Mendenhall, “Puppy and Lettuce in Northwest-Semitic Covenant Making,” BASOR 133, 1954, 26-30, esp. 28-29; M. Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 1982, 96-97. Richard A. Taylor

258 (éz6r, girdle), > #273

259 (’“zay, then), > Particles

MDT 260 ANE.

MISTS

Cazkara), nom. sign-offering, memorial

portion (# 260).

The derivation of this term from the root zkr, remember (# 2349), is virtually

certain. The root itself is, of course, well known in the Sem. languages (HALAT 1:269-70), but there is no precise parallel to ’azkard in particular. The form of the word probably goes back to the Aram. Aphel causative stem (’Gdkar, to remind, call to remembrance = Heb. hi.; TDOT 4:79, cf. Jastrow, 308). There are two terms in Akk. that connect this root to cultic contexts. First, there is the expression zakar Sumi, invocation (of a deity), in the context of “supplications, prostrations, and invocations” (CAD Z, 15-16). Second, the cultic connection of this

root to “invocation” might be reinforced by the newly understood zukru, festival at Emar (and Mari). According to one informed opinion, it is possible that “the name of the festival (and offering?) refers to the act of devotion rather than the objects offered” (Fleming, 230, n. 116; cf. CAD Z, 153, but corrected as noted by Fleming). One line of

argument adds a third Akk. term from the same root, zikru, image, replica (CAD Z, | 16

335

MTIDING 260) zikru B), and proposes that the ’azkard portion of the grain offering resembled the offering as a whole and is, therefore, to be understood as a token portion (see below).

OT 1. The nom. ’azkard (7x in the OT) refers to the part (i.e., a handful; Milgrom, 181) of the regular grain offering that the officiating priest would normally offer to the Lord on the burnt offering altar as a “memorial (portion)” to the Lord (Lev 2:2, 9, 16; 5:12; 6:15[8]), the “shewbread” or “bread of the Presence” (Lev 24:7; cf. Exod 25:30), and the grain offering for the suspected adulteress ritual (Num 5:26). If the grain was offered raw, then incense was to be added to the memorial portion to lend it an especially pleasing aroma as it burned on the altar (Lev 2:1-2, 15-16). The assumption seems to be that if it was already cooked, there would have been a naturally pleasing aroma arising from the bread itself, without adding incense (Milgrom, 180-81).

The “memorial portion” of the regular grain offerings was conceived of as “an aroma pleasing to the LORD” (Lev 2:2, 9), like the immolation of the burnt offering in 1:9, 13, 17. In fact, in combination with the burnt offering it can make atonement (e.g.,

14:20, 31; on atonement see kpr I, #4105). Only once is the grain offering assigned independent atoning efficacy (5:11-13), but this is an exceptional case in which it is actually considered to be a sin offering (see below). 2. The views of the meaning of the term have been categorized differently by various scholars (see the convenient summaries in Hartley, 30; Milgrom, 181-82; Rendtorff, 100-101; and H. Eising, TDOT 4:79-80). Two of the more remote possibili-

ties are that it means either “the burnt portion” of the grain offering or “the fragrant portion” of the grain offering (see Milgrom, 181-82, for these views and their refutation). In general, two other views are based on the derivation of ’azkard from the root zkr, to remember (see ANE above).

(a) Some take it to relate to the portion of grain itself and, therefore, to mean “token portion,” simply in the sense that it was a commemorative token of the grain offering (Levine, 10). Following this line of argument further, others add the connotation that as a token portion it “reminded” the offerer that “the entire cereal offering should really go up in smoke and that the portion that does is pars pro toto: it stands for the remainder” (Milgrom, 182). (b) Others argue that the memorial idea in the term relates not to the portion of

the offering itself, but to the remembrances that it might evoke in God or the worshiper or both, or it could refer simply to the invocation of God’s name. Thus, theoretically: (i) the ’azkard could mean that by offering a portion of the grain offering to the Lord the offerer was remembering the Lord or memorializing the blessing of the Lord in his life (see Hartley, 30); (ii) it could suggest that this portion of the offering would cause the Lord to remember the offerer and therefore respond by blessing him; (iii) it could simply identify this offering with the invoking of the Lord’s name in the context of making the offering (see esp. Schottroff followed by Eising and Rendtorff; cf. the titles of Ps 38 and 70, which may have been recited at the offering of the ’azkara according to this view); or (iv) it could be the occasion of calling to mind and memorializing the

specific reason that the particular grain offering was offered. 3. It is difficult to choose among these meanings. A combination of two or three might be possible. However, the ’azkard for the ritual of the suspected adulteress is especially interesting in this regard (Num 5:11-31). According to 5:15, “he (the jealous husband) is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an 336

EE ST ea ne

MIDING 260) ae

ephah of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder offering to draw attention to (hi. part. of the vb. zkr) guilt.” The hi. of the vb. zkr, remember (v. 15) and a related nom. for memorial (vv. 15, 18; zikkarén, not ’azkard) occur together in the context of the

grain offering of jealousy, from which a memorial portion (’azkard) was offered upon the altar (v. 26). In this passage the whole of the grain offering was viewed as (lit.) “an offering of memorial causing remembrance of iniquity” (v. 15b). This might suggest that, at least in this case, the memorial portion part of the grain offering ritual focused especially on calling to mind the reason for the offering in the presence of the Lord. We might expand this view of Num 5 to other instances of ’azkarda in the following way. The grain offering of jealousy did not include oil or frankincense because it called to mind the accusation of iniquity. However, it normally would include oil and frankincense when it called to mind the character or some particular blessings of the Lord in the context of worship. The grain offering used as a sin offering (Lev 5:11-13) is similar to the grain offering of the suspected adulteress. If a person was too poor to bring even birds for his sin offering, he could bring a grain offering, but, “He must not put oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering” (v. 11b; note the similarity here to Num 5:15). Other than that, the “memorial portion” ritual was carried out in the same

way as for any regular grain offering (Lev 5:12), and the priests received what was left over as their portion (v. 13b), as was the normal procedure with grain offerings (cf. 2:3, 10). 4. The remainder of all grain offerings, except those offered by the priests for themselves (Lev 6:19-23, which were to be completely consumed on the altar), were “most holy” and for that reason could be consumed only by the priests within the tabernacle precincts (6:16-18; 10:12-13; cf. Num 18:9). Moreover, since the memorial por-

tion was burned on the altar, the whole of the grain offering was to be unleavened with no honey added (Lev 2:11), and the priests were to consume the remainder as unleav-

ened cakes (6:16-17). The prohibition against leaven and honey is probably best explained by their association with decay through fermentation. The honey is probably not from bees but, instead, the sweet nectar of fruits (esp. dates, figs, and grapes) since it is a product of agriculture in many OT contexts (see, e.g., 2 Chron 31:5). It too could ferment and was associated with cooking. One exception to these prohibitions were the firstfruits (Lev 2:12; cf. Exod 34:22, 26; Deut 26:1-11), which were not burned on the altar so they

could be leavened (Lev 23:17) and could include honey (2 Chron 31:5). Another is the

leavened wafers that would be offered as part of a peace offering, thanksgiving offering (Lev 7:13-14), separate from its unleavened grain offerings (v. 12). The memorial

portions of the latter would have been burned on the altar, but the leavened wafers were to accompany the meat in the eating of the peace offering meal so no part of them was offered on the altar. All that was required was that one loaf be given as a “contribution to the LoRD” (v. 14), to be consumed by the priest(s).

The “bread of the Presence” placed on the table before the Lord in the holy place every Sabbath was also conceived of as a grain offering (Lev 24:5-9; cf. Exod 25:30; 39:36; 40:23). As with the regular grain offering, the bread of presence was “most holy” and went to the priests as a prebend to be eaten in the tabernacle precincts after the week was over (v. 9). Although none of it was burned on the altar, incense

337

MADIN 260) was placed on it as its memorial portion, to make it into a fine gift to the Lord (Lev 24:7; on ’ixSeh, offering by fire, or fine gift, see # 852).

1. The term occurs only twice in the Qumran sectarian literature, both times in P-B the Temple Scroll, referring to the frankincense that was to be placed on the bread of presence (11QT 8:10; Yadin 2:32, the reading is not certain), and the standard regulation of the burning of an ’azkard in the cereal offering ritual of the Feast of Wine (11QT 20:11; Yadin 2:88, the word is restored by context). In Late Heb. it comes to mean remembrance or recitation (Jastrow, 37), which is the standard meaning of HB zéker, remembrance, memorial (# 2352). 2. The LXX uses two closely related G words to translate the seven occurrences of ’azkard in the HB: anamnésis, calling to mind, reminiscence; memorial offering (1x; Lev 24:7), and mnémosynon, remembrance, memorial (6x; Lev 2:2, 9, 16; 5:12; 6:15[8]; Num 5:26). The former is used also in the titles of Ps 37 and 70 (see above; cf.

also Num 10:10, “At your times of rejoicing—your appointed feasts and New Moon festivals—you are to sound the trumpets over your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, and they will be a memorial for you before your God”), as well as once in the Apoc.: “They were troubled for a little while as a warning, and received a token of deliverance to remind them of (lit., as a reminder of) thy law’s command” (Wisd 16:6, RSV; Metzger,

122). Besides Heb. ’azkard, the LXX

uses mnémosynon

to translate

primarily two other Heb. terms: zéker, remembrance, memorial (12x; see # 2352), and zikkaron, memorial, remembrance (16x; # 2355).

NT In the NT anamnésis (4x) is used in Heb 10:3 (“But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins”), but especially in certain accounts of the Lord’s Supper: “And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me’” (Luke 22:19; cf. also 1 Cor

11:24-25 for the both the bread and the cup). It was once argued that the background for anamnésis in the Lord’s Supper passages is, in fact, the OT ’azkard (cf. this rendering in the LXX at Lev 24:7, cited above). However, this proposal has by no means met with wide acceptance (cited and rejected by Gray, 395-96 and Plummer, 498; cf. the absence of this view in TDNT 1:348-49). The G word mnémosynon (3x in the NT) is used of the memorial to Mary’s faith (Matt 26:13; Mark 14:9), but Acts 10:4 is of special interest: “Cornelius stared at him (i.e., an angel of the Lord) in fear. “What is it, Lord?’ he asked. The angel answered,

“Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God.’” This seems to be a relatively clear allusion to the OT ’azkdrd in a metaphorical sense (Bruce, 216, n. 7). Once again we find that the OT sacrificial terminology is transformed by the NT in a way that applies to our devotion to the Lord and service to his people (see the general article on “Offerings and Sacrifices’’). Offering, sacrifice: — ‘azkard (sign-offering, #260); > ’iiSeh (offering by fire, #852); > ’aSam (guilt offering, # 871); > zbh (slaughter, sacrifice, #2284); > hatta’at (sin offering, # 2633); — tbh (slaughter, #3180); > minha (gift, present, offering, sacrifice, #4966); > ma“Sér (tithe, #5130); > ndr (make a vow, # 5623); > nwp I (move back and forth, wave, # 5677); > nsk I (pour out, be consecrated, libation, #5818); > ‘d/d I (burnt offering, # 6592):

> ‘risa (meal/dough offering, # 6881); > gorban (offering, gift,

#7933); > xt I (slaughter,

# 8821); > Selem (settlement sacrifice, # 8968); > tamid (regular offering, #9458);

338

> 1°riima

OTN(#261) Ag

(tribute, contribution, #9556); Levites: Theology

> Aaron: Theology,

a

> Offering: Theology;

~ Priests and

BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 4:79-80; TWAT 4:987-1001; F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of the Acts, NICNT, 1954; G. R. Driver, “Three Technical Terms in the Pentateuch,” JSS 1, 1956, 97-105; D. E.

Fleming, The Installation of Baal’s High Priestess at Emar, HSS, 1992; G. B. Gray, Sacrifices in the Old Testament, 1925; J. E. Hartley, Leviticus, WBC, 1992; B. A. Levine, Leviticus, The JPS Torah Commentary, 1989; idem, Numbers 1-20, AB, 1993; B. M. Metzger (ed.), The Oxford Annotated Apocrypha, Revised Standard Version, 1965; J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, AB, 1991;

idem, Numbers, The JPS Torah Commentary, 1990; A. Plummer, The Gospel According to Luke, ICC, 1922; R. Rendtorff, Leviticus, BKAT III2, 1990; W. Schottroff, “Gedenken” im Alten Ori-

ent und im Alten Testament: Die Wurzel zakar im semitischen Sprachkreis, WMANT

15, 1967;

Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll, vols. 1-2, 1983. Richard E. Averbeck

261 ANE

OIN

OIN (zl), q. disappear, go away (# 261).

Aram. ’z/, go, appears frequently and throughout the different dialects.

OT The use of ’z/ in the HB is infrequent and restricted to poetry and to direct speech in the mouth of a Benjaminite. It is not necessarily an Aram. loanword as Wagner has alleged. For an informed discussion of other theoretical possibilities, see Rabin. 1. The vb. means “disappear,” in the sense of “be used up” in reference to food (1 Sam 9:7). 2. The idiom ’z/t yd means “be/become void of all strength” and is an appropriate description of people without the Lord (Deut 32:36). 3. In Job 14:11, water “disappears” from the sea. 4. After making a shrewd purchase, the buyer “goes off’ and brags about it (Prov 20:14). 5. In a prophetic oracle of judgment (Jer 2:36), God chides Israel for “going about,” seeking help from the nations. The Vrs., however, read the variant tazélli, belittle, from the root z/l (> #2361), for MT fézii, i.e., a difference of vocalization (cf.

NRSV, REB). 6. In Biblical Aram., as in other Aram. dialects, the vb. means go (Ezra 4:23; 5:8; Dan 2:17; 6:19-20). P-B__ Foruse in Jewish Pal. Aram., see Sokoloff, 43-45. One interpretation of ‘¢za’zél in Lev 16:8 is that it is a contraction of ‘éz, goat, and ’a@zél, go away (so LXX, Vg.; cf.

the term §a ‘ir hammistalléah, the goat sent away, in Mish. Yoma 6:2; hence, the tr. scapegoat in the KJV). (> ““za’zél, Azazel, # 6339) Disappearance, flight, escape: > brh I (run away, flee, disappear, # 1368); > hip I (pass by, disappear, violate, change, renew, #2736); — hrh II (disappear, be few in number, # 3014); > nws (flee, escape, slip away, #5674);

bring to safety, # 8572)

> ptr (vanish, escape, let out, #7080);

~ pit (save,

#7117); > pars“don (loophole [for escape]?, # 7307), > srd (run away, escape,

339

118 (# 263) anne

es

re Pr

BIBLIOGRAPHY

C. Rabin, “nyt o75r” (Foreign Words), Encyclopaedia Biblica, 4, 1962, 1075; M. Sokoloff, A

Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period, 1990; M. Wagner, Die lexikalischen und grammatikalischen Aramdismen im alttestamentlichen Hebrdisch, 1966, 22. Jerome A. Lund

a

ip

118 (’zn 1), hi. use the ear, listen (# 263); denom.

< JIS (’azen), ear (> #265).

ANE.

The Heb. vb. is cognate with Arab. ’adina, listen.

OT

The basic meaning of the vb. is to use the ear. It is primarily found in the impv.

as a poetic synonym of 5m‘ (Ps 39:12[13]) and/or g5b (hi.) (Ps 5:1-2[2-3]; Hos 5:1), esp. in the summons to receive instruction (> 5m‘, # 9048), and in appeals to God to

hear prayer. In other verbal forms it occurs as a synonym of Sm‘ in the sense of paying heed to prophets (2 Chron 24:19; Neh 9:30; see 5m‘) or to God’s commandments

(Exod 15:26; see Sm‘ OT 6). In Ps 135:17 it is used of the physical inability of idols to hear (cf. §m‘). In Isa 64:4[3] it means perceive (see 5m‘). P-B In the QL, the vb. is used of giving heed to or obeying the teacher of righteousness (6QD 8:55) and the words of God (1QH 4:17). In the LXX, it is most commonly trans. endtizomai, give ear, pay attention, likewise denom. ous, ear. Hearing, listening, obedience, rumor: ~ ’zn I (listen, #263); ~> §m‘ (hear, listen, understand, heed, obey, # 9048)

> gib (be attentive, #7992);

BIBLIOGRAPHY NIDNTT 3:172-80; THAT 1:95-98.

K. T. Aitken

264

TIN

TTS (zn ID, pi. weigh, weight out, consider care-

fully (hapleg.; # 264).

OT The vb. occurs only in Eccl 12:9, standing parallel to hgr, search out (> #2983), and tqn, arrange, or possibly compose (> #9545; Gordis, Koheleth—The Man and His World, 1962, 342). It may be a denominative of ear, meaning give ear, listen (> #263; see IBHS 24.4; Dahood, Bib 43, 1962, 364; G. Rinaldi, Bib 40, 1959,

268-69). Others propose that it is a denominative of md’ znayim (“scales”), a cognate of Arab. wazana, weigh, equalize, compare, test (e.g., A. Lauha, Kohelet, BKAT, 1978, 218); thus, Gordis takes the vb. to mean “measure out, scan” as a description of con-

structing proverbs with rhythm and parallelism. Plan, thought, meditation, scheming: ~ ’zn II (weigh, consider carefully, #264); — bd’ (devise, imagine, #968); > higgaydn (melody, thought, # 2053); > zmm (plan, purpose, plan evil, #2372); > hms II (think, invent, # 2804); > hxb (count, compute, calculate, think, plan, #3108); > yéser I (frame of mind, disposition, #3671); > ‘st I (think, consider, # 6951); > Siha (meditation, study, # 8491); > s°ippim (disquieting thoughts, worries, # 8546); > tar‘it (thought, # 9569)

340

Tis (# 265) Measurement, standard, rule: > zrh II (measure, # 2431); —- mdd (measure, measure off, #4499); > 5*r (calculate, #9132); > tkn (regulate by weighing or measuring, #9419). For measurements of weight/volume: > ’épd (an ephah, #406), for measurements of length: > ’ammd I (cubit, ell, forearm, # 564)

John E. Hartley

265

IIs

TIN (zen), ear (# 265); JIN (zn I), denom. vb.

hi. listen (> # 263). 1. The nom. ’6zen occurs 187x in the OT. As might be expected, the ear is reg-

ularly associated with the sense of hearing. Often something is said “in the ears of” certain people; in Deut 31:30 the NIV translates this as “in the hearing of” (the whole assembly of Israel). The ear may be described as attentive (Neh 8:3; Prov 22:17; Isa 32:3) and as having understanding (Job 13:1; Prov 18:15). In Job 12:11 we read, “Does

not the ear test words as the tongue tastes food” (cf. Job 34:3). Thus, just as the tongue discriminates between good and bad food, so the ear should exercise the power of discernment. Only what is seen as valid should be “heard” and accepted. This general emphasis on the ear as the organ of hearing is connected with the vital importance of hearing the law, listening to God, and the practice of godliness (Neh 8:3; cf. Lev 26:14-17; Deut 4:1, 33; 6:3-4; > Sm‘, hear, listen, #9048). The godly person is wise because he opens his ear to the Lord, submits his will to God’s, and imitates the Lord

by showing concern and compassion. The sages of Israel draw the connection between what one hears or sees and one’s actions (Prov 4:20-27). 2. In Ps 40:6[7] we read, “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have dug for me” (cf. LXX). The meaning may be that God has created a person’s ears and thus has given the means of hearing and obeying his will. An alternative translation is, “my ears you have pierced” (NIV), implying that God’s word penetrates deafness. The use of soma (“body”) for “ears” in the LXX (39:7; cf. Heb 10:5) is perhaps an instance of pars pro toto (cf. F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICOT,

19907, 240; > krhI, dig, # 4125).

3. God’s revelation to a person can be described as God’s uncovering or opening the ears so that the person can hear, as when a man draws back his friend’s head-gear in order to whisper in his ear (1 Sam 9:15; Isa 50:4-5; cf. 48:8). In 2 Sam 7:27 David prays, “O LORD Almighty, God of Israel, you have uncovered the ear of your servant,” which is translated by the NIV as “you have revealed this to your servant.” This idiom emphasizes that God takes the initiative in a personal intimate act of revelation. 4. People’s ears do not always function as God intended. Jeremiah’s indictment against the people includes the fact that they have ears but do not hear (Jer 5:21; cf. Ezek 12:2). He also complains of the people: “To whom can I speak and give warning? Who will listen to me? Their ears are uncircumcised so that they cannot hear” (Jer 6:10). This striking image does not indicate total deafness but rather selective deafness. They are receptive to illusions but incapable of receiving or comprehending God's word, which is an object of scorn to them (see McKane, Jeremiah 1, 145). Zechariah

explains to the postexilic generation that their forefathers went into exile because of their reaction to the prophetic word: “But they refused to pay attention; stubbornly they turned their backs and stopped up their ears” (Zech 7:11; see D. L. Petersen, Haggai 341

TIN(# 265) and Zechariah 1-8, OTL, 1984, 291-93). A part of Isaiah’s commission is actually to

make people’s ears dull so that they cannot hear (Isa 6:9-10), lest they go through the motions of repentance with the hope of avoiding the judgment (J. N. Oswalt; The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1-39, NICOT, 1986, 187-90). 5. People often speak, or their cry comes, “‘in the ears” of God (lit. Num 14:28; Ps 18:6[7]), and a plea for God to listen can take the form of “turn your ear to my cry” (Ps 88:2[3]). This is a way of emphasizing that God hears his people, a conviction that is expressed by saying his ear is not too dull to hear (Isa 59:1). While he pays attention to the needs of the godly, he refuses to listen to those who do not listen to him: sslifea!

man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered” (Prov 21:13). A direct contrast is made between God and idols. Idols, made with human hands, have ears but cannot hear (Ps 115:6; 135:17).

6. The physical ear can be a part of important symbolic actions. God announced to Ezekiel that a part of the judgment on the people of Jerusalem was that the Babylonians would cut off the noses and ears of the people (Ezek 23:25). This mutilation was unknown in Israelite law but occurred in Mesopotamia and Egypt (ANEP, 368, 373; ANET, 207, 215). There are two cases in which blood is put on the right earlobe (t“niik # 9483).

As part of the series of actions leading to the consecration of the priests, the blood of a slaughtered ram was smeared on the right earlobe, the right thumb, and the right big toe of the priest (Exod 29:20; Lev 8:23-24). Some scholars have suggested that the blood on the earlobe symbolized that the priest’s sense of hearing was purified so that he could hear God’s word. However, in view of the fact that similar actions were involved

in the purification of a person who had been healed of an infectious disease (Lev 14:14, 17, 25, 28), it is more likely that the ear, thumb, and toe were seen as representative

parts of the body, which symbolized that the entire person was cleansed by the blood. G. J. Wenham comments: “So here the blood links God and Aaron, showing in a visible way that he is now God’s man, his special representative among Israel” (The Book of Leviticus, NICOT, 1979, 143).

The ear was also involved in a ceremony in which a slave voluntarily bound himself to his master for the remainder of his life. In this case his master was to “take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl.” He would then be his servant for life (Exod 21:6; cf. Deut 15:17). The door or doorpost was probably that of the sanctuary or of the owner’s house; since this was a public indication of permanent slavery, it had to be carried out in a public place. The piercing of the ear may have been for the insertion of a ring or a cord to which a tag was fastened as a permanent visible indication of ownership. (See I. Mendelsohn, 49; cf. M. Noth, Exodus, OTL,

1962,

178.) 7. In 2 Kgs 21:12 we read that because of Manasseh’s sin God would “bring such disaster on Jerusalem and Judah that the ears of everyone who hears of it will tingle” (cf. 1 Sam 3:11; Jer 19:3). The idea was of a resounding echo or ringing in a person’s ears created by the terrible news of impending judgment. The “tingling ears,” an expression that may have been proverbial, expressed a person’s horror at the reception of news of a catastrophe of national significance (see L. M. Eslinger, 151-52). 342

JIN (# 266) 8. Amos likens the remnant after God’s judgment to the little pieces—bones and an earlobe (badal, # 977)—which a shepherd collects of the remains of a sheep, eaten by a lion (3:12). Hearing, listening, obedience, rumor: ~ ’zn I (listen, # 263); > qsb (be attentive, # 7992); > 5m‘ (hear, listen, understand, heed, obey, # 9048) BIBLIOGRAPHY NIDNTT 2:172-75; 3:172-80; TDNT 5:546-51; THAT 1:95-98; L. M. Eslinger, Kingship of God

in Crisis, 1985; C. H. Gordon, “O°7>Nin Its Reputed Meaning of Rulers, Judges,” JBL 54, 1935, 139-44; O. Loretz, “Ex 21,6; 22,8 und angebliche Nuzi-Parallelen,” Bib 41, 1960, 167-75; W. McKane, Jeremiah 1, ICC, 1986; I. Mendelsohn, Slavery in the Ancient Near East, 1949;

M. Noth, Exodus, OTL, 1962; S. M. Paul, Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law, 1970; T. J. Turnham, “Male and Female Slaves in the Sabbath Year Laws of Exodus 21:1-11,” SBL 1987 Seminar Papers, ed. K. H. Richards, 1987, 545-49. Paul Trebilco

266

Is

TIS (azén), nom. equipment (?; hapleg.; # 266).

ANE _ Old South Arab. dhn, pl. ’adhan, possessions, may preserve the basic meaning of the early Sem. nom. (Rabin, 387). The Aram. zéna@’, weapons (Syr. zénd@’), is probably derived from Persian and is therefore etymologically unrelated. OT The nom. appears only in Deut 23:13[14] among the regulations for the Israelite army when they go out to do battle: “As part of your equipment (’“zéneka) have something to dig with (~ yatéd), and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement.” Frequently the nom. is translated weapons, as in the Aram. versions (Driver, 23; von Rad, 144). But since a spade is not a weapon, and the Aram. versions

seem to have used an unrelated homophone in their translations, the nom. is better translated according to the probable Arab. cognate, “equipment.” The main reason for the regulation described in this v. was no doubt hygienic, but hygiene is here connected with holiness. Because God was present in the camp, no impure or unsightly thing was to be in its midst (see further Bokser; Craigie, 298-300).

P-B_ The nom. is unattested in postbiblical Heb. literature. The LXX translates the nom. zoné, belt, girdle, perhaps reading ’éz6r, waistcloth, for MT ’azén. Tg. Onk. translates zén, weapons, as does the Pesh. CAtA

#266); > y°r?'d (curtain, tent fabric, #3749); > yated (peg, pin, nail, #3845); > qubbd (vaulted tent, women’s quarters, # 7688); > s*mikd (curtain, covering, # 8526), > Saprir (state-tent?, # 9188) Tent, curtain:

— ’dhel (tent, tent-dweller,

#185);

> ’azén (equipment,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

re

B. Bokser, “Approaching Sacred Space,” HTR 78, 1985, 279-99; P. Craigie, Deuteronomy, NICOT, 1976; S. R. Driver, Deuteronomy, ICC, 1895; C. Rabin, “Etymological Miscellanea,” ScrHier 8, 1961, 384-400; G. von Rad, Deuteronomy, OTL, 1966.

Anthony Tomasino

272 (’“ziggim, chains), > #2414 343

“ITS(# 273)

“ITN (zr), q. gird; ni. be girded; pi. enclose; hitp.

sulla hea

obi

gird (# 273); TITS (’2z6r), girdle (# 258).

1. The vb. occurs 16x in the OT. In the q. stem the vb. takes various objects, OT particularly the loins (Jer 1:17; Job 38:3; 40:7); hence, the expression “gird the loins.” Other objects of the vb. include such items as a leather girdle (2 Kgs 1:8), and figuratively hayil, strength (> # 2657; 1 Sam 2:4). The vb. occurs once in the ni. with God

as subject, as he is said to be girded with g°bird, might (> # 1476; Ps 65:6[7]). In the pi. stem the metaphorical usage is prominent, taking objects such as “flaming torches” (Isa 50:11), hayil, strength (2 Sam 22:40), and joy (Ps 30:11[12]). The vb. also is used

figuratively with ‘dz, strength (> # 6437), as its object in the hitp. stem in Ps 93:1. The primary metaphorical meaning of the expression apparently conveys the notion of preparing for a task. It is frequently used in this regard for preparing (“girding”) for war (Job 38:3; 40:7; Jer 1:17). By extension, “to be girded” is associated with maturity and

the capability of carrying out responsibility (TDOT 4:213). The latter connotation appears to be behind the charge in Jer 1:17 and Job 38:3; 40:7. Concrete meanings of this vb. are scarce. HALAT suggests that the vb. is denominative from the nom. ’@zér. 2. The cognate nom. ’éz6r (#258) is normally rendered “waistcloth, girdle.” The nom. occurs 14x in the HB (eight of the occurrences are in Jer 13). This clothing

item was made either of leather (2 Kgs 1:8; Matt 3:4) or from a more expensive linen (Isa 5:27; 11:5; Jer 13:1-11). According to Wright, this standard garment of the Israel-

ite worker and soldier during biblical times extended to the middle of the thigh (Wright, “Israelite Daily Life,” BA 18, 1955, 64-65). The nom. is often used in a metaphorical sense, indicating such things as the Israelite people and their corruption (Jer 13), Yahweh’s power over kings (Job 12:18), and the righteousness and faithfulness of

the Messiah (Isa 11:5). This “belt” worn by males may have been something like a kilt from which a knife, seal, or something of value could be hung. A probable illustration of this item of clothing may be seen around the waist of the soldiers at Lachish depicted in the palace relief of Sennacherib (ANEP, # 371, p. 129). Girdle, belt: > ’zr (gird, be girded, # 273); > hgr (bind, gird, # 2520) BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABD

2:233-34;

TDOT 4:213-16;

TWOT,

1:29-30,

118, 263; C. Gordon,

Ugaritic Textbook,

# 837, 394; T. O. Lambdin, “Egyptian Loan Words in the Old Testament,” JAOS 73, 1953, 146, 152; V. H. Matthews, Manners and Customs in the Bible, 5, 119-20; J. A.Thompson, Handbook of Life in Bible Times, 103; F. H. Wight, Manners and Customs of Bible Lands, 93-94; G. E.Wright, “Israelite Daily Life,” BA 18, 1955, 50-79; S. Yeivin, EMigr 3:25 (in Heb.). Mark F. Rooker

275

ATS

FITS (ezrah), nom. native citizen (# 275).

ANE The nom. ’ezrah is not otherwise attested in ancient Sem. The common word for citizen in Akk. is aw/milu, which appears in the name Evil Merodach (NIV; 2 Kgs 25:27, Jer 52:31), meaning “worshiper of Marduk.” See “wil (> #212). The vb. zrh Il is conjectured form from Arab. saruha, be of pure descent.

344

Mis (# 278) OT

The nom. (found 17x in MT) is used most frequently to emphasize the responsi-

bilities each citizen has in relation to cultic duty (Lev 23:42; Num

15:13), often with

the observation that the responsibilities for the resident alien (gér) are the same (Lev 16:29; 17:15). The sojourner who enters the covenant comes to be as a native citizen (Exod 12:48; Josh 8:33). There is one regulation for both the resident alien and the native citizen (Exod 12:49; Lev 24:22; Num 15:29); the citizen must love the alien, for that is what he once was (Lev 19:34); and in the future ideal world of Ezekiel the resident alien will have an inheritance just like the native citizen (Ezek 47:22). With the

exception of Ps 37:35, which is probably a corrupt text that should read cedar (’erez) with the LXX, the references to native citizens are always in respect to duty towards God, and the key function of the word is to emphasize that there is no distinction between the native born and those who join the community. P-B_

The nom. is found in later Heb. and Aram. meaning native citizen. The Punic

mzrh, which possibly refers to a religious assembly, may be a related word (DISO, 146;

cf. mrzh, 167). The term ’ezrah is also found in the temple scroll fragments at Qumran. Citizen: > ’“wil II (citizenry, #212); > ’ezrah (native citizen, #275); > ‘am I (citizen, kinsman, relative, # 6638); > ‘amit (citizen, community member, # 6660); > Sakén (resident, inhabitant, neighbor, # 8907); > tds5ab (resident, #9369) BIBLIOGRAPHY

P. Grelot, “La derniére étape de la rédaction sacerdotale,” V7 6, 1956, 177-78. A. H. Konkel

277 (ahI, [acry]), > Particles 778

ANE.

nN i

AS (Gh ID, brother, kinsman, relative, countryman (# 278).

The Heb. word is related to Sem. languages (Ugar., ah; Akk., ahu and ahhitu).

OT 1. While it was not unheard of for a god(dess) to identify a mortal as his/her brother in ANE literature (cf. the words of the divine Anat to the human Aghat [CTA 18:I:11-19]), Yahweh never so identifies himself. The closest one comes to this is in proper names like Joah (“Yo [is] brother”) in 2 Kgs 18:18, 26, 37, or Ahijah (“Yah [is]

my brother’) in 1 Kgs 11:29-30, and possibly Hiel (“El [is] my brother”) in 1 Kgs 16:34. Other proper names with the element ’@h in them include the likes of Ahikam (my brother has risen, 2 Kgs 22:12); Ahilud (my brother is born, 2 Sam 8:16); Ahimaaz (my brother is wrath, 1 Sam 14:50); Ahimelech (my brother is king, 1 Sam 26:6); Ahi-

tub (my brother is goodness, 1 Sam 21:1-9); Ahinoam (my brother is delight, 1 Sam 25:43). There seems to have been a plethora of Ahi- names around the Saul-David period. In the case of one name in the OT in which ’Gh is combined with mlk (Ahimelech,

1 Sam 21:1[2]; 26:6; 2 Sam 8:17), there is the possibility that ’ah is a

theophoric element, and thus the name means “The/My (divine) Brother is king,” rather than simply “My brother is king.” In the earlier period of OT history prefixed theophoric elements are more common in names (Fowler, 46-47, 51-52).

2. The nom. ’ah designates blood brothers, half brothers, family relationships, kinsmen, and members of the same tribe.

345

Mis (# 278) (a) It designates blood brothers (Cain and Abel: Gen 4:2, 8, 9, 10, 11; Shem, Ham, and Japheth: Gen 9:22; Abraham and Nahor: Gen 22:20-24; Jacob and Esau: Gen 25:26; Joseph and Benjamin: Gen 44:14; Er and Onan: Gen 38:8-9; Perez and Zerah: Gen 38:29-30; Moses and Aaron: Exod 4:14; Othniel and Caleb: Josh 15:17; Eliab and David: 1 Sam 17:28). (b) It also is the term for half brothers (Joseph and his brothers, other than Ben-

jamin [cf. M. Sternberg, “Joseph and His Brothers: Making Sense of the Past,” in The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 1987, 285-308]); Abimelech and his seventy brothers; Judg 9:1ff.; Absalom and Amnon: 2 Sam 13:4, 26; Solomon and Adonijah | Kgs 1:10; 2:21. Isaac and Ishmael are also half brothers, but ’G@/ is never used to describe their relationship. (c) Other relationships beside brother/half brother are covered by ’a@h, such as Abraham and Lot, really uncle and nephew, but described as brothers in Gen 14:12, 14, 16 (NIV, v. 12 nephew; vv. 14, 16 relative); Laban and Jacob, again uncle and nephew, but called brothers in Gen 29:15 (NIV a relative of mine); Boaz and Elimelech (Ruth 4:3) were relatives, but not necessarily blood brothers.

(d) In a broader sense yet, ’ah refers to kinsmen. This is particularly true in laws dealing with family matters in which the translation kinsman is preferable to brother (Lev 19:17; 25:25, 35, 36, 29, 47; Deut 15:12; 17:15). See also Gen 13:8, “for we are

brothers.” (e) The nom. ’ah describes members of the same tribe (Levites, Num

16:10;

Danites, Judg 14:3).

3. The OT, and especially Genesis, is replete with narratives that deal with fraternal relationships. The account of Abraham’s brother Nahor fathering twelve children (Gen 22:20-24) right after the narrative of Abraham (> #90) taking Isaac to Moriah (Gen 22:1-19) is not an illustration of a descent into banality. Abraham has not

seen or heard from his brother since they separated from each other in Ur years ago (Gen 11:27-32). From Gen 12-22 Abraham’s life had been lived, so to speak, under a

constant arc of tension, climaxed in ch. 22 by God’s command to sacrifice Isaac. In two different ways is that tension lifted. First and foremost, God supplied a ram to take the place of Isaac. Second, someone informed Abraham that his brother Nahor back in

Ur had been blessed by God with twelve children. (~ Genesis: Theology) That Jacob (and his offspring) would be stronger than, and be served by, his brother Esau (and his descendants) was supernaturally revealed to their mother (Gen 25:23). God loved Jacob, but hated Esau (Mal 1:2, 3; Rom 9:13). Much of the hostility

subsequently engendered between the brothers was due to Jacob’s (and his mother’s)

attempt to exploit several situations and use them to his advantage. Twice Jacob’s name was changed to Israel (Gen 32:28[29]; 35:10). This is not to be explained as a

clumsy doublet. Rather, the reference to the name change before Jacob is reconciled with Esau and after he is reconciled with Esau suggests that Jacob did not fully become Israel until after he was reconciled with his estranged brother. Some form of the word ’ah occurs 85-90x in the Joseph narrative (Gen 37-50). It is a story that begins with alienation between brothers (ch. 37) and ends with reconciliation between brothers (50:15-21), the brothers’ fear of revenge by Joseph once their father was dead notwithstanding. Gen 50:20 (‘‘you intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives”)

346

Mis (# 278) most Ps affirms the reality of divine sovereignty. Joseph became the means of his brother’s survival from starvation.

4. In a high number of cases there was deep friction and hostility between brothers (Cain and Abel; Isaac and Ishmael via the respective mothers;

Jacob and Esau;

Er and Onan [perhaps more a matter of indifferences than hostility]; Joseph and his brothers; Abimelech and his brothers [Judg 9]; Eliab and David; Absalom and Amnon;

Solomon and Adonijah). Such hostility was spawned by (1) envy of and anger towards a brother when God accepts one sacrifice only (Cain); (2) anger that is produced by a feeling of helplessness and by being exploited and cheated (Esau); (3) anger because of the perception of a brother as a spoiled brat, a talebearer, and a braggart (Joseph’s brothers); (4) megalomania (Abimelech): (5) the pretentiousness of the youngest brother (Eliab); (6) sexual abuse against one’s full sister (Absalom and Amnon); (7)

making false claims to succeed one’s father as king (Solomon and Adonijah). (a) While

there are illustrations

of fratricide involving half brothers

(e.g.,

Absalom and his half brother Amnon and Solomon and Adonijah, and their response to actions taken by the brothers that Absalom and Solomon consider unconscionable), Cain’s cold-blooded murder of Abel is the only instance of fratricide involving blood brothers. The seventy brothers that Abimelek killed (Judg 9:5) may have included some blood brothers. Most likely ’ah should not be understood as physical brother, but rather is a term for a larger family group (Soggin, 167). Unlike Amnon or Adonijah, Abel did nothing to provoke Cain; he merely presented his offering to God. In seeing his own sacrifice rejected and his brother’s accepted, Cain in a fit of jealousy took out his anger on Abel. But before Cain was expelled from God’s presence, and in response to his protests, God placed a mark of protection on Cain to prevent blood vengeance. Thus, both law and grace operate in this narrative. Cain must be judged and held accountable; yet, he received a sign of divine protection. Cain was both banned and blessed. He left God’s presence, but not God’s protection. (b) David strongly opposed the idea of brothers taking blood revenge on the one who had killed their brother. Thus, he rebuked Joab for his cold-blooded murder of

Abner in response to Abner’s killing of Joab’s brother Asahel (2 Sam 2:22-32; 3:27-39). David’s feelings were prompted either by disgust for the idea of blood revenge, by sincere sympathy for Abner, or by his desire to ingratiate himself to northern Jews, whose support he must shortly solicit. (c) Absalom’s execution of Amnon is in response to Amnon’s violation of Absalom’s sister Tamar (2 Sam 13). Absalom’s revenge, carried out two years after the crime against Tamar, was due at least in part to David’s failure to discipline his son. (d) Solomon acted violently against Adonijah when the latter requested Abishag as his wife (1 Kgs 2:17), possibly because he interpreted Adonijah’s request, however innocent on the surface, as a last ditch attempt to establish his legal successorship to the throne of David (see 2 Sam 12:8; 16:21 for such a practice). From the point of David’s sin with Bathsheba and onward, most of the king’s problems were domestic. David witnessed successively the execution of three of his sons—Amnon, Absalom, and Adonijah. To be sure, David received God’s forgiveness, but the history of the royal family thereafter was one wracked by turbulence. The behavior of David's sons was the direct opposite of Ps 133:1 (a Davidic psalm!), “How good and pleasant it is when brothers live together in unity!”

347

Ms # 278) 5. The nom. ’ah has the meaning of treaty partner in Amos 1:11, where the prophet says in an oracle to Edom “he pursued his treaty-partner (‘@hiw, sg.) with the sword, and utterly destroyed his allies (rah“*maw, pl.)” (M. L. Barré, “Amos 1:11 Reconsidered,”

CBO 47, 1985, 427; cf. M. Fishbane,

“The Treaty Background

of

Amos 1:11 and Related Matters,” JBL 89, 1970, 313-18). (a) Hiram, king of Tyre, called Solomon his brother (1 Kgs 9:13). Brother may, in such an instance, be a covenant term (note that Hiram “was on friendly terms with [‘“loved,” NIV] David,” 1 Kgs 5:15[1]). Compare the hendiadys ra’-a’-muta [U]

a[hu-uJt-ta (“friendship and brotherhood”) in a letter from Tushratta to Amenophis IV (J. A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna Tafeln, vol. 1, 1908, 29:116), and the expression used

by Sausgaumwa to Ammi8tamru of Ugarit: andku u atta ahi, 1 and you are brothers (PRU 4, 133, [21-22]). (b) Israel, when engaged in diplomatic relations with another nation, especially Edom, referred to that nation as brothers (Num 20:14; Deut 2:4, 8; Obad

10). Espe-

cially noteworthy is the expression “a treaty of brotherhood,” b°rit (> # 1382) ’ahim, Amos

1:9, which Tyre violated (J. Priest, “The Covenant of Brothers,” JBL 84, 1965,

400-406). 6. There are frequent laws scattered throughout Deuteronomy that detail how one should treat one’s brother. In most cases brother does not refer to a blood brother, but to a brother who is a member of the covenant family, and as such, means fellow

Israelite or fellow citizen. In Deuteronomy ’Gh is the equivalent of the phrase ’ezrah h@ Gres, native-born, or a variant in Exod-Num (Exod 12:19; Lev 16:29; Num 9:14).

Thus, one law (Deut 22:2) speaks of a brother this way, “If the brother does not live near you or if you do not know who he is....” ( Deut: Theology) All laws about brother relations in Deuteronomy are ones that urge compassion and concern. That brother could be a poor person (Deut 15:1-11), another member of the community whose property is jeopardized (Deut 22:1-4), or one’s deceased blood brother and his surviving widow (Deut 22:5-10). The latter law, reflecting a practice known as levirate marriage (Jevir is Latin for a husband’s brother), both protects and provides for the widow and the possibility of male lineage. This law was used by the Sadducees in their attempt to trap Jesus (Matt 22:23-33; Mark 12:18-27; Luke 20:27-40). In effect they trapped themselves, for Jesus suggests that if one is going to appeal to Moses in one area (levirate marriage), then he cannot sidestep Moses in other matters (resurrection). Brother, sister: > ’ah II (brother, kinsman, relative, countryman, #278); > ’ah*wd I (brotherhood, # 288); > ’ahdt (sister, beloved, # 295); > yabam (brother-in-law, # 3303) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 1:188-93; THAT 1:98-104; TWOT 1:31; H. H. P. Dressler, “The Metamorphosis of a Lacuna: Is AT.AH.WAN... a Proposal of Marriage?” UF 11, 1979, 211-17; J. D. Fowler, Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew: A Comparative Study, JSOT SupSer 49, 1988, 46-48, 51-52; C. H. Gordon, “Fratriarchy in the O.T.,” JBL 54, 1935, 223-31; P. D. Miller,

Deuteronomy, Interp, 1990, 136-37, 165-66, 169-70; P. A. Reiman, “Am I My Brother’s Keeper?” Int 24, 1970, 482-91; J. A. Soggin, Judges, OTL, 1981; Gerhard von Rad, “Brothers and Neighbor in the Old Testament,” God at Work in Israel, 1980, 183-93. Victor P. Hamilton

348

FS (# 279)

279

mts

MS (ah), brazier, firepot (# 279).

OT The nom. is an Egyp. loanword ‘h. It was used to keep hot the winter apartment of the king and to burn the scroll of Baruch (Jer 36:22-23). Furnace, fireplace, forge, oven, stove: > ’ah (brazier, firepot, #279); — kibsan (furnace, forge, #3901); > kar (forge, #3929); > kir (small stove, #3968); > m°bax%lét (fireplaces, Daas > mdgéd (fireplace, # 4611); > ‘lil (clay furnace, # 6612); > tanniir (oven, furnace, 9486)

NT

= > NIDNTT 1:654-56. I. Cornelius

280 (dah, hyena or owl), > #9478 285

smN “IS (ehad), const. TMS (ahad), adj. one (cara dinal number), first (ordinal number), each, a certain, only, once, first, a few (pl.) (# 285); IM (had), (only Ezek 33:30; # 2522). ANE

Common Sem. Cf. Akk. édu; Aram. hd; Ugar. ’hd, all meaning one.

OT 1. As well as being a cardinal (“one”) and ordinal (“‘first” or “first one”) number, ’ehdd can be an adj. (single, unique, singular, a certain, each) or a nom. (a single

individual or a single thing, one time or once, each one). As a simple cardinal number, it occurs in the list in Josh 12:9-24. The first day is often a significant starting point, whether of creation (Gen 1:5) or the month (8:13). The tabernacle was set up on the

first day of the first month (Exod 40:17), and Hezekiah’s sanctifying of the temple began on the same date (2 Chron 29:17). 2. The force of the one is normally felt in the context of the many. The one distinguished from the group may be a representative or a spokesman (2 Kgs 3:11; 6:12),

an agent whose actions further the plot (2 Kgs 4:22), or simply the first in a sequence (2 Macc 7:2). The hyperbolic contrast between the single individual and the many stresses the significance of God’s action in blessing (Abraham, Isa 51:2) or in giving success in war (Josh 23:10). Conversely, Deut 32:30 portrays the outworking of the curse in that one routs a thousand, and the prophets’ more realistic proportions are almost as terrifying (Isa 4:1). The negative formulation (“not one”) can stress divine

sovereignty and faithfulness (1 Kgs 8:56), but it can also indicate the universality of human corruption (Ps 14:3; cf. Eccl 7:28). 3. In a group (often two) the different fates of the one and then the other (also ’ehad) are often theologically significant. Judah’s response to the threatened removal of Jacob’s second son by Rachel after “the one” (i.e., Joseph) has been lost, finally induces Joseph reveal his identity (Gen 44:27-28). Partiality and favoritism can lead to dangerous division and conflict (Deut 21:15), but communication between one and another brings agreement and harmony (Zech 8:21). Oneness in kinship and covenant allegiance is the ultimate ideal for human society, but is always in tension with the impulse towards disunity (Gen 2:24, leading to 3:12) and scattering (11:1, 6 leading to vv. 8-9). From time to time united action and corporate solidarity is possible. Israel accepts the covenant with one voice (Exod 24:3), and, when united, acts as one person

349

“ITN(#285) (k°’#& chad, Judg 20:1; Ezra 3:1). There was to be one law for native and sojourner (Exod 12:49), for rich and poor (2 Sam 12:1). Yet disunity more reflected the reality of Israel’s history (Judg 21:3; 1 Kgs 11:13), and the unifying figure of the Davidic king (cf. 2 Sam 5:1-3) became an eschatological hope for a reunified North and South (Hos 1:11[2:2]; Ezek 34:23; 37:15-28). The prophets realized that only God could ultimately grant (lit.) “one heart and one way,” a single-minded devotion to God and a common lifestyle subject to his will (Jer 32:39; Ezek 11:19). 4. Solitary oneness is a fearful prospect for an Israelite, whose identity was defined relationally in terms of the many (Eccl 4:9-11). Despite his uniqueness, God is not to be regarded as solitary or alone (/°badd6), for he is always manifest in relationship to himself, his heavenly court, his angel, or others (cf. Gen 6:3; Exod 23:20-23; 33:14). There is no Trinitarian statement in the OT, but the later doctrine is one

resolution of tensions and affirmations that are at the heart of the OT doctrine of God. Nor does the Bible affirm an isolated monotheism, even in texts that state God’s one-

ness. “One” can indicate uniqueness, as in the singular punishment (’ahat ra‘a) of Ezek 7:5, but this is an elevation to the ultimate degree of what is known from other

experiences of punishments. Late texts praise the unique Creator (Job 31:15; Mal 2:10), not as a mathematical statement but as an assertion of Yahweh’s primacy over all other claimants to divinity. 5. The Shema (Deut 6:4-9) is a central theological text in Deut (> Shema: Theology). The syntax of the verbless sentence is disputed, but analogy with other uses of “the LORD our God” in Deut suggests that the traditional syntax should be retained (“The LORD our God, the LORD [is] One’’). “One” is not a title or name of God, but an adjective of quality (DCH, 1:180). The correlation between the two halves of the sentence and the following verses suggests that this is not so much an abstract monotheism as a claim to Israel’s total obedience and the exclusion of any other (cf. 5:7). The immediate context does not suggest that it is directed against polytheism or different ideas of Yahweh found in local cults (cf. the heterodox portrait of “Yahweh and his Asherah”’ at Kuntillet “Ajrud). Nor is this idea used to support the deut. program of the centralization of worship. However, in the broader context of Deut and the OT it can imply unity, uniqueness, and monotheism. There is some overlap with the idea of Yahweh “alone” (cf. 2 Kgs 19:19; /“baddé). Israel shares in God’s uniqueness (2 Sam 7:23), and Israel’s eschatological hope looks to the realization of Yahweh being one and his name one (Zech 14:9), when all powers that have claimed divinity will be renounced or absorbed into the one true God.

P-B _ Postbiblical Heb. reflects the same wide range of reference. In QL ’ehdd can be translated by a, single, any, alone, other. 1QS 3:26-4:1 refers to the Angel of Truth and the Angel of Darkness, and God is said to love the one and loathe the council of the other (also ’ehad). The members of the Community are not to depart from one of God’s commands (1QS 1:13; cf. 3:11).

NT Of theological significance is the growing stress on the uniqueness and oneness of God, the NT taking up and developing the Shema (Mark 12:29) in terms of Christology (1 Cor 8:6) and God’s universal plan of salvation (Rom 3:30). In Paul the unity of the church is preserved and maintained by confession of the one Lord (Eph 4:4) and participation in the one body through the one eucharistic bread (1 Cor 10:17). In John

350

MINN#288) 17:11, 21-23 the model of oneness is the unity of the Father and the Son. Unity has missiological (John 17:23) and ethical (Phil 1:27) implications. Numbers:

> ’ehdd (one, #285); > ’elep II (thousand, military contingent, #547); > ’arba‘ (four, #752); > hamés (five, #2822); > me’a I (hundred, #4395); > ‘eser (ten, # 6924); ~ r°baba (ten thousand, myriad, # 8047/8052); > Xeba‘ I (seven, #8679); > Salos, S*losa (three, a three, #8993); — 5*moneh (eight, #9046); > snayim (two, #9109); > Se I (six, #9252); > téSa‘ (nine, # 9596) Numbering, counting: > kss (reckon, apportion, #4082); > mnh (count, #4948); 7 spr I (count, number, reckon, rehearse, # 6218); > pqd (number, appoint, # 7212) BIBLIOGRAPHY

NIDNTT 2:719-23; TDOT 1:193-201; THAT 1:104-6; TWOT

1:30; J. G. Janzen, “On the Most

Important Word in the Shema (Deuteronomy VI 4-5),” VT 37, 1987, 280-300; idem, ““Yahweh Our God, Yahweh Is One,’” Encounter 48, 1987, 53-60; Jastrow 1:38; G. A. F. Knight, “The Lord Is One,” ExpTim 79, 1967/68, 8-10; N. Lohfink, “Gott im Buch Deuteronomium,” in Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur, 1991, 25-54; S. D. McBride, “The Yoke of the Kingdom,” nt 27, 1973, 273-306; E. H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, NAC, 1994;

idem, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 1994; R. W. L. Moberly, “‘Yahweh Is One’: The Translation of the Shema,” Studies in the Pentateuch, SVT 41, 1990, 209-16. P. P. Jenson

286 (ahi, reed), > # 7866

288

TIOS8

MIAN (ah*wa I), brotherhood, a hapleg. in Zech

11:14 (# 288).

Brother, sister: > ’ah II (brother, kinsman, relative, countryman, # 278); > ’ah“wd I (brotherhood, # 288); > ’ahét (sister, beloved, # 295); > yabam (brother-in-law, # 3303) Victor P. Hamilton

289 ('ah*wa II, declaration, explanation), > #2555 294 (’ahor, back, backward, west, future, last), > #336

295

mins

min N(ah6t), sister, relative, beloved (# 295).

1. In an attempt to provide an ANE background for the stories of Abraham and ANE Isaac when they had their wives identify themselves as the patriarch’s sister (Gen 12:10-20; 20:1-17; 26:1-11), scholars have appealed to literature from the cuneiform

world. E. A. Speiser suggested that the Nuzi texts provided a historical explanation for the “wife as sisters” stories in Genesis in marriage custom practiced by the upper Hurrian classes, in which a husband could adopt his wife as his sister (ana ahati). Also, the woman given in marriage by her brother would legally become her husband's sister (see Speiser, 15-28). D. Freedman and S. Greengus both challenge Speiser’s interpretation because such an explanation completely fails to do justice to the thrust of the narrative, especially Abram’s momentary successful completion of his deception of Pharaoh. Certainly the patriarch has a deeper concern in this context than merely

351

NINN 295) establishing the legal status of his spouse. Other scholars have voiced objection to Speiser’s interpretation on the basis that Speiser arranged the Nuzi texts in a sequence that is arbitrary, and maybe specious, in order to claim widely practiced sister adoption (ahatiitu) among the Hurrians. In fact, in some of these alleged cases of sister adoption, the adopted sister was originally a manumitted slave girl, not a wife. 2. It is going too far to say (as does T. H. Gaster, Thespis, 1950, 290) that “Brother and sister’ were common expressions for lovers in the Ancient Near East.” The evidence of its use is more sparse than common. Its most pervasive employment was in Egyptian romantic literature (see A. Hermann, Altdgyptische Liebesdichtung, 1959, 75-79). In cuneiform literature one instance is known from a Sumerian text, a

love-song in which a priestess sings of her coming before Shu-Sin (as Dumuzi) who is about to marry the goddess Inanna: “The brother brought me into his life-giving gaze” (ANET, 644). It is far from certain that in the Ugar. Aghat text Anat says to Aghat in an attempt to woo him, “You are my brother and [I am your sister]” (CTA 18:1:11-19 [= KTU 1.18I 11-19]; see Dressler, 211-17).

OT 1. Like ’@h, brother, the nom. ’Ghét designates a blood relation, sister: Naamah (Gen 4:22); Rebekah (Gen 25:20); Mahalath (Gen 28:9); Rachel and Leah (Gen 30:1); Dinah (Gen 34:14); Miriam (Exod 2:4, 7); Cozbi (Num 25:18); Tamar (2 Sam 13:4); Jehosheba (2 Kgs 11:2); Job 1:4. 2. Abraham claimed that Sarah was his (half) sister (Gen 20:12). It is impossi-

ble to know whether Abraham was talking truthfully or prevaricating in order to save his skin. Gen 11:29 provided no paternity for Sarai as it did for Milcah (and Iscah). Milcah and Iscah are provided with a patronymic because of the unusual circumstances surrounding Milcah’s marriage to her uncle. 3. On three occasions the patriarchs (Abraham twice, Isaac once) introduced, or

had their spouse introduce herself, as the “sister” of Abraham/Isaac (see Gen 12:13, 19; 20:2, 5; 26:6, 9). On each of these occasions the patriarch was temporarily living outside of Canaan—in Egypt or in Philistia. As outsiders, along with their spouse, Abraham/Isaac knew that they did not enjoy the protection extended to the local citizenry by heads of state. Accordingly, they felt they had to do anything necessary to stay alive, even if that meant resorting to duplicity and inventing a ruse that might preserve their lives without any forethought of the destiny and humiliation to which their wives would possibly be subjected. On two of these three occasions, the patriarch felt compelled to hide his wife’s identity qua wife because Sarah/Rebekah were beautiful women (Gen 12:11; 26:7). Other men would find them extremely attractive. One does not have to eliminate a brother to marry/take his sister, but one would have to eliminate a husband in order to marry/take the wife of another (cf. the story of David/Bathsheba/Uriah).

4. The lover in the Song of Songs refers to his beloved as his sister (S of Songs 4:9, 10, 12; 5:1, 2). In the first five of these references the expression “my sister” is fol-

lowed apositionally by “my bride.” In the last, 5:2, it is followed by “my darling.” (Nowhere does the beloved refer to him as “‘brother.’”’) Interestingly, one of the most

highly acclaimed modern translations of the OT, the JPSV, renders sister in these passages by “my own” and puts the literal sister in a footnote to avoid any suggestion of incest. This is unnecessary, once it is recognized that sister is a term of endearment—to be found once again in Tob 5:20; 7:16, where Tobit and Raquel addressed their wives 352

ASS

MINN (# 295)

Annak and Edna as sisters. Compare also the additions to Esther, where the king comforted Esther with the words, “I am your brother, be of good cheer.” (Addition D, lines ae see C. A. Moore, Daniel,

-18.)

Esther,

and Jeremiah:

The Additions,

AB,

1977,

5. Jeremiah refers to Israel and Judah as sisters in 3:6-11: The wickedness of Israel with the resulting punishment did nothing to deter her sister Judah from living the life of a harlot. Later Ezek 23 adapted Jeremiah’s metaphor and spoke of Israel (“Oholah”) and Judah (“Oholibah’’) as two wicked sisters. 6. Unlike Ezek 23, in which the prophet speaks of two sisters, in Ezek 16 he speaks of three sisters: (1) sister Judah; (2) an older, bigger sister, Samaria (= Israel) to the north; and (3) a younger, smaller sister, Sodom, to the south (Ezek 16:49-63). Of the three sisters Judah was the most depraved city (vv. 47, 51-52). Accordingly, if God would restore the worst of the cities, Judah, he must, to be consistent, restore Judah’s

two less obscene sisters. All of these comparisons, and in particular the idea that by comparison Judah made Israel and Sodom (!) look righteous, “prepares a faculty within her which, in her final stage of restoration, can respond to God’s undeserved favor with penitential shame over all her past offenses” (M. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20, AB, 1983, 306). 7. Twice, in its listing of forbidden sexual relationships, Lev 18 (vv. 9, 11) for-

bids sexual congress with one’s sister, either one’s natural sister (your father’s daughter) or one’s half sister (your mother’s daughter). V. 11 repeats the law about abstention from intercourse with one’s half sister. See also Lev 20:17, which expresses

the prohibition in terms of legality—if a man marries [lit. “takes”] his sister, rather than in terms of sexual access as in Lev 18:9, 11. (> Lev: Theology) . The law in Lev 18:18 prohibits taking “your wife’s sister as a rival wife and hav[ing] sexual relations with her while your wife is living.” This is not a law against incest (as are vv. 6-17), as is often interpreted, but rather one prohibiting bigamy, and possibly divorce. “Sister” here need not be understood as an actual sister but sister in the sense of fellow-citizen, a woman belonging to the same community. (See Tosato, 199-214.) Admittedly, there are far fewer passages where ’G@hdt means “(female) fellow-citizen” than there is where ’G4h means “(male) fellow-citizen,” but one may compare Num 25:18, where Cozbi is identified as sister of the Midianites, i.e., kinswoman.

The same nuance for sister may. be present in the lament over Jehoiakim, “Alas, my brother! Alas, my sister” (Jer 22:18).

Paul in 1 Cor 9:5 raised the rhetorical question: “Don’t we have the right to take NT a believing wife along with us as do the other apostles...?” The phrase rendered “believing wife” by NIV is actually “sister-wife,” or “sister as a wife” (adelpheén gunaika). There is justification for NIV’s “believing wife,” in which it reads adelphé, sis-

ter, as “Christian,” by noting Paul’s use of adelphé in 1 Cor 7:15; Rom 16:1; Philem 2. Brother, sister: > ’ah II (brother, kinsman, relative, countryman, # 278); > ‘ah*wa I (brotherhood, # 288); > ’ahdt (sister, beloved, # 295); > yabam (brother-in-law, # 3303)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

.

H. H.P. Dressler, “The Metamorphosis of a Lacuna: Is AT.AH.WAN... a Proposal of Marriage?” UF 11, 1979, 211-17; D. Freedman, “A New Approach to the Nuzi Sistership Contract,” JANESCU 2, 1970, 77-85; S. Greengus, “Sisterhood Adoption at Nuzi and the ‘Wife-Sister’ in

353

TN (# 296) HUCA 46, 1975, 5-31; M. Held, “A Faithful Lover in an Old Babylonian Dialogue,” Genesis,” JCS 15, 1961, 1-26; M. J. Selman, “The Social Environment of the Patriarchs,” TynBul 27, 1976,

119-21; E. A. Speiser, “The Wife-Sister Motif in the Patriarchal Narratives,” Biblical and Other Studies, 1963, 15-28; repr. in Oriental and Biblical Studies, 1967, 62-82; T. L. Thompson, Histo-

ricity of the Patriarchal Narratives, 1974, 234-47; A. Tosato, “The Law of Leviticus 18:18: A Reexamination,”

CBQ 46, 1984, 199-214; J. Van Seters, Abraham

in History and Tradition,

1975, 71-78; C. J. M. Weir, “The Alleged Hurrian Wife-Sister Motif in Genesis,” TGUOS 22, 1967-70, 14-25. Victor P. Hamilton

296

TOS

TAN

(hz I), q. seize, lay hold of, settled (# 296).

ANE The root ’hd is common and appears throughout the languages and eras of Sem., variously written according to the development and script of the second and third radicals. The Akk. ahd&zu in its base form has the meanings take, marry, and learn, and occurs in all the normal Akk. vb. forms with numerous

derivative meanings (AHw,

18-20). In Ugar. it customarily occurs as ’hd, though occasionally as ahd, seize or take hold of (UT, 19.130). In the transitional form of Aram. in the Zinjirli inscriptions the vb. ’hz occurs a number of times, especially in reference to seizing the scepter (KAI, 214.15, 20, 25). It may be that this metaphor has been extended when brrkb the son of pnmw says, “I seized the house of my father,” meaning that he has succeeded his father on the throne, but in the context it is also possible he is talking about taking possession of the palace as part of the wealth of his inheritance (KAJ, 216.11/12). In the Moabite inscription ’hz means to seize, i.e., conquer a city or take its people in war (KAI, 181.11, 15/16, 20). In imperial Aram. the vb. ’hd is found a number of times in the inscription of Darius for the taking of prisoners of war (APFC, “The Behistun Inscription,” 1, 6, 11, 34, 47; cf. 34.4, 69.3), but also for the confiscation of possessions (APFC, 2.17; cf. 3.19). Other

metaphorical uses can also be cited, such as a reflexive in a Nerab inscription, which speaks of the mouth not being shut, i.e., not short for words (KAI, 226.4; cf. DISO, 10).

In Arab. we find hd, in Eth. ’ahaza.

OT 1. The q. ’hz is read the ho. of 2 Chron 9:18 and idiom to refer to possessing the preposition b®; in most

in the MT 59x; 1 Kgs 6:10 is open to interpretation, as is the pi. of Job 26:9. It is found in the ni. 7x, usually as an the land (5x). The object of ’hz is either in the acc. or has instances a certain vivacity or forcefulness is implied.

Moses is to snatch the tail of the serpent (Exod 4:4). When the lover finds her beloved,

she embraces him with a grip that will not let him go (S of Songs 3:4); the beloved grasps the branches of the palm tree (7:9), a metaphor for the body (breasts) of the beautiful woman. Uzzah grips the ark to prevent it from falling (2 Sam 6:6); Samson takes hold of the doors of the gate of the city and carries them off (Judg 16:3). God seizes the four corners of the earth to shake out the wicked (Job 38:13). The sense of grip is present in Ruth 3:15, where Ruth is to hold a cloak into which barley is measured. (a) Frequently seize is in the context of violent or aggressive action, such as the pursuit and capture of a warrior in battle (Judg 1:6; 12:6; 16:21;

354

2 Sam 2:21). David

THIN (# 296) seizes and kills the messenger who thinks he is bringing the good news of Saul’s death (2 Sam 4:10); the Levite seizes the corpse of the concubine and divides it up for all the tribes (Judg 20:6). The psalmist pronounces happy those who seize the children of the Babylonians and dash their heads against a stone (Ps 137:9). It must be remembered that the imprecatory psalms are grief work, dealing with the anger that accompanies grief and injustice, and the petition is one that appeals to God’s power to control history and bring about the judgment of evil. Though these images are gruesome, they are not simply an expression of a primitive religion that knew how to hate and revenge, but reflect the language of the times, which simply portrayed the grim realities of the cruelty of ancient warfare. This same sense of violence also applies as metaphor. As a lion roars and seizes its prey (Isa 5:29), so Yahweh will attack his people. God seizes Job by the neck and crushes him (Job 16:12); on the other hand, Bildad affirms that a trap will catch

the heel of wicked (18:9) so that his activities will cease. Job complains that days of affliction have seized him (30:16). God seizes the eyelids of the psalmist, inflicting sleeplessness upon him (Ps 77:4[5]); should one flee to the remotest sea, even there God would catch hold of him (139:10). Jacob was born grasping the heel of his twin brother (Gen 25:26), a sign of the turbulent relationship they would have as a result of the wily tactics of the younger brother constantly taking advantage of the older. (b) The metaphor of catching foxes in S of Songs 2:15 is unclear, as there is no obvious referent for the addressee. If the king is engaged in hunting, he might be addressing his followers, though the setting seems to be a vineyard. A more novel suggestion is that the foxes themselves are addressed, translating ’hz with the sense of hold for us, 1.e., wait, but such a meaning is otherwise unattested for the vb. Another guess

is that the foxes are themselves a metaphor for hallucinogenic mushrooms (Pope, 402-3). (c) A particularly significant use of ’hz is to express the physical effects of the emotional turbulance of fear or anger. It is described as being seized by trembling, spasms, weakness, or pangs. In expressing such emotional turbulance the Hebrew may speak of the person taking hold of trembling (Job 18:20; cf. 21:6; Ezek 27:35; 32:10),

or of trembling seizing the person (Exod 15:14, 15). It may be ambiguous as to whether trembling is subject or object of ’hz if the usual suffixes are absent (Isa 13:8) or ambiguous (Jer 49:24), but there is no ambiguity about the sense; each of these are what we would express as being gripped by emotion. The prophetic judgments against the nations (Isa 21:3), the ungodly (33:13), or the unfaithful (Jer 13:21) graphically depict the physical distress of bodily tremors and an inflamed face (Isa 13:8). The majestic city of Zion causes the kings of the nations to tremble (Ps 48:6[7]). The psalmist, on the other hand, is seized by agitation when he sees the wicked who ignore the instruction of Yahweh (Ps 119:53). (d) The vb. can also refer to that which is grasped by the mind. The preacher in Eccl 2:3 stimulates his body with wine, but with an alert mind, his intent is to grasp frivolity with his mind in order to investigate it. This verse is difficult; it has been suggested that the reference to wine be transposed to v. | to provide a parallel in v. 3 of exploring the matter with the mind by grasping wisdom and laying hold of frivolity; the problem is that wisdom then becomes a part of the quest in the following section about frivolity (Gordis, 215), so the text should be left unchanged. The teacher urges

355

TON (# 296)

moderation in all things, saying that if you can grasp this, it will be good (Eccl 7:18). Job applies ’hz to the mind or eye in his search for God (Job 23:9); Job is unable to apprehend God, who is concealed, unable to see God, who is hidden.

(e) The vb. ’hz is further used as an architectural term to indicate the binding of

structures. The banquet hall of Ahasuerus is described as having cotton and linen purple hangings bound (’Ghiiz, pass. part.) with white and purple cords to silver hooks or rods (Esth 1:6). In the description of the temple construction the vb. is a technical term for a technique in adjoining walls. The temple had a type of three-tiered annex, with side rooms all around the outside (1 Kgs 6:5-10); much of the terminology in this section is obscure, but the general sense may be obtained. The temple walls had some type of offset or recess (migra ‘ét, cf. HALAT 518) constructed so the joists of the adjoining beams would not weaken the temple wall itself. The vb. ’hz is used to say that the joist was constructed in such a way as that these beams did not overlay or were not infixed (’“h6z) with those of the temple wall (6:6); it would appear the same sense of the vb. is used to indicate that each floor was adjoined to the temple wall with cedar beams (6:10), but another meaning is possible as will be discussed. Ezekiel describes the joists (masc. nom. “hiizim, cf. HALAT 30 and GKC §84m) of the adjoining beams from the annex as fixed in a type of inset (ba’6t, cf. Driver, 305), referring to spaces let into or out of the wall (Ezek 41:6). In Neh 7:3 the vb. is used in a somewhat variant fashion to refer to the barring of the gates of the city. (f) Most unusual is the idiom of S of Songs 3:8, which describes well-trained

soldiers as those bound (pass.) by the sword. Probably this means their training literally bound them to the sword, though it is also possible the vb. here is related to the Akk. sense of ahazu as learn, a meaning also found in Ugar. (Pope, 435), i.e., skilled with the sword. Much less likely is the further suggestion that Ps 77:5 be taken with this sense of trained and translated “accustomed to vigils.” The vb. is also used in the pass. for the action of a trap. The ram that was to serve as the substitute for Isaac was caught (ni.) in a thicket (Gen 22:13), which providentially served as a natural trap. The teacher says that people are caught (ni.) in evil times just like fish captured in a net or birds ina snare (Eccl 9:12).

(g) In two passages the pass. is used to designate that which is chosen or selected. The instructions of Moses for the dividing of the spoil in the war against the Midianites was that the booty was to be divided equally between soldiers and civilians; one in every fifty of humans and animals of the half given to the civilians was to be taken ((Ghuz) as a levy for the Levites (Num 31:30, 47). The Chronicler reports that David assigned the priests from the descendents of two of the sons of Aaron (1 Chron 24:1-4); for this purpose one father’s house was chosen (’@huz) for Eleazar, and one was chosen for Ithamar (24:6). The texts indicate confusion in this verse between one

(hd) and chosen (’hz); ‘hz occurs 3x in the MT, but likely the concluding phrase should read one (’hd) was chosen (’hz; cf. BHS), though the repetition of ’hz could be

regarded as distributive (GKC §134 q). Since Eleazar has sixteen names and Ithamar eight, it is not clear how the distribution is to be applied in the following list of twenty-four names. 2. The ni. is used as a technical term for occupation or possession of property in the sense of a settler or inhabitant; it is generally associated with the vb. dwell (ysb). The Shechemites sought to intermarry with the sons of Jacob as one society, inviting

356

THN (# 296) them to dwell in the land, conduct business in it, and possess it (Gen 34:10). Joseph

moved his brothers to Egypt and settled them (hi. ysb) in the best of the land (47:11); they lived (ySb) in the land of Goshen, possessed it (47:27), and multiplied as a nation.

The Transjordan tribes were required to join the combat for the land of Canaan if they hoped to possess the land of Gilead, but if they refused they would be like the other tribes and assigned land to conquer in Canaan, which they would take as a possession (Num 32:30). After the Conquest these tribes returned to the territory they had possessed (Josh 22:9); however, in the area of the Jordan they built an altar that caused offense to the other tribes, who then in their own self-interest repeated the requirement of Numbers that they take a possession (22:19) in the land of Canaan with the other tribes. In these contexts of settling we find the nom. ’“huzzd as the term to designate the actual territory possessed (cf. Gen 23:4, 9, 20; 47:11; Num 32:29; Josh 22:9, 19).

Though ’hz in 1 Kgs 6:10 could be related to the sense of beam joists (6:6), it is also possible this is a separate root related to the Akk. cognate uhhuzu(m), meaning to plate or cover an object (HALAT 31); in this case it would mean the annex was covered

with cedar panels. This would seem to be the sense of 2 Chron 9:18, which refers to the footstool being plated with gold, as was the throne (cf. v. 17), rather than being attached to the throne (NIV); the parallel in 1 Kgs 10:19, which speaks of the throne having a “calf’s head” (RSV) or a “rounded top” (NIV) behind it (mé’ah“rdw) may be a deliberate change from the pu. part. found in Chronicles (HALAT 31). The pi. of hz in Job 26:9 also has the meaning of cover, as is indicated by the parallel line (Gordis, 279); God covers the presence of his throne, he spreads his clouds over it. 3. It has been argued that the Heb. word riddle (hid@) is derivative from ’hz; the loss of the ’aleph (’) is explained as the nom. being an Aram. loanword (cf. “hidd in Dan 5:12) in which the initial sound was lost when heth (h) was the second radical (Brockelmann, 257). Though biblical names give evidence of such a loss of the ’aleph before heth, the derivation from Aram. is doubtful; more probably it is related to the

Akk. hiddu, to utter or speak (Miiller, 484-85). The nom. hidé would be a substantival inf. with a fem. ending. The Aram. form of the nom. with ’aleph could be explained by the nom. use of the Aphel inf. in Aram., but is likely a typical Aram. action nom. that begins with ’aleph (ibid., 485-86). 4, There is no particular theological significance attached to the concept of seize (THAT 1:109-10). It is one of several vbs. used in a metaphor of divine choice and care. God seizes (q. ’hz) the psalmist by the right hand in Ps 73:23, an assurance of his presence, providence, and honor. Taking hold of the right hand in ANE ritual manifests a position of choice fitting to a ruler; in synonymous vocabulary God takes (q. tmk, #9461) the hand of his servant, who will bring justice to the nations (Isa 42:1),

and seizes (hi. hzg; #2616) the right hand of Cyrus, who will conquer the nations (45:1). A similar significance pertains when God seizes (hi. hzq) the right hand of his

servant Israel (41:13) in order to help them. Justice will come to Israel when God takes (q. tmk) them with the right hand of his righteousness (41:10), a sentiment like that of Deut 32:41, where God’s hand lays hold (q.’/z) of justice as he sharpens his glittering sword to take vengeance on his adversaries. As the psalmist expressed it in Ps 139:10, even the remotest part of the sea is not outside the reach of the hand of God. Though ’hz is used to describe the inheritance of the land as a gift, the term does not have a particularly theological function. God promises to give Abraham as an 357

TIM(#299) eternal possession (‘“huzzat ‘6lam) the territory of his sojournings (Gen 17:8), a promise that Jacob repeats (48:4), implicitly describing the land as that which God appropriates for his people. Even when the tribes describe the land as the possession of Yahweh (’“huzzat yhwh) where his tabernacle stands (Josh 22:19), it is more descriptive of territory than significant as that which God has taken for his purposes. The nom. sabas (# 8688) is the subject of ’hz in 2 Sam 1:9. The meaning of this hapleg. is uncertain. The vb. sbs seems to have meant mix; the Syr. S“bas is to mix or confuse, the Arab. Xbs is to entwine (of trees). The Heb. Sbs (# 8687) is to interweave (Exod 28:39; cf. 28:20). The meaning of haSSabas in 2 Sam 1:9 may have been dizziness; the Syr. has sawran@’ (dizziness, giddiness). However the Arab. dabata means to seize or grip; the Eth. dabsa is to be weak or decrepit. Together with the vb. ’hz it is entirely possible the sense Sbs is that of cramps or seizures.

P-B_ The later use of ’hz is within the same range as the OT usage (THAT 1:110). The occurrences in the QL reflect the same conceptions: 1QH 4.33 says dread and dismay have gripped me; CD 2.18 tells of how the watchers were caught for their failure to observe the precepts of God. The nom. ’hzh is found in CD 16.16, and the form ’whzh in 1QS 11.7, where God is said to have given his elect an everlasting possession. The G has no specific equivalents for hz, the LXX translates the vb. with twenty-seven different words. Seizing, grasping, taking hold of: > ’hz I (seize, settled, #296); > htp (seize and take away, > kwl (lay hold of, seize, contain, #3920); > lkd (catch, capture, # 4334); > Ipt (take hold of, grasp, clasp, turn around, # 4369); > msSk (seize, drag off, delay, #5432); > qmt (seize, #7855); — tmk (take hold of, grasp, #9461); — tps (capture, occupy, # 9530) # 2642); > hth (take, fetch, #3149);

BIBLIOGRAPHY

THAT 1:107-10; 2:953; C. Brockelmann, Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen I, 1961, 257; G. R. Driver, “Ezekiel: Linguistic and Textual Problems,” Bib 35, 1954, 305; Gordis, Koheleth: The Man and His World: A Study of Ecclesiastes, 1968, 215; A. H. Konkel, “The Story of Hezekiah in Isaiah,” VT 43, 1993, 476-77; H.-P. Miiller, “Der Begriff ‘Ratsel’ im AT,” VT 20, 1970 483-86; M. Pope, Song of Songs, AB 7C, 1977, 402-3, 435.

A. H. Konkel

298 (‘ahaz, Ahaz), > Ahaz

299 ANE

mas

MEWS (“huzza), nom. property (#299); < TIS (’hz), seize (> #296).

This nom. is related to a common Sem. root of which the vb. means “to grasp,

seize, take hold of,” e.g., Akk. and Eth. ’hz, Heb. and Old Aram. *hz, Ugar, ’hd. The

substantive form designates the property that is held or possessed.

OT 1. The nom. occurs 66x, most commonly in reference to the land that belonged to or was promised to the patriarchs or the children of Israel as their place in which to live. Occasionally it also designated a place of burial. 2. As a portion of land in which to live, property is given by Joseph to his father Jacob in Egypt (Gen 47:11). However, the usual reference is to a possession within the

358

MINN # 299) land of Canaan, as promised by God to Abram (Gen 17:8) and to Jacob (48:4). And it is noteworthy that the body of Jacob, after his death, does not remain in Egypt but is brought to the land of Canaan to be buried in the cave of Machpelah (Gen 49:29-31;

50:13-14). Throughout the Pentateuch and Joshua the Israelites are repeatedly reminded of Yahweh’s promise made to the ancestors of Israel with respect to the possession of the land. Accordingly, reference is frequently made to the “land of possession” (e.g., Gen 36:43; Lev

14:34; 25:24; Num

35:28; Josh 22:4, 9, 19). Later, in the restoration

descriptions of the last chapters of Ezekiel, there is a recurring theme of the “city of possession” (e.g., Ezek 45:7; 48:20, 21, 22). 3. In reference to a burial site, this nom. is employed in Gen 23:4, 9, 20; 49:30;

50:13. In the patriarchal period the possession of a burial place was treasured as a real fulfillment of God’s promise that they and their descendants would possess a land in which to live. In this regard it is worth noting that the references to a burial site as a possession are all related to the burial of Abram and Jacob, along with their spouses. This is noteworthy because it is also precisely these same patriarchs to whom Yahweh makes the promise of a possession (cf. Gen 17:8; 48:4). To designate the place of their burial as a possession may be indicative of the hope that their descendants will perpetually possess the land of the promise. 4. The distribution of the nom. throughout the OT literature is of interest. In addition to the frequent usage in the Pentateuch, Joshua, and Ezekiel 44-48, it occurs

only sporadically elsewhere (1 Chron 7:28, 9:2; 2 Chron 11:4; 31:1; Neh 11:3; Ps 2:8). Some scholars deny any particular theological importance to the term (THAT 1:110). However, a number of considerations are worth noting. The references to “huzz@ usually imply a gift of property from Yahweh. Josh 22:19 even speaks of ’“huzzat yhwh, “possession of Yahweh,” and elsewhere the construction ““huzzat ‘dlam, “perpetual possession,” is employed (Gen 17:8; 48:4; Lev 25:34). These references, along with

the use in many other texts, indicate a specific awareness that the possession is a gift from God. Etymologically, the word is related to the concept of “grasping, seizing, holding,” but in the context of the OT the predominant connotation is clearly that Israel’s possession of land, whether privately and in families or collectively as a nation,

is inseparable from the providential gift of Yahweh. The first references to a possession of this sort come in the context of God’s covenantal promise of land, described in

terms reminiscent of other ancient NE land grants given by a king to his vassals. Subsequent texts repeatedly seek to show how God’s provision is being received by his people. 5. Sometimes the expression “landed property” is used as a translation for *“huzzda; but this is awkward Eng., probably originating in the lexica as an equivalent of German “Grundeigentum” rather than as an acceptable Eng. translation of the Heb. What is actually intended can be defined better as “realty.” Property, possession: > ““huzzd (property, #299), > b‘l I (marry, rule over, own, # 1249); ~ migneh (livestock, property, # 5238); > rks (acquire property, # 8223) BIBLIOGRAPHY

NIDNTT 2:829-47; THAT 1:107-10; W. Brueggemann, The Land, 1977; J. A. Dearman, Property Rights in the Eighth-Century Prophets, 1988; G. Gerleman, “Nutzrecht und Wohnrecht,” ZAW 89, 1977, 313-25; F. Horst, “Zwei Begriffe fiir Eigentum (Besitz): nhlh und ’hzh” FS

359

mn Smx(# 334) W. Rudolph, ed. A. Kiischke, 1961, 135-61; M. Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 90, 1970, 184-203; C. J. H. Wright, God’s

People in God’s Land: Family, Land and Property in the Old Testament, 1990. William T. Koopmans

miewdats: (ahlamda), jasper, amethyst? (# 334), se

mens

only Exod 28:19; 39:12.

ANE Compare the Egypt. imn.t, red or brown jasper. T. O. Lambdin, “Egyptian Loanwords in the Old Testament,” JAOS 73, 1953, 147 argues that ’himk is an Egyptian loanword (accepted in HALAT). OT 1. This semiprecious stone was the third stone set in the third row of the high priest’s breastplate (> #3136), by which the twelve tribes of Israel were represented. Each of the stones was engraved with a tribal name. These twelve gemstones set in the priestly breastpiece demonstrated the representative nature of the ministry of the Israelite priests and symbolized Yahweh’s covenant election and oversight of the Hebrews tribes as his special possession (Exod 19:5). 2. For a theological introduction to the topic of gems in the OT, see ’d6dem (# 138). Precious Stones:

> ’eben (stone, rock, #74);

(jasper, #334); > ’eqdah (beryl, #734);

> ’odem (precious stone, # 138); > ’ahlamda

> bahat (precious stone, # 985); > bareget (emerald,

# 1403); > yah“lom (precious stone, #3402);

> yas“péh (jasper, # 3835); > kadkéd (ruby?,

# 3905); > lesem I (precious stone, # 4385); > nopek (semi-precious stone, # 5876); > soheret

(mineral stone, # 6090); > sappir (lapis lazulli, #6209); > pitda (chrysolite, #7077); > 5°bé (precious stone, # 8648); > Soham I (precious stone, #8732); > Samir II (emery, diamond?, # 9032); > Sés II (alabaster, #9253); > tarsi§ II (precious stone, # 9577)

Jewelry, ornaments: > h“/i I (ornament, jewel, #2717); > h®rizim (necklace of shells, #3016); ~ tabba‘at (ring, #3192); > kiimaz (ornament, #3921); > miSb°sdét (settings, #5401); > nezem (ring, #5690); > n°ti(?)pd (ear-ring, #5755); > ‘agil (ear-ring?, # 6316); > “dh I (adorn o.s., #6335); > ‘ks Gingle, #6576); > ‘ng (put on as a necklace, # 6735); ~ p*ninim (corals, pearls, #7165); > sawwarén (necklace, #7454); > samid I (bracelet, #7543); > s°‘adad (anklets, #7577); — rabid (necklace, # 8054); > sah*rénim (crescents, # 8448); > Sabis (ornament, # 8667); > Sér I(bracelet, # 9217); > tér (pendant, # 9366) BIBLIOGRAPHY

IDB 2:898-905; ISBE 4:623-30;,

NIDNTT 3:395-98; J. S. Harris, “An Introduction to the Study of

Personal Ornaments, of Precious, Semi-Precious and Imitation Stones Used Throughout Biblical History,” ALUOS 41, 1962, 49-83; L. Koehler, “Hebréische Vokabeln II,” ZAW 55, 1937,

161-74; H. Quiring, “Die Edelsteine im Amtsschild

des jiidischen Hohenpriesters

und die

Herkunft ihrer Namen,” AGM 38, 1954, 193-213; W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 25-48, 1983, 82-84. Andrew E. Hill

_

“nN

TIAN Chr), q. tarry; pi. detain s.o. (# 336); TINS (ahdér),

back,

backward,

west,

future,

last

(#294); “TIN Cahér I), other, following, further, different, foreign, another (# 337):

360

TYAS (# 344) “WS Cahar I), afterward, behind and M8

(’“haré Il), back, behind (# 339); PANS

(ah“rén), behind, western, later, future, last (# 340); M°IM8 (’harit), end, extremity, farthest (> # 344); M°2AN (horannit), backwards (# 345).

ANE _ This root is attested with similar usages in several cognate languages (Akk., Aram., Arab., and Ugar.). Just as the Heb. vb. occurs mostly in the pi. (15 of 17 occurrences), the Akk. ahdaru is used mostly in the equivalent D-stem (AHw, 18).

OT 1. The verbal idea is to remain somewhere for a protracted period of time past the expected norm. So Abraham’s servant exhorted Rebekah’s family in northwestern Mesopotamia not to “detain” him from taking her back immediately to Abraham, because the Lord had given him success on his mission (Gen 24:56). The vb. may be used with mé‘éd, appointed time (> #4595), to emphasize delay beyond an anticipated arrival time (2 Sam 20:5, where the Q reads a hi. of this root). Habakkuk is com-

manded to wait for the Lord’s vision (NIV’s “revelation”), which has an appointed time: “it will certainly come and will not delay” (2:2-3). The vb. may take an inf. to complete the idea, as in delaying to pay a vow to God (Deut 23:21[22]). Similarly, it may refer to hesitation to bring offerings to God (Exod 22:29[28]). Such delays were

considered sins. 2. The vb. takes on theological import when God delays. The urgent plea “do not delay” is found at the conclusion of three prayers in which the worshipers solicit forgiveness, redemption, and restoration (Ps 40:17[18]; 70:5[6]; Dan 9:19). In another climactic setting, God declares “my salvation will not be delayed” (Isa 46:13) for the people of Zion, his purposes will be accomplished through the defeat of Babylon (46:1-11). 3. The various derivatives have minimal connections with the vb. It is possible to see the relationship when these terms mean “back” or “after,” as something that is

held back. More significant may be the use of these nom. temporally to refer to the future, or time that is deferred (eg. ’ah“rit hayyamim, “days to come;” > #3427). Delay:

~ ‘hr (tarry, detain s.o., #336);

> bw§ II (delay, #1018);

> mhh (delay, # 4538);

> mk (seize, drag off, delay, # 5432) BIBLIOGRAPHY

THAT 1:110-18; R. P. Carroll, “Eschatological Delay in the Prophetic Tradition,” ZAW 94, 1982, 47-58. Bill T. Arnold

337 (ahéer I, other, following, foreign, another), > # 336 339 (ahar I, afterward, behind; ’“haré II, back, behind, > # 336

340 (’ah“rén, behind, western, later, future, last), > # 336

344

mans

Mans (Cah*rit), nom. end, outcome < IMS (hr ), delay (> #336).

(#344);

ANE. The word ’ah“rit is cognate with Aram. ’hryt and Ugar uhryt, latter end (ATU 1.19).

361

TYPIN(# 344) OT

The form ’ah“rit is an abstract nom.; its origins are to be traced to the Heb.

’ahar, afterwards, behind. The word occurs more than 60x in the OT. According to H. Seebass (TDOT 1:207), the word is best translated neutrally by, “that which comes after,” and not by the derived meaning, end or result.

1. The temporal “after” conveys the primary meaning of ’ah*rit. In Deut 8:16 and Job 42:12 Yahweh’s testing is but a prelude to the good things that “come after.” According to H. W. Wolff (Anthropology of the Old Testament, 1974, 88), the word ‘ah“rit has theological implications for the Hebrew conception of time. He suggests that humankind experiences time as does a rower of a boat who moves into the future backwards: “He reaches his goal by taking his bearings from what is visibly in front of him; it is in this revealed history that for him the Lord of the future is attested.” 2. The word may also mean “after” in a logical sense, as in Prov 23:32, which

states that the “aftereffects” of excessive wine drinking bite like a serpent (“at the last,” so NRSV). The “aftereffects” of infidelity with a loose woman are similar, because “in the end” (‘ah®rit) she is bitter as gall (Prov 5:4). 3. ’ah“rit carries the nuance “posterity” in Ps 109:13 and Dan 11:4, and “remnant” in Num 24:20; Amos 4:2; 9:1, and Ezek 23:25. ’ah®rit refers to those children or descendants who come “after(wards)” (e.g., the descendants of the wicked in Ps 109:13, or those left in the wake of destruction, Amos 4:2; 9:1).

4. ’ahrit can be rendered “end” in the sense of “the future” in some contexts. For example, “surely there is a future [’ah“rit], and your hope will not be cut off’ (Prov 23:18, NRSV), or Isa 46:10, where God declares “the end from the beginning” (i.e.,

“from the beginning I foretold the future,” JB). M. Dahood (Proverbs and Northwest Semitic Philology, 1963, 48-51) argues on the basis of Ugar. parallels that ’ah“rit (used in conjunction with tigwd, hope) referred to the “future life” or “afterlife” in Prov 2308s 24: 14 (chs Urea l2 282 20:20), 5. Additionally, ’ah“rit may be understood as the “end” or “conclusion” of a transaction or event in a chronological sense (as in death, Num 23:10; a court case, Prov 25:8; or future historical events, Isa 41:22), or spatially as “outermost, farthest” (as “the farthest limits of the sea,” Ps 139:9).

6. Finally, the phrase ’ah*rit hayyamim, the end of days, sometimes constitutes a technical expression for future time (Ezek 38:16; Dan 2:28; 10:14; Hos 3:5; cf. Isa

2:2; Mic 4:1). According to some, the phrase connotes those “latter days” when God fulfills the prophecies concerning the restoration of Israel, the judgment of the nations, and the establishment of the messianic kingdom. End, cessation, outcome: > ’ah“rit (end, outcome, #344); > ’ps (cease, come to an end, # 699); > btl (cease working, # 1060); > gmr (be at an end, cease, fail, # 1698); > hdl I (end, stop, #2532); > swp (come to an end, # 6066); > sara I (stopping, #6239); > gés (end, limit, boundary, # 7891); > qsh I (bring about the end, shorten, # 7894) BIBLIOGRAPHY

ISBE 2:19; TDOT 1:207-12, THAT 1:110-17; TWOT 1:34; W. Brueggemann, “The Earth Is the Lord’s: A Theology of Land and Earth,” Sojourners 15, 1986, 28-32; R. Gordis, “Studies in Hebrew Roots of Contrasted Meanings,” JOR 27, 1936, 33-58.

Andrew E. Hill

345 (’“hdrannit, backwards), > # 336 362

DN(#351) 351 ANE

DON

ON (at I), depressed mood, depression (# 351).

Compare the Arab. t’t’, bend.

OT 1. The adv. ’af occurs 5x in the MT. The NIV reads “be gentle/gently” in 2 Sam 18:5; Job 15:11; and Isa 8:6, “slowly” in Gen 33:14, and “meekly” in 1 Kgs 21:27. The derived meanings for ’at make good sense in context except for 1 Kgs 21:27, where the NRSV more accurately translates “dejectedly” (note the literalness of the JB, “walked with slow steps”). 2. Although HALAT cites depressed or disheartened spirit as possible meanings for the series of Heb. terms, in no instance does the NIV render any of the words with the translation “depressed, depression, disheartened spirit.” Depression, discouragement: ~ ’at I (depressed mood, depression, #351); > z‘p II (look pitiful, # 2407); > k’h (be disheartened, frightened, # 3874); > khh I (become expressionless, colorless, be disheartened, # 3908); > mwg (melt, reel, waver, lose courage, # 4570); > mss (waste away, melt, dissolve, lose courage, #5022); — sir‘d (depression, discouragement,

# 7667); > rph (become slack, lose heart, discourage, # 8332); > Syh (melt away, be in despair, # 8863) Andrew G. Hill

353

TUN

“08 ('atad), thornbush (# 353).

ANE In Akk. the term etidu occurs. There are also cognates in Mand., Eth., Syr. (see HALAT 34).

OT 1. Inthe parable of Jotham, the ’atad “thornbush” represented Abimelech (Judg 9:14). Zohary states: “The most reasonable suggestion is to identify ’atad with Ziziphus spinachristi (or Ziziphus lotus), as these plants are fairly common in the northern part of Israel, especially on the eastern slopes of the adjacent plains of Samaria, where Jotham related his ‘parable of the trees’ to the people” (154). Other scholars identify ’atad with the Rubus genus, a thorny and prickly plant (e.g., Moldenke). Zohary points out the possibility that the ’atad “thornbush” may be what is in mind in Matt 27:27-29 and John 19:5. 2. While the meaning of Judg 9:14 is still problematic, ’a@tdd is used as a collective for thorns in a context of imminent judgment in Ps 58:9[10] (W. VanGemeren, “Psalms,” EBC, 1991, 5:408). 3. Finally, it occurs in the place name: goren ha’atad, threshing floor of Atad.

(Gen 50:10). Thornbush, nettle, sting, thistle, thorn: > ’dtdd (thornbush, # 353); > bargon (thorn, brier, # 1402); > deber II (thorny sting, # 1823); > dardar (thistle, # 1998), > hédeg (brier, # 2537);

+ héah I (thorn, #2560); > m®sakd (thorn hedge, #5004); > na‘“siis (thornbush, bush, #6106); ~ sillén (thorn, #6141); > s“neh (thorny shrub, > sirpad (stinging nettle, # 6252); > se’‘lim (thorny lotus, # 7365); > s“ninim (thorns, > qos 1 (thornbush, #7764); > gimmds (weeds, nettles, #7853); — sek (thorn, # 8493); > Samir I (Christ’s thorn, # 9031) > sird (thorny

# 5848); #6174); # 7564); splinter,

363

DDN (#356) BIBLIOGRAPHY

H. and A. Moldenke, Plants of the Bible, 1952, 206; M. Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 1982, 154.

K. Lawson Younger, Jr.

355 (étiin, linen), > #7324

356

DON

EQN (ittim I), nom. ghosts, ghosts of the dead, spirits (# 356).

ANE_ A loanword from Akk. etimmu, spirit of the dead, ghost (CAD 4:397-40).

OT This word occurs only in Isa 19:3: “The Egyptians will lose heart, and I will bring their plans to nothing; they will consult the idols and the spirits of the dead, the mediums and the spiritists.” It is included in a list of forbidden practices associated with paganism and idolatry strictly forbidden by Israel’s law (Lev 19; Deut 18). Spirit, ghost, demon: > ’6b II (medium, spiritist, necromancer, ghost, #200); > ’ittim I (ghosts, ghosts of the dead, spirits, #356); — Jilit (night monster, night creature, # 4327); > ‘@7q’zél (Azazel, demon, scapegoat, # 6439); > si II (desert dweller, crier, yelper, wild beast, #7470); — rfiah (wind, breath, transitoriness, volition, disposition, temper, spirit, Spirit, # 8120); > r“pa’im I (shades, departed spirits, # 8327); > sa ‘tr III (satyr, goat demon, goat idol, # 8539); > Séd (demon, # 8717) Mantic, divination: > ’aSSap (conjurer, #879); > bad V (diviner, #967); — hbr (engage in astrology, #2042); — hartom (soothsayer priest, #3033); > yidd* ‘dni (soothsayer, #3362);

> kaSdim (Chaldeans, astrologers, #4169); > /h¥ (conjure, whisper, #4317); > nhs I (practice divination, # 5727); > spp I (whisper, chirp, # 7627); > gsm (practice divination, # 7876) M. V. Van Pelt/W. C. Kaiser, Jr.

357

ODN

D2QN (tm), q. stop up, close; hi. idem (hapleg. Ps 58:4[5], but HALAT and GKC 63n take this as an

unusual q.) (# 357).

OT 1. In Ps 58:4[5], wicked rulers and judges are likened to a cobra that has stopped its ears and refuses to hear the tune of the snake charmer. The rulers and judges of this psalm are beyond hearing the truth that could dissuade them from their injurious behavior, however eloquently it may be articulated. This vb. is also used for the closing of lips (Prov 17:28) and ears (Prov 21:13; Isa 33:15). 2. Four times this vb. (in the pass. part.) refers to closed, close-latticed, or “nar-

row” windows (see NIV) in the temple, or in Ezekiel’s vision of the new temple (1 Kgs 6:4; Ezek 41:16). Closing, shutting: > ’tm (stopped up, #357); > ’tr (close [mouth], #358); > gwp I (shut, close, # 1589); > thh (besmeared, stuck, shut, # 3220); > tmh (stopped up, # 3241); > n‘TI (tie,

lock, # 5835); > sgrI (shut, close, deliver up, #6037); #6781);

> ‘sm III (shut one’s eyes, #6794);

> stm (stop up, #6258);

> ‘sh I (shut,

> srr I (bind, shut up, be narrow,

in straits,

distress, # 7674); > gps I (draw together, shut, #7890); > 5‘ I (smear, smooth, shut, # 9129) Window: > hallén (window, # 2707) Bill T. Arnold

364

“WON(# 358)

358

sDN

“DN (tr), q. close the mouth

(hapleg. in. Ps

69:15[16]) (# 358).

OT

The psalmist prays that God will not allow the pit to close (te’“tar, q. impf.) its

mouth over him, that he will know God’s “sure salvation” (Ps 69:13-15[14-16]). Closing, shutting: — ’tm (stopped up, #357); > ’tr close, # 1589); > thh (besmeared, stuck, shut, # 3220); lock, #5835); > sgr I (shut, close, deliver up, # 6037); #6781); > ‘sm III (shut one’s eyes, #6794); > srr distress, # 7674); > gps I (draw together, shut, # 7890);

(close [mouth], #358); > gwp I (shut, > tmh (stopped up, # 3241); > n‘II (tie, — stm (stop up, # 6258); > ‘sh I (shut, I (bind, shut up, be narrow, in straits, > ¥‘ I (smear, smooth, shut, # 9129) Bill T. Arnold

360 (ittér, left-handed), > # 3338

361 (’é, where), > Particles 362 (71, coast, island, shore), > Nations

363 (7 IL, jackal?), > #9478 365 (7 Il, [a cry]), > Particles 366

>N

3"N (yb), q. be an enemy (# 366); D°8 (dyed),

| q. part. enemy, foe (#367); TA’ (ébd), nom. enmity, hostility (# 368); perhaps 3'°N (iyyéb), personal name, Job (>). ANE The root ’yb is well attested in ANE literature. The Akk. ayyabu, enemy, occurs in letters, historical, omen, and literary texts to designate individual and national enemies (CAD 1:1:222-24; AHw, 23-24). Ugar. ib, enemy (< ’yb; UT, 144), turns up in some letters (KTU 2.33.10, 17, 29; 2.39.31) as well as in the Aghat legend (KTU

1.19.4.58). In the Baal cycle ib appears parallel to srt, foe (KTU 1.2.4.8; 1.3.3.37), Snu, one who hates (KTU 1.4.7.35, 38), and gm, adversary (KTU 1.10.2.24); all refer to enemies of Baal. ’yb is found in a Canaanite gloss (ibi) in the Tell el-Amarna Tablets (EA

129:96; 252:28); and perhaps in Pun., though the context is highly uncertain (DNWSI, 44). Depending on reconstruction, ’yb may also appear in Lachish ostraca 67 (cf. DCH 1:205). OT 1. The vb. ’yb occurs 283x in the OT; 1x as a q. pf. (Exod 23:22), and the other 282x as q. part. The vb. is found 54x in the Pent. (13x in Lev 26; 25x in Deut, including 8x in ch. 28); 93x in the historical books; 57x in the Prophets (19x in Jer; 15x in Lam); 5x in the Wisdom books; and 74x in the Ps.

2. The vb. ’yb denotes hatred and active hostility on the part of a person or group of persons (e.g., a nation) directed towards an individual, group, or nation. Active hostility is evident in the single occurrence of ’yb occurs as a finite vb.: If Israel remains faithful, Yahweh promises: “I will be an enemy (’yb) to your enemies (’dyéb) and will oppose (srr) those who oppose you (sérér)” (Exod 23:22). The ensuing con-

text makes clear that this threat entails destroying Israel’s enemies. The one other instance where ‘yb functions as a vb. (though participial in form; cf. GKC §116f), it

365

2S (# 366) marks the turning point in Saul’s relationship with David: “(Saul) remained (David’s) enemy (’dyéb) the rest of his days” (1 Sam 18:29). The following chs. narrate Saul’s

many attempts to kill David. The remaining 281 occurrences are q. subst. parts., ’6yéb (pl. ’dy*bim), lit., one who is an enemy. The signified sense is invariably “being an enemy”; as such it is a subst. in the fullest sense (as opposed to, e.g., Soné’, one who hates, which can be a temporary characterization; cf. IBHS §37.2b).

3. There are several words in the same semantic domain of ’dyéb with whichit occurs, the most frequent being sar II, nom. adversary, foe (17x: Num

10:9; Esth 7:6;

Ps 13:4[5]; 27:2; 72:9 [emending siyyim, desert nomads, to sardw, his foes; cf. BHS, NRSV]; 74:10; 81:14[15]; 89:42[43]; Isa 1:24; 9:11[10]; 59:18; Lam 1:5; 2:4, 17; 4:12: Mic 5:9[8]; Nah 1:2; > #7640); sdrér II, part. adversary, foe (Exod 23:22; Ps 8:2[3]; > #7675); Sone’ (< $n’), part. one who hates (16x: Lev 26:17; Num 10:35;

Deut 30:7; 2 Sam 22:18, 41 [= Ps 18:17[18], 40[41]]; Esth 9:5, 16; Ps 21:8[9]; 35:19; 38:19[20]; 55:12[13]; 68:1[2]; 83:2[3]; 106:10; > #8533); gwm, part. those who rise up against (Deut 28:7; 2 Sam

18:32 [with /°ra‘a, for evil]; Job 27:7; Ps 18:48[49];

59:1[2]; > #7756); and rasa‘, wicked (5x: Job 27:7; Ps 3:7[8]; 17:9; 37:20; 55:3[4]; > #8401). These terms, however, are not entirely synonymous. For example, rasa‘ normally designates those who because of their wicked actions stand under God’s judgment, while ’6yéb most often represents external enemies. ’Oyéb is also found in antithesis with terms such as rea‘, neighbor (Lam 1:2); ’ohab, friend (Judg 5:31); ‘érek, (one’s) equal; ’allip, companion; and m°yudda‘, close friend (pu. part. < yd‘, to know; Ps 55:13[14]).

4. Outside the Psalter (see sections 9-13 below for the Ps), ’Oyéb occurs most often in reference to national enemies of Israel (126x: 39x in the Pent. [13x in Lev 26; 22x in Deut]; 38x in the Prophets [13x in Lam; 13x in Jer]; 49x in the historical books).

The foes are identified as foreign nations, gdyim (Neh 5:9; 6:16); foreigners, b°né-nékar (Isa 62:8); the enemies of Israel, ‘6y°bé yisra’él (2 Chron 20:29); and the

enemies of the Jewish people, ‘dy°bé hayy*hiidim (Esth 9:1). The enemies occasionally refer to unspecified foreign nations, esp. in paraenetic, legal, and liturgical texts (e.g., Deut, the covenant curses in Lev 26, Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple in 1 Kgs 8 [= 2 Chron 6]). In historical books, and to a lesser degree prophetic texts, however, the enemy nation is often identified. Thus, e.g., the Moabites (Judg 3:28; 1 Sam 12:10; 2 Chron 20:27, 29); Ammonites (2 Chron 20:27, 29); Philistines (1 Sam 4:3; 12:10; 14:30; 2 Sam 3:18; 19:9[10]; Isa 9:11[10]); and Babylon (Jer 20:4, 5; Mic 4:10) are all identified as Israel’s enemies. On occasion, individuals are also identified as enemies of Israel, e.g., Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 44:30b) and Haman (Esth 7:6).

5. ’dyéb is employed 48x to refer to personal enemies. It is found 40x referring to the enemies of the king (and consequently the nation) or of a leader of Israel (31x; predominantly in the historical books). For example, it stands for the enemies of the patriarch Judah (Gen 49:8); Jephthah (Judg 11:36); Ahab (referring to Elijah, 1 Kgs 21:20); Zedekiah (Jer 21:7; 34:21); Solomon (1 Kgs 3:11; 1 Chron 22:9); as well as

Saul (4x: referring to the Philistines in 1 Sam 14:24, 27 [along with other nations]; 18:25 [’dy°bé hammelek, the king’s enemies]; and David in 1 Sam 19:17). It is used

25x in reference to David’s enemies (including 6x in 2 Sam 22 = Ps 18)—both foreign nations (e.g., 1 Sam 20:16; 2 Sam 5:20; 7:9, 11 [= 1 Chron 14:11; 17:8, 10; respec-

tively]; 7:1; 1 Chron 21:12); and personal enemies, including Saul (1 Sam 18:29;

366

=

(# 366)

24:4[5]; 26:8; cf. 2 Sam 4:8). It also occurs 8x in reference to an individual’s relationship to personal enemies; e.g., the enemies of Hannah and Job (1 Sam 2:1; Job 27:7); as well as an indefinite enemy in legal texts (Exod 23:4; Num 35:23). Prov 16:7 notes

that “when a man’s ways are pleasing to the LORD, he makes even his enemies live at peace with him”; while 24:17 enjoins: “Do not gloat when your enemy falls.” 6. In 25x ’dyéb is used in reference to the enemies of Yahweh. In the face of his suffering, Job asks Yahweh: “Why do you ... consider me your enemy?” (Job 13:24; 33:10). Isaiah portrays Yahweh as a warrior who will “triumph over his enemies” (Isa 42:13; cf. 59:18; 66:6, 14; Nah 1:2, 8). Whether stated explicitly or understood implicitly, the enemies of Israel are Yahweh’s enemies (cf. Exod 15:6, 9; 1 Sam 30:26 [’dy°bé yhwh]; 2 Sam 12:14). Moreover, it is Yahweh who leads Israel into battle and fights for them and gives them rest (cf. Num 10:21, 35; Deut 6:19; 20:4; 23:14[15]; 25:19; 33:27; Josh 10:19; cf. 10:25; 2 Kgs 17:39; 2 Chron 20:29). From the very begin-

ning Yahweh promises Israel that if they listen to him and do all that he says, then he will be an enemy to their enemies (Exod 23:22). Conversely, if Israel is disobedient and unfaithful, then Yahweh will cause them to be defeated by their enemies (Deut

28:7, 25, 48; cf. 2 Kgs 21:14). The threat was realized in the period of the judges (Judg 2:14), and ultimately in the Babylonian exile (Jer 17:4; etc.). Yahweh is said to have become Israel’s enemy and fought against them because they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit (Isa 63:10). Similarly, one reads that the Lord had become “like an enemy” (‘6yeb) to Israel and had bent his bow “like an enemy” (Lam 2:4-5). The prophets also looked to a day, however, when Yahweh would bring back his scattered people from the land of their enemies (Jer 31:16; Ezek 39:27). 7. Oyéb may also at times refer to the enemies of a foreign ruler and/or his people (10x) as when Balak refers to Israel his enemies (Num 23:11; 24:10), or when the Philistines speak of Samson as their enemy (Judg 16:23-24). In speaking of foreign nations God often promises to bring judgment on the nations by means of their enemies; so, e.g., Yahweh will give Pharaoh Hophra into the hands of his enemies (b°yad ’dy°baw; Jer 44:30) and will shatter Elam before their enemies (Jer 49:37; cf. Nah Bel /G13): 8. On three occasions ’6yéb is employed euphemistically in order to avoid a direct imprecation on David (1 Sam 20:16; 25:22) or Yahweh (2 Sam 12:14). The MT in 2 Sam

12:14 reads, “However,

since you [i.e., David] spurned the enemies of the

Yahweh [’dy“bé yhwh] by this deed ...”; this likely represents a softening of the expression: “since you spurned Yahweh by this deed.” Many argue that in these cases ’Oyéb is a late addition, though it is not impossible that the euphemistic expression derived from the authors themselves (see R. Yaron, “The Coptos Decree and 2 Sam XII 14,”

VT9, 1959, 89-91). 9. Of the 74x that ’dyéb is attested in the Ps (including 1x in the superscript of Ps 18), it refers most frequently to the psalmist’s enemy in individual laments (36x: Ps 3:7[8]; 6:10[11]; 7:5[6]; 9:3[4], 6[7]; 13:2[3], 4[5]; 17:9; 25:2, 19; 27:2, 6; 31:8[9],

15[16]; 35:19; 38:19[20]; 41:2[3], 5[6], 11[12]; 42:9[10]; 43:2; 54:7[9]; 55:3[4], 12[13]; 56:9[10]; 59:1[2]; 61:3[4]; 64:1[2]; 69:4[5], 18[19]; 71:10; 102:8[9]; 139:22;

143:3, 9, 12). ’dyeb also occurs in royal psalms (15x: 18:3[4], 17[18], 37[38], 40[41], 48[49] [for a discussion of the genre of Ps 18 cf. Kraus, Psalms 1-59, 257-58]; 21:8[9]; 45:5[6]; 72:9; 89:10[11], 22[32], 42[43], 51[52]; 110:1, 2; 132:18); communal laments

367

2°(# 366) (6x: 44:16[17]; 74:3, 10, 18; 80:6[7]; 83:2[3]); wisdom psalms (including Torah and didactic psalms; 6x: 37:20; 78:53; 119:98; 127:5); hymns (5x: 8:2[3]; 66:3; 68:1[2], 21[22], 23[24]); individual thanksgiving songs (4x: 30:1[2]; 92:9[10] [2x]; 138:7); liturgies (81:14[15]); and psalms of mixed genres (106:10, 42). 10. In addition to the designations noted in sec. 3 above, in the Psalter the ene-

mies are referred to as foes, S6rér (Ps 27:11; 54:5[7]; 56:2[3]; 59:10[11]; > # 8806); evildoers, po “lé ’awen (59:2[3]; 64:2[3]; 92:9[10]); deceitful, mirmda (43:1; 55:23[24]; cf. 10:7); evildoers, m®ré‘im (27:2; 64:2[3]); bloodthirsty, ’ansé damim (55:23[24]; 59:2[3]; 139:19); wicked traitors, bog°dé ’awen (59:5[6]; cf. 25:3); violent, ’i¥ hamas (18:48[49]); fierce, ‘azim (59:3[4]); as well as a deadly enemy, ’dy*bay b©nepe§S (lit., “enemy of [my] soul”; 17:9; cf. 38:19[20]). The actions of the enemies are consonant with their appellations: they hate the psalmist with a violent hatred, sn’ (25:19 [with hamas]); often without reason (with Seger in 38:19[20]; 69:4[5]; hinnam in 35:7, 69:4[5]). Further, they actively pursue and persecute the psalmist, rdp (7:1[2], 5[6]; 31:15[16]; 35:3; 69:26[27]; 71:11; 143:3); rise up against him, gwm (3:1[2]; 59:1[2]); conspire against him, gwr II (56:6[7]; 59:3[4]); oppress him, /hs (42:9[10]; 43:2; 106:42); and want to destroy him, smt (69:4[5]). They are pictured as armed for attack with a bow and flaming arrows (7:12-13[13-14]; 37:14-15; cf. 11:2); and as hunters who have hidden nets and dug pits into which they often fall themselves (7:15[16]; 9:15[16]; 35:7-8; 38:12[13]; 57:6[7]; 64:5[6]). They are likened to dogs who snarl and prowl about the city looking for food (59:6[7], 14[15]; cf. Ps 22); lions lying in wait to devour their prey (7:2[3]; 10:9; 17:12; 35:17; 57:4[5]); wild animals, hayyét (74:19); as well as a wild boar that takes at will from the unprotected vine (80:13[14]). In regards to their speech they taunt (Mrp) the psalmist (42:10[11]; 44:16[17]; 55:12[13]; 74:18; 89:51[52]; 102:8[9]; 119:42); speak with malice (41:5[6]); and utter curses, ’ala (10:7; 59:12[13]; cf. 102:8[9]), lies, kahas (59:12[13]), and false accusations (69:4[5]); while their mouths are likened to swords (59:7[8]; 64:3[4]; cf. 57:4[5]).

11. The psalmist’s invectives are startling at times (cf. esp. Ps 109; 137). In response to the hostile actions of the enemies, the psalmist asks God not to let his enemies triumph over him (25:2; 35:19), but to rise and deliver him from his enemies (3:1[2]; 7:6[7]; 9:19[20]; 17:13; 143:9). He implores God to strike them on the cheek and break their teeth (3:7[8]), to slay them (139:19), and to destroy them (143:12).

More often than not, the psalmist entreats God to respond in kind to his enemies. This underscores the psalmist’s desire to see justice served in accordance with the deut. theology of retribution. It is also important to note that these laments were articulated from a low level of existence, i.e., “out of the depths” (130:1; cf. Gerstenberger, 1982,

67). The psalmist turns his concern to God,-to whom vengeance rightly belongs. In many cases the psalmist is at the mercy of his enemies, and his only recourse is prayer (Zenger). Similarly, on a national scale Israel was often at the mercy of the surrounding hations. In both instances Yahweh’s intervention provides the only hope (cf. Scharbert, 221). 12. The identity of the enemies in the Psalms is the subject of some debate. In communal laments the enemies are clearly foreign nations: they are called gentile nations, gdyim (Ps 44:2[3], 14[15]); peoples, ‘ammim (44:14[15]; 74:18); peoples, l’'ummim (44:2[3]); and neighbors, 3“kendt (44:13[14]; 80:6[7]); and they are even

listed by name (83:6-8[7-9]). Similarly, the king’s enemies in royal psalms—which by 368

=” (# 366) i

A

extension are also the nation’s enemies—are

identified as foreign nations, goyim

(18:43[44]); peoples, ‘ammim (18:47[48]); and foreigners, b°né nékar (18:44[45], 45[46]). Though both types refer. to national foes, they have different emphases: the

communal laments picture the nations as violent aggressors who have scattered the nation (44:10-14[11-15]) and defiled Israel’s holy places (74:3-4); while the royal psalms either celebrate Yahweh’s subjugating of the enemy (18; 21) or look towards their future defeat by Yahweh (45; 72; 110; but cf. 89). With the individual laments the identification of the enemies is even more problematic. Like the royal psalms and communal laments, the enemies are at times equated with foreign nations, gdyim (9:5[6], 15-20[16-21]; 56:7[8]; 59:5[6], 8[9]); peoples, ‘ammim (7:8[9]; 56:7[8]); an ungodly nation, gdy 16’-hdsid (43:1); and strangers, zarim (54:3[5]; but cf. NRSV). There are also a number of passages that appear to refer to illness that the enemy either caused or of which he took advantage (Ps 6; 38; 102); to prosecutors who have unjustly accused him (69:4[5]); or to individuals that

used to be close acquaintances of the psalmist but have turned against him (35:11-16; 41:5-9[6-10]; 55:12-14[13-15]). Most often, however, the enemy is a personal enemy who poses a real (or perceived) threat to the psalmist; at times the enemy seems more

than human—almost diabolical. 13. Scholars have expressed a wide variety of opinions concerning the identity of the enemies in the individual laments. Critics have identified them as political and religious rivals in second temple Judaism, either from within (Rahlfs) or without (Duhm; Puukko); self-righteous neighbors and the rich and powerful (Gunkel); sorcerers (Mowinkel,

2:1-30); gentile nations (Birkelard; Hobbs & Jackson); the result of

psychological projection (Keel, 78-100); prosecutors (Schmidt); or some combination thereof. Recent attempts have also been made to understand the enemies in light of socioeconomic realities within Israelite society, stressing that enemies may often be from within the same group (Gerstenberger, 1988, 30-34; Rogerson; Sheppard). Most of these studies either attempt to define the enemy too rigidly by singling out one identification (e.g., Rahlfs; Duhm; Puukko; Mowinkel; Birkeland; Schmidt), or too loosely

by blurring semantic categories like the distinction between ’dyéb and rasa‘ (Gerstenberger; Sheppard; Rogerson). The use of stereotypical language and a number of valid identifications makes it clear that no one identification is possible or desirable (cf. Anderson; Dhanaraj; Kraus; Miller). In fact, tying the identification of the enemies too

closely to any one particular group, category, or type of person moves in the opposite direction of the canon, which allows an openness for the present day application of these psalms (see Miller, 34). 14. The nom.

’@bd, enmity, hostility, occurs ca. 5x in the OT. It is used to

denote the hostile disposition or enmity between the woman and the serpent (Gen 3:15), and the unending hostility (’@bat ‘6lam) between the Philistines/Edomites and

Israel (Ezek 25:15; 35:5, respectively; perhaps also the enmity of the nations for the returning exiles in Ezra 3:3, if b°’émd, terror, is emended to b°’éba, enmity; cf. BHS). It also occurs 2x in the laws concerning the cities of refuge, to distinguish between intentional (b°’ébd, with hostility; || b°sin’d, with hatred) and unintentional (b“/o’-’ébd, without hostility) killing—the latter allowing the culprit to flee to a city of refuge, the former requiring his death (Num 35:21-22).

369

=’(# 366) 15. The etymology of the name Job, ’iyydb, is unclear. Traditionally it has been derived from the participial form of ’yb, with either an active sense, i.e., the hostile one; or a passive sense, i.e., object of enmity. It has also been linked to the Arab. ‘awwab, he who turns (to God), i.e., penitent one. While the name is not attested else-

where in Heb., the name is attested in a number of WestSem. texts with the meaning “Where is my father?”—the most likely meaning for the biblical name Job (BDB; HALAT; see D. Clines, Job 1-20, 1989, 10-11).

P-B_ The part. ’dyéb is almost always rendered in the LXX by echthros, enemy (ca. 20 exceptions), while the nom. ’ébd is translated 3x by echthra, enmity (Gen 3:15; Num 35:22; Ezek 35:5[?]), and 1x by ménis, wrath (Num 35:21).

The substantive ’wyb appears ca. 50x in the nonbiblical manuscripts from Qumran, with over half occurring in 1QM, predominantly in the laws concerning warfare in cols. 2-14 (24 of 27x). In 1QpHab 9.10 the wicked priest (hkwhn hr‘) is said to have been delivered into the hands of his enemies (byd ’wybyw) because of his actions against the Teacher of ee The nom. ’ybh is used to describe Esau’s hostility for Jacob in 1QJub? 1.2 (Jub 35.9) and the unending enmity (ybt ‘wlm) between truth and injustice in 1QS 4.17.

NT _ echthros, enemy, occurs 32x in the NT. It designates personal (Rom 12:20; Gal 4:16) and national enemies (Luke 19:43); enemies of the cross (Acts 13:10; Phil 3:18); the devil (Matt 13:39; Luke 10:19; cf. T. Dan 6:3); and even death (1 Cor 15:26). Jesus’ command to love one’s enemies is set in contrast with a command to hate one’s enemy (Matt 5:43-44). The source of the command to hate one’s enemy may be a regulation of the Qumran community (e.g., 1QS 1.3, 10-11; 2.4-9), though, given the series of OT citations in its context (e.g., Matt 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38) it is more likely a free quotation of an OT passage, perhaps Ps 139: 21-22 (contra NIDNTT 1:554). According to Paul, unreconciled humans are enemies of God (Rom 5:10; Col 1:21). The nom. echthra, enmity, is found 6x in the NT. It is used to signify the enmity between Pilate and Herod (Luke 23:12); the sinful mind and God (Rom 8:7; cf. James

4:4); and Jews and Gentiles before Christ effected reconciliation on the cross (Eph 2:14, 16). Animosity, enmity, hostility: > ‘yb (be an enemy, # 366); > srr II (be hostile, # 7675); > stm (hate, # 8475); — Satan (accuser, satan, # 8477); > sn’ (hate, one who is an enemy, # 8533);

> S6rér (adversary, # 8806); > Animosity: Theology BIBLIOGRAPHY

NIDNTT 1:553-57; TDNT 2:811-16; TDOT 1:212-18; THAT 1:118-22; G. Anderson, “Enemies and Evildoers in the Book of Psalms,” BJRL 48, 1965-66, 18-29; H. Birkeland, The Evildoers in

the Book of Psalms, 1955; S. Croft, “The Antagonists in the Psalms,” in The Identity of the Individual in the Psalms, 1987, 15-48; D. Dhanaraj, Theological Significance of the Motif of Enemies in Selected Psalms of Individual Lament, 1992; B. Duhm, Die Psalmen, 1922; E. R. Ger-

stenberger, “Enemies and Evildoers in the Psalms: A Challenge to Christian Preaching,” HBT 4/2, 1982, 61-78; idem, Psalms, Part 1: With an Introduction to Cultic Poetry, 1988; H. Gunkel

& J. Begrich, Einleitung in die Psalmen: Die Gattungen der religiésen T. Hobbs & P. Jackson, “The Enemy in the Psalms,” BTB 21, 1991, 22-29; ism of the Biblical World, 1985; H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 1-59: A Commentary, of the Psalms, 1992; P. Miller, “Trouble and Woe: Interpreting Biblical

370

Lyric Israels, 1933; O. Keel, The Symbol1988; idem, Theology Laments,” Interp 37,

WS # 369) a a ae

es NS

Sa

even

sa

ee a

ee

re

1983, 32-45; S. Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, vol. 2, 1962; A. Puukko, “Der Feind in den alttestamentlichen Psalmen,” OTS 8, 1950, 47-65; A. Rahlfs, ‘Ani und ‘anaw in den

Psalmen, 1892; J. Rogerson, “The Enemy in the Old Testament,” in Understanding Poets and Prophets: FS George Wishart Anderson, ed. A. G. Auld, 1993, 284-93; J. Scharbert, “Enemy,”

Bauer Encyclopedia of Biblical Theology, 1970, 220-24; H. Schmidt, Das Gebet der Angeklagten im Alten Testament,

1928; G. Sheppard, “‘Enemies’

and the Politics of Prayer in the

Book of Psalms,” in The Bible and the Politics of Exegesis, 1991, 61-82; E. Zenger, Vengeance? Understanding the Psalms of Divine Wrath, 1996.

A God of

Tyler F. Williams

367 (dyeb, enemy), > # 366 368 ('éba, enmity), > # 366

369

TS

“VS (éd), disaster, calamity (# 369).

ANE The etymology of ’éd is uncertain. Usually an unattested root ’fid is assumed, but the hypothetical root ’aid or ’ayid has also been suggested. Another possibility is Akk. edi, inundation. See further THAT 1:122-23.

OT The nom. ’éd occurs 24x, all in poetry with the exception of Ezek 35:5. The phrase “day of disaster” (y6m ’éd) is found 8x and can refer to the execution of God’s vengeance on his enemies (Deut 32:35; Job 21:30) and on his people (Obad 13), and a time of great trial for the believer (2 Sam 22:19, par Ps 18:18[19]). Similar usages are found with ’éd alone (e.g., respectively, Jer 48:16; Ezek 35:5; Job 31:23). Cf. further McCarter, “River Ordeal,” 403-12, esp 409. Destruction, annihilation, devastation, disfigurement, ruin: ~ ’bd I (perish, #6); > ’éd (disaster, #369); — blq (devastate, #1191); > dmh IU (ruin, #1950); > dmm II (perish, # 1959); > hrs (demolish, # 2238); > hbl If] (treat badly, #2472); > hig Ill (destroy, # 2746); > ht’ (be destroyed, #3148); > klh (be complete, perish, destroy, # 3983); > krt (cut, cut off, exterminate, cut a covenant, circumcise, #4162); > mhh I (wipe off, wipe out destroy, # 4681); > nsh II (fall in ruins, # 5898); > nts (break up, #5995); > nts (tear down, # 5997); > nt¥ (root up, pull down, destroy, #6004); — p’h (dash to pieces, #6990); ~ pid (ruin, misfortune, #7085);

~ prr

(break,

invalidate,

nullify,

frustrate,

foil, thwart,

#7296);

> sdh II (be

devastated, #7400); — rzh (destroy, waste away, #8135); > Sdd (devastate, #8720); — Sht (become corrupt, ruin, spoil, #8845); > smd (be exterminated, destroyed, #9012); > tablit (annihilation, # 9318) BIBLIOGRAPHY NIDNTT 1:462-71; THAT 1:122-25; P. K. McCarter, “The River Ordeal in Israelite Literature,” HTR 66, 1973, 403-12; M. Saebg, “Die hebraischen Nomina ’ed und ’ed: zwei Sumerisch-

Akkadische Fremdwéorter,” ST 24, 1970, 130-41. Cornelis Van Dam

370 (‘ayyd, black kite), > #7606 372 (’ayyé, where), > Particles 374 (izebel, Jezebel), > Jezebel

371

SN(# 380) a

a

eS ee

ee

377 ('ékd, how, where), > Particles 379 (kaka, how, where), ~ Particles

380 28 nom. strength (hapleg. # 384); M1

ANE

PLN (ayil I), nom., ram; man/wielder of power; chief, leader, great one (#380); PN (yal), 7"N(“yaliit), strength, power (hapleg. # 394).

Cognates of ’ayil I are found in Ugar., 31; Akk., (y)alu; Egyp., ’iir (= Canaanite

él; Heb. ’ayil). Cognates of ’*yal occur in Syr., ’iyala’, help, aid, assistance, succor,

support; and in Arab., wa’l, refuge, shelter; recourse. The Syr. word ’iyyaluta, help, aid, assistance, succor, support, is a cognate of valit.

OT

1. The word ’ayil I occurs often with the meaning ram (Gen 22:13; 31:38;

32:14[15]; Deut 32:14; 2 Kgs 3:4; Isa 60:7; Ezek 34:17; 39:18). Immediately after a

last-minute intervention restraining Abraham from slaying his beloved son Isaac, upon whose life depended the fulfillment of the divine promise, providence supplied a ram as a burnt offering (Gen 22:13). This act of substitution forms the climax of a “monstrous test” (Crenshaw, 1984, 19-29; cf. Maher, 131), when Abraham was required to prove his unwavering loyalty, unflinching obedience, unshakable faith, and unconditional love of Yahweh, “whose demands are absolute, whose will is inscrutable, and whose final word is grace” (Clifford, 25; on divine testing, see Crenshaw, 1971, 77-90; Westermann, 356; Brueggemann, 188-94; Moberly, 40-43). Some (e.g., Dummelow, 30; Bennett, 237; Simpson, 645; Crenshaw, 1984, 25-26, 28; cf. Hooke, 192; Kselman, 100; Clifford, 26) think that the main aim of Gen 22 was to indicate that, far from demanding human sacrifice, Yahweh abhorred it. However, Peake (1920, 154) considers this view to be a modern expedient for making the narrative more palatable. He argues that Isaac was saved, not because human sacri-

fice was repugnant to God, but because the purpose of the test had been fulfilled and the consummation of the sacrifice had become unnecessary. Peake (1920, 154) and

others (e.g., Marks, 18) think that the original story may have been told to explain the substitution of human with animal sacrifice at some cultic center. However, Speiser (165) and R. Davidson (93) consider the narrative far from satisfactory as a protest

against human sacrifice, and Gibson (1982, 110) maintains that to view Gen 22 as an antiquarian tale that originated to account for the change from human to animal sacrifice is to read the story with blinkers on. Even if the central thrust of the original story was to justify the repudiation of child sacrifice, clearly this material has been appropriated and refashioned to illustrate Abraham’s obedience and God’s provision (cf. Herbert, 53; Von Rad, 238, 243-45; Coats, 161-62; Brueggemann,

191-94; Maher, 132).

Several commentators (e.g., Davies, 197; Brueggemann, 186) stress that the present narrative deals with much more difficult issues than the exchange of animal for human sacrifice. The images of the father willing to sacrifice his son and the son yielding himself up to do the father’s will is a vindication of Abraham’s faith. Further, it prefigures the vicarious death of God’s own Son (cf. Rom 8:32; see Kline, 99; cf. Hooke, 193; for a brief examination of some Jewish and Christian interpretations of

Gen 22, see Moberly, 91-101). (> Genesis: Theology)

3V2

SN(#380) 2. ’ayil I is used figuratively in several passages with the meaning mighty one/great one/chief/leader/powerful man. (a) Yahweh’s guidance of Israel into the land of Canaan caused consternation and panic among the indigenous peoples, including “the leaders [RSV; NRSV; NEB; REB; NIV; Durham, 1987, 200]/princes [JB]/mighty men [TEV] of Moab” (Exod

15:15). Although the same picture of the inhabitants of the land melting with fear is given in Josh 2:9, 24, most of Josh 1-11 is taken up with a description of many military skirmishes in which Canaanites engaged the invading Israelites in vigorous battle (Hyatt, 167).

(b) To impress upon Job his sovereignty over all creation, Yahweh describes how, as with a plaything, he sports with Leviathan, the great sea monster, which inspires terror even in the ’@lim (Job 41:25[17]). Here, the translation “gods” for ’élim is favored by Pope (1979, 336, 344), NRSV, and Habel (226-27; cf. Gibson, 1985,

254). However, if the following v. refers to human attempts to capture and/or destroy the terrifying aquatic creature, then it seems preferable to take MT ’@/im as a defective writing of ’élim (Driver and Gray, 2:342) and to translate “strong men” (NEB; REB), “the strongest” (TEV), “the mighty” (Driver, 125; Driver and Gray, 1:368; RSV; NIV; Hartley, 529), or “the mightiest heroes” (Hartley, 533). Some (e.g., Dhorme, 639; JB)

split up the following word, miSS°barim (at the crashing), into miXb°ré yam, the waves of the sea, and change ’élim to gallim, billows (an emendation rejected by Pope, 1979, 344). In contrast, Giesebrecht (cited by Dhorme, 640; Peake, 1905, 341; Strahan, 344;

Driver and Gray, 1:368; 2:343), and translates “the valiant are dismayed in face of his

teeth.” (c) In 597 BC, after Jerusalem had been besieged and Jehoiachin surrendered to

Nebuchadrezzar, the members of the upper echelons of the city’s population, including the royal family, the king’s officials, “and the chief men [RSV]/foremost men [NEB; REB}/leading men [NIV; TEV]/elite [NRSV; Hobbs, 344]/notables [Cogan and Tadmor, 310, 312; cf. Gray, 761]/nobles [Montgomery and Gehman, 555]/nobility [JB] of the land” (w°’ét ’éw/é [usually emended to ’élé] ha’ Gres) were deported (2 Kgs 24:15). Although most commentators emend MT ’éwié to ’élé, with Q, many (e.g., BDB,

17-18; Gray, 761; Hobbs, 345) think that K may preserve the original root of the word with medial w (to be first, foremost). In another reference to Nebuchadrezzar’s removal of the cream of society (Ezek 17:13), the construction ’@lé ha’Gres is to be translated “the powerful of the land” (Brownlee, 256). In both 2 Kgs 24:15 and Ezek 17:13, ’ayil I almost certainly refers to community or provincial leaders who may have been landowners (Jones, 637). The removal of the experienced and acknowledged leaders was designed to create political weakness and social and economic instability (Jones, 638). (d) In a severe indictment of the former, rapacious, and negligent shepherds (i.e., the leaders, particularly royal rulers; cf. 1 Kgs 22:17; Ps 78:70-72; Isa 44:28; 63:11; Jer 2:8; 10:21; 23:1-6; 25:34-38; Mic 5:4-5[3-4]; Zech 11; 13:7; ANET, 159, 178) of Israel (Ezek 34:1-31), there is a pericope (vv. 17-31) warning how Yahweh, who judges between sheep and sheep, rams (’élim) and goats (v. 17), will separate out and punish the overbearing fat and strong sheep in the flock, appoint a Davidide as an

ideal earthly counterpart shepherd (v. 23; cf. 37:24), and ensure that the lean and weak

373

58(#380) sheep (i.e., the common people) are well fed in a peaceful and fertile land (cf. Matt 25:31-46). A. B. Davidson (250) thinks that the third and fourth terms in the series

(“rams” and “goats,” respectively) explain the second word, “sheep.” Wevers (261) considers it probable that the phrase “rams and goats” refers to the people in power in the community. Stalker (244) thinks that the phrase is probably a gloss explaining “fat” (strong) in the previous verse. Mainly on the ground that in the rest of the pericope the judgment is only among the sheep, some consider the reference to rams and goats to be a gloss (Eichrodt, 472-73; cf. May, 254). Allen (156) takes the last two words of v. 17 (la’élim w°la ‘attidim) as the first two words (“You rams and male goats....”) of a new

sentence, which ends with the last word of the following verse. It is not easy to determine the precise meaning of this allegory. Clearly, the oracle reflects conflicts within the community, but which community? It seems unlikely that it is preexilic Judah that is referred to in vv. 17-31 (pace Lofthouse, 259; Hals,

250-51). The fat sheep may refer either to powerful, self-serving and tyrannical leaders of the exilic community (Wilson, 690; Allen, 163), who failed to promote order, jus-

tice, and the protection of the unpropertied and unprivileged, or to those guilty of social, economic, and political exploitation within the postbellum Judean community (Blenkinsopp, 159). The description in Ezek 34 of Yahweh’s beneficent rule as the good shepherd of his people is echoed in the NT (Luke 15:3-7; John 10; Heb 13:20; Peter 2:257Revai/el7).

(e) In a series of oracles against Egypt (Ezek 29:1-32:32), ’ayil I occurs twice, in the phrases ’él g6yim (31:11) and ’élé gibbérim (32:21). In an allegory, the fall of Pharaoh is compared to that of a towering cedar of Lebanon (Ezek 31:1-18) that becomes, by extension, the gigantic world tree whose roots are nourished by the subterranean waters (see, e.g., Blenkinsopp, 137-39) and whose splendor surpasses even that of the majestic trees in God’s garden, thus rivaling God (cf. Gen 11:1-9; see May and Metzger, 1040). Yahweh declares that, as a result of its overweening pride, the tree will be cut down, all the creatures (symbolizing the nations of the world) that sheltered in it will be dispersed, and it will descend to Sheol to rest with those who died untimely, violent, or dishonorable deaths (May and Metzger, 1040; the motif of the great world tree or tree of life, well known in the ANE and in other cultures as well, is

found elsewhere in the OT—Ezek 17:3, 22-24; 19:10-14; Dan 4:4-17[1-14], 19-27[16-24]—and the link between this motif and a descent into Sheol also occurs in Isa 14:1-23).

As the first stage in this process, Yahweh will deliver (RSV; A. B. Davidson, 225; Cooke, 341; May, 235; cf. TEV), or has delivered (JB; NEB; REB; NIV; NRSV; Eichrodt, 422, 424; Wevers, 237; Zimmerli, 143; Allen, 122-23), Egyp. b®yad ’él

goyim (31:11). RSV (cf. Beasley-Murray, 679) translates this phrase as “into the hand of a mighty one of the nations.” NIV reads, “[I handed it over] to the ruler of the nations.” TEV has “[I ... will let] a foreign ruler have it,” and Cooke (341) reads, “[I

will deliver it up] to a heathen chief.” Zimmerli (144), who also accepts that ’y/ is used here metaphorically as leader, translates, “[I have given it] into the hands of a brutal nation.” JB, NEB, REB

and NRSV

translate MT

’é/ gdyim as “the/a prince of the

nations.” It is widely accepted that the mighty one into whose power Egypt has been, or will be, delivered is Nebuchadrezzar. Although directed specifically at Egypt, these passages serve as a salutary warning to all peoples that ideological pride in human 374

SN(# 380) achievement (whether in the economic, political, military, or technological realms) that

ignores the real locus of power and/or that takes precedence over commitment to God is doomed to destruction (cf. Allen, 127; Bunn, 326; Hals, 222).

The theme of the ignominious demise of Egypt and its descent into that part of Sheol reserved for those who suffer dishonorable, violent, or untimely deaths is continued in Ezek 32:17-32. In Sheol, the ’2/é gibbérim either extend a taunting, mocking

welcome to, or caustically comment on the arrival of, the once powerful nation that has come to such an inglorious end (32:21; pace Hals, 228-29). LXX gives a translation of gibbérim only (gigantes, giants), and Zimmerli (165) suggests that ’@/é@ may be a secondary expansion. Some (e.g., Wevers, 246) retain the pointing of MT (’élé gibbérim) and take this to be the pl. of the title ’@/ gibbér, mighty God, found in Isa 9:6[5]. However, even though the emendation of the word to ’é/é is not universally accepted, many take the term to be the masc. pl. const. of ’ayil, ram; leader. The phrase is translated as “the mighty chiefs” (RSV; NRSV); “the mighty leaders” (NIV); “the greatest heroes” (JB; TEV); “the strong heroes” (Zimmerli, 165); “warrior chieftains’ (NEB; REB);

“the lant who tion

leaders of the valiant” (Allen, 133). It may be that these figures, who are the galleaders of other nations slain in battle (corresponding to the kings of the nations lie in glory in Isa 14:18), are here observing from their own more comfortable secof Sheol, the quarters occupied by those who have died in dishonor (Allen, 137).

(f) There is debate about the interpretation of the words w*hiSbatti ’*lilim in Ezek 30:13, part of the same collection of oracles describing the doom of Egypt (29:1-32:32). RSV, NRSV, and NIV (cf. Hals, 213) accept MT and translate, “[I will] put an end to the images [in Memphis, the ancient capital of lower Egypt].” In similar vein, TEV translates ’“/ilim as the false gods. However, LXX omits the clause referring

to idols in v. 13 (w°ha’“badti gillilim, [and] I will destroy the idols) and reads megistanas (= ’élim, rams, leaders) for MT ’“lilim, an approach that is favored by many (e.g., McFadyen, 514; Hyatt, 230; Allen, 112-13). Allen (113; cf. Cooke, 333, 337; Zimmerli, 125) points out that whereas the word ’“/ilim occurs only here in Ezekiel, ’yl(ym) is found 4x in the book (17:13; 31:11; 32:21; 34:17). The suggestion has been made

that the clause w°ha”badti gillilim of MT was inserted as a result of the miswriting of *ylym (Zimmerli, 125, 132; Hossfeld, cited by Allen, 113). Expanding the reference to the idols in the usual terminology of the book of Ezekiel, this clause would then be

making the point that in Egypt it is not only the people who are opposed to the one God of history, but the power of idols as well (Zimmerli, 135). Following G, JB rejects the Heb. ’/ilim and translates, “[I mean to] take the rams away.” However, most of those

who accept the reading of G take ’é/im in the sense of chiefs/leaders/magnates/great ones. NEB translates, “[I will] wipe out the princelings” (although, in a footnote, it suggests “false gods” as an alternative), and REB has “[I shall] wipe out the chieftains.’”” Commentators who offer similar translations include Eichrodt (413, “will put an end to the [strong ones]’’); Hyatt (230, “I will put an end to the chieftains’); Zimmerli (125, “And I shall make an end of the great ones’’); and Allen (112, “I will make an end of rulers’’).

3. There are divergent views about the translation and interpretation of the words b®né ’élim in Ps 29:1 and 89:6[7]. Some (e.g., GKC § 124 q; Kirkpatrick, 148;

Craigie, 242) think that b°né ’élim may be a pl. form of ben-’él (son of God), analogous to bn ’ilm (sons of El; cf. Pope, 1955, 9; Craigie, 242), in which case the phrase should

375

5988(#380) be translated sons of God. Others (e.g., Delitzsch, 1889, 368) take the words to be a

double pl., sons of gods. In Ps 29:1, part of a hymn celebrating Yahweh’s manifestation as king, the words habit layhwh b°né ’élim are rendered in different ways: “Ascribe to Yahweh, ye sons of gods” (C. A. and E. G. Briggs, 1960a, 251; Oesterley, 200; cf. Weiser, 259); “Give unto Jahve, ye sons of God” (Delitzsch, 1889, 366; cf. Kissane, 125; Kraus, 1988, 344); “Pay tribute to Yahweh, you sons of God” (JB); “Ascribe to the Lord,.O sons of God” (Craigie, 242); “Give Yahweh, O gods” (Dahood, 1966, 174-75);

“Ascribe to the Lord, you gods” (NEB); “Give unto the Lord, ye gods” (Buttenwieser, 148); ““Ascribe to the LORD, O heavenly beings” (RSV; NRSV); “Praise the Lord, you heavenly beings” (TEV); “Ascribe to the LORD, you angelic powers” (NEB); “Give

unto the Lord, O ye sons of the mighty” (RV); “Ascribe to the Lord, O mighty ones” (NIV). Albright (295-97) and Dahood (1966, 176) contend that the term b°né ’élim

simply refers to stars. However, most commentators

agree that the reference is to

divine beings (similar phrases are found in Gen 6:2, 4; 1 Kgs 22:19; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 58:1[2]; 82:1, 6) who share the divine nature (but who are subject to Yahweh) and who minister in the heavenly realm (see, e.g., Davison, 149; Dummelow, 340; Addis, 377; Taylor, 154; G. W. Anderson, 419; Eaton, 89; Durham, 1972, 228; M’Caw and Motyer, 469; Kidner, 125; Mays, 135).

The status of these celestial figures was equivalent to that of servants and choristers (C. A. and E. G. Briggs, 1960a, 252; Toombs, 271; A. A. Anderson, 234; Rogerson and McKay, 130; Weiser, 262). These celestial attendants are summoned to ascribe

glory to Yahweh either because the psalmist considered human language inadequate (Weiser, 262; cf. A. A. Anderson, 234) or because a Canaanite prototype was being followed (cf. A. A. Anderson, 234; on the possible background to this psalm, see Craigie, 243-46 and the literature cited there). The term b‘né ’élim was probably borrowed from a Canaanite prototype, but it has been demythologized here and refers to those spiritual beings who are members of Yahweh’s court and who do his bidding (Dahood, 1966, 175; cf. Oesterley, 200; G. W. Anderson, 430). The effect of the com-

mand to the heavenly host to praise Yahweh is to emphasize that he has no equal (A. A. Anderson, 234-35). Some Heb. MSS have ’élim instead of ’élim (see BHS), and this

seems to have been the text presupposed by G huious kridn, young rams (cf. Vg.). However, the context supports MT (cf. Craigie, 242). As in the case of Ps 29:1, the context also supports MT (b°né ’élim) in 89:6[7] and the translation “divine beings” (Tate, 406) or “the heavenly beings” (RSV; NRSV; NIV; TEV; cf. “the heaven-born” [JB]; “the court of heaven” [NEB; REB]). Again, as

in 29:1, the emphasis in 89:6[7] is on the incomparability of Yahweh. 4. The enigma that the God who desires to save and to receive praise can sometimes be experienced by his worshipers as incomprehensibly hostile and deaf to appeals for help in adversity is vividly portrayed in Ps 88 (see, espécially, Broyles, 206-9). In this desperate prayer for deliverance, a tormented, deeply perplexed, and despairing individual who for long has been grievously afflicted and is now close to death (v. 15[16])—as a result, he is convinced, of Yahweh’s inexplicable wrath (vv. 15-16[16-17])—describes himself as a man who has no ’“ydl, (v. 4[5]). RSV, JB, NIV,

Delitzsch (1885, 22, 25), Buttenwieser (584), Dahood (1973, 301, 303), Eaton (217),

Kraus (1989, 190), Tate (394, 396), and Bratcher and Reyburn (764) translate the word

376

ON(# 380) as “strength.” On the other hand, LXX, Syr., BDB, RV, NEB, REB, NRSV,

TEV,

Kissane (405), and McCullough (474) take ’“yal to be an Aram. loanword, “help,” but this is unlikely (see, e.g., Dahood, 1973, 303; Tate, 396). C. A. and E. G. Briggs (1960b, 242, 244, 248) emend ’“yal to él, God, but this does not commend itself. This psalm powerfully portrays the deep perplexity and hopelessness generated by spiritual and physical dereliction. Nevertheless, prayer continues to be the psalmist’s lifeline (Tate, 405). Although engulfed by unrelieved anguish, overwhelmed by sorrow, shunned by his companions (v. 8[9]), and despairing of ever being granted relief from what he firmly believes to be divinely induced torment, this psalmist continues to turn to God, asking him to rescue him from the realm of death (Kirkpatrick, 524, 529; G. W. Anderson, 432; McCullough, 473; Durham, 1972, 350; M’Caw and Motyer, 506; Kraus, 1989, 195; Tate, 405).

5. Godforsakenness is also the theme of another earnest prayer for deliverance from mortal distress (Ps 22), in which an individual pleads with God not to remain distant but to hasten to his aid (v. 19[20]). The psalmist refers to God as ’*yalit? (v. 19[20]), which is translated “my strength” by JB, NIV, Delitzsch (1889, 302, 321), Buttenwieser (589), Kissane (97), Weiser (217, 224), and Kraus (1988, 291). (cf.

Bratcher and Reyburn, 222). This translation is to be preferred over “my help” (RSV; NRSV; NEB; REB; Craigie, 195; cf. Oesterley, 177; Kidner, 42, 108); “hind” (C. A. and E. G. Briggs, 1960a, 189, 191, 197, 204, who think that ’“yalit may originally have been ’ayyelet, as in v. 1); and “my army” (Dahood, 1966, 137, 141, who, follow-

ing Ginsberg, draws a parallel with UT, Krt:88). As in the case of Ps 88, the petitioner in Ps 22 is in the uttermost depths of suffering, close to death, and reduced to utter

despair; yet even the uttermost desolation of the soul caused by the experience of extreme affliction, the evil of human beings, and the apparent abandonment by God does not deter him from appealing to Yahweh for deliverance. P-B

The following nom. forms occur: “yal, ’“yayl (superiority, patronage, arbitra-

tion); ’ayil, ’ayil (ram [the strong]; a species of locusts); Heb.

’ayyal, and Aram.

‘ayyala’, ’ayyayla’, ’ayy‘la’ ([the climber], hart); ’é/a’, ’ay°yla’ (beak of a ship [a beam

to which

a ram’s head was

attached], prow; projection from a lateral wall,

buttress; name of a worm or mite in grapes; ‘ila’ (pr. n. m., Ila); ’ayyala, ’ayyayld, ’ayyeylet (hind, roe; the first rays [climber] of the morning dawn) (Jastrow 1:48). Power, strength: > ’abir (strong, powerful, #51); > ’6n I (generative power, strength, # 226); > ’ayil I (man of power, #380); > él IV (strength, power, #445); > ’ms (be strong, strengthen, be superior over, #599); > ’dpiq II (strong, #693); > ’S¥ (take courage, # 899); > gbr (accomplish, excel, swell, rise, be strong, # 1504); > dobe’ (strength, # 1801); > zimra

II (strength, # 2380); > hzg (be strong, overpower, support, seize, #2616); > hayil (capacity, power, property, # 2657); > hasdn (strong, # 2891); > ykl (able, endure, be victorious, conquer, # 3523); > ysr II (strengthen, #3580); > kabbir (strong, # 3888); > koah I (strength, power, possession, means, # 3946); > kellah I (maturity, full vigor, # 3995); > m®’dd (power, might,

# 4394); > ma’“mas (exertion, #4410); > ng (overtake, be able to, afford, appear, #5952); > ‘zz (be strong, defy, show a shameless, #6451); > ‘sm I (be mighty, vast, numerous, make strong, # 6793); > tgp (overpower, # 9548) BIBLIOGRAPHY W. E. Addis, “The Psalms,” in Peake, 1920, 366-96; W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process, 2d ed., 1957; L. C. Allen, Ezekiel 20-48,

377

SN(# 380) 1990; A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms. Volume 1: Introduction and Psalms 1-72, 1972; G. W. Anderson, “The Psalms,” in Peake, 1964, 409-43; G. R. Beasley-Murray, “Ezekiel,” in NBC, 1972, 664-87; W. H. Bennett, Genesis, CB, n.d.; J. Blenkinsopp, Ezekiel, Interp, 1990; R. G. Bratcher and W. D. Reyburn, A Translator’s Handbook on the Book of

WBC,

NCBC,

Psalms, 1991; C. A. and E. G. Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms. Vol. I, 1CC, 1960 (1960a); idem, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of

Psalms. Vol. II, 1CC, 1960 (1960b); W. H. Brownlee, Ezekiel 1-19, WBC, 1986; C. C. Broyles, The Conflict of Faith and Experience in the Psalms: A Form-Critical and Theological Study, 1989; W. Brueggemann, Genesis, Interp, 1982; J. T. Bunn, “Ezekiel,” in BBC, 1972, 6:223-371; M. Buttenwieser, The Psalms Chronologically Treated With a New Translation, 1969; R. J. Clifford (and R. E. Murphy), “Genesis,” in NJBC, 1990, 8-43; G. W. Coats, Genesis With an Intro-

duction to Narrative Literature, FOTL,

1983; M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, IJ Kings:

A New

Translation With Introduction and Commentary, AB, 1988; G. A. Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel, 1CC, 1967; P. C. Craigie, Psalms 1-50, WBC,

1983;

J. L. Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict: Its Effect Upon Israelite Religion, 1971; idem, A Whirlpool of Torment: Israelite Traditions of God As an Oppressive Presence, 1984; M. Dahood, Psalms I: 1-50. Introduction,

Translation, and Notes, AB, 1966; idem, Psalms II: 51-100. Introduction,

Translation, and Notes, AB, 1973; A. B. Davidson, The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, With Notes and Introduction, CBSC, 1892; R. Davidson, Genesis 12-50, CBC, 1979; G. H. Davies, “Genesis,” in BBC, 1970, 1:101-304; W. T. Davison, The Psalms I-LXXII, CB, 1904(?); F. Delitzsch,

Biblical Commentary on the Psalms. Volume 1, KD, 1889; idem, Biblical Commentary on the Psalms.

Vol. III, KD, 2d ed., 1885; E. Dhorme,

A Commentary

on the Book of Job, 1967;

S. R. Driver, the Book of Job, 1906; S. R. Driver and G. B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Book of Job Together With a New Translation, ICC, 1964; J. R. Dummelow, ed., A Commentary on the Holy Bible, 1909; J. I. Durham, “Psalms,” in BBC, 1972, 4:153-464; idem, Exodus, WBC,

1987; J. H. Eaton, Psalms:

Eichrodt, Ezekiel:

Introduction

and Commentary,

Torch,

1972; W.

A Commentary, OTL, 1970; J. C. L. Gibson, Genesis. Volume 2, DSB, 1982;

idem, Job, DSB, 1985; J. Gray, J & II Kings: A Commentary, OTL, 2nd ed., 1970; N. C. Habel, The Book of Job, CBC, 1975; R. M. Hals, Ezekiel, FOTL, 1989; J. E. Hartley, The Book of Job, NICOT, 1988; A. S. Herbert, Genesis 12-50: Introduction and Commentary, Torch, 1962; T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, WBC, 1985; S. H. Hooke, “Genesis,” in Peake, 1964, 175-207; J. P. Hyatt, Exodus, NCB, 1971; G. H. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings. Volume II: 1 Kings 17:1-2 Kings 25:30, NCBC, 1984; D. Kidner, Psalms 1-72: An Introduction and Commentary on Books I and II of the Psalms, TOTC, 1979; A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms, CBSC, 1957; E. J. Kissane, The

Book of Psalms Translated From a Critically Revised Hebrew Text With a Commentary, 1964; M. G. Kline, “Genesis,” in NBC, 1972, 79-114; H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 1-59: A Commentary, 1988; idem, Psalms 60-150: A Commentary, 1989; J. S: Kselman, “Genesis,” in HBC, 1988, 85-128; W. F. Lofthouse, Ezekiel, CB, 1907; L. S. M’Caw and J. A. Motyer, “The Psalms,” in NBC,

1972, 446-547; W. S. McCullough (et al.), “The Book of Psalms,” in JB, 1955, 4:1-763; J. E. McFadyen, “Ezekiel,” in Peake, 1920, 501-21; M. Maher, Genesis, OTM, 1982; J. H. Marks, “The Book of Genesis,” in The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, 1971, 1-32;

H. G. May, “The Book of Ezekiel: Introduction and Exegesis,” in JB, 1956, 6:39-338; H. G. May and B. M. Metzger, eds., The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1973; J. L. Mays, Psalms, Interp, 1994; R. W. L. Moberly, Genesis 12-50, OTG, 1995; J. A. Montgomery and H. S. Gehman,A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings, ICC, 1967; W. O. E. Oesterley, The Psalms Translated With Text-Critical and Exegetical Notes, 1959; A. S. Peake, Job, CB, 1905;

378

SON(# 382) idem, “Genesis,” in Peake, 1920, 133-67; M. Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, 1955; idem, Job: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 3d ed., 1979; G. von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary,

OTL, 3d ed., 1972; J. W. Rogerson and J. W. McKay, Psalms 1-50, CBC, 1977; C. A. Simpson, “The Book of Genesis: Introduction and Exegesis,” in JB, 1952, 1:437-829; E. A. Speiser, Genesis: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 1964; D. M. G. Stalker, Ezekiel: Introduction and

Commentary, Torch, 1968; J. Strahan, The Book of Job Interpreted, 1913; C. Stuhlmueller, Psalms I (Psalms 1-72), OTM, 1985; M. E. Tate, Psalms 51-100, WBC, 1990; W. R. Taylor (et al.), “The Book of Psalms,” in JB, 1955, 4:1-763; L. E. Toombs, “The Psalms,” in The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, 1971, 253-303; A. Weiser, The Psalms: A Com-

mentary, OTL, 1965; C. Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A Commentary, 1985; J. W. Wevers, Ezekiel, NCBC, 1969; R. R. Wilson, “Ezekiel,” in HBC, 1988, 652-94; W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel Chapters 25-48, Hermeneia, 1983. Robin Wakely

381 (ayil II, mighty tree), > #461, Vegetation

382

oN

5° (’ayil ID), nom. doorpost, jamb (# 382).

OT This architectural feature is described once in connection with the entrance to Solomon’s inner sanctuary (1 Kgs 6:31) and repeatedly in Ezek 40-41 in connection with the temple envisioned there. Other than its association with door (delet), no further detail is available to enable a more precise definition of this feature. NY

2"NIDNTT 229-31!

Door,

gate,

threshold:

~ ’ayil (doorpost,

#382);

> ’omnda

(pillar?,

doorpost?,

#595);

> b®riah (bar, # 1378); > delet (door, # 1946); > Jal (trapdoor, # 4294); > m°ziizd (doorpost, # 4647);

> miptan (threshold, #5159); — masq6p (lintel, #5485); # 6214); > sirI(door pivot, #7494); > Sa‘arI (gate, #9133)

> spp (lie at threshold,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 3:230-33; E. Wiirthwein, Die Biicher der Konige 1: Konige 1-16, ATD, 1977. Richard S. Hess

384 (’“yal, strength), > #380

385/387

Sony

n

Sox PN ayyall’ayyala), deer (# 385/387).

ANE In Akk., aydlu is one of several terms for deer as early as the Old Babylonian period (CAD A, 225). Assyrian kings like Adadnirari II (911-891 BCE) and Assurnasirpal II (883-859 BCE) hunted and stocked ayalu-deer in magnificent wildlife preserves throughout their empire (Budge and King, 203 4, 42; Messerschmidt and Schréder, II 84, 127). In the Epic of Gilgamesh, ayalu-deer join with several other wilderness animals in collectively lamenting the death of Enkidu, the friend of Gilgamesh (ANET 506 viii 10). At Ugarit, the cognate term is ’ayl. Deer are mentioned in the Ugar. texts as traveling in herds (KTU 1.5 i 17), as animals worthy of being sacrificed to Baal (KTU 1.6 i 24), in personal names (bn ’ayl, UT 2117:14), and in place-names

(ayly, UT 2026:2). In Mesopotamia, deer are little more than food (ANET, 92, v, 32),

379

SOS/T DONG 385/387) though a few medical texts from Assyria mention ground-up deer-horn as a medicinal drug (Thompson, 4, 6, 8).

Ancient Israel teemed with several species of deer and gazelle. Though species OT were found as late as the 1880’s in Galilee (Tristram, 4), today they are practically extinct (Whitehead). The primary word in BH for deer is ’ayyal(a; ’ayyelet) (Cervus capreolus, Deut 12:22; Ps 42:1[2]), a term sometimes poetically paralleled to s“bi(yd), gazelle (Gazella dorcas, S of Songs 2:9, 17; 8:14) and ya “1/4, mountain goat (Ibex

rupicapra, Prov 5:19). One also finds it in priestly lists alongside terms like zemer, mountain sheep (camelopardalus, Deut 14:5), and yahmir, roe deer (bubalus, 14:5). The OT refers to deer both literally and metaphorically. Because deer belong to the category of clean animals, Israel was allowed to eat them (Deut 14:5; 15:22), but nowhere are they mentioned as fit for cultic sacrifice (contrast KTU 1.6 1 24). In more literary contexts, the deer (or hind) becomes a common metaphorical symbol (cf. Gen 49:21, ‘““Naphtali is a doe set free that bears beautiful fawns”’). The psalmist’s intense spiritual longing is likened to a deer panting after streams of water (Ps 42:1[2]; read

k®’ayyelet ta“rog for MT’s k°’ayyal ta“rog, the first taw dropping out through haplography; for related spiritual hunger imagery, cf. 63:1-2[2-3]; 107:9; see also Isa 44:3; for ‘rg, cf. Joel 1:20, with the image of desperately thirsty animals during a drought, again with ’“pigé mayim, watercourses, although in Joel it is to the Lord that the animals long or cry out). Isa 35:5-6 prophesies in vivid terms that when God’s kingdom comes in power, “then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped. Then will the lame leap like a deer (’Gz y“dallég ka’ ayyal pisséah), and the mute tongue shout for joy. Water will gush forth in the wilderness and streams in the desert.” The healings will thus be dramatic and spectacular, climaxing with the image of a bounding, leaping deer, a picture well known to the prophet’s audience. 2 Sam 22:33-34

Il Ps 18:32-33[33-34], part of a triumphant warfare context,

takes up a related figure: “It is God who arms me with strength and makes my way perfect. He makes my feet like the feet of a deer [expressed tersely in Heb. as, “he makes my feet like the deer’’]; he enables me to stand on the heights.” This image is taken up in Hab 3:19, “The Sovereign LORD is my strength; he makes my feet like the feet of a deer [again, the Heb. is what Keil, (KD

10/2:115), calls “‘a contracted simile”], he

enables me to go on the heights,” in spite of the hopeless conditions that surround the prophet in the natural realm—famine, drought, and loss of livestock. This is the stance of victorious faith. For Prov 5:19, see ya “la, # 3607.

P-B_

The rabbis extend this metaphorical usage. The first rays of the morning, for

example, are called ’ylt hShr (lit., the “deer of the dawn”; i.e., “the thing which climbs

up the dawn,” BTalm Yoma 29a; cf. Ps 22:1[2]). In the Elephantine papyri, Ahigar tells a parable in which a leopard and a deer are personified and actually speak to each other (A. Cowley, 216, line 118). Still, nowhere in ancient Heb. literature are deer mythologized (to the extent found as in, e.g., native

North American myth: J. Bruchac,

G. C. Clutesi, E. C. Deloria), and never are they deified (as in ancient Siberian myth: Jacobson). Deer, gazelle: > ’ayyal/’ayyala (deer, # 385/0387); > zemer (gazelle, # 2378); > yahmir (roebuck, # 3502); > ya‘él I/ya “ld I (ibex, # 3604, 3607); > ‘dper (fawn of a gazelle, deer, # 6762);

> sbi Il/s°biya (gazelle, # 7383, 7386)

380

Des (# 398) BIBLIOGRAPHY J. Bruchac, The Faithful Hunter: Abnaki Stories, 1988; E. A. W. Budge and L. W. King, The

Annals of the Kings of Assyria, 1902;A.Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C., 1923; G. C. Clutesi, Son of Raven, Son of Deer, 1967; E. C. Deloria, Deer Women and Elk Men, 1992; E. Jacobson, The Deer Goddess of Ancient Siberia, 1993; L. Messerschmidt and O. Schro-

der, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur historischen Inhalts, 1922; R. C. Thompson, Assyrian Medical Texts 1923; H. B. Tristram, The Fauna and Flora of Palestine, 1884; G. K. Whitehead, The

Whitehead Encyclopedia of Deer, 1993. Michael S. Moore/Michael L. Brown

389 ('ayyalén, Aijalon), > Aijalon

394 (’°yalit, strength, power), > #380

shi OT

5;

rie

ON‘

(’ayom),

(# 398),

adj. terrible, awesome,

majestic

The Heb. adj. ’@ydm occurs only 3x in the OT. It is probably related to the fem.

nom. ’émd, terror, dread (> # 399). The threat of the Chaldean nation is described as

“feared and dreaded’ (Hab 1:7). More positively, the lovely maiden of the S of Songs is twice described as being as “majestic as troops with banners” (S of Songs 6:4, 10). In all three instances, the nuance of visible astonishment is present. The metaphorical expression in the S of Songs accurately reflects the more concrete use of Hab 1:7. Fear, dread, terror:

~ ’ayom (terrible, awesome, majestic, #398); — ’émd (terror, dread, # 399); > bhi (be dismayed, terrified, dismay, terrify, hasten, hurry, # 987); > b‘t (overtaken by sudden terror, stupefied, be terrified, assail, # 1286); > gwr ILI (be afraid of, dread, stand in awe, # 1593); > d’g (be anxious, concerned, fear, dread, # 1793); — zhl II (fear, be afraid, # 2324);

~ hrd (tremble, shudder, startle, # 3006); — htt (be shattered, dismayed, terrified, scare, terrify, #3169); — yer (fear, dread, terror, # 3336); > yr’ I (fear, be afraid, held in honor, # 3707); +> yrh (be afraid, terrified, paralyzed with fright, # 3724); > ‘rs (be alarmed, terrified, dreadful, dreadful, be in terror, # 6907); > phd I (tremble, be in dread, #7064); > qws I (feel disgust,

frighten, cause dread, # 7762) M. V. Van Pelt/W. C. Kaiser, Jr.

399

ANE

mel

MS

(ema), terror, dread (# 399).

This nom. occurs only in BH and Jewish Aram. There are no known occur-

rences in other cognate languages. It is, therefore, most likely an original Heb. forma-

tion and thus its meaning is difficult to ascertain etymologically (TDOT 1:219). The nom. ’émé occurs 17x (esp. Job, 6x) and is generally defined as fear or that OT which is to be feared. The use of ’@md can be divided into two basic categories: (1) to depict a time or period of terror (Isa 33:18), or more frequently, (2) to depict terror that is produced by a wonder or astonishment that is typically unexpected (TDOT 1:220). The onslaught of a locust swarm or the teeth of Leviathan are two good examples of such causes of terror (Job 39:20; 41:14).

381

MEN (# 406) 1. A period of judgment can be characterized as terrible. Contained within the Song of Moses is the prediction of the unfaithfulness of God’s people and the subsequent judgment, “in their homes terror will reign” (Exod 15:16 NASB). Terror may result from an unjust socioeconomic condition, as in Isa 33:18, “Your heart will medi-

tate on terror: ‘Where is he who counts? Where is he who weighs? Where is he who counts the towers?’” (NASB). In both instances terror is the result of divine judgment brought about by the disobedience of God’s people. 2. The very presence of God produces terror amidst those who witness such a manifestation. The dream-theophany of Abraham in Gen 15, notable for the presence of God, resulted in “thick and dreadful darkness [NASB, “terror and great darkness”’]

(Gen 15:12). The presence of God in war against Israel’s enemies (Exod 15:16; 23:27; Josh 2:9) and even against Israel herself (Deut 32:25) is also depicted as terrible. In addition to God’s presence, terror is also used to wea the fear of other, potentially hostile, people groups (Ezra 3:3). 3. The nom. ’émd is used in association with the sudden threat of death. “A king’s wrath [terror] is like the roar of a lion; he who angers him forfeits his life” (Prov 20:2). On two occasions the book of Psalms records such a condition in the form of a lament: “My heart is in anguish within me; the terrors of death assail me” (Ps 55:4[5]), and “From my youth I have been afflicted and close to death; I have suffered your terrors and am in despair” (Ps 88:15[16]). Job laments his condition of despair in similar terms (Job 9:34; 13:21). The above instances share in common a general despair for untimely death. Fear, dread, terror:

~ ’ayom (terrible, awesome,

majestic, #398);

> ’émd (terror, dread,

# 399); > bhi (be dismayed, terrified, dismay, terrify, hasten, hurry, # 987); > b‘t (overtaken by sudden terror, stupefied, be terrified, assail, # 1286); > gwr III (be afraid of, dread, stand in awe, # 1593); > d’g (be anxious, concerned, fear, dread, # 1793); — zhi II (fear, be afraid, # 2324); > hrd (tremble, shudder, startle, # 3006); > hit (be shattered, dismayed, terrified, scare, terrify, # 3169); > yer (fear, dread, terror, #3336); > yr’ I (fear, be afraid, held in honor, # 3707);

> yrh (be afraid, terrified, paralyzed with fright, # 3724); > ‘rs (be alarmed, terrified, dreadful, dreadful, be in terror, # 6907); > phd I (tremble, be in dread, # 7064); > qws I (feel disgust, frighten, cause dread, # 7762) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 1:219-21; TWOT 1:37; D. McCarthy, “Some Holy War Vocabulary in Jos 2,” CBQ 33, 1971, 228-30. M. V. Van Pelt/W. C. Kaiser, Jr.

401 (ayin, no, there is no), > Particles

406

=D ON MD" (épa), nom. an ephah, a capacity measure a of approximately 10 liters (preexilic), or 36 liters (postexilic) (#406); NS (bar I), nom. a bath, a capacity measure of approximately 22 liters (preexilic), or 36 liters (postexilic) (# 1427); 1 (hin), nom. a hin, a capacity measure of approximately 3.66 liters (preexilic), or 6 liters (postexilic) (# QV25); ela (homer III), nom. an assload, a homer, a capacity measure of approximately 100 liters (preexilic), or 360 liters (postexilic) (# 2818); ID (kdr), nom. a kor (identical measure

382

MEN(#406) of the homer) (# 4123); ply)(Jog), nom. log, a capacity measure of approximately .31 liters (preexilic), or .5 liters (postexilic) (# 4253); qn? (létek), nom. a letek, a capacity measure of approximately SO liters (preexilic), or 180 liters (postexilic) (# 4390);

MAVW (m°sira), nom. an unknown measure (# 5374); MIND (s°’4), nom. a seah, a Capacity measure of approximately 6 liters (preexilic), or 12 liters (postexilic) (# 6006); 32 (‘omer II), nom. an omer, a capacity measure of approximately 1 liter (preexilic), or 3.6 liters (postexilic) (# 6685); =\- (gab), nom. a kab, a capacity measure

of approximately 1 liter (preexilic), or 2 liters (postexilic) (# 7685). ANE The bath occurs only in Heb.; the hin is a loanword from Egyp. into Heb., Ugar., and Syr.; the Jog also appears in Ugar., Aram., and Syr. For the original dry measures: the hdmer occurs in Ugar. and is a WestSem. loanword into Akk.; kor is a Sumerian loanword into Akk., then into Heb.; the /étek appears in Ugar. and Akk.; the

’épa apparently is an Egyp. loanword into Heb.; the Heb. and Aram. s°’d is related to the Akk. situ; occurs only in Heb., biblical and Mishn.; the gab is also an Egyp. loanword (gabb). OT Understanding of biblical measures has increased greatly over the last two hundred years; yet one should still exercise much caution. The ancients themselves were probably not excessively precise in their measures as compared to modern practices. Moreover, ancient societies had various measuring norms, probably reflecting local customs (cf. the American gallon and the British imperial gallon; the land mile and the nautical mile). Indeed, caution should not only be exercised in determining the capacity or length of a measure, but also in using the mention of a particular measure in a passage to draw certain literary conclusions (e.g., the existence of a redactor or some perceived source) or to conclude other factors (e.g., the date or provenance of the passage). M. Powell (ABD 6:898-905), for instance, asserts that OT passages mentioning the s°’d probably reflect Babylonian influence, and that Gen 18:6, in particular, probably reflects postexilic redaction. Powell’s claims, however, are clearly contradicted by seventh- and eighth-century Heb. inscriptions—without the influence of Babylon or a redactor—that mention the s°’4 (Aharoni, Arad Inscriptions 55:4; 56:2; 60:1, 2; and

especially, 75:1, 7). In fact, these inscriptions suggest that the seah probably existed for centuries in Israel before the eighth century. While there still exist many problems, thus the need for caution, the understanding of biblical measures is quite good, and it will only improve. Israel derived their measures of capacity from Egyptian (hin, ’épa, gab), Mesopotamian (s°’4, kor), and WestSem. (homer, lég, etc.) sources. This may explain why

ancient Israel had a hybrid system, including decimal and sexigesimal measures. These measures

generally take their names

from containers, e.g., the ’épd basket in Zech

5:6-10 (cf. Eng., cup, bushel, etc.). Originally, these measures were probably divided into liquid measures (bat, hin, log) and dry measures (homer/kor, létek, ’épda, s°‘a (2), ‘omer, gab); however, at least by the late seventh or early sixth century (Aharoni, Arad Inscriptions, 2:5; cf. Ezek 45:10-14) Israel began to merge their liquid and dry mea-

sures into one system of measure. Biblical and postbiblical sources furnish information concerning ratios between the measures of capacity. Exod 16:36 states that an ‘Omer is a tenth of an ’épda; Ezek

383

MEPS# 406) 45:11 makes an ’épé a tenth of a homer. The Mishnah (Menahot 7:1) defines the sa as a third of an ’épd. The Vulgate translation of Hosea 3:2 explains the /étek as a half of a homer, consistent with the BTalm. (Sebu‘ot 43a; Baba Mesi‘a 80a, b). The Jerusalem

Talmud (Termot 47b) equates the gab to four log and twenty-four /6g to a s*‘d; thus, a gab is a sixth of a s°‘d. This renders the following ratios for dry measures: one one one one one

homer equals letek equals seah equals omer equals kab equals

homer 1 5 .033 O1 .006

letek 2 1 .066 02 .013

ephah_ 10 5 eye i .06

seah 30 15 1 .303 wh7

omer 100 50 oe 1 5

kab 180 80 6 1.8 1

For liquid measures, the Mishnah (Kelim 17:11; Menahot 9:2-3; see Segre, 365 n 22) implies that the /6g is a twelfth of a hin, and Josephus (Ant. 3.8.3 § 197; 3.9.4 § 234)

equates six hins to one bat.

one bath equals one hin equals one log equals

bath 1 lig .014

hin 6 1 .08

log Te, 12 1

Israel began to combine these systems, probably during the monarchical period (Aharoni, Arad Inscriptions 2:5). Moreover, by the exile, the ’@pd and the bat were merged (Ezek 45:11), as were the kor and homer.

one one one one one one one one

hom/kor equals letek equals eph/bath equals seah equals hin equals omer equals kab equals log equals

hom/kor 1 S __.1 3 02 O1 .006 001

let eph/bath ») 10 1 5 VW. 1 BOTS oo OS. Ao OD wicgel OL wo» .055 003.01

seah 30 15 3 1 s 3 sk DAs

hin omer kab _ log 60 100 180 720 30 50 90 ur» 360 6.74/)L0 LS casera ART patO, 24 1 LeTyies 12 6% of LB ty. Ted) heodtsayp-op (Yt + KOS Alay 25 ni J

Calculating the precise capacity of these measures or estimating their modern equivalents is always problematic. The BTalm, for instance, clearly recognizes three different norms for measures of capacity: the measure of the wilderness (the biblical or Mosaic measure); the measure of Jerusalem, which exceeded the wilderness measure by a sixth, the measure of Sepphoris, which exceeded the Jerusalem measure by a sixth (‘Erubin 83a, cf. Mish. Menahot 7:1; Segre, 362). Moreover, the Talmud suggests that there were other regional variations (Hullin 12b). The OT itself also suggests competing norms of measure for biblical Israel. Deut 25:13-16 speaks of substituting a small ’épa for a large ’épd. Ezek 45:11 may reflect the realigning the capacity of the bat to the capacity of the ’épd. Archeological data also confirms varying biblical capacity norms in Albright’s discovery of eighth-century containers with the inscriptions bt and bt imlk (bath and royal bath); thus there may have been standard and royal baths. Josephus, whose testimony of biblical measures is contradictory at times, mentions 384

MEN(#406) capacities of baths that are almost twice the size of Albright’s “royal bath.” Biblical Israel, therefore, may have had a standard, royal, and double bath! Certainly, various norms of capacity may explain laws against the unscrupulous who exploit the unsuspecting by selling them a small ’épé for the price of a large ’épd (Deut 25:14). Differing norms of capacity also occur in Mesopotamian measures of capacity (RLA 7 § IV 5, 498; § IV A. 3, 500, etc.). From the present evidence, assuming that the ratios remained constant, one can

approximate the capacity of biblical measures probably with a +5 percent (and sometimes more) margin for error (so Powell, ABD 6:899). W. F. Albright (AASOR, 21-22, 1941-43, 58-59) determined that eighth-century vessels from Tell Beit Mirsim marked bt (bath) and bt Imlk (the royal bath) contained approximately 22 liters. This agrees with Powell’s estimation of the bath size from the record of the molten sea in 1 Kgs 7:23-26; 2 Chron 4:2-5, which he calculates as 23 (+4) liters. If one accepts a preexilic bath as 22 liters, the hin would then be 3.66 liters, the Jog, .31 liters. Josephus (Ant 3.8.3 § 197), on the other hand, states that a hin is equal to two Attic choes (one Attic

choe equals six Attic xestes; one xestes equals a half liter), thus making the bath equal to 36 liters, the hin 6 liters, and lég .5 liter. The difference between Albright’s 22 liter

bath and Josephus’ 36 liter bath may reflect competing norms within biblical Israel, hence a double bath, or it may reflect the difference between preexilic and postexilic norms (so Powell, ABD 6:903). The same may also be true of capacity measures that were originally dry. Powell (ABD 6:903-4) compellingly argues that Exod 16:13-36 (especially v. 16) describes an Omer of manna as a daily ration during Israel’s wilderness wanderings. If this daily ration corresponds to the daily ration throughout Mesopotamian history, then the 6mer would be approximately one liter, thus making the homer 100 liters, the ’épdé 10 liters. Josephus (Ant 9.4.5 § 85), again by contrast, in

making the sé’ 12 liters, would be suggesting a 360 liter for the homer. To best harmonize the evidence, perhaps one should accept most of Josephus’ evidence as referring to the exilic/postexilic period and Albright’s evidence as referring to the preexilic period. During the exilic period, Israel realigned measures of capacity to Babylonian standards, as the Jews later adjusted their measures to Attic standards (Segre, 362) by doubling the Late Babylonian capacities (except for the panu, which equaled the ’épa/bat). Liquid Measures (Preexilic) bath 22 liters hin 3.66

Dry Measures (Preexilic) homer 100 liters letek 50

log

ephah

10

seah omer kab

eue E: 1 555

eit

Liquid/Dry Measures (Postexilic) 360 liters homer/kor letek 180

ephah/bath seah hin

36 12 6

Late Babylonian 180 liters kurru

panu sutu

36 6

385

MEN #406) omer kab log

3.6 2 mS)

qu

1

These measures of capacity are found in significant theological and literary contexts. For example, these measures are commonly used in sacrificial contexts that indicate the ardor God has for his own worship. God does not leave these details to human predilections: he carefully prescribes the proportions of flour and oil for an acceptable sacrifice. Sinful man must not presume to worship God in his own manner. Moreover, God employs these measures to teach ethical truths by commanding a just ephah and bath. Indeed, this principle of honesty is applicable not only for weights and measures but also for all our dealing, which should be without fraud or misrepresentation. These measures also make a text more graphic by supplying lifelike detail. For instance, when the Arameans starved the city of Samaria (2 Kgs 6:25), a half liter (kab) of dove’s dung sold for five shekels of silver. On the next day, after God’s miraculous deliverance, however, one shekel bought a seah of flour and two seahs of barley.

Finally, these measures furnish essential information about everyday life in ancient Israel as, for instance, that Israel’s daily manna ration was probably one liter (an omer). 1. Homer/Kor (a) The Lord in Isa 5:10 cursed the land so that it produced only a tenth of

capacity; a field producing a homer of grain produced only an ’épd of grain. (b) In the wilderness, the Israelites gathered at least 10 homer (1000 liters) of quail per gatherer (Num 11:32). (c) To redeem his wife, Gomer, from slavery, Hosea spent 15 shekels of silver, a homer and a half (/étek) of barley (150 liters) (Hos 3:2). (d) In describing Solomon’s wealth, the narrative states that Solomon supplied daily provisions for his administration, including 30 kor of fine flour and 60 kor of meal. According to preexilic standards, 30 kor would equal 3000 liters; 60 kor, 6000 liters; according to exilic/postexilic standards, 30 kor equals 108,000 liters, 60 kor,

21,600 liters (1 Kgs 4:22[5:2]). (e) Solomon paid Hiram’s lumberjacks 20,000 kor of crushed wheat and barley for supplying the timber for God’s temple and Solomon’s palace (2 Chron 2:10[9]), and 20,000 kor of wheat to Hiram yearly (1 Kgs 5:11 [25]). According to preexilic standards 20,000 kér equals 200,000 liters; in postexilic standards it equals 7,200,000 liters. (f) King Jotham defeated the Ammonites and exacted 10,000 kor of wheat and barley for three years (2 Chron 27:5). 2. Ephah 5 (a) Deut 25:14 forbids various ephah baskets used to exploit the buyer. Indeed, they are abominable to the Lord (Prov 20:10). Amos (8:5) condemns the practice of making the ’épd smaller and the shekel larger to defraud the buyer. (b) ’épa measures are often found as part of various grain offerings; one tenth ’épd (one omer) of fine flour (Num 28:5), two tenths ’épd of flour for the morning and evening offering (Num 28:9), and in the adultery test (Num 5:15), one tenth of barley meal for a grain offering. In Ezek 45:13, God commands Israel to offer a sixth ’épd of wheat and barley as part of a grain offering, and every morning the prince offered a grain offering containing a sixth ’épd of fine flour (Ezek 46:14). On the Sabbath, new

386

MDS(#406) moon, and appointed feasts, the prince offers a grain offering containing a whole ’épé of flour (Ezek 46:5, 7, 11; 45:24). (c) Ruth was able to glean and beat out about an ’épd of barley in a day’s work (Ruth 2:3, 17). (d) When Hannah brought Samuel to the temple, she came with a bull, a jug of wine, and an ’épdé of flour (1 Sam 1:24),

3. Seah (a) For his three guests, Abraham asks Sarah to prepare cakes consisting of three s°‘G of fine flour (Gen 18:6). (b) Abigail mollifies David’s anger toward her husband by preparing a meal including five s°‘d of parched grain (1 Sam 25:18). (c) While Samaria was enduring a brutal siege by the Aramaens, in which a gab of dove’s dung was sold for five shekels (2 Kgs 6:25), Elisha prophesied that within a day a sé‘d of fine flour and two s°‘4 of barley would sell for a shekel (2 Kgs 7:2, 18). (d) In Elijah’s contest with the prophets of Baal, he constructed an altar with a trench that could contain two s°‘d of seed (1 Kgs 18:32). 4. Omer God furnished Israel with daily rations of an ‘Omer of manna (Exod 16:16, 18,

22), and Aaron preserved an ‘omer of manna in the ark of the covenant for posterity. 5. Kab, see Seah 3c

6. Bath (a) God prescribes a just ’@pd and bat (Ezek 45:10). (b) Israel’s offering contained a tenth bath of oil as part of the grain offering (Ezek 45:14).

(c) Solomon also paid Hiram’s men with 20,000 baths of wine and oil (1 Kgs 5:11[25]; 2 Chron 2:10[9]). (d) The molten sea held 3,000 baths (2 Chron 4:5) or 2,000 baths (1 Kgs 7:26).

7. Hin (a) Moses commands a just hin (Lev 19:36). A righteous or just hin is a hin conformed to its appropriate standard or measure, without fraud or misrepresentation. (b) The holy anointing oil contained a hin of olive oil (Exod 30:24). (c) The daily offering contained a fourth hin of beaten oil and a fourth hin of wine for a libation (Exod 29:40). (d) Grain offerings included a fourth, third, or half hin of oil (Num 15:9; 15:6; 15:9) and a fourth, third, or half hin of wine for the libation (Lev 23:13; Num 15:7, 10;

28:7, 14). (e) God commanded Ezekiel to drink only a sixth hin of water occasionally to symbolize the coming siege of Jerusalem (Ezek 4:11). (f) On Sabbaths and new moons, the prince offers a grain offering with a hin of oil (Ezek 46:5, 7, 11).

8. Log

One /ég of oil is mentioned 5x in Lev 14 (vv. 10, 12, 14, 15, 21) for the priest to anoint the cleansed leper.

387

WN (# 408) ee

ee

eee ee

ee

a 9. m° stra (a) In Lev 19:35 and 1 Chron 23:29 m°sard refers to measures of capacity in general. (b) Ezek 4:11, 16 describes m°Siird as a measure (i.e., a ration) for water.

The measures of capacity are commonly mentioned in later Jewish sources. P-B Certain capacity measures are occasionally mentioned in texts from Qumran (kor, ep, s©‘G, hin, bat). Measurement, standard, rule: ~ zrh II (measure, #2431); ~ mdd (measure, measure off, #4499): > §‘r (calculate, #9132); > tkn (regulate by weighing or measuring, #9419). For

measurements of weight/volume:

~ ’épd (an ephah, #406), for measurements of length:

> ’ammd I (cubit, ell, forearm, # 564) BIBLIOGRAPHY

Y. Aharoni, Arad Inscriptions, 1981; W. F. Albright, “The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim III,” AASOR, 21-22, 1941-43, 58-59; E. M. Cook, “Weights and Measures,” JSBE 4, 1988, 1046-55;

G. I. Davies, Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions, 1991; R. de Vaux, “Weights and Measures,” Anclsr 1961, 195-206; M. A. Powell, “Weights and Measures,” ABD 6, 1992, 897-908; idem, “Masse und Gewichte,” RLA 7, 1990, 457-517; R. B. Y. Scott, “Weights and Measures of the Bible,” BA 22, 1959, 22-40; A. Segre, “A Documentary Analysis of Ancient Palestinian Units of Measure,” JBL 64, 1945, 357-75; E. Stern, “Weights and Measures,” EncJud 16, 1971, 376-92. Russell Fuller

407 (’époh, where), > Particles

ne

wo

WN (28 1), man, husband, of high rank, person

(# 408). The etymology of this word is unknown. The suggestion of HALAT that it comes from a vb. ’y/w5, to be strong, and of KB 91b that it derives from a vb. ’n5, “to sprout up abundantly,” are conjectures lacking any support. The same may be said of the attempt to see behind the nom. ’?¥ a vb. ’5S, “be happy” (HALAT 93b and 1QpHab 6, 11). The word is a frequent one in the OT, occurring almost four times as often as ‘adam (2174x [Grant]; 2183x [THAT 1:131]; 2160x [HALAT and TDOT 1:222)). ANE In addition to Heb., ’#¥ occurs only in Phoenician-Punic, Moabite (KAJ 181:20), and Old Aramaic. Ugar. does not use either the referent ’?¥ or it for “man,” but instead

employs the terms mt and gzr to encompass the semantic range of Heb. ’?¥. OT

1. The basic meaning of ’7¥ is man, and it is the opposite of ’ix%4, woman

(> #851). Thus, in the priestly regulations about infectious skin diseases (Lev 13), vv. 2 and 9 use ’Gdam (> # 132) for “when ‘anyone’ has....” because ’4dam includes men, women, and children. However, v. 29 begins, “If a man or woman (w®’i¥ ’6 ’i¥¥d)....”

The sexes are differentiated here because the remainder of the verse goes on to say “...has a sore on the head or on the beard (NIV chin),” and, of course, the beard applies only to the ’?¥. And while presumably the inclusive ’@dam could have been used in v. 38 (as in 2, 9), the opening of the previous pericope with w*’?¥ ’6 ’iX§d influenced its use again in the next pericope.

388

WN (# 408) 2. A second meaning for ’?¥ is husband, just as ’ix%4@ means wife. See Gen 3:6, 16; 29:32; Num 5:12-31; 30:6-8[7-9], 10-16[11-17]; Deut 24:1-4; 1 Sam 1:8, etc. The

only instance in the OT of a parallel to ’#¥ when it means husband is 2 Sam 11:26, “When Uriah’s wife heard that her husband (’75) was dead, she mourned over her husband (ba‘al) (NIV, for him).” 3. Unlike ’adam, ’i§ may be used of animals (Gen 7:2 [2x], where ’?¥ w°’25t6 is synonymous with zakar ain°gébd of 6:19 and 7:3. 4. Several verses draw attention to the fact that God is not an ’7¥. God says so himself (Hos 11:9), and others affirm it of him (Num 23:19; Job 9:32). God does not exhibit the deceptive, capricious qualities that a human being does, says Balaam (Num 23:19). And unlike a human who knows no limit to expressions of his rage, God’s wrath is always tempered by his compassion (Hos 11:9). Thus, what removes God from being an ’7¥ is not only power and infinity, but a moral distinction, specifically, Jay

his own ethical stance and his attitude toward ethical behavior in ’?¥.

5. Yet, there are a few instances where ’?¥ is used of God with the sense of man. Thus, Exod 15:3 refers to Yahweh as a “warrior” (25 milhamd, and cf. Isa 42:13). Surprising here, given the fact that the OT frequently pictures God anthropomorphically, is how seldom the OT uses ’i¥ as a reference to God with the meaning man. And in conjunction with the nom. milhamd (> # 4878), if rather than ’ddam is the appropri-

ate nom. in construct, for unlike ’Gdam (which has a martial ambiance only in two poetic texts—Isa 22:6; 31:8), ’i¥ is employed frequently in the OT as a referent for soldier (Josh 8:12; 10:24; Isa 3:2, etc.).

6. Especially interesting are references in the OT to God as ’?¥ with the meaning husband, and the corresponding use of ’isSd for wife in relation to Israel. Through Hosea’s own marital experiences God says to his faithless bride, “She is not my wife, and I am not. her husband” (Hos 2:2[4]). (For similar ideas of God’s relationship to Israel as a husband-wife relationship without necessarily using ‘75 or ’iSSd, see Isa 50:1; Jer 2:2; 3:1-5; Ezek 16; 23.) Yet, a day is coming when there will be a remarriage

(or anew marriage?) between God and Israel, and once more they will be ’i§ and ’iSSd. Thus, Hos 2:16 [18] says, ““In that day,’ declares the LORD, ‘you will call me “my husband/my man (’?s7)”; you will no longer call me “my master (ba leliyy?’” The latter word, ba‘al (> #1251), refers not only to Canaanite baalim (> #1252) but also to a concept of marriage, now being repudiated, in which the ’i¥ owns his ’i55d as an extension of his belongings and property. In that day “Israel...will not look at her God as if she were the slave of her master, but she will enjoy with him the status of partner and loyal friend” (Terrien, 54). Hosea’s words are remarkably close in sentiment to those of Jesus: “I no longer call you servants.... Instead, I have called you friends” (John 15:15). 7. This understanding of God as ’?¥, husband, may explain the frequent references in the OT to God’s jealous, impassioned nature (’él ganna’). See Exod 20:5; 34:14; Deut 4:24; 5:9; 6:15 (cf. ’él-qannd’, Josh 24:19), all in connection with God’s

covenant with his people. Num 5:14, 30 reveals that gin’d, jealousy (> #7863), is used of a lover vis-a-vis his ’i§4. Two conclusions suggest themselves here in light of the above. First, it is possible that the language used in the OT to describe God’s passionate, loving relationship with Israel in covenant has its roots in the erotic language used to describe marital union between husband and wife. Second, and in light of the

389

WN (# 408) frequent references to God’s jealousy in Exod/Deut, the metaphor of God as husband/’?¥ of Israel, so poignantly developed in the proclamations of Hosea, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, may have its origins in Pentateuchal literature. 8. The lexemes yay’i/“naxim are used interchangeably with mal’ak/mal’akim, angel(s)/messenger(s) (> #4855), especially in Gen 18-19 and in Judg 13. Cf. also Joshua who, about to invade Jericho, sees an ’#¥ (Josh 5:13) weaponed like a soldier,

who identifies himself in v. 14 as “commander of the army of the LORD (Sar s“ba’ yhwh).” 9. A phrase that occurs 76x in the OT is ’i¥ ha’*lohim, “man of God”; 55 of

these are in 1/2 Kings. Elisha is so styled 29x in 2 Kgs, and Elijah 7x in 1/2 Kgs. Next in order of frequency is Moses (6x: Deut 33:1; Josh 14:6; 1 Chron 23:14; 2 Chron 30:16; Ezra 3:2; Ps 90:1 [superscription]); Samuel (4x: 1 Sam 9:6, 7, 8, 10); David (3x: 2 Chron 8:14; Neh 12:24, 36); Shemaiah (2x: 1 Kgs 12:22; 2 Chron 11:2); Hanan (or

Igdaliah) (1x: Jer 35:4). The expression refers to someone anonymous 29x (e.g., | Sam 2:27; 1 Kgs 13:1-3).

It is interesting that the expression “woman of God” does not occur in the OT, nor is the term applied to any of the literary prophets from the eighth to the sixth centuries BC. And never does the OT use the phrase “man of Yahweh.” Finally, when

applied to Moses and David, the expression appears most frequently in later books (1/2 Chron, Ezra, Neh). Only rarely does “a man

of God” refer to himself as such

(2 Kgs 1:10, 12). This is similar to the use of “choose” in the OT, which is employed in the first person, and in a boasting, insulting way at that, only by David to Michal (2 Sam 6:21, “who chose me’).

The expression “man of God” is a designation most often of a prophet or oracle-giver, who is recognized as a holy man and therefore one to whom appeal may be made for assistance with problems ranging from illness to famine. The man of God may be either itinerant (Elijah, Elisha) or locally resident (Samuel). Male: > ’adam (Adam, people, # 132); > ’7§ I (man, husband, # 408); > ’*nds I (men, single man, # 632); > ’asi¥ (man, #861); > geber I (young man, # 1505); > zakar (male, #2351); > m*tim I (men, people, #5493); > na‘ar (boy, # 5853) Female: ~ ’issd (woman, #851); > g%bird/g“beret (lady, queen, mistress, # 1485/1509); > na“ra | (girl, #5855); > n°qgéba (female, #5922); > pilegeX (concubine, #7108); > Sidda

(lady, # 8721) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 1:222-35; THAT 1:130-38, 247-51; TWOT 1:17-18, 59-60; M. Bal, Lethal Love: Feminist Literary Readings of Biblical Love Stories, 1987; A. M. Grant, “’adam and ’ish: Man in the OT,” AusBR 25, 1977, 2-11; L. Kutler, “A Structural Semantic Approach to Israelite Communal Ter-

minology,” JANESCU

14, 1982, 69-77; W. L. Moran, “The Conclusion of the Decalogue (Ex

20:17 = Dt. 5:21),” CBO 29, 1967, 543-54; S. Terrien, Till the Heart Sings: A Biblical Theology of Manhood and Womanhood, 1985; P. Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, 1978; A. Wolters, “Proverbs xxxi, 10-31 as Heroic Hymn: A Form-Critical Analysis,” VT 38, 1988,

446-57; G. A. Yee, “‘I Have Perfumed My Bed with Myrrh’: The Foreign Woman (isS@ zara) in Proverbs 1-9,” JSOT 43, 1989, 53-68. Victor P. Hamilton

390

TIWN(#413) sie al

ne x

ala (is6n), nom. pupil of the eye (lit. “little | man [in the eye]”; #413).

OT The word ’?56n, derived from pay*#¥ (man), has the idea of something precious that was to be guarded jealously. The Lord found Israel in the wilderness and guarded her as the apple of his eye (Deut 32:10); thus, it is fitting for an individual believer to pray, “keep me as the apple of your eye” (Ps 17:8). Similarly, the precious teaching of the Lord is to be guarded as if it were the pupil of the eye (Prov 7:2). An extended meaning of this word is middle, midst of (“middle of the night,” Prov 7:9; 20:20[K]). In Lev 21:20 the “eye defect” is one of the various physical handicaps that preclude a man from serving in the priesthood. Given the uncertainty of meaning, Wenham’s rendering “defective sight” could lead to the questionable conclusion that any priest with eyesight problems was kept from ministry (289). His principle, however, is correct: “holiness finds physical expression in wholeness and normality” (Wenham, 292). Eye, wink: ~ isdn (pupil of eye, #413); > baba (pupil of eye, #949); > ‘yn (view with suspicion, #6523); ~ ‘ap‘appayim (flashing of eye, #6757); > grs (wink, pinch, #7975); > rzm (flash, # 8141); > r°ballul (spot in eye, # 9319) BIBLIOGRAPHY G. J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT, 1979. Allan M. Harman

419

ANE

E mw 8

TIPS (étan I), everflowing, nent, enduring (# 419).

constant,

perma-

The adj. ’étan I is an elative form from the root ytn (Moscati, 80, §12.14)

which, though not attested in BH, means be perpetual, never-failing, in Arab. (BDB, 450; Arab. wataua, flow continuously [i.e., of water]). Niehaus (432) also relates it to Ugar. yin (= Heb. ntn) and suggests the nuance “ever-giving or renewing” (cf. OSA *wtn, a sanctuary).

OT

1. This adj. occurs 13x and signifies the continual existence of something. It

appears in juxtaposition with watery elements 4x (yam, Exod 14:27; nahal, Deut 21:4;

nah®rét, Ps 74:15; Amos 5:24). In the midst of a litany of praiseworthy divine activities, the psalmist heaps praise upon Yahweh for drying up the constantly flowing rivers, surely an allusion to his parting of the Jordan River (Ps 74:15). In another stupendous divine intervention, Moses served as God’s instrument to send the waters of the Red Sea back to their customary place (Exod 14:27). A continually flowing stream provides the site for a ritual purification ceremony (Deut 21:4) and also serves as a measure for the kind of righteousness Yahweh expects from his elect nation (Amos 5:24). 2. In a covenant lawsuit Micah challenges the people of Israel to present their case and calls the mountains, hills, and enduring foundations of the earth as witnesses

(Mic 6:1-2). Many commentators emend the MT’s ha’étanim (O enduring ones) to ha’“zint (give ear). However, in light of normal text-critical canons (> Textual Criticism: Guide) and contextual indicators, the MT reading stands. The “enduring”

391

“TDN 425) foundations of the earth, permanent fixtures in the physical world, served poetically as witnesses to the actions of God’s people. The prophetic call for witnesses at the outset of a covenant lawsuit is common. The heavens and earth, normally present at the ratification of the covenant between Yahweh and his elect nation (Deut 4:26; 30:19; 31:28), appear as witnesses in later contexts (Deut 32:1; Ps 50:4; Isa 1:2). Although the call for mountains to serve as witnesses is unique in biblical literature, it is customary in ANE treaties. After listing various deities, Akk. and Hitt. treaty texts address “the mountains, the rivers, the springs, the great deep, heaven, and earth” (Hillers, 76-77).

3. The adj. ’étan I describes the steadfastness of Joseph in the face of various adversities (Gen 49:24), the security or perpetuity of individuals (Job 12:19) or nations (Num 24:21; Jer 5:15; 49:19; 50:44), or someone’s continual experience of pain (Job

33519); 4. The second couplet in Prov 13:15 has caused significant discussion. Driver (181; cf. Hubbard, 146) contends that the negative particle ’@ dropped out by haplography, so that the phrase should be “is not lasting.” Others accept the reading suggested by the LXX

(’édam), destruction. However, as Hartley (TWOT, 419) points out, the

way of the treacherous is enduring in that “it forms its own rut from which there is no escape.” 5. The pl. form of ’étan I, ’étanim, occurs 1x as the Canaanite title of the sev-

enth month of the Jewish calendar (1 Kgs 8:2). It most likely bore this name because the rainy season in Palestine began in Oct/Nov and in this month all the wadis and riverbeds would continually flow with water. Enduring:

~ ’éan I (everflowing, constant, permanent, enduring, # 419); > hkh (wait, endure,

expect, hope, #2675); victorious,

conquer,

> yhl (wait, hope, endure, long, #3498);

#3523);

— qwh I (tarry, wait, hope,

— ykl (able, endure, be

wait for, #7747);

— sbr (test,

investigate, hope, wait, examine, # 8432) BIBLIOGRAPHY

. TWOT 1:419; G. Driver, “Problems in the Hebrew Text of Proverbs,” Bib 32, 1951, 173-97; D. Hillers, Micah, 1984; D. Hubbard, Proverbs, 1989; S. Moscati, An Introduction to the Compara-

tive Grammar of the Semitic Languages: Phonology and Morphology, 1964; R. Niehaus, “Amos,” in The Minor Prophets, ed. T. McComiskey, 1992, 1:315-494; P. Reymond, L’eau, sa vie et sa signification dans l’Ancien Testament, SVT #6, 1958; B. K. Waltke, “Micah,” in The Minor Prophets, 1993, 2:591-764.

Michael A. Grisanti

421 (ak, only, surely), > Particles

423 (akzab, deceptive, disappointing),

425

Tes

> #3941

“TDN (akzar), adj. cruel (#425); "TDN

Cakcari),

adj.

cruel

(#426);

MYHDN

(akz‘riyyat), nom. cruelty (# 427). For the formation, based on the root kzr, see IBHS JOC; O40,

ANE Not occurring in any of these forms in the wider group of cognate Sem. languages, this word group (and its root kzr) is confined to Heb. and rabbinical Aram.

392

SON (# 430) OT 1. An understanding of the adj. ’akzar? comes most clearly from a study of the synonymous and antithetical expressions that occur in its context. The adjectival description is used of humans, enemies who have no mercy (rhm; Jer 6:23; 50:42), a person who is not kind (hesed; Prov 11:17), or one who does not care for animals, in

contrast to the righteous who do (12:10). The Eng. term “cruel” well fits each of these contexts, as it does others in which people are described by the term (Prov 5:9; 17:11). The term is also used of God’s actions, and this could lead to a theological difficulty. Jeremiah describes the justifiable anger of God directed toward Israel. He punishes or strikes her in the manner of an enemy or a “cruel” person (30:14; see IBHS 10.2.2e). The coming Day of Yahweh, a day of his wrath and anger, is also described as “cruel” (Isa 13:9). The problem arises in using a term usually denoting callous disregard or even the enjoyment of pain in describing divine actions. This appears to be a problem of perspective, however, rather than a denigration of God. In order to teach his errant people, God must use disciplinary punishment. From his perspective this is pedagogic and redemptive, leading to the restoration of the relationship with his people. From their perspective, however, as recalcitrant recipients of his punishment, it often would seem cruel. 2. The adj. ’akzGr is used in three instances in association with animals or creatures known for ferocity: the cobra (Deut 32:33), Leviathan (Job 41:10[2]), and the ostrich (Lam 4:3; cf. Job 39:13-18). Job uses the same form in accusing God himself of

becoming (hpk) the unexpected one who is ruthlessly cruel in turning his back on Job’s needs for no apparent reason (30:21). Again, this is a description from the human perspective, in that God does not change character, but only appears to do so, since Job is unaware of the dynamics behind his desperate situation. 3. The unique nom. occurrence (Prov 27:4) relates to human emotions. Anger (hémd [> #2779]) and fury (ap, [> #678]) are characterized as overwhelming and

“cruel” or ruthless, being capable of, though not necessitating, destructive results. They all are as nothing compared with jealousy. The context itself does not provide much help in defining the term, but “cruelty,” as derived from previously discussed occurrences of the same root word, fits this context as well. David W. Baker

426 Cakzari, cruel), > #425

427 (’akz‘riyyat, cruelty), > #425 428 (’“kild, an eating), > # 430 a

bON (kl), q. eat, consume; devour (739x); ni. be eaten (45x); pu. (or q. pass.) be (made) eaten # 430; HALAT 44b-45b), [+ 7x peal in Aram.]; 809x (vb. (20x) eat . . (5x); hi. let/make. nd-ON (“kild), an eating (hapleg.; #428; HALAT 44b); S39 (dkel), food (masc.) (30x. # 431; HALAT 45b-46a); mbox (okla), food, fuel(?) (fem.) (17x; #433; HALAT 46a); Donn (ma’“kal), food, sustenance (masc.) (30x; #4407; HALAT 512b); nbonn

(ma’“kelet), knife (> # 4408); nboxn (ma’“kolet), food, sustenance (fem.), fuel(?)

(2x; # 4409; HALAT 512b);1 51 (makkélet), food, sustenance (fem.); variant form of ma’“kolet (hapleg.; # 4818; HALAT 549b).

393

58(#430) ANE. The root ’k/, in both vb. forms (meaning “eat, consume; devour’) and nom. forms (with related senses), is common to most ancient Sem. languages, including: the Akk. vb. akalu (CAD, A/1, 245b-59a; AHw 1:26b-27b), and nom. akalu/aklu, (loaf of) bread, food (CAD, A/1, 238b-45a; AHw 1:26a-b); the Ugar. vb. ’aki, and nom. forms ‘akl/’ ikl, food/eating(?) (WUS # 176; UT # 158; CML? 141a); the Can. vb. ’k/ (a gloss in the El Amarna tablets; DISO 12); the Ammonite nom. ’k/, food, grain(?) (Jackson, 93, 98); the Phoen. vb. ’kl (DISO 12; KAI # 24, line 6, in the parallel similes [km]’S5 kit “as a fire consumes”; cf. Tomback, 15); the Ancient Aram., Ya’udic, and Egyp. Aram. vb. ’kl (DISO 12-13); in Egyp. Aram., the nom. m’kl(’) “food” (DISO, 141); in the Sam. Pent., nom. ’akal, food (Murtonen, 32); the Biblical Aram. vb. ’“kal (e.g., Dan 4:33[30]); the Arab. vb. ’akala (Wehr, 21b-22a), and nom. forms ’akl, food, meal;’ukl, food, fruit; ’akla, meal; ma’kal, food; mw’ akil, table companion; and part. (adj.) forms ‘akkal/’ akil/’ kil, voracious, gluttonous; and ma’kil, edible (Wehr, 22a-b); in Eth., the vb. ’akala, be sufficient for, satisfy; adj. ’ekul, sufficient, enough (Lambdin, 383) and

nom. ’°k*/, food (Leslau, 10); and in Tigre, the nom. ’ekel, grain, cereal (TigrWb 376a). The Ugar. nom. ’akl, food, sometimes || nom. mstt, drink (RSP, 2, 1x 38a-c, 395). OT

1. In the OT, the vb. ’ki, “eat, consume; devour,” occurs in the q., ni., pu. (or q.

pass.), and hi. stems. The vb. appears in both nonritual and ritual contexts, where either humans, beasts, or inanimate objects are its subject. It is commonly used in such contexts in the stereotypical syntheton, “ate and drank (Sth, > #9272),” which often depicts enjoyment, as in the dictum of Ecclesiastes that “a man can do nothing better than to eat (kl) and drink (Sth), and find satisfaction in his work” (2:24; cf. 3:13;

5:18[17]; 8:15). Elsewhere, however, this syntheton may connote partaking of excessive revelry (Exod 32:6; 1 Sam 30:16; 1 Kgs 1:25; cf. Ugar. tlhmn[.Jilm. wtstn || tStn y(n) ‘d 5b‘, “The gods ate and drank, drank wine until sated,” [RS 24. 258, Obv. lines 2-3 (Pope, 171-72)]), or simply consuming a full meal (Gen 24:54; 25:34; Judg 19:4, 6,

21; 1 Kgs 19:8). Many idioms involving ’k/ connote destruction. Hostile forces are said to “consume” (i.e., destroy) those whom they defeat—such hostile forces as: scorching heat, Gen 31:40; famine and pestilence, Ezek 7:15; the (teeth/jaws of) oppressors, Prov 30:14, Mic 3:3; (zoopathized) enemy lands, Num 13:32; or treacherous forests,

2 Sam

18:8. The sword, whose blade is called its “mouth” (cf. “pi hereb, “by the mouth/blade of the sword,” Gen 34:26; Judg 4:15, 16; 18:27), is idiomatically said to “consume” its victims (2 Sam 2:26; 11:25; 18:8; cf. Deut 32:42). Fire, whose flames are called

“tongues” (cf. /°6n ’é, the tongue/flame of [the] fire), is said to “consume” its fuel (Lev 6:10[3]; Isa 5:24; cf. fire from Yahweh,

Lev

10:2; Num

11:1; 16:35;

1 Kgs

18:38). Even Yahweh himself, a god who jealously rages against idolators, is thus characterized as “a consuming fire” (’éS ’6kl4, Deut 4:24), or one whose tongue is such (Isa 30:27). Certain OT passages attest an ancient custom whereby parties ratified an oath or covenant by eating together a sacrificial meal. Some such occasions may have been mainly of a political nature (Gen 26:30; 31:54), but other OT examples of sacrificial

meals clearly have religious significance (Exod 24:11), including those that denounce Israel’s eating of sacrificial meals at the mountain 22:9).

394

shrines of idols (Ezek 18:6, 1a hs

DON# 430) aS

a

a

ee

ee

ee

2. Many OT uses of the vb. occur in contexts that describe an occasion of eating to which there attaches an unmixed sacral symbolism. Perhaps the foremost example of eating as a symbol of sacral order is that which portrays Yahweh/God declaring edible all kinds of food whereby creatures might live (Gen 1:29-30; 2:8-9), then setting that most primal of sacral limitations by calling one kind of food taboo (Gen 2:15-17). Indeed, to the compiler(s) of Genesis, the violation of this primal taboo had come to

epitomize humanity’s bent towards transgressing Yahweh/God’s sacral order (Gen 3:1-7, 11-13), and thus explained by etiology humanity’s natal condition of exile from

the food source of eternal life (Gen 3:22). There are various uses of the vb. in ritual

texts, including those describing the graduated taboos pertaining to those who may eat of sacrificial offerings (Lev 6:8[6:1]-7:36; 17:10-12; Ezek 44:3), or to the ritual sharing in the firstborn of domestic animals or the produce tithe (Num 18:17-32; Deut 14:22-29). Besides these, there are various prohibitions against eating unclean foods (whether certain animals [Lev 11:2-38, 41-47; Deut 14:3-20), carrion (Exod 22:31[30]; Lev 11:39-40; 17:15-16; Deut 14:21a), or blood (Lev 17:10-14)—such taboos, at least

partially, symbolizing sacral divisions within and between orders of nature and human society (cf. Simoons; Douglas).

Indeed, eating and drinking are often used together in imagery depicting sacral defilement. In Ps 50:13, ’ki !! Sth in an exemplary rejection of ritual compensation (vv. 8-13), whereby God ironically refuses to receive offerings because of his peoples’ defiling injustices (cf. Deut 32:37-38, where Yahweh implicitly rebukes his people by explicitly mocking those gods who ate and drank offerings from his people). In the vivid portrayal of Yahweh’s defiling sacrifice of Gog (Ezek 39:17-20), the poetic parallelism of ’kl with Sth occurs 3x, each repetition intensifying the gory depiction of unclean carrion-eating birds and beasts invited to eat the flesh and drink the blood of those slain in Yahweh’s last battle (cf. Ezek 12:18-19; Isa 29:8).

3. The OT image of banqueting involves both eating and drinking. It furnishes a basis for judgment of the wicked who gorge themselves with pleasures (e.g., Amos 6:4-6) and an emblem of blessing to come upon the righteous in God’s kingdom: Jerusalem’s revelry, which is condemned in Isaiah’s oracle against the Valley of Vision (Isa 22:12-13), will give place to the banquet of Yahweh on Mount Zion that accompanies the resurrection of the righteous from “all peoples” (Isa 25:6-8; cf. Matt 22:2-14 [= Luke 14:15-24]; 26:29; Acts 10:41; Matt 8:11). 4. The nom. forms ’dkel and ’okld probably arose as masc. and fem. reflexes of the same lexeme meaning “food” (cf. Koehler), though in OT usage the latter (always I°’ okld) appears only in allegedly priestly contexts of Gen (1:29, 30; 6:21; 9:3), Exod (16:15), Lev (11:39; 25:6), and Ezek. Of the two, only ’okld refers idiomatically to fuel as food for the fire (Ezek 15:4, 6; 21:32[37]). Perhaps related to the latter is the strong

denunciation of those of Jerusalem who would be consumed by fire (té’akél ba’ é§, Ezek 23:25) because, among other detestable practices, they had offered up their children as food (/°’okld) for their idols (Ezek 23:37; cf. 16:36). The nom. ’dkel “food” |l nom. msk “drink” occurs in Ps 102:9[10] (RSP, 2, ix 38f, 395). Likewise, the nom.

forms ma’“kal and ma’“kélet are apparently masc. and fem. reflexes of the same lexeme, meaning “food, sustenance.” Although in OT usage the fem. nom. refers idiomat-

ically only to fuel, as food for the fire (Isa 9:5[4]; 9:19[18]), it remains that makkolet

“food” (1 Kgs 5:11[25] = G eis bromata in LXX 2 Chron 2:9[10]) is probably an

395

SON(# 430) orthographic alloform (GKC § 23f; Koehler). The masc. nom. ma’*kal “food” occurs in a word pair with nom. mixteh “drink” twice in the OT, both occurrences being late (Ezra 3:7; Dan 1:10; cf. RSP, 2, ix 38d, 395). The nom. ’“k#ld appears only in 1 Kgs 19:8 where, consistent with its gerundive nom. type (GKC §§841 [d], 94e), it probably

means “an eating”: "He went in the strength of that eating (ha’“kild hahi’ ) forty days and nights” (author’s tr.). 5. The book of Daniel attests Biblical Aram. ’k/ only in the peal: of beasts (Dan 7:5, 7, 19, 23), of Nebuchadnezzar eating grass like cattle (Dan 4:33[30]), and in an idiom “kali garséhon/qars6hi di (lit. “they ate the pieces of”), meaning “they falsely accused/slandered” (Dan 3:8; 6:24[25]; cf. the Akk. idiom karsi akdlu [lit. “eat calumny’’], meaning “accuse [falsely], denounce” [AHw 1:450b; CAD, K, 222b-23a]).

P-B __Postbiblical cognates of the root ’k/ may be found in the Mish. Heb. vb. ’k/ (Jastrow, 63a-b), and nom. forms ’dkel, food (Jastrow, 25a) and ma’“kal, food (Jastrow, 723a); the Jewish Aram. vb. “kal (Jastrow, 63b) and nom. forms ’akla’, food (Jastrow, 25a) and the nomen opificii ’akkala’, eater (Jastrow, 63b); the Syr. vb. ’ekal (Payne Smith, 15b-16a) and nom. forms ’aklanda’, a devouring, cavity (in tooth) (Payne Smith, 16a), mé’kilta’, food (Payne Smith, 246b), and mé’kla’, food (Payne Smith, 247a); and in Mand. (MdD 16b). Eating, food, sustenance, taste: > ’k/ (eat, consume, devour, #430); > brh I (eat portions, take rations, # 1356); > basar (meat, food, flesh, # 1414); > gzr II (cut, slaughter, tear, prey, # 1616); > zwn (provide, supply, #2315); > tm (taste, test, sense, discern, #3247); > krh III (serve, banquet, offer up, #4127); > lht Il (devour, # 4266); > /hm (thing to be swallowed, choice morsel, delicacy, #4269);

> lhk (lick up, # 4308); > Jhm II (feed on, eat, # 4310); > I‘t

(swallow, make/let swallow, # 4358) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDNT 1:642-45; 2:689-95; TDOT 1:236-41; THAT 1:138-42; TWAT 1:252-59; TWOT 1:39b-40b; H. A. Brongers, “Fasting in Israel in Biblical and Post-biblical Times,” OTS 20, 1977, 1-21; R. de Vaux, Anclsr 2:449-50; M. Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo, 1966; idem, “Deciphering a Meal,” Daedalus, Winter 1972; repr. in C. Geertz, ed., Myth, Symbol and Culture, 1971, 61-81; P. Farb and G. Armelagos, Consuming Passions: The Anthropology of Eating, 1980; J. Gnilka, “Das Gemeinschaftsmahl der Essener,” BZNS 5, 1961, 39-55; W. Herrmann, “Gotterspeise und Gottertrank in Ugarit und Israel,” ZAW 72, 1960, 205-16; K. P. Jackson, The Ammonite Language of the Iron Age, HSM 27, 1983; A. W. Jenks, “Eating and Drinking in the OT,” ABD 2:250b-54b; L. Koehler, “Problems in the

Study of the Language of the OT,” JSS 1, 1956, [3-24] 20-22 (on ’k/ and its nom. derivatives); T. O,. Lambdin, Introduction to Classical Ethiopie [Ge‘ez], HSS 24, 1978; A. Murtonen, An Etymological Vocabulary to the Samaritan Pentateuch, 1960; F. Nétscher, “Sakrale Mahlzeiten von Qumran,” in FS H. Junker, 1961, 145-74; J. L. Palache, Semantic Notes on the Hebrew Lexicon,

1959, 7; J. Payne Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, 1903; M. H. Pope, “A Divine Banquet at Ugarit,” in The Use of the OT in the New and other Essays, FS W. S. Stinespring, ed. J. M. Efird, 1972, 170-203; S. A. Reed, “Food in the Psalms,” PhD diss., Claremont Graduate School, 1987; R. Rendtorff, Studien zur Geschichte des Opfers, WMANT 14, 1967;

Y. Rosengarten, Le concept sumérien de consommation dans la vie économique et religieuse, 1960; J. Schmid, “Essen und Trinken,” in LTK 3, cols. 1112-13; R. Schmid, Das Bundesopfer in Israel: Wesen, Ursprung und Bedeutung der alttestamentlichen Schelamin, 1964; F. J. Simoons,

396

FON(#436) Eat Not This Flesh: Food Avoidances in the Old World, 1961; J. Soler, “The Semiotics of Food in the Bible,” in R. Forster and O. Ranum, eds., Food and Drink in History, 1979, 126-38;

R. S. Tomback, A Comparative Semitic Lexicon of the Phoenician and Punic Languages, SBLDS 32, 1978; J. van der Ploeg, “The Meals of the Essenes,” JSS 2, 1957, 163-75; A. van Selms, “Food,” /SBE 2:327a-31a; S. Woudstra, “Eat,” [SBE 2:6b-8a.

Robert H. O’Connell

431 (dkel, food), > #430 433 (okld, food, fuel), > # 430 434 (akén, surely), > Particles

an Beever BRN, sat) Sarsecrtrsrpency Dial nom. pressure, urgency (# 437).

oslnn

The vb. ’kp occurs only in Prov 16:26, and the nom. ’ekep only in Job 33:7. Pressure, squeezing: ~ ’kp (press hard, # 436); > ’/s (press hard upon, #552); > zwrI (press, wring out, #2318); — zrr I (press out [wounds], #2452); > lhs (press, #4315); > mis

(pressing, # 4790); > m‘k (press, squeeze, crush, # 5080); > msh (squeeze out, drain, # 5172); > psr (urge, press, push, #7210); > sht (squeeze, to press out grapes, # 8469) M. Daniel Carroll R.

437 (ekep, pressure, urgency), > # 436 438

DS

“8 (ikkar), nom. farmer, plowman (# 438).

ANE The word ’ikkar is a loanword from Akk. ikkaru (“farm hand,” “hired farm laborer’), which was borrowed from Sum. engar (“farmer”); cf. AHw 1:368. Arab.

’akkar and Syr. ’akkara are used in the sense of “plowman.” OT 1. The nom. ’ikk@r is not used of a “farmer” in general, but of one who works for a farmer (Gese) and is dependent on the well-being of the community (W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah, Hermeneia, 1986, 1:431). He plowed and cultivated the fields. The work of the ’ikkar was quite different from that of the shepherd and vinedresser. It involved the preparation of the soil for crops and the care of oxen. Compare, “J shatter shepherd and flock ... farmer (’ikkar) and oxen” (Jer 51:23) with “aliens will shepherd your flocks; foreigners will work (’ikkarékem, lit. [be] your farmers) your fields and vineyards” (Isa 61:5; cf. Jer 31:24), and with, “Despair, you farmers (‘ikkarim), wail, you vine growers” (Joel 1:1 1a). The

’ikkar was the first to lose from agricultural setbacks

and, hence, was

dependent on God’s blessing. For example, the ’ikkar must mourn because of the failed grain harvest (Joel 1:11). The experience of crop failure brought shame, “The ground is cracked because there is no rain in the land; the farmers are dismayed and cover their heads” (Jer 14:4; cf. Joel 1:11). Isaiah looked for an era of blessing when foreigners “will work (ikkar) your fields” (Isa 61:5). 2. Understanding Israel’s agricultural practices is vital for understanding much of the OT. Agriculture formed the basis of Israel’s economy, so the promised land

397

ON (# 445) could be viewed as farm land par excellence (cf. Deut 8:6-9a). Agricultural success was the epitome of divine blessing in the OT, whereas agricultural disaster was the nadir of divine curse (cf. Deut 11:8-16; Hag 1:10-11; Mal 3:10-12).

Farming was a noble work because the farmer involved himself with God’s creation, was dependent on God’s blessing, and contributed to the well-being of the community. A good king, such as Uzziah (> #6460), was remembered for his contribution to all aspects of agriculture and husbandry, including farming, “He also built towers in the desert and dug many cisterns, because he had much livestock in the foothills and in the plain. He had people working his fields and vineyards in the hills and in the fertile lands, for he loved the soil” (2 Chron 26:10-11; see Ray Dillard, 2 Chronicles, WBC, 1988, 209). Even after the fall of Jerusalem and the exile of Judah,

the Babylonians under Nebuzaradan encouraged the cultivation of the fields and vineyards (Jer 52:16). Agriculture—farming: > ’ikkar (farmer, #438); > ygb (be a farmer, #3320); weeded, # 6371); > ‘zg (break up, loosen, # 6466); > Sdd (harrow, # 8440)

Blessing: # 1385)

~ ’asré (truly happy, blessed, how happy, #897);

> ‘dr I (be

— brk II (bless, praise, greet,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 1974, 76-78; R. J. Forbes “Professions and Crafts in Ancient Egypt,” Archives internationales d’Histoire des Sciences 12, 1950, 599-618; idem, Studies in Ancient Technology, UI-V1; VILU-IX, 1955-1958, 1964; H. Gese, “Kleine Beitrage zum Verstandnis des Amosbuches,” V7 12, 1962, 422ff.; J. Graham, “Vinedressers and Plowmen,” BA 47, 1984, 55-58; S. Paul and W. Dever, Biblical Archaeology, 1974, 147-62; A. Rainey, “Wine from the

Royal Vineyards,” BASOR 245, 1982, 57-62; G. Smith, Geography, 1896, 76-90. Mark D. Futato

440 (al, not), > Particles

445

oN

|ON (él IV), nom. strength, power (# 445).

OT ~— The word occurs 5x (including Sir 14:11).

1. When he overtakes Jacob, Laban reproaches his son-in-law for having fled from him secretly and for having stolen the household gods (Gen 31:25-30), possession of which may have conferred legal advantage in respect of inheritance (Speiser, 250-51; Kline, 104; but see Davidson, 173, and Maher, 181, who caution against press-

ing the analogy with the Nuzi texts too far). Laban points out that although he has the power to do him harm, the God of Jacob’s father has warned him to act circumspectly (31:29). The words yeS-I°élyadi la““S6t immakem ra‘ in v. 29a have generated considerable debate, although the meaning is clear from the context (Pusey, 304; Cross, TDOT 1:261). Cross (TDOT 1:261) considers it necessary to make a redivision of the words in order to explain the idiom. Both Cross and Watson see here an occurrence of the stem /’y, be strong, attested in Ugar., Phoen., and Akk. (cf. Dahood, 46). The redi-

vided phrase would then be ‘yn I’lydnw, “there is no strength (/’) to our hands.” However, this proposal does not commend itself (cf. Blenkinsopp, 254). Not only is the existence of a word l’, power, in Heb. uncertain, but it would be curious if the MT so consistently divided the consonants incorrectly (Williamson, 233). Davies (1970, 230)

398

ON (# 445) maintains that the literal meaning of the phrase is, “There is to the god of (or) to the

power of my hand.” Skinner (398; cf. Spence and Exell, 380; Watson), who considers the meaning of yes-I°’élyadi to be very obscure, lists three explanations which have been advanced: (a) that yadi is subj. of the sentence and ’é/ a reference to a deity (“my hand is for a god”); (b) that the phrase is a survival of a primitive belief in special deities or spirits that animated different parts of the body (“it belongs to the god of my hand”); (c) that ‘él is an abstract nom. meaning, power, and yadi gen. (“It is in the power of my hand”). The last of these explanations seems to be the most likely. Certainly, the meaning, power, is favored by most translators and commentators, as the following examples demonstrate: “It is in the power of my hand to do you hurt” (KJV); “It is in my power to do you harm” (RSV; NRSV; JB); “It is in my power to do you an injury” (NEB); “I have the power to harm you” (NIV); “I have the power to do you harm” (TEV); “I have it in my power to harm all of you” (Speiser, 242; REB); “It is in my power to harm every one of you” (Hamilton, 297); “Indeed I would have had the power to do you harm” (Westermann, 487). This text describes a classic case of the kind of imbalance of power between two parties that, humanly speaking, is almost guaranteed to lead to might prevailing over right. However, as a result of God’s intervention in favor of the weaker party, whose labor has been unjustly exploited by the one in power, justice prevails (Westermann, 500-501). 2. In a scathing indictment of social and moral abuses (Mic 2:1-11), the grasping, ruthless rich in the community are excoriated for implementing unscrupulous, illegal, and exploitative schemes that they have devised on their beds in the evening and have the power (ye5-/°’él yadam, lit., there is power to their hand) to execute successfully (2:1; cf., e.g., Allen, 287; Smith, 24; Wolff, 77). 3. As part of a commentary (Deut 28:20-46) on six curses (28:16-19), Israel is

warned that one of the consequences of disobedience will be that sons and daughters will be given to another people while the parents look on impotently (v. 32). The

phrase w°’én I°’él yadeka is translated, “and it shall not be in the power of your hand to prevent it” (RSV); “but [you will] be powerless to do anything” (NRSV); “[and/but]

you will be powerless” (NEB; REB); “while your hands are powerless” (JB); “powerless to lift a hand” (NIV). Whereas adherence to the covenant results in life, blessing,

and joy, transgression leads to frustration, chaos, and death (Davies, 1964, 281). 4, Judeans complain that, as a result of grave economic problems, they are being forced to sell their children into slavery (not to foreigners, but to fellow Israelites), and they are powerless (w®’én I°’él yadénii) to prevent it (Neh 5:5). BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT

1:242-61; L. C. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah, NICOT,

J. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah: duction,

Translation,

G. H. Davies, 1:101-304; V. “Genesis,” in Prophets With

and

1976;

A Commentary, OTL, 1988; M. Dahood, Psalms I: 1-50. Intro-

Notes,

AB,

1966;

R.

Davidson,

Genesis

12-50,

CBC,

“Deuteronomy,” in Peake, 1964, 269-88; idem, “Genesis,” in BBC, P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis Chapters 18-50, NICOT, 1995; M. G. NBC, 1972, 79-114; M. Maher, Genesis, OTM, 1982; E. B. Pusey, The a Commentary Explanatory and Practical and Introductions to the Several

1891; J. Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary

1979;

1970, Kline, Minor Books,

on Genesis, ICC, 2d ed., 1969;

399

Os (# 446a) a

556508

R. L. Smith, Micah-Malachi, WBC, 1984; E. A. Speiser, Genesis: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 1964; H. D. M. Spence and J. S. Exell, Genesis, Pulpit, new ed., 1909; W. G. E. Watson, “Reclustering Hebrew 1’ lyd,’ Bib 58, 1977, 213-15; C. Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A Commentary, Continental, 1985; H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, WBC, 1985; H. W. Wolff, Micah: A Commentary, Continental, 1990.

Robin Wakely

ae

ae p : God Most High (# 6610); "IW

5s (’el V), God (# 446a); adv Ds (’el ‘6lam), Everlasting God (# 6409); 7i"y 8 (el ‘elyén), (él Sadday), God Almighty (# 8724); ON7@? "0 by

Os (él ’“lohé yisra’él), God, the God of Israel (# 449); "NT

PN (al 10’7), God of See-

ing. ANE El is a common, generic Sem. appellative for the deity. El is also the name of the high god in some cultures, as evidenced in the Ugar. texts (see TDOT 1:242-53). El ‘4s the primordial father of gods and men, sometimes stern, often compassionate, always wise in judgment” (253). Some of the El compounds (see below) also have West Sem. counterparts; they are probably to be understood as local manifestations of El. The use of El Elyon by Melchizedek in Gen 14:18-19 may be one such reference. OT 1. El (with compounds) is used over 200x in the OT. While El is a generic name for Israel’s God, it is often used with descriptors (e.g., righteous God, Isa 45:21) and with compounds (see below) that speak more specifically in terms of places or themes. The name of the people of God, Israel, is formed, not with the theophoric element yah,

but ’é/. This suggests that the link between Israei and El is historically prior to the link with Yahweh. Yet, the history of the name Yahweh is so complex that no clear historical lines can be drawn (e.g., how ought one interpret Exod 6:2-3?). El is used more often in older (or archaizing) texts. El (with compounds) is esp. prominent in Gen 12-50 and may reflect the language for God most prominent in the pre-Mosaic era. The use of Yahweh in these same narratives may well constitute a theological claim: The God whom Israel’s ancestors worshiped under the name El is no other than Yahweh, the name of Israel’s God. The

use of ’él ’“l6hé yisra’él, “El, the God of Israel” (Gen 33:20), is another way of making that claim. Another case is Gen 14:22, where Abraham, by using Yahweh with El Elyon, “God Most High,” claims that Yahweh is the same as El, indeed is Melchizedek’s God under that name. This extends the claim regarding Yahweh; the El worshiped by the Canaanites is none other than Israel’s God. The phrase, “the God of my (your) father” (e.g., Gen 49:25), a special reference to the God of Israel’s ancestors, also links the God of the ancestral period with later Israel (see Exod 3:6). 2. The use of El Elyon may be more name than epithet, reflecting the use of El for the high god in Canaanite religion. Gen 14 is the only text where these two words are juxtaposed, yet they are often in par. (e.g., Ps 73:11; 107:11). In poetic texts, Elyon is often in par. with Yahweh. In Deut 32:8-9 Yahweh is placed in relation to Israel and the Most High in relation to all other peoples. The relation of El Elyon to creation and to the Davidic kingship is evident in Gen 14 and in texts such as 2 Sam 22:14 (cf. 400

DON(#446b) 1 Sam 2:10; Ps 47:2). This suggests a use of this name esp. when more universal claims for Israel’s God are being made. 3. él ’6lam is used in apposition with Yahweh as well (only in Gen 21:33, linked with the Philistines). While usually translated “the everlasting God,” it may refer more to the fullness of God than simply a temporal reference. The use of ‘6lam for the king (1 Sam 20:42; 2 Sam 7:13, 16; 1 Kgs 1:31) suggests that this name for God was primarily oriented to the royal setting in Israel. 4. El Shaddai. The identification with Yahweh is made clear in Exod 6:3 (yhwh), which links God’s revelation to the ancestors by the name of El Shaddai to Mosaic Israel (see Gen 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 48:3, texts often associated with the P tradi-

tion). Its common usage in poetic texts is noteworthy, as is its association with creation and blessing (Gen 49:25). The name occurs extensively throughout Job, a book without specific Israelite references. The name also occurs in association with the non-Israelite Balaam (Num 24:4, 16); in v. 16 it is par. to El Elyon (elsewhere only in Ps 91:1). The meaning of the name remains uncertain. Most often it is linked to mountains (hence, “God, [one] of the mountain[s]’’), as gods often were in the ANE. “God of the breasts’’

has also been suggested. The translation “God Almighty” is based on the LXX; an abstraction of an originally concrete image, this may reflect an educated guess as to meaning on the part of the LXX translators. 5. El Roi is used only in the story of Hagar (Gen 16:13) and again links an El name to a non-Israelite figure. This is the only text where a human being specifically names God; that it is a woman,

and an Egyptian woman

at that, makes an interesting

point for reflection as to how peculiarities of human experience of God can lead to new names for God. God: ~ ’ab (Father, #3); > ’abir (Mighty One, #51); > ’“ddndy ([My] Lord, #151); > ’élV (God, #446); > ’“lohim (God, # 466); > ba‘al (Master, # 1251); > gibbér (Divine Warrior, # 1475a); > pahad I (Fear [of Isaac], #7065); > sir I (Rock, #7446); > qadds (Holy One,

#7705); > Yahweh: Theology BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABD 4:1001-11; 6:1011-12; HBD, 685-87; TDOT 1:59-72, 242-61, 267-84; 5:500-21; THAT 1:142-50; F. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 1973; R. Garr, “The Grammar and Interpretation of Exodus 6:3,” JBL 111, 1992, 385-408; T. Mettinger, In Search of God, 1987; R. W. L. Moberly, The Old Testament of the Old Testament, 1992, 5-35; J. C. deMoor, The Rise

of Yahwism, 1980; M. Smith, The Early History of God, 1990. Terence E. Fretheim

(# 446b).

446b

Drs

o°>s (’zlim), nom. gods, pl. of ’é (“God” or

“BI”), b&né ’elim sons of God, sons of El

ANE The nom. ’/(u) in Semitic languages can refer either generically to a god or specifically to the high god El. The plural ’Jm or bny ’Im refers in Ugar. texts to a lesser order of gods serving in El’s circle or council (Miller, Divine Warrior, 12-23).

1. The incomparability of Yahweh as God (él, ’“léah, or ’“lohim) vis-a-vis OT other gods (’“lohim ’“hérim) is vital to the ultimately monotheistic claim of the OT. 401

0°58(#446b) The putative existence of divine beings serves to heighten Yahweh’s transcendence: “Who among the gods (’élim) is like you, O Lord?” (Exod 15:11; Ps 89:6). The b°né

’€lohim have no individual personality, but corporately they acclaim Yahweh’s glory

and works (Ps 29:1; Job 38:7).

2. Though inferior to Yahweh, the angels participate in God’s holiness and stand in natural order above humanity: hence it is hubris for one to wish to become like ’€lohim, knowing good and evil (Gen 3:5), or to say: “I am a god (él); I sit on the throne of a god” (Ezek 28:2). Thus the psalmist ponders the mystery of humankind as the unique image of the divine: “You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings (“lohim) (LXX angeloi) and crowned him with glory and honor” (Ps 8:5[6]; cf. Ps 148:13-14). 3. In the OT, the Canaanite pantheon is transformed into God’s “general assembly” with a guardian angel assigned to each Gentile nation (Deut 32:8-9 LXX, Q). God’s purposes are announced in this assembly (Job 1:6; 2:1; cf. 1 Kgs 22:19 s%ba’ haxSamayim, “host of heaven”). These divine principalities, along with their human representatives, are declared to be corrupt and are threatened by God with ultimate extinction: “I said, “You are “gods” (’“/6him); you are all sons of the Most High’ (b°né ‘ely6n). But you will die like mere men” (Ps 82:6[7]). In Job, the adversary (Stn) appears in the assembly, but unlike the other angels, he roves over the earth and challenges God and his elect (cf. Forsyth, Old Enemy, 107-23). P-B 1. While the OT focuses on human responsibility for sin, it hints at a primal sin of miscegenation by the b*né ’élim who mated with human women, provoking God’s wrath (Gen 6:1-4; see VanGemeren). The Enoch literature develops at great length the story of the “sons of heaven,” or fallen Watchers, and sees in this cosmic rebellion the

basis for God’s apocalyptic judgment (1 En 6:4; Jub 4:15).

2. The QL adopts the biblical terminology of ’élim, ’“lohim, and b®né ’*lohim for God’s angels, who join in heavenly worship and in apocalyptic battle (1QM 12:4-5; 15:14; for 4QShirShabb, see Newsom, Songs, 23-24). God is exalted as God of ’élim (1QM 14:16; 18:6) and in turn raises up Michael as ruler of the heavenly world (1QM 17:7; cf. 11QMelch 24-25, where the archangel is apparently called ’é/ or ’“lohim). The openness to using divine names for principal angels has obvious implications for NT Christology (e.g., Matt 22:41-45; John 10:33-36; Heb 1:8-9). Angel, messenger: ~ ‘élim (gods, #446b); messenger, # 4855); > sarap (seraph, # 8597)

> k°riib I (cherub, #4131);

> mal’ak

(angel,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

H. Bietenhard, Die himmlische

Welt im Urchristentum

und Spdtjudentum,

WUNT

2, 1951;

C. H. W. Brekelmans, “The Saints of the Most High and Their Kingdom,” OTS 14, 1965, 305-29; J. J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel, 1977; W. Eichrodt, TOT, 2:15-228; N. Forsyth, The Old Enemy: Satan and the Combat Myth, 1987; C. H. Gordon, “History of Religion in Psalm 82,” Biblical and Near Eastern Studies, FS LaSor,

1978, 129-31;

M. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20, AB, 1983, 37-59, 164-206; I. Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism, AGAJU

14, 1980; L. W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord, 1988; P. J. Kobelski,

Melchizedek and Melchiresha, CBQMS

10, 1981; S. A. Meier, The Messenger in the Ancient

Semitic World, HSM 45, 1988; P. D. Miller, The Divine Warrior in Early Israel, HSM 5; 1973;

C. Newsom,

402

Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 1985; J. F. Ross, “The Prophet as Yahweh’s

waa NH 453) Messenger,” Israel’s Prophetic Heritage, FS Muilenburg, 1962, 98-107; C. C. Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity, 1982; J. de Savignac, “Les ‘Seraphim,’” VT 22, 1972, 320-25; W. A. VanGemeren, “The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4,” WTJ 43, 1981, 320-48; R. de Vaux, “Les chérubins et l’arche dalliance,” FS A. Robert

1967, 231-59. Stephen F. Noll

448 (el, to), > Particles

453

wags — |waa ds(eleabis), hail or ice crystals (# 453).

OT The nom. ’elgabis is used in two passages, in which God is described as sending forth hail or stones of ice—the first in metaphorical usage, in which the hailstones along with heavy rain destroy the flimsy wall of comfort built by the false prophets (Ezek 13:11-13); the second in the prophetic message concerning the destruction of the armies of Gog by God’s pouring out heavy rain, hailstones, and burning sulfur on them (Ezek 38:22). Snow, frost, ice: > ’elgabi¥ (hail or ice crystals, # 453); > k©pdr Il (frost, hoar-frost, # 4095); > qippa on (frost, # 7885); > gerah (ice, #7943); > Seleg I (snow, # 8920) Rain, dew, drizzle, hail, showers: > ’ége/ (drop [of dew], #103); > brd I (hail, # 1351); > gsm (make rain, # 1772); > zrm II ({clouds] pour out [water], #2442); > h@namal (sleet, hail?, #2857); > tal (dew, light rain, drizzle, #3228); > yrh II (give drink, cause rain, # 3722); > mtr (make rain, #4763); ~ malqés (late rain, #4919); — sagrir (downpour, # 6039); ~ sapiah II (violent storm, #6207); > r“bibim (showers, # 8053); > rasis (dew drop, # 8268); ~> r‘p (drip, flow, rain, # 8319); > sa‘ir IV (heavy rain, # 8540); > Sikbd (layer of dew, emis-

sion/ discharge of seed, # 8887) BIBLIOGRAPHY

D. Baly, The Geography of the Bible, 50-52. Hermann J. Austel

454 ('algummim, algum logs), > #6770

;

=5y

mON (lh I), q. swear, curse; hi. put under oath

(#457); nom. M28 (’ald), oath, curse (# 460); TT PSM (ta’“14), curse (hapleg.; # 9297). ANE

The nom. ’a/d occurs with the meaning “curse” in the Zenjirli Panammuwa

Inscription (“there was a curse upon his father’s house,” 1. 2; cf. J. C. L. Gibson, TSS

2:78, 82). The occurrences in the Phoenician Arslan Tash inscription (ll. 9, 13-15) should now be viewed in the light of the judgment of J. Teixidor and others that the Arslan Tash amulets are not ancient (e.g., Aula Orientalis 1, 1983, 105-9; JBL 103, 1984, 454). Arab. ’ala” TV means to swear.

1. The ’ald is properly a curse by which a person is bound to an obligation that OT is most often contractual in nature. Covenantal associations are frequently prominent. The covenant-making Gerarites requested Isaac that there should be “a sworn agreement between us” (Gen 26:28), i.e., a covenant sanctioned by curse clauses in case of

403

>

nN(#457) default by either party (cf. “therefore a curse consumes the earth,” Isa 24:6; Ezek 16:59). The taking of such oaths or curses without the intention of being bound by them is denounced by Hosea (10:4). In Deut 29 ’G/a@ assumes an overtly theological significance in that it serves as a virtual synonym for the b*rit, covenant (> # 1382), between God and Israel (vv. 12[11], 14[13]), at the same time as it specifically denotes the curses that would befall the person who defected from the God of Israel (vv. 20[19], 21[20]; cf. 2 Chron 34:24; Dan 9:11). The last two references mention written texts, and this idea is expressed in visionary form in Zech 5:1-4, where the prophet sees a flying scroll in which is written “the curse,” by which is meant the penalty for breach of covenant law as represented by, for example, the Decalogue (cf. v. 3;

> Ten Com-

mandments: Theology). 2. The curse also operated outside the area of the formal contract, as when the

owner of stolen goods might pronounce a curse on the thief (Judg 17:2) or a person withholding important information might be similarly threatened (Lev 5:1; cf. Prov 29:24). In the situation envisaged in 1 Kgs 8:31 (cf. 2 Chron 6:22) a man claiming to have been wronged by his neighbor invokes Yahweh as judge. The psychological effect of the “fear of the oath” could be significant in such circumstances, as is illustrated by an instance recorded in the Nuzi tablets in connection with a female slave (see ANET, 220). Another kind of situation is addressed in the “jealousy ordeal” outlined in Num 5:11-31, according to which a woman accused of adultery has a fearful curse laid

upon her prior to her innocence or guilt being established. The inscribing of the relevant curses on a scroll and their washing off into the “bitter water” (v. 23) offers a parallel with some of the curses discussed in the preceding paragraph. 3. Sometimes a person who has been put under a curse is described through metonymy as “a curse” (Num 5:27; Jer 42:18; 44:12). The Akk. ar-rat ilani (“curse of the gods”) is directly comparable (> qll, curse [> # 7837]). 4. The concept of the indissoluble curse (ar-rat la napSuri) is common in Mesopotamian texts; but even here it is possible, for example, for Enkidu to convert his curse on a prostitute into a blessing (Gilgamesh VIL.iii.5-iv. 10). There is also evidence of flexibility in OT. In Judg 17:2 the curse pronounced by Micah’s mother could be overridden by a blessing, while, in the theological realm, the transference of Israel’s curses to her enemies is envisaged in Deut 30:7 (see ’rr, curse [> # 826]). P-B The expression “curses of the covenant” occurs in the Qumran literature, first in relation to the sanctions of the Sinaitic covenant (CD 1:17) and then in relation to the sect’s own membership covenant (1QS 2:16; 5:12). Curse: ~ ’/h I (swear, curse, put under oath, #457); > ’rr (curse, be cursed, # 826); > brk (bless [euph. for curse], # 1385a); > gdp (revile, blaspheme, # 1552); > z‘m (be angry, curse,

# 2404);

> ngb (pierce, bore, distinguish, curse, #5918);

> gbb (curse, #7686);

> gil (be

slight, swift, appear trifling, treat with contempt, # 7837); > Curse: Theology BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 1:261-66; S. H. Blank, “The Curse, Blasphemy, the Spell, and the Oath,” HUCA 23/1, 1950-51, 73-95; H. C. Brichto, The Problem of “Curse” in the Hebrew Bible, 1963; T. G. Crawford, Blessing and Curse in Syro-Palestinian Inscriptions of the Iron Age, 1992; H.-W. Jiingling, “Eid und Bund in Ez 16-17,” in Das neue Bund in Alten: Studien zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente,” Erich Zengler, ed., 1993, 113-48; M. Noth, “For All Who Rely on Works of the

404

ES

Se

ce

mx # 461)

Law Are Under a Curse,” in The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies (ET), 1966, 118-31; J. Scharbert, Solidaritdt in Segen und Fluch im Alten Testament und in seiner Umwelt, 1958.

Robert P. Gordon

458 (ih II, lament), > # 1963 460 (ald, oath, curse), > # 457

461 OT 1. Variously great tree (1x), and three places where 21:9. 2. The nom.

moK

MON (’2la 1), mighty tree (# 461); 5°8 (ayil ID, mighty tree (# 381).

translated by the NIV as oak (6x), oak tree (3x), terebinth (2x), tree (1x); it is consistenly translated “oak” by the KJV, except in it is treated as a place-name (“valley of Elah”): 1 Sam 17:2, 19;

’ayil II, mighty tree, is found 5x and always translated “oaks” by the NIV. It is probably related to the word ’é/, mighty, godlike.

Trees: ~ ’2ld I (mighty tree, #461); > ’erez (cedar, #780); > ’dren I (pine, # 815); > ’@Xel (tamarisk, # 869); > b°rds (juniper, # 1360); > Jaz I (almond-tree, # 4280); > ‘és (trees, tree, wood, timber, sticks, #6770); — ‘ar‘ar (juniper, #6899); > sammeret (acacia, [tree-]top, #7550); — Sagéd (almond, #9196); — Sigma (sycamore-[fig-] tree, #9204); > f°’ ak¥ar (cypress, #9309); > tamarI (date-palm, #9469); > tirzd (unknown tree, # 9560); (> Tree of

Knowledge/Life: Theology) Larry L. Walker

466

on>N

D°m>N (’lohim), God (# 466); MIX (’¢léah), God (# 468).

ANE

Elohim is not attested outside of the OT.

OT

—_Eloah (57x), which may be the sing. of Elohim, is used mostly in Job (41x), per-

haps to avoid specifically Israelite associations. Elohim (2570x), a pl. form, is sometimes used for gods other than Yahweh (Exod 20:3), when it also may take the definite

art. (Exod 18:11), pl. adj., and pl. vbs. (Ps 97:7). Its pl. form may mean it had polytheistic (or at least less than fully monotheistic) overtones at one time. Yet its use in the OT for Israel’s God (always with sing. vbs.) probably means that the pl. has reference to intensification or absolutization or exclusivity (say, God of gods); it is less commonly considered a pl. of majesty. While Trinitarian perspectives are probably not in view, the OT witnesses to a richness and complexity in the divine realm (Gen 1:26; Isa

6:8) such that later Trinitarian developments seem quite natural. This generic name for God is generally interchangeable with El as well as the personal name Yahweh. Yet the discrete use of Elohim in Ps 42-83 shows that this name for God may have been preferred by a distinctive group (at a certain time and place?) within Israel with particular interests (Yahweh is used in Ps 14 and Elohim in the nearly identical Ps 53). The use of Elohim may be intended, at least in certain texts, to touch base with the God worshiped by non-Israelites, and hence its use may have an apologetic or kerygmatic interest. 405

18 (#477) The OT begins with reference to Elohim rather than Yahweh (Gen 1:1); this

may indicate that it more readily carried a universal sense for that audience than the personal name

The addition of Yahweh

Yahweh.

to Elohim,

“LORD

God,” in Gen

2:4-3:23 may be meant to claim that this universal creator God is none other than Israel’s personal God. That the name Yahweh was invoked from earliest times (Gen 4:26), and this by non-Israelites in a setting that has all of humankind in view, may

reflect a comparable universal intention related to worship. Yahweh is a God for all people and may be prayed to and worshiped by all (see 1 Kgs 8:41-43). The constant interchange between Yahweh and Elohim in the subsequent Genesis narratives, particularly with their lively interest in the interaction between the chosen family and the surrounding peoples, may carry this universal intention forward. That this carries a missional interest may be seen in the repeated word that Abraham has been chosen for the sake of “all peoples of the earth” (Gen 12:3 and par.). Election is for mission. God: > ’ab (Father, # 3); > ’abir (Mighty One, #51); > ’“d6énay ([My] Lord, # 151); > él V (God, #446); > ’“lohim (God, # 466); > ba‘al (Master, # 1251); > gibbér (Divine Warrior, # 1475a); > pahad I (Fear [of Isaac], #7065); > sir I (Rock, #7446); > qad6ds (Holy One, #7705); ~ Yahweh: Theology

BIBLIOGRAPHY THAT 1:153-67. Terence E. Fretheim

468 (’“l6ah, God), > # 466 471 (élén I, great tree),

> #6770, Vegetation

473 (allén I, great tree), > #6770 476 (allip I, familiar, friend), > #544

ae

a

AES

AION (allip I), and ae Callup), nom.

tribal/clan chief (#477);

9X (elep IID), nom.

clan, tribe, region (# 548).

ANE

1. Attested only in Northwest Semitic: Ugar. ullupu IM, prince, chief; Hurr.

ullupu, chief. Note: The original a-class vowel shifted to u-class, due to vowel harmony: allupu > ullupu (UM §5. 18). 2. Ugar. ullupu, prince, chief, designates a political/military leader (UT §202). It is used as an independent title, “prince, chief” (CTA 2:12-13, 20-22, 28-30), and in personal (royal) names: TUR-ul-lu-pi Prince TUR (personal name) (Virrolleaud, 11) (see OT 5 below). Contrary to the view of some Hebraists, it is questionable whether a semantic relation exists between ullupu, prince, chief (Ugar., Hur.), alpu I, bull, ox, cattle (Akk., Ugar., Phoen., Pun.), and alpu II, one thousand, military contingent (Ugar., Phoen., Syr.) (CAD 1:64-73; UT §§200-201; WGU §242, §§241-42; DISO, 15; GPL, 78; PPG 819).

OT 1. ’allip I, clan/tribal chief (HALAT 1:54; DCH 1:288-89) should not be confused with the homonymic root ’allip I, friend, companion (# 476) (HALAT.1:54; DCH 1:288). Both are attested elsewhere as independent roots: Ugar. ullupu I, ally

406

18 (#477) (WGU §243) and ullupu II, prince, chief (UT §202), and Arab. ’alluf, friend, intimate

(Wehr 1:23). 2. In the OT plene ’alliip occurs 57x (Gen 36:15-19, 21, 29, 30, 40-43; Exod 15:15; 1 Chron 1:51-54) and defective ’allup occurs 3x (Zech 9:7; 12:5-6). The major-

ity of usages refer to leaders of foreign nations (Cassuto 1:332), e.g., Edomite clan chiefs: 46x (Gen 36:15-19, 40-43; Exod 15:15; 1 Chron 1:51-54); Horite clan chiefs: 11x (Gen 36:21, 29-30); Philistine leaders: 1x (Zech 9:7); and Judean clan chiefs: 2x (Zech 12:5-6). 3. Earlier scholars derived ’allup II from ’elep II, one thousand (#547), and proposed that ’allip Il means chief of one thousand (TWOT 1:48; BDB, 48-49; Moritz, 89; de Vaux 1:7). Noting that ’elep II sometimes denotes a military contingent (Num 1:16; 10:4; Josh 22:21, 30), some went so far as to argue that ’allip II depicts a military leader in command of a division of warriors (Meyer, 500; Wolf, 48). However,

more recent lexicographers reject this approach and suggest that ’allup II is more closely related to ’elep III, tribe, clan (DCH 1:288-89, 299-300; HALAT 1:54, 59-60).

This is supported by several factors. (a) The use of ’allip II suggests that it refers to a leader of a social group (tribe, clan) rather than a military contingent (DCH 1:288-89). (b) While ’allép II is never used in collocation with ’elep II, one thousand, military contingent, it is used in collocation with ’elep III, tribe, clan, in reference to tribal/clan chiefs, e.g., “These were the Horite chiefs (allipé), according to their divisions

(1° allupéhem)” (Gen 36:30). (c) Leaders of military units designated by elep II are not

identified by ’allip II but by happ°gidim ’*ser I°’alpé hassaba’, officers over thousands of the army (Num 31:48); sar-ha’elep, commander of the thousand (1 Sam 17:18; 18:13; 1QM 4:2); and saré-ha’“lapim, commanders of the thousands (Exod 18:21, 25; Num 31:14, 48, 52, 54; Deut 1:15; 1 Sam 8:12; 22:7; 1 Chron 13:1; 15:25; 27:1; 28:1; 29:6; 2 Chron 1:2; 17:14; 25:5; 1QT 57:4; 11QT 21:3; 22:2; 42:15; 58:4; 1QM 4:1; 1 QSam-o 1:29).

4. The semantic connection between ’alliip II and ’elep III is best appreciated in the light of the range of meanings for ’elep II] (HALAT 1:59-60): (a) clan (Num 10:4; 31:5; Judg 6:15; 1 Sam 10:19), loosely equivalent to mispahd, family (1 Sam 10:19-21) and matteh, tribe (Num 1:16; Josh 22:14), but smaller than Sébet, tribe (Judg 21:14); (b) tribe, synonymous with sébet, tribe, and matteh, tribe (Num 1:16; Josh 22:21, 30; Isa 60:22); and (c) region, as a synecdoche for the location of a clan (Deut 33:17; Josh

22:30; 1 Sam 23:23; Mic 5:1). The usage of ’allip II reflects a similar range of meanings: (a) clan chief (Gen 36:10-19, 20-30); (b) tribal chiefs (Exod 15:15; Zech 9:7; 12:5-6); and (c) regional chiefs (Gen 36:40-43).

5.

’allip

IW

is

used

in

two

different

ways:

(a)

term

designating

clan/tribal/regional chief, and (b) title used with a personal name. Both are seen as follows: “These were the chiefs (’allipé) among Esau’s descendants ... Chief (alliip) Teman, Chief Omar ... these were the chiefs (allipé) descended from Eliphaz in Edom” (Gen 36:15-16).

6. The semantic domain of ’allip II overlaps the semantic fields of r’6¥, head, leader, ruler (HALAT 3:865-66), and ’ayil I, leader (HALAT 1:40; DCH 1:211). All three terms designate leaders of tribal organizations or clan communities, especially of seminomadic groups. ’alliip II is used in poetic parallelism with ‘ayil I, leader (Exod 15:15). The leader of ’elep III, clan, tribe, is designated by ’allip II (Gen 36:30;

407

*°DN(#477) Zech 12:5-6) and ra’§, head, leader (Num 1:16; 10:4; Josh 22:14, 21, 30; 1 Chron 12:21; 11QT 19:16; 1 QSam-o, 1:14). The semantic domain of ’allip II is more distantly related to melek, king (HALAT 2:591-92), and nagid, prince (HALAT 2:667-68),

which designate institutional monarchial leaders of sedentary peoples. Both ’allip I and melek designate Edomite leaders in Gen 36:10-43; however, ’allip II designates clan leaders in the premonarchial (Gen 36:10-30) and postmonarchial periods (Gen 36:40-43), while melek refers to kings during the Edomite monarchial period (Gen 36:31-39). Neverthless, this association of ’allip II with melek clearly indicates that the former represents a strong position of leadership (Hoglund, 337; Bartlett, 83-90). 7. The ancient Edomite/Horite and Hebrew clan/tribal structures were based on

blood ties and shared similar features (de Vaux, 3-23; Moritz, 81-93; Wolf, 45-49, 287-95). However, the names and divisions of the Edomite/Horite nomadic structure

differed somewhat from the more sedentary Hebrew structure (e.g., Josh 7:14-18). The paternal family in sedentary Hebrew society was designated by bayit, house > family (HALAT 1:125), while the nomadic family was designated by ’dhel, tent > family (HALAT 1:19; DCH

1:143-46; Moritz, 87). Related families constituted a clan, often

designated by mixpahdé (from sph, to feel joined together), which denotes an extended family in which the sense of blood relationship is still felt (HALAT 2:651). The term *elep III also depicts the clan as a large indefinite number of relatives (HALAT 1:59-60; DCH 1:299-300), as well as the larger unit, the tribe (Num 1:16; 10:36; 22:14; Josh 22:21, 30; Isa 60:22). ’elep III focuses on the numerical quantity of the tribe, while two

other terms designate the tribe in terms of its ancestral roots and present leadership: sébet (tribal leader’s rod > tribe) and matteh (tribal leader’s staff > tribe), both of which are metonymies depicting tribal members under the leadership of a tribal chief (Gen 49:16; Num 17:2-10 [17-25]; Deut 29:17).

The Hebrew clan (mispahda) was ruled by several elders (z°qénim), but the tribe as a whole by a single head (70’) (Num 1:16; 10:4; Josh 22:14, 21, 30; 1 Chron 12:21). On the other hand, the nomadic Edomite/Horite clan (’elep) was ruled by one chief (Callip), its progenitor/father (Gen 36:11-30, 40-43; 1 Chron 1:51-54). The terms miSpahd (clan) and ’elep III (clan) are used interchangeably to denote Horite/Edomite clans under the leadership of an ’alliip, clan chief (Gen 36:30, 40). While ’allip is used in collocation with terms designating a clan (mispahd and ’elep II), it is never used with terms designating the larger unit, the tribe (‘ébet and matteh). Thus, ’allip refers

to the chief/progenitor of a clan rather than tribe. His position over an Edomite/Horite clan was probably similar to that of the shiekh over the nomadic Arabic tribe (de Vaux, 8-9). 8. ’allip II often occurs in construct, followed by the name of the clan that the chief leads: chiefs of Edom (Gen 36:43 | 1 Chron 1:54; Exod 15:15); chiefs of Eliphaz (Gen 36:16); chiefs of Reuel (36:17); chiefs of Oholibamah (36:18); chiefs of the Horites (36:21, 29, 30); chiefs of Judah (Zech 12:5, 6); chiefs of the sons of Esau (Gen 36:15); names of the chiefs of Esau (36:40). It is followed by the name of the clan chief

33x in a title (Gen 36:15-18, 29, 30, 40-43; 1 Chron 1:51-54), It appears 10x in intro-

ductory clauses: “These are the clan-chiefs ...” (Gen 36:15-19, 21, 29-30, 43; 1 Chron

1:54).

9. All but four occurences of ’allip II occur in lists of Edomite and Horite clan chiefs (Gen 36:10-19, 20-30, 40-43 | 1 Chron 1:51-54). The open genealogies of

408

18 (#477) Gen 36 identify the sons of Esau in the patriarchal period (36:1-9); the descendants of Esau who fathered Edomite clans in the premonarchial period (36:10-19) and descendants of Seir who fathered Horite clans (36:20-30); the Edomite kings in the monarchial period (36:31-39); and the Edomite clan chiefs in the postexilic period (36:40-43 ll 1 Chron 1:51-54). The lists contain two parallel sets of names: (a) the fourteen grandsons of Esau, who became the fourteen Edomite clan chiefs (36:11-19); (b) the seven sons of Seir, who became the seven Horite clan chiefs (36:20-30); and (c) the eleven

postexilic descendants of Esau, who became the eleven Edomite clan chiefs (36:40-43 1 Chron 1:51-54). The collocation of ’allip II and ’elep III in a genealogy seems to indicate that each clan chief is progenitor of a clan: “These were the Horite chiefs, according to their divisions (/°’allupéhem)” (Gen 36:30). However, ’elep III sometimes denotes a region (Deut 33:17; Josh 22:30; 1 Sam 23:23; Mic 5:1); thus, ’allap II

might designate the chief of a region rather than progenitor of a clan. In some cases, both may be in view: “These were the chiefs descended from Edom, by name, according to their clans (/°misp°hdtam) and regions (lim°qométam)” (Gen 36:40). 10. Zech 9:7 uses ’allup in a rhetorical description of the conversion of the repentant Philistine remnant being absorbed into Judah, as the Jebusites were assimilated at the time of David (e.g., Araunah in 2 Sam 24:16-24; 1 Chron 21:18-26). The

conversion of these gentile proselytes will be profound; they will share equally in salvific blessings with Israel: they will “become clan-chiefs (NIV leaders) in Judah.” Because the defective spelling of the collective sg. ’allup is difficult, several scholars revocalize it as ’elep III, clan: “they will become a clan in Judah” (BHS editors; HALAT

1:54; DCH

1:288-89). LXX chiliaros, reflects a vocalization of ’elep II, one

thousand: “they will be like a regiment in Judah.” 11. In Zech 12:5-6 ’allupé y°hida tribal-chiefs of Judah (NIV leaders of Judah), occurs twice in an eschatological prophecy. When hostile gentile nations invade Judah and Jerusalem (12:1-2), yhwh will wage psychological warfare, sending a divine panic against them (12:3-4). The tribal chiefs of Judah will discern that yhwh is fighting for them and will place their faith in him, empowering them to defend Zion (12:5-6). Defectively spelled MT consonantal ’/py has been handled variously. LXX hoi chiliaros Iouda, the thousands of Judah, reflects a vocalization of ’alpé y°hiida derived from ’elep II, one thousand (HALAT 1:59; DCH 1:299-300; Meyer, 329-30). BHS edi-

tors (followed by RSV) revocalize as ’alpé y°hiidd but relate it to ’elep III: clans of Judah (HALAT 1:54; DCH 1:288-89). P-BThe nom. ’allip II occurs 1x in DSS: “the chiefs (py) of Israel are the feet” (4QpGen-a, 5:3). In RH ’allip Il, prince, chief (Jastrow, 68) is used in reference to Adam as the chief of the world, that is, progenitor of the nations (Gen Rab s. 20). In its use of Mic 5:2[1], Matt 2:6 reflects a vocalization related to ’allip II NT (tribal chief) rather than MT ’elep III (tribe) or LXX ’elep II (one thousand). All “three

textual variations” vocalize the ambiguous consonantal b’/py differently: Matt 2:6, en tois hégemosin Iouda, among the rulers of Judah, reflects a vocalization of ba’allupé y°hiidd, among the tribal chiefs of Judah; LXX en chiliasin youda, among thousands of Judah, reflects a vocalization of b°’alpé y°hiidda, among thousands (from ’elep II) of Judah; and MT preserves b°’alpé y°hiidd, among [the] clans (probably from ’elep III)

409

MX(# 480) of Judah. Both MT and LXX reflect the same vocalization of consonantal b’/py but derive it from different roots. Leaders: > ’Gd6n (lord, master, # 123); > ’allap II (tribal chief, #477); > ’asél II (eminent, noble, #722); > zagén (elder, # 2418); > horI, free man, freeborn, # 2985); > maptéah (badge of office, #5158); — nagid (prince, ruler, leader, #5592); —> nasi’ I (chief, king, # 5954); ~ saris (eunuch, court official, #6247); — seren II (Philistine prince, #6249); ~ ‘attiid (he-goat, leader, # 6966); > pehd (governor, #7068); ~ pagid (officer, #7224); > qasin (commander, leader, # 7903); > rab II (captain, chief, # 8042); > rzn (rule, # 8142); > 56a‘ I (noble, # 8777) a BIBLIOGRAPHY

DCH 1:288-89; TWOT 1:48; J. R. Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, 1989, 83-90; idem, “The Land of Seir and the Brotherhood of Edom,” JTS 20, 1969, 1-20; U. Cassuto, “‘alliip,” EncBib, 1955, 1:332; B. Cresson, “The Condemnation of Edom in Post-Exilic Judaism,” in The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays, 125-48; N. Glueck, “The Civilization of the

Edomites,” BA 9, 1947, 77-84; J. Gray, Legacy of Canaan,

1965, 189-90; K. G. Hoglund,

“Edomites,” Peoples of the Old Testament World, 335-47; E. Meyer, Die Israeliten und thre

Nachbarstdmme, 329-30, 354, 499-500; B. Moritz, “Edomitische Genealogien,” ZAW 44, 1926, 81-93; M. Noth, The History of Israel, 1960, 103; C. F. A. Schaeffer, Le Palais Royal d’Ugarit, 1959-, 3:260; R. de Vaux, Anclsr, 1965, 1:7-8; C. U. Wolf, “Terminology of Israel’s Tribal

Organization,” JBL 65, 1946, 45-49; idem, “Some Remarks on the Tribes and Clans of Israel,” JOR 36, 1946, 287-95. Gordon H. Johnston

480

nos

MON (Ih), ni. be corrupted (morally) (# 480).

ANE Arab. ’alaha VII means become sour, to be confused. The similar Akk. eléhu, meaning sprinkle, decorate, is a homonym.

OT The two separate biblical occurrences of the vb. refer to humanity in contrast to God. In Job 15:16 the term contrasts with moral purity (15:15; > zkh, be pure, # 2342) and righteousness (15:14; > sdq, be righteous, #7405, combined with z‘b [> be vile, # 9493]). It is associated with turning aside from and rebelling against (swr; > # 6073)

God in contrast to doing good (Ps 14:3=53:3[4]). The vb. explicitly refers to behavior of the fool (nbIT; > #5571; 14:1=53:1[2]), but he represents the totality of humankind (14:2=53:2[3]), among whom God can find none who are completely good. This corruption is not time-bound, since Paul uses these verses to show the total corruption of

his day also (Rom 3:10-12). All are corrupt and deserve no mercy, but God extends it to them anyway, declaring righteous (Ps 14:5) those who, unable to help themselves, call on him for help and refuge (14:4, 6; 53:4[5]). This moral corruption or depravity (NAB) of humanity is in marked contrast not only to God’s purity, but also to what humanity is called to be. Corruption: > ’/h (be corrupted, #480); > mutteh (corruption of justice, #4754); (corrupt, # 6074); > Sht (become corrupt, ruin, spoil, # 8845)

> sir

David W. Baker

489 (éliyyahi, Elijah), > Elijah 410

SDs #496) 490 (’“lthii, Elihu), > Elihu

496 ANE

birds

| 5°5x iil), nothing, nobody (# 496).

If the root contains an idea of “weak,” we might compare ’// Ugar. nothing-

ness(?) (Gray, Legacy, 50); Syr. ’alil weak; Arab. ’lalil, deprived, ’alal, useless; Akk.

ulalu, powerless. Preuss suggests that basically it is a diminutive of ’/, god, and only secondarily associated with ’//, weak.

OT

1. This word as written and spoken in the pl. (’“/ilim) resembles ’“/ohim, gods,

and is used to affirm the nonexistence of such entities, identifying them solely with the physical object. This is specifically said in Ps 96:5 = 1 Chron 16:26: the gods (’“l6hé) of the people are nothing (’“/élim). Isa 10:8-11 clearly reflects 36:18-20 (compare 2 Kgs 19:12-13); but “gods” in the deuteronomistic text has been replaced by ’“/il, psi, and ‘sb. Yahweh triumphs over the “gods of these countries” (Isa 36:20); in 10: his hand reaches to “the kingdoms of the ’“/ilim (nobodies; NIV idols).” 2. Opposition to idols is not a common theme in the Prophets except for Ezek, Hos, and Isa 40-55. The other prophets are concerned with moral, not cultic, offenses. In some of the places where the term is used it seems foreign to the context. ’“lilim is most common in Isa (equiv. to gilliilim elsewhere). In Isa 2:6-22 it is pride that is attacked; the people are rich and powerful (gold, silver, horses, chariots v. 7), hence they will be humbled (v. 9). But the “silver and gold” (v. 7) has been reinterpreted as “idols” (v. 8), which they have worshiped. (Preuss accepts this verse as Isaianic, but sees correctly that vv. 18 and 20 are additions to the poem.) In Lev 19:4 the word is probably a gloss for ’“lohé massékd. In 26:1 the prohibition on images (“Do not ... set up an image”) has been expanded to “Do not make idols or set up an image.” 3. In Ezek 30:13 the term ’“/ilim is parallel to gillilim, though some would (after LXX) read ’élim. Hab 2:18 is a classical idol parody (see ps! and massékd) but

with a piling up of epithets. 4. With the ’“lilim of Egypt (Isa 19:1), compare the gillilim of Egypt (Ezek 20:7-8).

P-B

Later Mish. Heb., Jewish Aram.

> Idolatry: Theology Idolatry:

> ’“/il (Nothing, #496);

~ ’*Séra (wooden

cult-object, pole, goddess, #895);

> gillilim (images, idols, # 1658); > dagdn (Dagon, # 1837); > k®mos (Chemosh [god of the —~ massékad I (cast statuette, #5011); — mdlek (Molech, #4891); Moabites], #4019);

~ mipleset

(terrible thing, dreadful

(god-image,

#6773);

object, #5145);

~ ‘astoret (Astarte, #6956);

#7181); > tomer II (scarecrow, #9473); Theology

— semel

(image,

> pesel (cultic image,

#6166);

> ‘asab

statue of a god,

> frapim (figurines, mask, #9572);

— Idolatry:

BIBLIOGRAPHY G. B. Gray, The Book of Isaiah, 1912, 54; J. Gray, Legacy of Canaan, 1957, H. D. Preuss, TDOT 1:285-87. Judith M. Hadley

502 (’lipaz, Eliphaz), > Eliphaz 411

DON (#519) 511 (lisa, Elisha), > Elijah 515 (“lisa‘, Elisha), > Elijah 518 (allay, [a cry]), > Particles

519

obs

obs (lm I), ni. be bound,

speechless,

grow

silent (# 519).

OT This vb. occurs 8x, all of which are in the ni. form. The basic sense is to have the lips tightly closed (“let their lying lips be silenced,” Ps 31:18[19]), even to the point of being incapable of speech (‘I bowed my face toward the ground and was speechless,” Dan 10:15). It occurs in parallel with both dimiyyd and hsh. The point is made in two cases that the person did not even open his mouth (Ps 39:9[10]; Isa 53:7). Three

references in Ezekiel speak of the prophet being struck dumb and then of being able to speak again (Ezek 3:26; 24:27; 33:22). Rest, silence: > diimd I (silence, # 1872); > dmh II (come to an end, rest, be dumb, silent, # 1949); > dmm I (stand still, be motionless, silent, #1957); > hp’ (do s.th. secretly, #2901); — hsh (keep silence, command to be silent, # 3120); > hrs II (be deaf, keep still, remain inactive, make silent, # 3087); > smt (silence, # 7551) John N. Oswalt

Dx (illm), adj. dumb (# 522); < BON (’Im J), aan

DPS

ni. be speechless, grow silent(? #519).

|

ANE

Aram. ’illéma’, dumb.

OT

The adj. describes speechlessness, whether of animals (Isa 56:10), false gods

(Hab 2:18), or people (Prov 31:8; Isa 35:6). The term was also used by Moses to

describe some form of speech impediment, perhaps stuttering or stammering (Exod 4:11). Such a handicap (whether actual or pretended) precluded the possibility of speaking forth the word of Yahweh (Exod 4:11; Isa 56:10), a situation that he, the maker of the mouth, could easily remedy (Exod 4:11-12). Dumbness is also a metaphor for spiritual insensitivity (Ps 38:13[14]) and a fitting description of the pagan idols, which are unable to speak (Hab 2:18).

NT

~~ NIDNTT 1:428-29.

Handicaps, disfigurement, blind, lame, stammer, speechless: ~ ’ill@ém (speechlessness, # 522); > gibbén (hunchbacked, # 1492); > hartis IV (mutilation [animal], # 3024); > heres (speechless, # 3094); > kSh (be lame, crippled, #4171); > mim (blemish, #4583); > mixhat (disfigured, #5425); — nakeh (crippled, smitten, #5783); > ‘wr I (be blind, # 6422); > ‘“illég

(stammering, stuttering, #6589); > psh (be lame, crippled, #7174); > sl‘ I (limping condition, > sr‘ (deformed, mutilated, # 8594); > /ballul

#7519); > qit I (defective [animal], #7832); (white spot in eye, # 9319)

R. K. Harrison/E. H. Merrill

523 (‘almuggim, almug wood), > # 6770

412

m7) N(# 530) 527 (alman, widower), > #530 529 ('almon, widowhood),

> #530

MIX

(Calmand),

widow

(#530);

JOON

530 mires Coed widower (hapleg.; #527); TON Calmon), widowhood (hapleg.; # 529); M3228 almaniit), widowhood (# 531). ANE

The nom. are well attested: Ugar. almnt dn almnt, “the right of the widow,”

(2 Aght 5, 8; 6, 33.46); Phoen. ’/mt; Akk. almattu < almantu; Aram. ’armalta; Arab. ‘armalat, ’armal, widower (Mari almanum, widower). For the abstracts, compare Akk. almanitu and Ugar. (52, 9), ulmn (in the phrase ht ulmn, “scepter of widowhood,” han-

dled by the god Mot). The words cannot be derived with confidence from any known Heb. or Sem. verbal root. Middle Heb. ’/mn (“make s.o. a widow”; “become a widow”) is a denomi-

native. The etymology is uncertain, though there have been several attempts: from Arab. ’alima, to feel pain; from Heb. ’illém, mute (ie., widow as obliged to be silent;

from Arab. ’armal/murmil, helpless) (perhaps from Sem. ’almar’-tu, without husband), from ’armal (HALAT, 56).

OT 1. The word ’alm@nd is spread all over the OT (55x), but is curiously missing in the outstanding widow story of Ruth and in Amos and Micah, the champions of social justice; ’almaniit (4x) figures in Gen 38:14, 19: clothes of widowhood = widow’s clothes; 2 Sam 20:3: David’s wives kept in confinement like “in widowhood”; Isa 54:4 (see sec. 7).

2. The OT word “widow” not only evokes the notion of bereavement from having lost a husband (2 Sam 14:5), but at the same time the loss of economic and social protection and security. As long as the Israelites lived as semi-nomads in their tribes

and clans and the family ties were still strong, the lot of the widow was not yet a problem. She returned to her parental home, where she shared in the protection and care of the clan and kept the possibility of a levirate marriage (Gen 38:11; Deut 25:5-10; Ruth 1:8-11; cf. Matt 22:24). Later on when, after the settlement in Canaan, the tribalism

gave way to the life in cities and villages, the widows became victims of the development of growing social contrasts. So they are often mentioned together with other poor and miserable people of Israelite society, like orphans (fatherless), aliens, or Levites (Job 29:13; 31:16; Jer 22:3; Zech 7:10), or in parallelism with divorced women (Lev 21:14; 22:13; Num 30:9[10]; Ezek 44:22).

3. The Israelite widow had no right of succession on the inheritance of her late husband (Nystrém, Beduinentum, 141; de Vaux, Institutions I, 67). Under the heirs of a dead man (in sequence: son(s), daughter(s), brothers, father’s brothers, nearest relatives), the widow is not mentioned (Num 27:8-11). In the apocrypha, Judith, who

inherited rich possessions from the late husband, Manasseh, is told of as an abnormal exception (Jth 8:7).

4, Having no means of support, a widow was often obliged to live from the charity of other people (Job 31:16) or to make debts for keeping herself and her children alive. The creditor then might take her only ox in pledge (Job 24:3). When she

was not able to pay back the debts in due time, the creditor might come and take away

413

m8 (4530) her children, even her baby (Job 24:9), for using them later on as his slaves. In other

cases the widow had to suffer robbery and oppression (Isa 10:2; Jer 7:6; 22:3) or even death (Ps 94:6) of herself and her fatherless children.

5. A third part of the widow-texts is to be found in a legal context. The Lord himself is the God who “defends the cause of” or “does justice to” (‘sh miSpat) the fatherless and the widow (Deut 10:18; compare Exod 22:23[22]). The Book of Covenant prohibits oppressing (‘nh II [pi.], > #6700) them (Exod 22:22[21]; note that ‘nh

is stronger than NIV “take advantage”; as a retaliation the Lord himself will kill the oppressors with the sword so that their own wives will become widows (Exod 22:24[23]). Deuteronomy forbids to take a widow’s cloak as a pledge (hbl, 24:17) and curses him who withholds justice (nth hi. + miSpat, 27:19) from the alien, fatherless, or widow. Deuteronomic law determines, moreover, the privileges that the widows (along with other poor people: fatherless, alien, Levites) are entitled to: the tithe of all the produce in every third year (14:28-29; 26:12-13), the gleanings of every harvest and vintage (24:19-21), participation in the sacrificial repast, and rejoicing during the feasts of Weeks and Tabernacles (16:11, 14). Probably the widows—though not mentioned particularly—were also included among the poor who were entitled to the produce of the Sabbath year (Exod 23:10-11) and of the edges of the field, where the owner was not allowed to reap (Lev 19:9; 23:22).

As for the priests, the high priest was not allowed to marry a widow or a divorced woman (Lev 21:14; compare the future priests in Ezek 44:22). A widowed or divorced priest’s daughter, coming back to her father’s house, could eat again of the holy gifts, her father’s food (Lev 22:13); as for a widow’s vow, see Num 30:9[10]. 6. In line with the divine law, prophets accuse the leaders of Jerusalem of making many widows (Ezek 22:25), of neglecting the widow’s cause (rib, Isa 1:17, 23), of

oppressing (‘Sg, Mal 3:5; Zech 7:10; ynh hi. Ezek 22:7) widows and the fatherless, and of making widows their prey (Isa 10:2). In Jer 7:6; 22:3 not oppressing (ynh hi.) the alien, the fatherless, and the widow is one of the conditions for the survival of population and temple of Jerusalem. In Isa 9:17[16] it is a sign of Israel’s total depravity that the Lord will not pity the fatherless and widows any more (compare God’s judgment on Edom, Jer 49:10-11). It is part of God’s judgment that he will make Israel’s widows more numerous than the sand of the sea (Jer 15:8; compare 18:21; Lam 5:3). 7. In a figurative sense “widow” is used in Lam 1:1 for Jerusalem, deserted after its destruction; in Isa 47:8-9 “widow”

and “widowhood”

(’almén, along with ¥°kél,

loss of children; 1QIsa* has in 47:9 ’Imnh as in v. 8) for the city of Babylon that by God’s punishment will become as miserable and rightless as a widow; similarly “widower” in Jer 51:5 for Israel and Judah that have not been forsaken (NIV) by God or left without his protection; in the same sense “widowhood” (’almanit) in Isa 54:4 for Zion. 8. In Job and Psalms the Lord is called the defender of the rights of the widow (Ps 68:5[6], dayyan, judge, counsel) and the one who sustains her (Ps 146:9, ‘wd,

polel; compare Prov 15:25: “He keeps the widow’s boundaries intact’). Complaint is made that wicked men take the widow’s ox in pledge and show no kindness to her (Job 24:3, 21), that indeed they slay the widow and the alien (Ps 94:6). The psalmist, like Jeremiah (18:21), prays that the wife of the wicked may become a widow and his children fatherless (Ps 109:9), and Job (27:15) is convinced that the widows of the wicked 414

AON (# 544) will not weep after their shameful death. Job himself testifies that he took care of the fatherless and widows (29:12-13; 31:16-17) in spite of his friends who reproached him with the opposite (22:9). P-B and NT Qumran (CD 6, 16) and the NT (Matt 23:14; Mark 12:40, 42-43: Luke 4:25-26; 20:47; 21:2-3; Acts 6:1; James 1:27) echo the OT situation of the widow, and Rev 18:7 refers to Isa 47:8-9. Widow(er): > ’almand (widow, # 530) Affliction, oppression: > dhg (oppress, # 1895); > hms I (do violence, #2803); > hms II (oppress, # 2807); > ynh (oppress, # 3561); > lhs (press, # 4315); > masérI (affliction, siege, #5189); > mrr I (be bitter, distraught, afflict, #5352); > nega‘ (plague, affliction, #5596); > ngs (exact, #5601); > ‘nh II (afflict, humble, afflict one’s soul, fast, oppress, submit, # 6700); > ‘wq I (crush?, #6421); > ‘mr II (deal tyrannically with, # 6683); > ‘sq I (wrong,

# 6943); > swq I (constrain, press in/upon, harass, vex, #7439); > swr II (deal tyrannically with, #7444); > rhb (assail, press, pester, alarm, confuse, #8104); > rss (crush, # 8368); > tolal (oppressor, # 9354); > 16k (oppression, # 9412) Justice, judgment: ~ dyn (judge, contend, govern, administer, # 1906); > mispah (breach of law, #5384); > pil I (sit in judgment, arbitrate, expect, #7136); > sdq (be just, righteous, justified, # 7405); > Spt (judge, execute judgment, govern, # 9149) BIBLIOGRAPHY

THAT 2:169-73; F. C. Fensham, “Widow, Orphan and the Poor in Ancient Near Eastern Legal and Wisdom Literature,” JNES 21, 1962, 129-39; D. Gowan, “Wealth and Poverty in the OT,” Int 41, 1987, 341-53; S. Nystrom, Beduinentum

und Jahwismus,

1946; C. van Leeuwen, Le

développement du sens social en Israél, 1954; R. de Vaux, Les Institutions de l’Ancien Testament I, 1961, 67-68; J. Pleins, “Biblical Ethics and the Poor,” PhD. diss., Michigan 1986;. Cornelis van Leeuwen

531 (almaniit, widowhood),

544 ANE

i ON

> #530

ON (Ip 1), q. learn; pi. teach (#544);

Call 1D, nomi. familiar, friend (#476).

AI9N

Cognates are found in Jud. Aram., Syr., and Arab.

OT _ 1.(a) The vb. occurs only once in q., in Prov 22:25. Here it is in the context of a warning against learning the ways of a hot-tempered or easily angered man, that is, learning by association or example as opposed to learning by formal instruction. The proverb thus touches upon the possibly deleterious effects of peer pressure. (b) The pi., teach, is limited to Job (15:5; 33:33; 35:11). In a figurative use of

the vb. Eliphaz suggests to Job that Job’s sin teaches (NIV, prompts) his mouth; 1.e., his speech reveals the sinfulness of his nature (15:5). Later, Elihu exhorts Job to be quiet so that he might teach him wisdom (33:33). As Dhorme (508) points out, this is

not some tidbit of information but wisdom in general, the lore of the learned. The same young counselor reminds Job that it is God who teaches humankind, thus making them superior to the animal world (35:11). 2. The nom. has the idea of a close friend, one learned or known, as is clear from Ps 55:13[14], where ’allip is appositional to m°yudda‘, pu. part. yd’, lit., “known

415

ON(#547) one” (> #3359). In Mic 7:5 ’allip is par. to réa‘, friend. The only other occurrence in Psalms should be understood as referring to cattle or oxen (Ps 144:14). In Jer 11:19 the meaning is lamb (thus NIV). The same prophet uses ’allip in apposition to ’ab, father, referring to God in a question posed by Israel, “My Father, my friend from my youth, will you always be angry (Jer 3:4b-5a)?” Later, in a statement of irony, Jeremiah informs the wicked nation that God will place their erstwhile friends over them as their overlords (13:21).

The only other three undisputed uses of the nom. are in Proverbs where, in two cases (Prov 16:28; 17:9), gossip is said to drive a wedge between friends and therefore must be eschewed. In the third instance (2:17) ’allip describes the most intimate and tender of friends, one’s own spouse. The adulteress is one who leaves the friend of her

youth, thus violating the marriage vows.

P-B_LXX translates the vb. variously: enechd, didaské, dioriz6; and the nom. likewise: hégemon, didaskalia, philos, archégos, etc. Such variety reflects the imprecision of the meaning of ’/p I in its various forms and functions. Learning, teaching: > ’/p I (learn, teach, #544);

> ’omnd II (attendance, protection, # 594); > ysrI (admonish, correct, discipline, # 3579); > yrh III (teach, instruct, # 3723); > lhg (study, #4261); > Imd (learn, teach, #4340); - leqah (teaching, gift of persuasion, #4375); ~> Education: Theology BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDNT 9:154-55; TWOT 1:47-48; E. Dhorme, Job, 1984; D. A. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, NAC, 1993; J. E. Hartley, Job, NICOT, 1988; W. McKane, Proverbs, OTL, 1970; R. N. Whybray, Proverbs, NCBC, 1994.

E. H. Merrill

545 (lp UJ, produce a thousand fold), > #547

oe

AON ot

AON (elep ID), nom. thousand (# eet Callip 1), nom. chief (> #477); F} NS (Ip ID,

denom. vb. hi. produce a thousandfold (only Ps 144:13) (#545); AON (elep III), nom. clan, company (> # 548). i

OT 1. The nom. ’elep often refers to a thousand, understood either as a precise or round number. But it can also describe a social grouping that is smaller than the tribe but larger than the “father’s house” (bét ’ab). It thus appears to be broadly equivalent to the extended family (miSpaha). In contrast to BDB, more recent lexicons (HALAT 57-58, DCH

1:297-300) distinguish two roots, although the second may have devel-

oped from the first (HAHAT'® 1:68). Gottwald (The Tribes of Yahweh, 1979, 270) suggests that the ’elep is a “mixpahd in arms” (cf. the interchange of terms in 1 Sam 10:19-21). Early on the units would have contained only a handful of men, but later a

more professional army might have organized itself in units of a thousand, commanded

by its chief (Sar ’elep; Num 31:48; 1 Sam 18:13) or head (cf. ra’sé ’elep). Sometimes the ’elep has a wider social reference, equivalent to the tribe (Num 10:36; Isa 60:22).

2. Frequently ’elep is found in censuses and lists of various kinds, many with military significance. The unlikely size of the numbers in these lists has meant that

416

AON (#547) scholars have sought alternative readings and explanations, but none has proved persuasive. One possibility is that the present numbers comprised two distinct elements that were later regarded by the editors as a single number. Wenham, following Clark, repoints ““lapim as ““Ilipim, officers or special picked warriors (# 476). Ten men would make a more reasonable ambush than ten thousand (Judg 20:34). Mendenhall proposed that ’elep referred to a military unit in old Israel drawn from the clan as a contribution to the national army and could thus vary in size from clan to clan (Judg 6:15; cf. Num 26:30). Thus, the later priestly editors misunderstood “forty units (’“lapim), [that is] five hundred men” as “forty thousand [and] five hundred” (Num

1:33). A different solution by M. Barnouin relates the numbers to Babylonian mathematics. No theory has been able to explain all the numbers in the lists, and consistency has to be achieved by emendation or more radical means. The large numbers in general emphasize the fulfillment of the divine patriarchal promises of many descendants, but the rationale for specific numbers remains elusive. 3. The nom. ’elep often describes a thousand units of some category (money, distance, weight, warriors, individuals,

animals,

sacrifices, days, proverbs,

songs).

Compounded with other numbers it indicates most numbers over a thousand. When smaller numbers would be realistic measures, ’elep is used hyperbolically for rhetorical and emotional effect. Such hyperbole is particularly appropriate for poetry, popular storytelling, or strong language. A victorious nation might praise a great king by asserting that he has put to flight thousands (1 Sam 18:8; cf. 1 Chron 12:14). Samson’s heroic stature is indicated by his ability to slay a thousand (Judg 15:15-16). Even a bribe of a thousand silver pieces would not make a faithful servant disobey the king (2 Sam 18:12). To a disenchanted wise man only one man in a thousand displays integrity (Eccl 7:28; cf. Sir 39:11). The thousand sacrifices recorded several times by the Chronicler are possibly a hyperbolic literary device highlighting the significance of great cultic occasions (2 Chron 1:6; 30:24; cf. 1 Kgs 3:4). An ultimately futile life of a thousand years stresses the inescapable power of death (Eccl 6:6; Sir 41:4). 4. Hyperbolic figures in the thousands describe God at work, such as when he sends forth his power of blessing (Deut 1:11; Job 42:12; Ps 144:13). Of crucial significance is God’s military power, so that one Israelite can put to flight a thousand (Josh 23:10). Conversely, one enemy can put to flight a thousand when Israel disobeys God (Deut 32:30; Isa 7:23; 30:17; Amos 5:3). The-enduring sovereignty of God (Ps 90:4) means that his covenant promises (Deut 7:9; Ps 105:8) extend to thousands of generations. These texts also stress that Yahweh is first a God who desires life, since there is

a numerical contrast with the extent of his wrath, which is limited to those alive at any one time (three or four generations, Exod 34:7; Deut 5:9-10). Since the temple is the

fullest manifestation of God’s life-giving presence, a day in God’s courts is worth a thousand elsewhere (Ps 84:10[11]).

The abundance of life in the age to come is symbolized by thousand (J En P-B_ 10:17, 19; cf. Rev 20:16). The largest unit of the military structures envisioned by the Qumran community is usually a thousand (1QS 2:21; 1QM 4:2). Numbers: > ’ehdd (one, #285); > ’elep II (thousand, military contingent, #547); > ’arba‘ (four, #752); > hames (five, #2822); > mé’a I (hundred, #4395); > ‘eser (ten, #6924), > r°baba (ten thousand, myriad, # 8047/8052); — Seba‘ I (seven, #8679); > SaloS, 516A

417

728(#552) (three, a three, #8993); > s“moneh (eight, #9046); # 9252): > téXa‘ (nine, # 9596)

> S*nayim (two, #9109);

> Ses I (Six,

Numbering, counting: > kss (reckon, apportion, # 4082); > mnh (count, # 4948); (count, number, reckon, rehearse, # 6218); > pgd (number, appoint, # 7212)

> spr I

BIBLIOGRAPHY

NIDNTT 2:697-703; TWOT 1:48; M. Barnouin, “Rémarques sur les tableaux numériques du livre des Nombres,” RB 76, 1969, 351-64; idem, “Les recensements du livre des Nombres et

l’astronome Babylonienne,” VT 27, 1977, 280-303; R. E. D. Clark, “The Large Numbers of the Old Testament,” Journal of Transactions of the Victoria Institute 87, 1955, 82-92; D. M. Fouts, “Added Support for Reading ‘70 men’ in 1 Samuel vi 19,” VT 42, 1992, 394; N. K. Gottwald, The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel 1250-1050 BCE, 1979; Jastrow 1:68, 72; G. E. Mendenhall, “The Census Lists of Numbers | and 26,” JBL 77, 1958, 52-66;

J. W. Wenham, “Large Numbers in the Old Testament,” TynBul 18, 1967, 19-53. P. P. Jenson

548 (elep III, clan, company),

> #477

ids natal vb. ’lsis or only in Judg 16:16, where Delilah is said to have pressed es for the secret of his great strength. Pressure, squeezing: ~ ’kp (press hard, #436); > ’ls (press hard upon, # 552); > zwrI (press, wring out, #2318); > zrr I (press out [wounds], #2452); > lhs (press, #4315); > mis (pressing, # 4790); > m‘k (press, squeeze, crush, # 5080); > msh (squeeze out, drain, #5172);

> psr (urge, press, push, # 7210); > sht (squeeze, to press out grapes, # 8469) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TWOT 1:48; F. E. Greenspahn, Hapax legomena in Biblical Hebrew, 1984, 103-4.

M. Daniel Carroll R.

561 (im, if), > Particles

562

ON

DON (’ém), nom. fem., mother (# 562).

ANE The word is common throughout ANE Sem. languages (e.g., Ugar., wm; Akk. ummu). Like ’ab, father, ’@m is probably an onomatopoeic nom. rather than derived from a supposed root, ’mm. ‘ OT

Fora

treatment of mother, see 38 (’ab), nom. father (# 3). Christopher J. H. Wright

563 ANE

mes

Mas (amd),

(#563).

nom.

female

slave, maidservant

This word is attested in Ugar. (both ’mt and bn ’amt), Phoen. ’mt, Aram./Syr.

‘amta’, ASA ’mt, Eth. ’“mdt, and Akk. amtu (AHw, 45-46, cf. amat ekalli- [m], palace

418

MIDS# 563) maidservant, and amiitu, position as maidservant). Some scholars interpret ’mh in NW Sem. inscriptions as designating a (second) wife (cf. DNWSI, 70-71).

OT 1. Distinguishing the terms for female slave. amd, female slave, as well as its near synonym Siphd, maidservant, is the fem. equivalent of the more frequent ‘ebed. Both terms are used to designate a woman as having a subordinate social status and a subservient role, sometimes in a pejorative sense (Gen 21:10; 2 Sam 6:20). Earlier in

this century, these two designations for a female servant were employed as a criterion for source division in the Pentateuch (e.g., O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction, 1976, 183): ’Gmd was assigned to E and siphd to J. However, semantic studies

have pointed out contextual factors affecting usage, raising doubts regarding the usefulness of these terms as a source-critical criterion (also reflected in the standard lexica’s inconsistency in assigning the occurrences of the two in the Pentateuch to one of the traditional sources). On the basis of usage throughout the OT, several semantic dis-

tinctions have been suggested between the two (cf. Jepsen, Cohen, Riesener, TWAT, and commentaries):

relationship

serving master

serving mistress

marital status

married, eligible to marry

unmarried or virgin

laborer The proposal that best accounts for all of the usages is that of Ingrid Riesener, 83, who suggests that ’G@md designates the slave when emphasizing her feminine qualities (need for protection, weakness, sexual attractiveness) while Siphd is used when the female

slave is viewed as a possession or a laborer. According to Riesener, as a self-designation, the former expresses the speaker’s need for protection and help (also in legal texts), while the latter implies subservience and readiness to serve.

The terms sometimes appear to be used interchangeably (cf. Bilhah and Zilpah: ama in Gen 30:3, sipha in 30:4, 7, 9, 10, 12, 18; Hannah: ’amd in 1 Sam 1:11, 16,

Siphd in 1:18; Abigail: ’G4ma in 1 Sam 25:24, 25, 28, 31, 41, Siphd in 25:27, 41; wise woman of Tekoa: ’amd in 14:15, 16, Siphé in 2 Sam 14:6, 7, 12, 15, 17, 19; Ruth: ’ama

in Ruth 3:9, sipha in 2:13), possibly a later semantic development, and not all passages fit neatly into the suggested categories. Nevertheless, in most, if not all, of these passages one of the terms may bear a distinctive nuance that accounts for its particular

usage. For example, the wise woman of Tekoa in 2 Sam 14 refers to herself as “your 419

MIDS#563) Xipha@’” when describing her plight but as “your ’amd’” when presenting her request. (The primary usages of the two terms will be discussed in the respective articles.) 2. Female slave. The term ’amd is used 56x in the OT, frequently as a legal category of social status (19x in legal contexts in Exod-Deut). In all but one of these

passages (Exod 23:12) it is paired with ‘ebed (also in Ezra 2:65; Neh 7:67; Job 31:13), indicating that male and female slaves are equal under the Israelite law. This usage of ‘ama may be genre specific, in that there is apparently no indication of the woman’s marital status; rather, it may imply that the female slave is in special need of legal protection from abuse and exploitation. The suggestion that ’Gmd usually emphasizes the slave as female, i.e., as married or marriageable to her master or to one of her master’s slaves, helps to explain its use in several passages. The phrase “son of X” is used exclusively with ’4md (Gen 21:10,

13; Exod

23:12; Judg 9:18; Ps 86:16;

116:16), never with Siphd. In Exod

21:7-11 it is clear that the Hebrew father sells his daughter as an ’Gmd specifically in order for her to marry her new master or his son. Abimelech’s slave girls (Gen 20:17) obviously are married, for they are stricken with temporary infertility. Hagar normally is referred to as Sarah’s Siphd (Gen 16:1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8; 25:12) but is called ’a@md pre-

cisely when her son by Abraham is also mentioned as causing family strife (21:10, 12, 13). Rachel refers to Bilhah as ’Gmd precisely when she offers the latter to Jacob to bear a child for her. Job’s estrangement from his female slaves (mentioned along with his house guests, gdré béti) is understandably painful if a more intimate relationship is implied by ’amd4 in Job 19:15. The choice of ’G4md rather than Sipha in Exod 2:5 and Nah 2:7[8] is less clear, though in the former it may designate a close female companion of the pharaoh’s daughter, analogous to the use of ‘ebed to describe court officials, while in the latter it may be used to emphasize the female slaves’ vulnerability when the enemy attacks. 3. Female slave as a self-designation. From the common meaning of ’Gmd is derived its frequent use as a self-designation, which suggests a female petitioner’s weakness and need for help or protection when presenting a request before a more powerful male (Ruth—Ruth 3:9; Hannah—1 Sam 1:11, 16; Abigail—1 Sam 25:24, 25, 28, 31, 41; the wise women of Tekoa and Sheba—2 Sam 14:15-16; 20:17; Bath-

sheba—1 Kgs 1:13, 17; and the mother of the live son in the Solomonic judgment— 1 Kgs 3:20), never before another female. In keeping with the implied relationship, the woman sometimes addresses the man as “lord” (’“don?, 1 Sam 2 Sam 14:15; 1 Kgs 1:13, 17; 3:17-20).

1:15-16; 25:24, 41;

Since this involves a nonliteral usage, the sexual/marital nuance of ’4mda may not be present. However, this aspect of amd may be implied in Abigail’s use of the term, in the light of her ultimate status (and desire?—cf. 1 Sam 25:31) as David’s wife. Similarly, Ruth describes herself in the field as Boaz’s Siphd, even though officially lacking that legal status (Ruth 2:13), when gleaning is her intent, but later on the threshing floor as his ’amd (3:9), when marriage is her goal (cf. R. L. Hubbard, Jr., The Book of Ruth, NICOT,

1988, 211). The use of this self-designation indicates the

woman’s utter dependence on the addressee’s favor to grant her request. 4. The religious use of the self-designation. Analogous to this is the use of the servant designation in addressing God (1 Sam 1:11(3x); Ps 86:16; 116:16). Thus Hannah expresses in prayer her utter dependence on God to grant her a son and her

420

TIN (# 564) intention to dedicate such a son to serve God all of his life. In both Ps 86 and 116, the psalmist emphasizes his abject need, not only by designating himself repeatedly as “your servant” but also as the “son of your maidservant.” The theological implications of this self-designation emerge more clearly in connection with the analogous use with ‘ebed (> #6269). P-B.

The LXX usually translates ’Gmd with paidiské (28x) or doulé (21x).

Servant, slave: > ’amd (female slave, # 563); > n‘tinim (temple slaves, # 5987); vant, # 6269); > Siphda (female slave, maidservant, # 9148)

> ‘ebed (ser-

BIBLIOGRAPHY THAT 2:187-88; TWAT 8:403-8; TWOT 2:49-50; C. Cohen, “Studies in Extrabiblical Hebrew Inscriptions: The Semantic Range and Usage of the Terms M738 and AMDW,” Shnaton 5-6, 1978/79, xxv-liii; F. C. Fensham, “The Son of a Handmaid in Northwest Semitic,” VT 19, 1969, 312-21; A. Jepsen, “Amah und Schiphchah,” VT 8, 1958, 293-97, 425; I. Riesener, Der Stamm “2 im Alten Testament, BZAW 149, 1979. Richard Schultz

564

=

Mas

ae

Camma I), nom. cubit, ell, forearm, the dis-

tance between the elbow and the tip of the mid-

dle finger (44.5-52.5 cm; 17.5-20.5 in.) (#564); V3 (gdmed), nom. 2/3 cubit (?) (hapleg.; # 1688); NT (zeret), nom. span, the distance between the thumb and the smallest finger of an extended hand (22.25-26.25 cm; 8.75-10.3 in.; #2455); denom. vb. 71 (zrh ID, pi. to measure (> #2431); NB (tepah) (#3255), MY (topah) (# 3256), MMDY (tapha I); nom. handbreadth, the breadth of the palm at the base of the fingers (7.4-8.75 cm; 2.9-3.5 in.; #3257).

ANE ’ammd occurs also in Aram., Akk., Ugar.; zeret appears also in Aram. and Syr.; tepah, topah, tapha are cognate to Akk. tappu, tépu; gomed occurs in Mishnaic Heb., Eth. gend, Tigre gammad. OT The OT does not indicate the relationship among these length measures; however, based on Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Mediterranean analogues, the ratio among the various Heb. length measures resembled this:

One cubit equals

1

isia0,Sa

i

The length of these measures and their ratios, however, were not absolute throughout ANE and biblical history. For example, Powell (RLA 7 §I, 2e, 462) 421

MIDS(#564) distinguishes four different lengths for the cubit in Babylonian history and two different ratios for the cubit—a 30-finger cubit (50 cm) from the the Pre-Sargonic period through the Old Babylonian period, and a 24-finger cubit (50 cm) from the Neo-Babylonian through the Late-Babylonian period. The OT also shows different lengths for the cubit. Ezekiel, in measuring the temple, defines the cubit as a cubit and a hand-

breadth (i.e., a 28-finger or 7-palm cubit). This corresponds to 2 Chron 3:3 which mentions the cubits of the “former standard,” probably the 6-palm cubit. Thus, biblical

metrologists often speak of a short cubit (a 6-palm cubit) and a long cubit (a 7-palm cubit) for the OT. Ezekiel’s longer cubit and the Chronicler’s implied “latter” standard probably reflect an adjusting of Israelite length measures to Babylonian length measures as happened with Israelite measures of capacity. The Mishnah and Talmud recognize three different cubits for the biblical period—the small cubit (5 handbreadths), the medium cubit (6 handbreadths), and the large cubit (7 handbreadths).

Moreover, the Mishnah (Kelim 7:9-10) distinguishes three different variations of the medium cubit (6 handbreadths): the (medium) cubit of Moses, the small (medium) cubit, and the large (medium) cubit; each cubit differed by a half fingerbreadth, with the cubit of Moses being the smallest. From mishnaic and talmudic sources, A. S. Kaufman concludes: (1) the (medium) cubit of Moses was used for the tabernacle and the first temple; (2) the small (medium) cubit was used in the holy precincts of the second temple; (3) the large (medium) cubit was the standard medium cubit except for

the holy precincts of the first and second temple (Kaufman, 120-22). Estimates of modern equivalents for length measures are more accurate than estimates of capacity measures. The discovery of Hezekiah’s tunnel (2 Kgs 20:20) with the Siloam Inscription, which states that the tunnel was 1200 cubits long, furnished researchers the opportunity to determine the length of the cubit. The tunnel has been variously measured as 533-537.5 meters, yielding a cubit of 44.4-44.8 cm (17.5-17.64 inches). R. B. Y. Scott, based on other archaeological finds, has approximated the cubit as 44.5 cm (Scott, “The Hebrew Cubit,” JBL 77, 1958, 212-14). Similarly, A. S. Kaufman, from ancient Palestinian structures, estimates the large (medium) cubit to be 44.6 cm, rendering 42.8 cm for the (medium) cubit of Moses, 43.7 cm for the small (medium) cubit. Therefore, the small (5-handbreadth) cubit would be 37.17 cm; the

long (7-handbreadth) cubit, 52.03 cm. From these and other studies, the following approximations are suggested for the 6-handbreadth large (medium) cubit:

Handbreadth

To estimate quickly modern equivalents for length measures, assuming an 18-inch (45.7 cm) cubit, divide the cubits in half to approximate the yards and multiply by three to approximate the feet (Powell, ABD 6:899). Although length measures have no theological or literary significance of their own, they are used in significant

422

MIDS(#564) theological and literary contexts. Length measures often occur in contexts describing the construction of the tabernacle and various temples. Since the plans for these sanctuaries are of divine origin, this indicates the importance God assigns to his own worship. God’s worship—its

mode, form, and even its place—was

not left to chance or to

human opinion or fashion. Therefore, God precisely revealed the measurements of his sanctuary. Length measures also may vivify a text. For instance, Goliath is not described as large or tall; the text becomes lifelike by giving his height—approximately nine and a half feet tall. Moreover, length measures are effectively employed in a figurative sense, as for example, to express the omnipotence and omniscience of God who measures off the heavens by spans. The following discussion assumes a 44.5 cm cubit (17.52 inches) large (medium) cubit. To calculate the small (medium) cubit, subtract nine millimeters; for the cubit of Moses, subtract an additional nine millimeters. For postexilic texts, a 52

cm (20.47in) cubit is assumed. All following approximations are rounded to the nearest half meter or half foot. 1. In the OT, length measures occur predominantly in contexts depicting the size of the tabernacle (Exod 25-30, 36-38), the Solomonic temple and palace (1 Kgs 6-7; 2 Chron 3-4), Ezekiel’s temple (Ezek 40-48), Zerubbabel’s temple (Ezra 6), and

their furnishings. (a) Israel

constructed the framework of the tabernacle (Exod 26:15-37; 36:20-38) with forty-eight boards ten cubits long (4.5 m; 14.5 ft), 1.5 cubits wide (.67 m; 2.5 ft). The court of the tabernacle (Exod 27:9-18; 38:9-20) was rectangular, 100 cubits long (44.5 m; 146 ft), 50 cubits wide (22.5 m; 73 ft). It was separated from the

camp by five-cubit-high (2.5 m; 7.5 ft) curtains. The ark of the covenant measured 2.5 cubits long (1 m; 4 ft), 1.5 cubits wide and high (.67 m; 2.5 ft). Similarly, the atonement cover was 2.5 cubits long (1 m; 4 ft) and 1.5 cubits high (.67 m; 2.5 ft). The bronze altar stood 5 cubits long and wide (2.5 m; 7.5 ft), 3 cubits high (1.5 m; 4.5 ft). (b) Solomon built his temple 60 cubits long (27 m; 87.5 ft), 20 cubits wide (9 m; 29 ft), 30 cubits high (13.5 m; 44 ft) (1 Kgs 6:2); his palace, by contrast, was 100 cubits long (44.5 m; 146 ft), 50 cubits wide (22.5 m; 73 ft), and 30 cubits high (13.5 m; 44 ft) (1 Kgs 7:2). (c) Ezekiel’s inner court measured 100 cubits (postexilic 52 m; 170 ft) north to south and 100 cubits (52 m; 170 ft) east to west (Ezek 41:2-3). (d) Zerubbabel’s temple (which probably follows the preexilic cubit) measured 60 cubits high and wide (27 m; 87.5 ft; or if postexilic 31.5 m; 102.5 ft) (Ezra 6:3).

2. Other length measures: (a) Noah’s ark measured 300 cubits long (133.5 m; 438 ft), 50 cubits high (22.5 m; 73 ft), and 30 cubits wide (13.5 m; 44 ft). The flood went at least 15 cubits (7 m; 22 ft) higher than the mountains (Gen 6:15; 7:20). (b) The breastplate of the High Priest measured a span squared (22.5 cm; 7 inches long and wide [Exod 39:9]).

(c) Og king of Bashan’s bed measured 9 cubits long (4 m; 13 ft) and 4 cubits wide (1.8 m; 6 ft) (Deut 3:11). (d) For the Levitical cities, the pasture land extended 2000 cubits (890 m; 2920 ft) outside the city wall (Num 35:4-5).

423

MIDS# 564) (ec) Two thousand cubits (890 m; 2920 ft) separated the ark of the covenant and

the Israelites when they marched into Canaan (Josh 3:4). (f) Goliath stood 6.5 cubits (3 m; 9.5 ft) tall (1 Sam 17:4).

(g) Haman constructed for himself gallows standing 50 cubits high (postexilic cubit, 26 m; 85 ft) (Esth 5:14). (h) Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 3:1) made an image of gold 60 cubits high (postexilic cubit, 31 m; 102 ft) and six cubits wide (3 m; 10 ft). (i) Zechariah’s flying scroll (Zech 5:2) measured 20 cubits long (postexilic cubit, 10.5 m; 34.5 ft). (j) The hapleg. gdmed occurs in Judg 3:16 to describe the length of the sword used by Ehud against Eglon. The length of the gdmed can only be guessed. Perhaps it was two-thirds of a cubit, so Strobel, BHH, 1159, and Jastrow, 223.

3. Literary uses: (a) Isa (40:12) declares that the omnipotent, omniscient God measures the heavens by spans. (b) When contemplating the brevity of life, David (Ps 39:5[6]) states that God makes the psalmist’s “days a mere handbreadth; the span of my years is as nothing.”

P-B All of the length measures occur in mishnaic and talmudic sources. The cubit is frequently found in the opening column of the Temple Scroll to describe the size of the temple and its altar. Measurement,

standard, rule:

> zrh II (measure, #2431);

~ mdd (measure, measure

off,

# 4499): > S‘r (calculate, #9132);

> tkn (regulate by weighing or measuring, #9419). For

measurements

> ’épd (an ephah, # 406), for measurements

of weight/volume:

of length:

> ’ammda I (cubit, ell, forearm, # 564) BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Ben-David, “The Hebrew-Phoenician Cubit,” PEQ 110, 1978, 27-28; E. M. Cook, “Weights and Measures,” JSBE 4, 1988, 1046-55; R. deVaux, “Weights and Measures,”AJ 1961, 195-206;

A. S. Kaufman, “Determining the Length of the Medium

Cubit,” PEQ

116, 1984, 120-32;

M. A. Powell, “Weights and Measures,” ABD 6, 1992, 897-908; idem, “Masse und Gewichte,”

RLA 7, 1990, 457-517; R. B. Y. Scott, “The Hebrew Cubit,” JBL 77, 1958, 205-14; idem, “Weights and Measures of the Bible,” BA 22, 1959, 22-40; E. Stern, “Weights and Measures,” EncJud 16, 1971, 376-92. Russell Fuller

569 (umm, tribe, nation), > Nations

570 (amon, craftsman), > #588

573 (émiin I, reliable, true),

> #586

574 (émiin Il, reliability, stability),

> #586

575 (’“miind, steadiness, reliability, conscientiously), > #586

579 (ammis, strong, stout-hearted), > # 599

424

EE

SO

“PPS (# 580) ener ee en te

580

AY ViaS (amir), branch, bough (#580); “Was ra | Cémer II), branch (antler) (# 610); mor (dailit), branch, bough, twig (# 1936); mart (z“mérda), branch, tendril (# 2367); FI) (‘anap), branches. (# 6733); FY (‘anép), full of branches (# 6734); MINE (p0’rd), nom. branches, shoots (# 6997); MINB (pw’ra), branches (# 6998; < NB [p’r I], knock down [with a stick]; # 6994); “VSP (gasir II), bough (# 7908); 1310 (s6bek), tangle of branches (> # 8449).

OT

1. Global or cosmic tree.

A most important usage of Scriptural terminology for

branches occurs in reference to the global or cosmic tree. In Ezek 31, for instance, “a

cedar in Lebanon” is said to have towered above the clouds (v. 3). Its boughs (sar‘appot) are increased and its branches (pd’rér) lengthened (v. 5). Two other words related to pd’rd appear: pii’rd, branches (Isa 10:33) and p’r, go over (Deut 24:20). Living space for the birds, beasts, and nations was supplied by the boughs (spelled s*‘appot this time [v. 6] and again in v. 8) and branches (pd’rét). The tree’s branches (‘anap) and even the length of its boughs (ddliyyét) are described as beautiful (vv. 3, 7). All of this verdure resulted from its tapping into “abundant waters” (vv. 5, 7), although v. 9 makes it clear that it was Yahweh who “made it beautiful with abundant branches (dailit).” The height of the tree is a picture of Pharaoh’s arrogance and the fall of the tree is a representation of judgment on Pharaoh (vv. 10-18). A tree serving as a metaphor for a monarch can be found already in ancient Sumerian texts (Metzger, vZeder,* 212),

The tree at the center of the earth in Dan 4 is unspecified as to type but is noted for its height, beauty, and luxuriance (vv. 10-12[7-9]). Living space is available under and on the branches (Biblical Aram. ‘“nap, bough, cf. Ezek 31:3, 7); additionally, food

is available for “every creature” (v. 12[9]). The cutting down of the tree and the leaving of its stump symbolize the Most High’s deposing and restoring of Nebuchadnezzar (vy. 23-26[20-23]). The cedar in Ezek 17 is rooted on Zion, the mountain of God (vv. 22-23). As

elsewhere the global or cosmic tree “will produce branches” (‘anap; daliyyét; Ezek 31) under whose shade “birds of every kind . . . will find shelter.” And again Yahweh is intricately involved on this occasion with “breaking,” “taking,” and “planting.” But in contrast to ch. 31, ch. 17 is an announcement of salvation (not condemnation); the tree

signifies David’s dynasty, with messianic overtones. In Ezek 19 the global or cosmic tree is actually a vine, though still a metaphor for the Judahite royal house. As in 31:5, 7, the tree becomes “conspicuous for its height

and for its many branches” (‘dnép, full of branches; daliyydt) because of abundant waters (19:10-11). Ps 80 also depicts the global or cosmic tree as a vine, figurative of Israel, behind whose planting (in the promised land) was none other than Yahweh (v. 8[9]). In a vertical dimension, the vine’s branches (‘Gndap) covered the mighty cedars as did its shade the mountains; in a horizontal dimension, its boughs (gasir, branch or sprout) spread out to the Sea as did its shoots to the River (vv. 10-11[11-12]; cf. Ezek 31:5, 7).

An evaluation of the similarities and differences among the five passages leads to the conclusion that they are not literarily interdependent, but they do share a common tradition about the global or cosmic tree (see Metzger, “Zeder,” 229). The

425

SPN (#581) tradition declares that God can exercise the sovereign power of reversal, both bringing low and setting high. Even pagan monarchs were required to be the implement of God’s caring dominion. Ultimately, however, only the tree that represents God’s own rule will be permitted to endure (Matt 13:31-32; Mark 4:30-32; Luke 13:18-19).

2. Life and death. The fate of trees is remarkably contrasted with the fate of human beings in Job 14. While a tree stump may die, “yet at the scent of water it will bud and put forth shoots” (ga@sir, vv. 8-9). A person, on the other hand, lacks the power of renewal inherent in a tree. When people die and breathe their last, they are laid low and are no more (v. 10). Job had no hope that for him a return from death to new life was a possibility (cf. v. 7). 3. Of trees and forests. (a) In Isa 17:6 (as well as v. 9, where the reading of the MT ought preferably to be retained) the word ’amir, branch, occurs. (The nom. ’émer in Gen 49:21 really means either “word” or possibly “lamb” but not “branch.”) (b) An example of the term z°mérd, tendril or branch, appears in Isa 17; the

Damascenes “plant imported vines” (v. 10). (c) Finally, it was in the thick branches (s6bek) of a large oak that Absalom’s head got caught while he rode his mule (2 Sam 18:9). Branch

(of tree):

> ’Gmir (branch, bough, #580);

> s‘p II (cut down, #6188);

> ‘anap

(branches, # 6733) BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABD 6:656-60; M. Metzger, “Der Weltenbaum in vorderorientalischer Bildtradition,” in Unsere Welt—Gottes Schépfung, ed. W. Harle et al., 1992, 1-34; idem, “Zeder, Weinstock und Weltenbaum,” in Ernten, was man sdt, ed. D. R. Daniels et al., 1991, 197-229. Edwin C. Hostetter

581

bay

SAN Cml I), q. be weak; pul. be feeble, languish

(#581); 2218 Cumlal), adj., feeble, faint

(#583); 2 2MN(“mélal), adj., feeble, fading (# 584). ANE

Suggested cognate Arab. malla, be feverish.

OT 1. The only OT occurrence of the vb. with the meaning “weak” is Ezek 16:30, in a passage condemning the harlotry of Judah. The NIV translates the text, “How weak-willed you are!” taking the vb. as ’ml I, q., pu., be weak, languish. The KJV, “How weak is thine heart,” is a more literal translation that reflects the same under-

standing of the vb. Such an expression, however, would be unique in BH. The difficulty of the verse is attested to by the LXX and Vg., whose translations of the phrase (“How strong was the wickedness of your heart!) are irreconcilable with the Heb. text. Nor does it fit the context well, which speaks of the willfulness and ardor of the harlot rather than lack of control. Fitzmyer suggests instead a one-person ni. impf. form of mlh, a variant of ml’, q. be full, and translates the phrase “I am filled (with wrath).” The

idea that the vb. ml’ can be so used is supported by a similar use of the phrase in

Cowley, APFC 37,11 and 41,4. Most scholars, however, follow the reading of Stum-

mer, who translates the phrase on the basis of a Cairo Genizah manuscript, “How inflamed was your heart!” i.e., with lust, thus suggesting ’ml II. Since the idea that the heart is made warm by intense emotions is found elsewhere in BH (e.g., Deut 19:6, 426

TIN(#586) Ps 39:3 [4]), and since the sense is supported by an Arab. cognate, this reading seems most likely. This reading would remove any sympathy for the harlot Jerusalem, who is portrayed here as an insatiable prostitute driven not by poverty or weakness, but by sheer lust. 2. Fifteen occurrences of ’ml I are in the pul. form, ’wmlal. People “pine away,” “grow faint,” or “languish.” These include inhabitants (Lam 2:8; Hos 4:3), mothers (1 Sam 2:5; Jer 15:9), fishermen (Isa 19:8), and the exalted of the earth (Isa 24:4). Cities languish (Jer 14:2), oil fails (Joel 1:10), and vegetation withers (Isa 16:8; 24:4, 7; 33:9; Joel 1:12), as does Bashan and Carmel (Nah 1:4).

3. The adj. “mélal, feeble, occurs only once. It is used in a description of the Jews spoken by their enemy, Sanballat, “What are those feeble Jews doing?” (Neh 4:2[3:34]). 4. The adj. ’umlal, feeble, occurs only once. The psalmist uses the word to describe his condition and why he is calling on the Lord: “Be merciful to me, LORD, for I am faint” (Ps 6:2[3]). Feeble, despair, faint, frail, tender: > ‘ml I (be weak, be feeble, languish, #581); > Alh I (become weak, tired, ill, # 2703); > ylh (languish, #3532); > k’h (be disheartened, frightened, # 3874); > nbl I (wither, fade, languish, dishonor, # 5570); > ‘tp II (grow weak, faint, be feeble, # 6494); —> ‘Ip (cover, faint, # 6634); > ‘55 (become weak, # 6949); > pwe (be feeble, numb, be prostrated, #7028); — rzh (destroy, waste away, #8135); > rkk (be tender, timid, gentle,

# 8216); > rph (become slack, lose heart, discourage, # 8332) BIBLIOGRAPHY J. Fitzmyer, “A Note on Ez 16,30,” CBQ 23, 1961, 460-62; M. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20, AB, 1983; F. Stummer, “Ez XVI 30A,” V7 4, 1954, 34-40; W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 1979, 31.

Roy E. Hayden/Anthony Tomasino

583 (‘umlal, feeble, faint), > #581

584 (’“méelal, feeble, fading), > #581

AN 586

OT

I

JAS (mn I), q. support; ni. be reliable, faithful; hi. believe,

put trust in (#586);

nom.

7778

1. The language of faith/belief (pistis, pisteuo), which is of central importance

in the NT, does not hold a position of similar importance in the OT. The difference,

however, is perhaps more one of terminology than of basic outlook, as the OT widely uses two verbs whose meaning closely approximates to that of “have faith/believe” in the NT; that is, to “trust” (bth; > # 1053) and to “fear” (yr’ [> #3707], used overwhelmingly in the sense of moral obedience rather than religious awe, e.g., Gen 22:12;

Deut 5:29; Job 28:28). Nonetheless, the OT does also have the language of “believe” and “faith” in various forms of the Heb. root ’mn, and the usage of some of these forms

427

JIN(#586) is sometimes of great theological importance. The two most famous such OT passages are Gen 15:6, used by Paul in Gal 3 and Rom 4, and Hab 2:4, used both by Paul (Rom 1:17, Gal 3:11) and by the writer to the Hebrews (Heb 10:38).

There are five forms of the ’mn root that are of theological significance: the two related noms., “met and ’“miind, the adverb, ’Gmén, and the two forms of the vb., ne’*man (ni.) and he’’min (hi.). Other forms either have no special theological signifi-

cance or have a significance that is similar to, and probably a derivative from, the five forms described here. 2. We may start with the most familiar form, familiar through its Christian liturgical usage—the adverb ’amén. First, in the OT ’Gmén is always a word of response to what is said by someone else (when Jesus used it to preface his own words, his usage was entirely unprecedented and formed an important element of the unique authority with which he spoke). It belongs primarily in liturgical contexts (e.g., Deut 27:14-26; Neh 8:6; or the doxologies in the psalter; Ps 41:13[14]; 72:19; 89:52[53]; 106:48). Second, the basic sense of ’Gmén is “let it be so,” “may it come true.” It is a good example of the nature of religious language as self-involving. To say ’amén genuinely is an act of self-commitment, for it implies appropriate action on the part of the speaker. For example, when the people of Israel respond to the Levites’ solemn pronouncements of curses with “amen” (Deut 27:14-26), they are committing themselves to abhor and avoid those courses of action to which the curse is attached. Similarly, when the Jews respond with “amen” to Nehemiah’s imprecation on those who do not remit debts to their fellow Jews, they thereby commit themselves to a particular course of action, which they then carry out (Neh 5:13). Although Christian liturgical usage has preserved “amen” in a way that is formally continuous with OT usage, the content of “amen” seems generally rather diminished, and often functions simply as a marker of conclusion. If Christian usage of “amen” is to be informed by the OT, then to say “amen” to a prayer should imply a commitment to pray and also to live, where appropriate, in such a way as to further the fulfillment of that prayer. 3. The nom. ’“met is the most common form of the root ’mn. It is often used of speaking the truth, as when the Queen of Sheba acknowledges that the report she had heard of Solomon’s wisdom was indeed true (’“met haya haddabar, 1 Kgs 10:6 || 2 Chron 9:5; cf. 1 Kgs 17:24; 22:16; Prov 14:25; Dan 8:26; 10:1; 11:2). It is also used

within an idiom in Deut. when enquiry shows a report of questionable behavior to be true (Deut 13:14[15]; 17:4; 22:20). When, however, the psalmist celebrates Yahweh’s torah and commandments as “met (Ps 119:43, 142, 151, 160), he does not just mean

that they are true as opposed to false, but that they also have the character of being trustworthy and reliable for people to base their lives on. OT usage of ’met characteristically takes on such wider moral implications. The major theological significance of ’“met derives from its frequent usage in depicting the character of Yahweh. The most important OT passage in this regard is Exod 34:5-7, which is the most extensive statement about the name, i.e., character, of God in the whole Bible—a statement found, moreover, on the lips of God him-

self—and thus representing the very heart of God’s self-revelation within Israel. Among the qualities of Yahweh, he is “abounding in love and faithfulness” (rab-hesed we’“met, 34:6b). What precisely does “faithfulness” mean in this context? In general 428

TIS#586) terms, it must relate to Yahweh’s willingness, in response to the intercession of Moses (Exod 33:12-18), to show his true nature through renewing the covenant with Israel

despite their sin with the Golden Calf, in which they had effectively forfeited their position as the chosen people of Yahweh. The general point is well expressed in the words of the NT, “If we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself” (2 Tim 2:13). The understanding of God as a God of faithfulness is naturally

often celebrated in Israel’s worship, as this is represented within the Psalter (e.g., Ps 86:15 [the same wording as Exod 34:6], Ps 108:4[5]; 115:1; 117:2; 138:2).

The meaning of “met may be further appreciated by noting some of the words with which it is frequently combined. In all the examples just cited it is used in conjunction with hesed (NIV love, RSV steadfast love), a key word of similar import. Elsewhere, it is often linked with “righteousness” (sedeg / s°dagd@) and sometimes also “justice” (mispat) and other moral terms (e.g., Ps 15:2; 85:10[11]; Isa 48:1; 59:14; Jer

4:2). The general significance of this is that Yahweh’s faithfulness towards Israel is combined with a strong sense of moral integrity and is in no sense morally lax or indifferent. In Exod 34 the emphatic statement of God’s graciousness and faithfulness to faithless Israel is combined with a set of clear stipulations as the covenant is renewed (34:11-26) and a statement that God’s name, i.e., character, is also “jealous” (34:14), that is, tolerating no compromise in Israel’s commitment to him. In Bonhoeffer’s famous phrase, there is no “cheap grace.” One final point may be made about ’“met. A fundamental principle of OT (indeed biblical) ethics is the imitation of God: as Yahweh is, likewise Israel is to be. This is most famously expressed in Lev 19:2, “Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy” (for NT formulations of this principle, see, e.g., Matt 5:43-48; 1 Cor 11:1). It is no surprise, therefore, that if Yahweh is faithful, it is expected of Israel that they should be faithful too. This is clear, for example, in two major addresses to Israel. When Joshua leads Israel in covenant renewal at Shechem (Josh 24), his basic charge to Israel is, “Now fear the LORD and serve him with all faithfulness” (lit. “with integ-

rity and with faithfulness,” b°tamim tibe’“met, Josh 24:14); closely similar language is used in the conclusion of Samuel’s farewell address to Israel (“serve him faithfully,”

be’*met, 1 Sam 12:24). Sadly, the OT often portrays Israel’s failure to maintain faithfulness in its dealings with Yahweh and with one another. For example, when Hosea begins his general indictment of Israel, the first thing he says is, “There is no faithfulness (’“met), no love (hesed; > #2876), no acknowledgment (da‘at, lit. knowledge [> # 1981]) of God in the land” (Hos 4:1; cf. Neh 9:33). However, living faithfully is seen as a real possibility. For it is said of both David (1 Kgs 3:6) and Hezekiah (2 Kgs 20:3 || 2 Chron 31:20; Isa 38:3) that they were faithful before Yahweh (in the first two passages there is no reason to doubt the assessments made by Solomon and by Hezekiah, as in each instance the prayers that are offered on that basis are answered favorably by God). It is not that either man was sinless, but both are seen to have achieved a quality of faithful

living that was genuinely pleasing to God. 4. Similar in meaning to ’°met is “mind. For example, ’“miind, like ’“met, is often associated with the character of Yahweh (predominantly in Israel’s praise in the psalms, e.g., Ps 33:4; 92:2[3]; 143:1) and is often linked with the language of “steadfast love” (hesed) and “righteousness” (sede /s“daqa; > #7406, 7407). For example,

429

TDN(#586) the Song of Moses starts by celebrating Yahweh as “a faithful God (’é/ ’€miand) who does no wrong, upright and just (saddiq w°yasar) is he” (Deut 32:4), which sets the context for both God’s judgment and his mercy toward Israel in the rest of the song. Or, in the middle of the book of Lamentations, in the midst of affliction and devasta-

tion, there is the justly famous affirmation of faith and hope (appropriately used eral modern Christian songs): “Yet this I call to mind and therefore hope: Because of the LORD’s great love (hasdé yhwh) we are not consumed, compassions never fail. They are new every morning; great is your faithfulness ’“minateka)” (Lam 3:21-23). Again, the principle of the imitation of God applies. Just as Yahweh is a

in sevI have for his (rabba God of

mind, he likewise requires Israel to be a people of “mind. And although Israel did not always live up to this (e.g., Jer 5:1-3, where “mind is rendered “truth” by the NIV), sometimes people did. Notable is the fact that it is said of the temple workmen, under both Joash and Josiah in the two major accounts of temple repairs, that no. accounting was required of them because they were acting with integrity (2 Kgs 12:15[16]; 22:7; the same Heb. phrase is used each time, ki be’“miind hém ‘6sim; this is regrettably obscured in the NIV, which renders the first “because they acted with complete honesty,” and the second “because they are acting faithfully”).

5. The most famous OT example of the human exercise of the quality of faithfulness is Hab 2:4b, which the NIV renders “but the righteous will live by his faith” (Note: or “faithfulness”). The rendering in the main text seeks to maintain continuity

with Paul’s usage in Rom 1:17. There is here a difficult problem for the translator, for Paul appears to see Hab 2:4b as a statement pregnant with meaning that can be taken in more ways than one; the variations in wording—“his” in Heb., “my” in LXX, and no

possessive pronoun in Paul— also suggest differing interpretations being given to the saying. In an OT context, however, “his faithfulness” is clearly preferable. Unfortunately the surrounding Heb. text is difficult, as is the precise significance of the statement in context. The general context is Habakkuk’s lament to Yahweh about the Babylonian devastation of sinful Judah (Hab 1:1-17). Habakkuk then waits to see how Yahweh will answer him (2:1), and Yahweh replies with the promise of a revelation

(or “vision,” h@z6n, 2:2-3). Although the question of what constitutes the content of this revelation is debatable, one natural way of reading the text is to see v. 4 (introduced by “See,” hinnéh) as this content, with v. 4b as the positive affirmation at the

heart of it. The point would then be that Yahweh does not answer Habakkuk’s lament (> Lament: Theology) in the terms in which it is posed (i.e., he does not justify his actions), but rather indicates that the only way for those committed to him (the righ-

teous, saddiq) to survive the coming disaster is to maintain personal integrity or “faithfulness,” presumably both toward God and toward one’s fellow, even when those around are living very differently. As God is faithful (Deut 32:4), so the people of God must be faithful too. When the usage of ’“méind in Hab 2:4 is considered in conjunction with that in 2 Kgs 12:15[16]; 22:7, it becomes clear that, among other things, ’“mind is a word that

conveys the attractiveness of moral living. Although the great OT (and biblical) words “righteousness” and “holiness” have through misuse become problematic and unattrac-

tive for many (e.g., “self-righteous,” “holier-than-thou”), “faithfulness,” in the sense of

integrity, trustworthiness, and dependability, has no such negative overtones. It may,

430

JIN(#586) therefore, be a particularly important concept for conveying central OT (and biblical) truths in a modern context. One final point about ’“méind may be noted in conjunction with the fact that it is often used as the opposite of Seger, falsehood, deception, lying (> #9214). So, for

example, a proverb runs, “The LorD detests lying lips (Sipté Seger), but he delights in men who are truthful (w* ‘6sé ’°miind r°sénd; Prov 12:22 [MT]). In connection with this, it should be noted that the single most concentrated usage of ’°miind in the whole OT presents a major theological problem, for it is unthinkable that Yahweh should prove untrue to his word, i.e., be guilty of Seger. In Ps 89 ’*miind is used no less than seven times with regard to Yahweh (wv. 1, 2,5, 8, 24, 34, 49[2, 3, 6, 9, 25, 35, 50]) and

“met also appears once (v. 14[15]). The psalm is as emphatic as it possibly can be

(note esp. vv. 34-37[35-38]) about Yahweh’s faithfulness, a faithfulness shown in his covenant with the house of David, which forms the theme of the psalm (esp. vv. 3-4, 34-36, 39[4-5, 35-37, 40]). Yet after affirming Yahweh’s faithfulness and his promises

to the house of David, the final section of the psalm makes the point that what has in fact happened is directly opposed to what God—the faithful God—has promised (wv. 38-51[39-52]). This cannot be explored here (~ Lament for more on this). Suffice it to say that any affirmation of God’s faithfulness must take seriously those times when God’s faithfulness may be in no way apparent. 6. The fourth significant form of ’mn is the ni. of the vb., ne’*man. However,

for the most part the theologically significant usages are no different in sense from passages where

’“met and ’“miind are used. Thus, for example, Yahweh is “the faithful

God” (ha’él hanne’“man, Deut 7:9), and Jerusalem should be a faithful city (girya ne’“mand, Isa 1:21, 26). However, the ni. can also mean “established,” “made firm,”

and on two occasions (Isa 7:9, 2 Chron 20:20) this is of great importance in a wordplay in conjunction with the hi. form of the vb. 7. The hi. he’“min is the equivalent word in Heb. to G pisteud. It is usually used with a preposition, either /° or b°, and the meaning usually varies accordingly. Generally speaking, the difference is between “believing that x is the case” and “believing in someone.” When used with /°, the vb. means “to believe” in the sense of to accept a report as true. So, for example, the Queen of Sheba says, “But I did not believe these

things (w°lo’ he’“manti ladd°barim) until I came and saw with my own eyes” (1 Kgs 10:7 !| 2 Chron 9:6). This corresponds to the sense of ’“met, noted above, as the truth of

a report. Other clear examples of he’“min If in this sense are Isa 53:1; Jer 40:14; (cf. Prov 14:15). Although he’“min b also involves accepting what someone says as true, it has the added sense of acting in response to what is heard with trust or obedience (three times he’*min b® is used in parallelism with bth, trust, Job 39:11-12; Ps,78:22; Mic 7:5). So, for example, the summary verdict on the northern kingdom of Israel after its

destruction by the Assyrians is, “But they would not listen and were as stiff-necked as their fathers, who did not trust in the LORD their God” (J6’ he’*minii byhwh ’“lohéhem, 2 Kgs 17:14). Similarly, Moses and Aaron are prohibited from leading Israel into the promised land “because you did not trust in me enough (/6’ he’“mantem bi) to honor me as holy in the sight of the Israelites” (Num 20:12). On the positive side, the people of Nineveh repented and avoided destruction precisely because they “believed God” (wayya’“mini be’lohim, Jon 3:5). Most famously, Abraham “believed the LORD 431

TIN(#586) (w°he’’min byhwh), and he (the LORD) credited it to him as righteousness” (Gen 15:6). It is notable that the vb. here is a perfect with waw consecutive, which most naturally implies “constant continuance in a past state’ (GKC §112 ss). The point appears to be, therefore, that Abraham’s trusting response to God’s promise in 15:4-5 is one notable example of the response to God that consistently characterized his life, evident already in Gen 12:1-4; 13:14-17; it is notable particularly because of God’s response in the covenant that follows (Gen 15:7-21), a covenant that becomes the basis for God’s rela-

tionship with Abraham’s descendants.

Although there is this general distinction between hi. forms with b° and J°, it is not an absolute distinction. In Ps 106:12, 24 we find both forms used with no apparent difference of meaning. And when Moses tells the Lord that he is afraid that Israel will

not believe him (he’“min I°, Exod 4:1, 8, 9), it is presumably Israel’s lack of trusting response as well as lack of general credence that concerns him. Likewise, when the vb.

is used on its own without a preposition, it can have either of the above meanings (accept as true, Lam 4:12; have faith, Isa 7:9; 28:16). It is important, therefore, that the context always be taken into account. 8. It is in Isaiah of Jerusalem that we find what is perhaps the most theologically weighty use of “believe,” a usage taken up subsequently by the Chronicler. Isaiah has two key passages, formulated more or less as theological epigrams. In Isa 28:16, in a response to the scoffing rulers of Jerusalem (28:14-15), Yahweh says, “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who

trusts (hamma’“min) will never be dismayed.” Although the interpretation of the passage is much debated, it seems likely that the stone whose strength is so emphasized is in fact, metaphorically, the principle that is then enunciated: “the one who trusts will never be dismayed.” In many ways the passage is similar to Hab 2:4. Both are difficult in some ways, and yet both clearly set forward the principle of faith/trust in God as the one true and secure way to live in the midst of moral disintegration and divine judgment all around. In Isa 7 is a famous meeting between Isaiah and King Ahaz, the first part of which concludes with Isaiah issuing a challenge that incorporates a play on words that the NIV captures well: “If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all” (im lo’ ta’“mind [hi.] ki 16’ té’Gménai [ni.]; Isa 7:9). The precise relationship of this to

its context is unclear, though the general point is clear that only through putting faith in Yahweh will King Ahaz successfully confront and survive the Syro-Ephraimite coalition threatening Jerusalem (Isa 7:1-2). One of the points that is unclear is how this faith is to be displayed. Does it mean trusting God and “keeping the powder dry” (i.e., taking appropriate military action), or does it mean trusting God and taking no action? Generally speaking, the normal OT (and biblical) pattern is the former—trust in God is the context, not a substitute, for appropriate action. However, there are exceptional circumstances where the emphasis is entirely on trusting God and letting him do everything that needs to be done; Israel’s deliverance from Egypt at the Red Sea (Exod 14) is a classic example. Since the Isaiah tradition contains an account of Yahweh’s delivering Jerusalem (admittedly from the Assyrians, rather than the Syro-Ephraimite coalition) without any human participation other than Hezekiah’s prayer, it may well be that it is such a kind of trust in Yahweh that is envisaged in Isa 7:9 (see Isa 37; also 2 Kgs 18-19).

432

TDN(#588) Whatever the sense of the passage in Isaiah, there is no doubt as to the sense in 2 Chron 20, one of the OT’s great paradigmatic and parabolic stories about the nature of faith. When Jehoshaphat and Judah are threatened by a “vast army” from Edom (v. 2), Jehoshaphat leads the people in seeking the Lord through fasting and prayer, emphasizing God’s power and their own weakness and inability (vv. 3-14, esp. vv. 6, 12). God responds to this through Jahaziel the Levite (vv. 14-17), and the keynote is, “Do not be afraid or discouraged because of this vast army. For the battle is not yours, but God’s” (v. 15b). When Jehoshaphat and the people set out the next day, Jehoshaphat speaks in words that represent the central concern of the story: “Have faith in the LORD your God and you will be upheld (ha’*mini byhwh ’*lohékem

w°te’améni); have faith in his prophets (ha’“minai binbi’ dyw) and you will be successful” (v. 20b). Here we have language close to that of Isa 7:9, with the same otherwise unique play on the hi. and ni. forms of ’mn. (It is a pity the NIV does not make the same attempt to capture the word play here as in Isa 7:9, not least because the interrelationship between the two passages may otherwise be missed.) Here we have a general statement about how God’s people are to do well in adverse circumstances. And here Judah needs to do no fighting, because the Lord does it all for them. It is not that they do nothing at all, for after their earlier fasting and prayer they continue with singing and praising the Lord on the field of battle, and this kind of trusting response is clearly essential. Nonetheless, the emphasis remains on what God does for Judah, and Judah’s

trust is to be realized in a surprising way. But although such a response is relatively untypical against a wider biblical context, when taken together with Exod 14 and the Isaiah passages, it can be seen to be an important part of the OT’s witness to the varying dynamics of faith in God. As such, it is a witness of enduring value for the Christian today. Trust: — bthI (trust, put one’s trust in, # 1053); > 5‘n (lean, depend on, # 9128)

BIBLIOGRAPHY TDNT 6:182-91; TDOT 1:292-323; TOT 1:277-90; B. S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments, 1992, 595-601; R. W. L. Moberly, “Abraham’s Righteousness,” in J. A. Emerton (ed.), Studies in the Pentateuch, SVT 41, 1990, 103-30; J. M. Ross, “Amen,” ExpTim 102, 1991, 166-71; G. Wallis, “Alttestamentliche Voraussetzungen einer biblischen Theologie, gepriift am Glaubensbegriff,” TLZ 113, 1988, 1-13; G. J. Wenham, Faith in the Old Testament, 1976; H. Wildberger, “‘Glauben,’ Erwdgungen zu h’myn,” SVT 16, 1967, 372-86; W. Zimmerli, OTTO, 146-47.

R. W. L. Moberly

587 (’amén, amen, Surely!), > #586

588

TAS

Webs (‘omman), nom. craftsman, artisan (# 588); TAS (amon I), nom. craftsman, artisan (# 570).

ANE. The Heb. ’omman is a loanword from the Akk. ummdanu, which is derived in turn from the Sum. UMMEA. Cognates are also found in Aram. and Egyptian. The gracefulness of the beloved’s legs (thighs, NRSV) is like the work of an OT artisan (S of Songs 7:1[2]); hokmG, wisdom, is described as ’amén at the side of God at

433

MIN 591) creation (Prov 8:30). Artisans as a class of people were carried away with the exiles, no doubt because of their skills (Jer 52:15; or read as ‘am, people; cf. 2 Kgs 25:11). Arts, crafts, professions: > ’ommdan (craftsman, #588); > ’dpeh (baker, #685); > godér ~ hoséb — dayyag (fisherman, #1900); (mason, #1553); — gallab (barber, #1647); (stonecutter, #2935); — haras (craftsman, #3093); > hoséb (weaver, #3110); ~ tabbah (butcher, # 3184); > ydsér (potter, # 3450); > yaqis (fowler, #3687); > kbs (wash, # 3891); (vinedresser, #4144); > maSgeh (butler, #5482); ~ sayyad 1 (hunter, #7475); > sorép (goldsmith, #7671);

> korém

> ndgéd (shepherd?,

> ro‘eh (shepherd,

#5924); # 8286a);

> rogéah (ointment-mixer, # 8382)

I. Cornelius

589 ('amén, amen, Surely!), > #586 590 (’6men, reliability),

591

> #586

8(“mand 1), nom. covenant, binding agree-

Piel weoe So

ae t (#591) < JIS (mn), q. support; ni. be

faithful; hi. believe (# 586).

OT

The

word

appears

twice, but only once

in the sense

of covenant

(Neh

9:38[10:1]; cf. 11:23). Its relationship to the concept of covenant is due to its use to

describe the covenant-renewal ceremony in Neh 9-10. Because of its formal relationship with the vocabulary of faith (> ’mn) in the OT, it may be said to stress the idea of faithfulness in covenant. Covenant:

~> “mand

I (covenant,

binding

agreement,

#591);

— b°rit

(treaty,

#1382);

> hozeh II (covenant, # 2603); > ‘édiit (statutes, stipulations, warning sign, reminder, # 6343) Faith, fidelity: > ’mn I (support, be faithful, believe, put trust in, #586); > hsd II (show o.s. kind, # 2874) J. Gordon McConville

593 (‘omnd I, verily, truly,), > Particles

ae

MN

ables

(omnd Il), nom.

(#594),

attendance, protection

OT A hapleg. (Esth 2:20), the lexeme apparently derives from ’mn, be steady, firm (> #586). In context the idea is that of child-rearing, of providing guidance to one in need of learning. Learning, teaching: > ’/p I (learn, teach, #544); > ’omnd II (attendance, protection, #594); > ysr I(admonish, correct, discipline, # 3579); > yrh III (teach, instruct, # 3723); > lhg (study, #4261);

— Imd (learn, teach, ~> Education: Theology

#4340);

— legah

(teaching,

gift of persuasion,

#4375);

BIBLIOGRAPHY

G. R. Driver, “Problems and Solutions,” VT4, 1954, 235. E. H. Merrill

434

mas (#595) 8

Saf

st

ie

bbs)

MAS

| (#595).

(dmna),

nom.

pillar(?),

doorpost(?)

OT An architectural term appearing with delet, door, as those temple objects from which Hezekiah stripped the gold to pay Sennacherib (2 Kgs 18:16). Other than its association with delet, no further detail is available to enable a more precise definition of this feature. NT

> NIDNTT 2:29-31.

Door, gate, threshold: ~ ’ayil (doorpost, #382); > ’amnd (pillar?, doorpost?, #595); > b®riah (bar, # 1378); > delet (door, # 1946); > Jal (trapdoor, # 4294); > m®ziizd (doorpost,

#4647); > miptan (threshold, #5159); > maSg6p (lintel, #5485); # 6214); > sir I (door pivot, #7494); > Sa‘ar I (gate, # 9133)

— spp (lie at threshold,

BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 3:230-33; M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, IJ Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB, 1988. Richard S. Hess

597 (omnam, verily, truly), > Particles

598 (umnam, indeed), > #586

Biepa r

ied

i,\inanett volsheer)ake eoheade, Hib. bo take

; . ge; hitp. be determined, rally oneself, defy (#599); Y"fa8 Cammis), adj. strong, stouthearted (#579); Yrs (dmes), nom. strength (hapleg. in Job 17:9 # 601); TSN Camsa), nom. strength (hapleg. in Zech 12:5 # 602); TANTS (ma’“mas), nom. exertion (hapleg. in Job 36:19 # 4410).

ANE The root ’ms is found in Ugar. with the same meaning as in OT (Schreiner, EDOTid 323), OT

The vb. is said to occur 41x, mainly in the q. and pi. (Schreiner, TDOT 1:323;

NIVEC, 1376). 1. The basic meaning of the root is to have strength or power, as is clear from a consideration of those occurrences of the vb. in the q. (a) When she went to the sanctuary to inquire of Yahweh why she was experiencing such discomfort during her pregnancy, Rebekah was told (Gen 25:23) that the two struggling boys in her womb would be the ancestors of two nations, two peoples who would continue to be in conflict after birth; the younger, Israel, would be stronger than the elder, Edom (a/°’dm mil’dm ye’*mas), and would usurp the position that was the elder’s by right of primogeniture. (b) In a song of deliverance (2 Sam 22:1-51; par. Ps 18:1-50[1-51]), David gives thanks to the compassionate Yahweh for having intervened to deliver him from his enemies, whom he describes as ’Gm°sii mimmenni, too powerful for me (2 Sam 22:18; par. Ps 18:17[18]). Without the divine help, David would have been overwhelmed by the superior force of his adversaries (Anderson, 159). Yahweh is the

435

PTIN (#599) effective power behind all of David’s successes (Philbeck, 140). Throughout this psalm, the irresistible warrior Yahweh, who is infinitely stronger than death and chaos (Brueggemann, 342), is praised for exercising his immeasurable power to protect his afflicted servant against what are, humanly speaking, impossible odds (Rogerson and McKay, 78). (c) In another composition attributed to David, Yahweh is entreated to deliver his servant as he is being persecuted by those stronger than him (’am*si mimmenni, Ps 142:6[7]). In this psalm, as elsewhere, a sharp contrast is drawn between Yahweh, who

is constant

and powerful,

and human

beings, who

are indifferent

and impotent

(Durham, 452).

(d) 2 Chron 13:18 reports a divinely engineered victory over Jeroboam I. 2 Chron 13 is considered by many (e.g., R. North, 376) to be simultaneously a theology of history and a history of theology. While certain aspects of this account may well be based on some authentic historical source (see, Williamson, 1982, 250; Dillard, 105-6;

Japhet, 688), the narrative bears marks of the Chronicler’s distinctive ideology and style. Although outnumbered and outmaneuvered, the men of Judah, the true ers who depended on God, prevailed (lit., and they were strong; Dillard, 104, translate “were victorious”) over the men of Israel (the apostates) as a direct Yahweh’s intervention (Francisco, 381; cf. Dillard, 105). No human strategy

worshipand NIV result of can suc-

ceed against the invincible power of God (Coggins, 197). (e) The q. is used most often in combination with the vb. hzgq, in the formula of encouragement, “Be strong and of good courage” (LXX, andrizomai, ischyd). This seems to have been an installation or commission formula (Braun, 1986, 222-23; Miller, 219-20; cf. Mayes, 374). In this context, the vb. ’ms conveys the sense of being courageous (NIV) or resolute (NEB; REB), standing firm (JB). It is used twice by

Moses when, just prior to his death, he addressed the people (Deut 31:6) and then informed Joshua that Yahweh had commissioned him as his agent to lead the march into the Promised Land (Deut 31:7). The same formula is used when Yahweh himself commissions Joshua (Deut 31:23; Josh 1:6, 7, 9), and it is also used by the people when they address Joshua (Josh 1:18).

Both the people as a whole and Joshua, who will assume the lonely role of leader, are urged to be strong and courageous, not because of any innate abilities they may possess, but because Yahweh their God will be with his obedient servants and will never fail or forsake them (Josh 1:6-8). Anxiety, inadequacy, fear, and despair are

overcome and replaced by courage and confidence in the realization of Yahweh’s powerful presence (Miller, 219). The people are to base their confidence in the abiding faithfulness and unfailing presence, guidance, and sustenance of the infinitely powerful and eternal God (cf. Cunliffe-Jones, 169). At the conclusion of his ministry, Jesus gave

his disciples a similar word of commission and assurance (Matt 28:16-20) (Miller, 221), and Paul encourages the believing community to “be men of courage; be strong” (andrizesthe, krataiousthe, 1 Cor 16:13). The divine companionship and strength enable God’s servants to overcome all obstacles (cf. Craigie, 1983a, 373; Butler, 118).

The same formula occurs when Joshua assures the people that Yahweh protects and guides them and will overpower all their enemies (Josh 10:25); when David charges Solomon with the construction of the temple and encourages him to undertake the task with the assurance of God’s presence (1 Chron 22:13; 28:20; on the

436

PAN #599) relationship between the Davidic transferral of authority and the transfer of leadership from Moses to Joshua, see Braun, 1976, 586-88; Williamson, 1976; Japhet, 400, 498-99); when Hezekiah, “the second Solomon” (Williamson, 1982, 382), sought to

encourage his people during the invasion of Sennacherib (2 Chron 32:7) by assuring them that whereas the king of Assyria relied on human power (an arm of flesh), Judah

could depend on Yahweh to fight its battles (v. 8); and when a celestial visitant addressed Daniel during a vision on the bank of the Tigris (Dan 10:19, emending h“zaq

wah“zaq, be strong, yea, be strong, to the usual formula, h“zaq we’’mas, be strong and of good courage [Bevan, 170; Charles, 117; Jeffery, 509]). 2. The pi. is most commonly used of strengthening people or objects. (a) Lemuel, king of Massa, was told by his mother that one of the many outstanding characteristics of a capable wife is her capacity for sustained work, expressed metaphorically by the statement that she girds her loins with strength and makes her arms strong (Prov 31:17) (McKane, 668). (b) In a searing satire against idolatry (Isa 44:9-20), Isaiah describes how a man who is unable to find a suitable tree will cultivate (lit., make grow strong) one in order to manufacture a god (v. 14). (c) It was Yahweh who made firm the skies (RSV; NRSV; cf. Scott, 68: “When

he set the zenith firmly on high” [NEB and REB have “fixed the canopy of clouds overhead”’]), which has been taken by some to intend a solid dome resting on mountain pillars or the sea at the extremities of the round, flat earth (May and Metzger, 778) (Prov 8:28). (d) The Chronicler (2 Chron

other their years south

11:13-17) relates how the priests, Levites, and

good people from the northern kingdom, who came to sacrifice to the God of fathers in Jerusalem, helped to strengthen the kingdom of Judah and, for three (presumably this is a reference to the period prior to defection taking root in the [cf. 2 Chron 12:1-2]), made Rehoboam secure (lit., made him strong [JB, NIV,

and Dillard, 91, take the vb. to mean support here]) (v. 17).

(e) As the result of a tax levied by King Joash in order to raise funds for repairing the temple, masons,

carpenters, and metalworkers were hired, who restored the

building to its proper condition and strengthened the fabric (2 Chron 24:13). (f) When Yahweh punishes Israel for her crimes, no one will escape, including the swift and the strong, either because a fear-induced paralysis will disable the people (cf. Pusey, 178; Hayes, 119), or because every refuge is destined for destruction (Wolff, 171) (Amos 2:14). Hammershaimb (55) suggests that the swiftest will not

escape because he will be unable to locate a place of refuge, and the strong warrior will be unable to survive using his strength, either because he will be immobilized by fright or because he will be overwhelmed by the power of the opposing force. Mays (54) argues that the meaning is that even Israel’s finest warriors will collapse when they are confronted by the divine; like those whom they are expected to defend, they will be seized by terror and panic when they are confronted by Yahweh’s hostile approach. (g) In a vivid poem extolling Yahweh’s imminent destruction of Nineveh, the capital of the Assyrian empire, the city’s defenders are warned of the impending attack and, in four ringing, staccato imperative phrases filled with irony, urged to take the necessary precautions against the impending attack, including bracing themselves 437

PTIN(#599) (hazzéq motnayim, lit., gird [your] loins) and marshaling all their strength (ammés koah m®’dd, lit., make exceedingly strong [your] power) (Nah 2:1[2]; NIV).

(h) The pi. is used most often in the context of encouraging others. Moses was instructed to commission Joshua as his successor and to encourage (pi. of hzq) and strengthen (pi. of ’ms) him (Deut 3:28). Eliphaz began his first discourse (Job 4: 1-5:27) by conceding that, in former times, Job’s wise and encouraging advice had steadied the suffering, the wavering, and the despondent, whose strength and courage had been drained by adversity: his words had braced (pi. of ’ms) their shaking knees (Hartley, 104-5; cf. Pope, 34), i.e., had prevented them from succumbing to complete despair

and collapse (4:4). In his response to the “long-winded speeches” (16:3) of his “miserable comforters” (16:2), who have failed to address his case realistically, Job points out

sarcastically that he, too, is an experienced pastoral counselor, who, if their roles were reversed (v. 4), could ably dispense to his friends/tormentors the same kind of cheap verbal consolation, strengthening (pi. of ’ms) them with eloquent but empty words of solace to assuage their pain (v. 5; on the possibility that Job is here contrasting his own constructive approach to comforting a sufferer with the ineffectual approach adopted by the friends in his case, see Clines, 379-80 and the literature cited there). In a glorious description of the paradisal transformation of the arid southern desert and wilderness into a lush oasis, the restoration of Zion, and the joyful return of the ransomed of Yahweh (Isa 35:1-10), God issues the command to strengthen (pi. of hzq) the weak hands and to make firm (pi. of ’ms) the feeble knees, i.e., to renew the courage and vigor of the greatly distressed and discouraged (35:3). Yahweh promised that his hand would always support his servant David and his arm empower him (pi. of *ms, Ps 89:21[22]; the hand and the arm of God were both symbols of divine might and power). Israel, Yahweh’s servant (Isa 41:8-9), is commanded neither to fear nor to be

dismayed because God will strengthen (pi. of ’ms) her, assist her, and uphold her with his victorious right hand (v. 10; being perfectum confidentiae, the vbs. in v. 10b may be translated as present or as future [GKC § 106 n; Whitehouse, 70; C. R. North, 97; cf. Whybray, 64)]). (i) In three texts, the pi. is used in conjunction with the nom. /éb, heart (i.e.,

mind), with the meaning harden the heart, i1.e., make obstinate. Interpreting the implacably obstinate response of Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, in terms of the divine purpose and activity (Craigie, 1983a, 116; cf. Clifford, 23; Miller, 36; Raisdinen, 57,

65), the author of Deut 2:30 records how Yahweh hardened the king’s spirit and made his heart defiant (it., strengthened his heart), so that Yahweh might give him into the power of Israel (cf. Exod 4:21; 7:3-5). Members of the covenant community were commanded not to be hardhearted (pi. of ’ms with /éb) or tightfisted towards those of their number who were poor, but to show compassion and generosity (Deut 15:7). Zedekiah is condemned by the Chronicler for his stubborn defiance of the divine word and his wilful spurning of Yahweh’s authority: he did not defer to the guidance (NEB; REB) of the prophet Jeremiah (2 Chron 36:12), he rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar (2 Chron 36:13), and he obstinately refused (way’ammés et-I*babé, lit., and he strengthened his heart) to return to Yahweh (v. 13). 3. The hi. occurs twice in combination with /éb, heart, with the meaning take

courage. One whose light, salvation, and stronghold (or refuge) is God (Ps 27:1), but who is in great danger and deep distress (vv. 7-12), urgently requests an answer from 438

PION(#599) God and receives a response, possibly in the form of a priestly oracle (Anderson, 226; cf. Kraus, 337; Craigie, 1983b, 234) encouraging him to persevere, to wait for Yahweh, to be strong (hzq), and to let his heart take courage (pi. of ’ms with /éb) (v. 14) (pace those [e.g., Delitzsch, 360-61; Davison, 145; Kirkpatrick, 144; Weiser, 254-55; cf. Kissane, 1964, 121] who take v. 14 to be self-encouragement). Possibly as the result of an oracle of assurance from a temple servant that God has heard his prayer and will deliver him from his persecutors (Craigie, 1983b, 262), a psalmist—who was the victim of a personal attack that left him discredited and debilitated (Ps 31:9-13[10-14}), but who continued to trust in Yahweh (vv. 6[7], 14[15])—concludes his prayer with a grateful acknowledgment of the divine intervention (vv. 21-23[22-24]) and an exhorta-

tion to the faithful to be strong (hzq) and to let their hearts take courage (pi. of ’ms with léb, v. 24[25]; however, some [e.g., Stuhlmueller, 448] consider this v. to be a later addition).

4. The hitp. occurs 4x. When Naomi saw that her daughter-in-law Ruth was determined to go with her (mit’ammeset, lit., was making herself strong [Gray, 1967, 411, has “having rallied herself’; AV and RV have ‘“‘was steadfastly minded”]), she

ceased trying to persuade her to return to Moab (Ruth 1:18). When Adoram, the taskmaster over the forced labor, was stoned to death by the northerners after Rehoboam had informed them that he would continue to enforce an oppressive policy in the north, the king barely managed to mount his chariot and flee to Jerusalem (1 Kgs 12:18; par. 2 Chron 10:18). Here, hit’ammés (lit., made himself strong), probably means to rally one’s faculties, as Gray (1970, 307) points out and as NIV, Myers (64), and de Vries (158), correctly convey, rather than to make haste, which is the most widely accepted translation. A somewhat different perspective on the schism from that given in 1 Kgs 12 and 2 Chron 10 may be found in 2 Chron 13:6-7, where the rupture between the northerners and the southerners seems to be viewed in terms of a conflict between apostasy and true worship. According to the majority of scholars, this account describes how, after gathering around Jeroboam when he callously rebelled against the divinely chosen king, certain worthless scoundrels defied Rehoboam, who, young and irresolute, was unable to withstand them (2 Chron 13:7). The phrase wayyit’ammsii ‘al (lit., and they made themselves strong against) is translated “and forced their will on” by JB and as “stubbornly opposed” by NEB and REB (cf. NIV). However, Williamson (1982, 252-53), following Josephus (Ant. 8. 277), contends that it was Rehoboam, not Jeroboam, around whom the irresponsible blackguards gathered. On this reading, which is not the most natural (Dillard, 108; Japhet, 692), it was Rehoboam’s young advisors who prevailed over (rather than defied) him and persuaded him not to follow the sound

advice of his elders. 5. The adj. ’ammis conveys the idea of strength. (a) For a period of four years, Absalom carefully nurtured the disaffection of David’s subjects, and his conspiracy gained momentum, lit., became strong (2 Sam 15:12). When Yahweh unleashes his awesome terror on Israel for her crimes, there will be such pandemonium that even the

stout of heart ([w°]’ammis libbé, lit., the one who is strong in respect of his heart [heart means the locus of strength and courage; Wolff, 172]) among the mighty (i.e., the bravest of warriors) will flee away naked (probably a reference to the discarding of weapons and armor in hopeless panic [Stuart, 319; Paul, 98-99]) (Amos 2:16). In a

439

PIN (#599) description of a calamity experienced by Jerusalem (Isa 22:1-4), her rulers are said to have fled away and been ignominiously captured, and all her stoutest warriors (emending nimsa’ayik, all of you who were found, to ’ammisayik, your strong men [BHS; NEB; REB; JB; Kissane, 1960, 233, 235, 237]) to have been taken prisoner, without a blow being struck (cf. Mauchline, 169-70; Motyer, 182) (v. 3). A clear antithesis is

made between intellectual ability and brute strength: A wise man is held to be mightier than a strong man and a man of knowledge than one who is powerful physically (reading mé’ammis-koah, than one strong in power, for MT m®’ammes-koah, strengthens or consolidates power [MT is retained by NIV; McKane, 248; Tate, 76]) (Prov 24:5). (b) In four texts, the adj. is applied to God. God’s wisdom and power (he is ‘ammis koah [this combination of terms signifies phenomenal strength: robust in strength]) are so immeasurably superior that no human can contend with him successfully (Job 9:4; a less likely meaning is that not even the wisest and strongest person could defy God and win [on this, see Hartley, 167]). No person on earth can succeed against God in a contest of strength (//°]koah ’ammis) (9:19a); resistance to his power

would be as futile as trying to compel him into any kind of debate or litigation (v. 19b; see Clines, 235). The leaders of Ephraim are warned that Yahweh has an agent of his wrath who is mighty and strong (hazagq w°’ammis)—a reference either to the king of Assyria or to an eschatological figure—and who will violently cast down his victims as irresistibly as a devastating hailstorm, a destructive tempest, or an overwhelming flood (Isa 28:2). So mighty in power (/w°]’ammis [some, e.g., BHS and Watts, 1987, 85, 88, read the nom. form w°’dmes, with 1QIsa*] kdah) is the incomparable Yahweh, the Creator of the universe, that not one of the vast array of the astral bodies he marshals, calling each by name, is missing, i.e., dares fail to be on parade (Whitehouse, 62; Skinner, 14; Whybray, 57) (40:26).

6. The nom. ’6mes occurs once in a verse that has given rise to widely differing interpretations. In a passage where Job is bewailing his loss of vitality and energy (Job 16:1-17:16), 17:9 says that the righteous man holds to his way and that he who has clean hands grows ever stronger (yésip ’dmes, lit., he increases strength). If 17:9 is in its original context and not a misplaced fragment of the speech of one of the friends (cf., e.g., Dummelow,

304) or an insertion by an orthodox copyist shocked at Job’s

audacity (cf. A. and M. Hanson, 65), then it may mean that the righteous, far from being dismayed at the sight of Job’s misery, are confirmed in their chosen attitude and persevere stoically in the same path as before (Dhorme, 250); or that, despite being appalled at Job’s suffering, righteous people retain an inflexible determination to pursue the way of righteousness, whatever the cost (Heavenor, 431); or that the righteous react against the sufferer, and their turning away from his distress. serves to strengthen them in their own righteousness (Bergant, 102) as they guard themselves carefully against any sin that could involve them in a calamity of such proportions as Job (Clines, 397). If the verse is not a gloss, then it must be understood ironically (MacK-

enzie and Murphy, 477). On this interpretation, Job would be indicting his friends by saying that no righteous man exists in his community for, if there were such a man, he would support Job and testify on his behalf (Habel, 94). 7. The nom. ’amsd occurs in Zech 12:5, where the clans of Judah (i.e., alienated Judahites [Carstensen, 509; Higginson, 799]) acknowledge that the inhabitants of

Jerusalem, the city that serves as an instrument of the divine judgment on all nations, 440

JANG 599) have strength (i.e., divine protection) through Yahweh of hosts (Merrill, 314; other, less likely translations, see Smith, 274). The city’s real strength lies not fications or in cavalry, but in God (Watts, 1972, 355). It is evident from vv. there was some kind of rivalry or even hostility between Judah and Jerusalem.

for two in forti4-8 that

To prevent the Jerusalemites and the Davidic house from boasting and from elevating themselves over the clans of Judah, Yahweh will deliver Judah first, and Judah will get the credit for the victory over the nations approaching Jerusalem (Smith, 274-75). All the people of Yahweh will recognize that they owe both their strength and the victory to him alone. 8. The phrase ma’“massé-kéah, lit., exertions of power, occurs in Job 36:19, an obscure verse that is difficult, if not impossible, to translate (for some valiant attempts

that have been made to interpret this virtually unintelligible text, see Driver and Gray, 2:279-80; Dhorme, 547-48). Some (e.g., Dummelow, 316; Franks, 362; cf. Heavenor,

440) understand Elihu to be saying to Job that nothing but suffering can avail to save him. If one were to follow RSV and NRSV, then Elihu is here asking Job whether his cry or all his strong exertions will avail to keep him from distress. Bearing in his afflictions the atonement (koper, v. 18) of his crime, Job ought to carry the full weight of this burden, the more so since he cannot save himself by his own resources and exertions (Terrien, 1162; cf. Watts, 1972, 133). According to NEB and REB, which trans-

late ma’“massé-koah as “resources of your high position,” Elihu is exhorting Job not to try and buy off hardships with the offer of personal wealth or favors, but this interpretation

is

unconvincing

(Habel,

192).

According

to

JB,

which

translates

ma’“massé-koah as “strong-armed men,” Elihu is adjuring Job to prosecute the rich, not merely the indigent, and strong-armed men, not just the weak. However, there is

not the slightest indication elsewhere in the book that Job has ever been guilty of partiality in judgment. Dhorme (548) tentatively suggests that this verse means that a comparison cannot be made between the cry of the faithful believer to his God in distress and the total energies of sheer might. To cry unto God, who alone is ’ammis koah, robust in strength (Job 9:4, 19), is to petition the help of a power infinitely greater than all human strength; there is no greater force in the world than prayer (Dhorme, 548). Regrettably, the meaning of this verse is virtually impossible to establish (Hartley, 472, n. 5, 474), and no translation of it can be considered satisfactory (cf. Gordis, 417; A. and M. Hanson, 101).

P-B

The vb. ’ms occurs with the meaning press, harden; pi. make strong, strengthen;

press, close; make impervious; hitp. be closed. (Jastrow 1:78).

Power, strength: > ’abir (strong, powerful, #51); > ’6n I (generative power, strength, # 226); > ’ayil I (man of power, #380); > ’é/ IV (strength, power, #445); > ’ms (be strong, strengthen, be superior over, #599); > ’dpiq II (strong, #693); > ’S5 (take courage, #899); ~ gbr (accomplish, excel, swell, rise, be strong, # 1504); > dobe’ (strength, # 1801); > zimra

II (strength, # 2380); > hzg (be strong, overpower, support, seize, #2616); > hayil (capacity, power, property, # 2657); > has6n (strong, # 2891); > y&l (able, endure, be victorious, conquer, # 3523); > ysr II (strengthen, # 3580); > kabbir (strong, # 3888); > koah I (strength, power, possession, means, # 3946); > kellah I (maturity, full vigor, #3995); > m°’od (power, might,

# 4394); > ma’“mas (exertion, # 4410); > nSg (overtake, be able to, afford, appear, # 5952); > ‘zz (be strong, defy, show a shameless, #6451); > ‘sm I (be mighty, vast, numerous, make strong, #6793); > tgp (overpower, # 9548)

441

PTIN (#599) es

eT

ES

ee

BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 1:323-27; THAT 1:209-11; TWOT 1:53-54; A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms. Volume 1: Introduction and Psalms 1-72, NCBC, 1972; D. Bergant, Job, Ecclesiastes, OTM, 1982;

A. A. Bevan, A Short Commentary on the Book of Daniel for the Use of Students, 1892; R. L. Braun, “Solomon, the Chosen Temple Builder: The Significance of 1 Chronicles 22, 28, and 29 for the Theology of Chronicles,” JBL 95, 1976, 581-90; idem, J Chronicles, WBC, W. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, Interp, 1990; T. C. Butler, Joshua, WBC,

1986; 1983;

R. N. Carstensen, “The Book of Zechariah,” in The Interpreter’s One-Volume

Commentary on the Bible, 1971, 504-10; R. H. Charles, The Book of Daniel, CB, 1913; R. Clifford, Deuteronomy With an Excursus on Covenant and Law, OTM, 1982; D. J. A. Clines, Job 1-20, WBC, 1989;

R. J. Coggins, The First and Second Books of the Chronicles, CBC, 1976; P. C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, NICOT, 1983 (1983a); idem, Psalms 1-50, WBC, 1983 (1983b); H. Cunliffe-Jones, Deuteronomy: Introduction and Commentary, Torch, 1964; W. T. Davison, The Psalms I-LXXII, CB, n.d.; F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Psalms. Volume I, KD, 1889; E. Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job, 1967; R. B. Dillard, 2 Chronicles, WBC,

1987; S. R. Driver and G. B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job Together With a New Translation, ICC, 1964; J. R. Dummelow, ed., ACommentary on the Holy Bible, 1909; J. I. Durham, “Psalms,” in BBC, 1972, 4:153-464; C. T. Francisco, “1-2 Chroni-

cles,” in BBC, 1971, 3:297-421; R. S. Franks, “Job,” in Peake, 1920, 346-65; R. Gordis, The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation and Special Studies, 1978; J. Gray, Joshua, Judges and Ruth, NCBC, 1967; idem, J & IT Kings:

of Job, CBC,

1975; E. Hammershaimb,

A Commentary, 2d ed., 1970; N. C. Habel, The Book

The Book of Amos: A Commentary,

1970; A. and

M. Hanson, The. Book of Job: Introduction and Commentary, Torch, 1976; J. E. Hartley, The

Book of Job, NICOT, 1988; J. H. Hayes, Amos the Eighth-Century Prophet: His Times and His Preaching, 1988; E. S. P. Heavenor, “Job,” in NBC, 1972, 421-45; R. E. Higginson, “Zechariah,” in NBC, 1972, 786-803; S. Japhet, J & IJ Chronicles: A Commentary, OTL, 1993; A. Jeffery, “The Book of Daniel: Introduction and Exegesis,” in JB, 1956, 6:339-549; A. F. Kirkpatrick, The

Book of Psalms, CBSC, 1957; E. J. Kissane, The Book of Isaiah Translated From a Critically Revised Hebrew Text With Commentary. Vol. I (I-XXXIX), 1960; idem, The Book of Psalms Translated From a Critically Revised Hebrew Text With a Commentary, 1964; H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 1-59; A Commentary, 1988; W. McKane, Proverbs: A New Approach, OTL, 1970; R. A. F. MacKenzie and R. E. Murphy, “Job,” in NJBC, 1990, 466-88; J. Mauchline, Isaiah 1-39, Torch, 1970; H. G. May and B. M. Metzger, eds., The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1973; A. D. H. Mayes, Deuteronomy, NCBC, Merrill, Haggai,

Zechariah,

1979; J. L. Mays, Amos:

Malachi,

A Commentary, OTL,

1994; P. D. Miller, Deuteronomy,

Interp,

1976; E. H. 1990; J. A.

Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary, 1993; J. M. Myers, II Chronicles: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 1973; C. R. North, The Second Isaiah: Introduction, Translation and Commentary

to Chapters XL-LV, 1967; R. North, “The Chronicler: 1-2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah,” in NJBC, 1990, 362-98; S. M. Paul, Amos, Hermeneia, 1991; B. F. Philbeck, “1-2 Samuel,” in BBC, 1971, 3:1-145; M. H. Pope, Job: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 3d ed., 1979; E. B. Pusey, The Minor Prophets With a Commentary Explanatory and

Practical and Introductions to the Several Books, 1891; H. Raisinen, The Idea of Divine Hardening: A Comparative Study of the Notion of Divine Hardening, Leading Astray and Inciting to Evil in the Bible and the Qur’an, 1976; J. W. Rogerson and J. W. McKay, Psalms 1-50, CBC, 1977; R. B. Y. Scott, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 1965; J. Skinner, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah Chapters XL-LXVI, CBSC, 1960; R.L. Smith,

442

YN (# 600) Micah-Malachi, WBC, 1984; D. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, WBC, 1987; C. Stuhlmueller, “Psalms,” in HBC, 1988, 433-94; M. E. Tate, “Proverbs,” in BBC, 1972, 5:1-99; S. Terrien, “The Book of

Job: Introduction and Exegesis,” in IB, 1954, 3:875-1198; S. J. de Vries, 1 Kings, WBC, 1985; J. D. W. Watts, “Zechariah,” in BBC, 1972, 7:308-65; idem, Isaiah 34-66, WBC, 1987; A. Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary, OTL, 1965; O. C. Whitehouse, Isaiah XL-LXVI, CB, 1908; R. N. Whybray, Isaiah 40-66, NCBC, 1975; H. G. M. Williamson, “The Accession of Solomon in the Books of Chronicles,” VT 26, 1976, 351-61; idem, 1 and 2 Chronicles, NCBC, 1982; H. W. Wolff, Joel and Amos, Hermeneia, 1977.

Robin Wakely

ie OT

YAS (amds), piebald, only in Zech 6:3, 7

het

(# 600).

The meaning “piebald” (HALAT 63) is derived from the context in a list of col-

ors of the horses (Zech 6:2-3). Brenner defines ’Gmds as a secondary color (112-14) with the range of brown to red: “light reddish brown.” However, the root ’ms, be strong, suggests the meaning “strong ones.” So R. L. Smith interprets the two modifi-

ers as “dappled strong horse” (Micah-Malachi, 212). The NIV applies it to the horses of all four chariots, “all of them powerful” (v. 3). For the significance of the colors > Sarogq (# 8601). Colors—spotted, dappled: > ’amds (pie-bald?, #600); > bardd (dappled, spotted, # 1353); > wW (spotted, gaudy, # 3229); > nagodd (speckled, # 5923); > ‘agqdd (striped, streaked, # 6819) BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Brenner, Colour Terms in the Old Testament, JSOTSup, 1982; P. L. Garber, “Color,” SBE 1:729-32; R. Gradwohl, Die Farben im Alten Testament, BZAW 83, 1963; W. D. McHardy,

“The Horses in Zechariah,” BZAW

103, 1968, 174-79.

Robert L. Alden

601 (’Omes, strength), > #599

602 (’ams4, strength), > #599

606 (émer

I), word,

SAN saying

(#609);

“a8 (mr), q. say, command, think (# 606); TIS (Omer), nom. speech, saying (#608); “iS N78 (imrd), word, promise (#614); TINT

(ma’“mar), command (# 4411). ANE _ The vb. is well attested throughout the different Sem. languages, howbeit with different nuances: Akk. amaru, see, find, realize, come to know; Aram. ’mr, say, think, command; Arab. ’amara, command; Eth. ’ammdrd, show, make known, recognize;

Ugar. ’mr, see. In a number of Psalms, M. Dahood has suggested that Heb. ’mr, means

see, as in Akk. and Ugar. His parade example is Ps 71:10: kt ’am®rit ’dy*bay Ii, “because my foes eye me” (AB: Psalms IT, 1968, 170; cf. AB: Psalms I, 1966, 16, for

other examples). By contrast, NIV renders “for my enemies speak against me,” while

others suggest the emendation ’r“bii, “lie in wait” for MT ’am*ri. 443

“WIN (# 606) The vb. ’mr, say appears more than 5000x in the HB. It is a vb. of communicaOT tion and declaration, used of God speaking to human beings, human beings speaking to other people, and human beings speaking to God. A person, either God or humankind, can say something in the heart, i.e., think something or determine something, without verbally communicating to another. 1. The q. introduces the creative and fashioning utterances of God in the creation story of Gen 1: “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light” (v. 3; cf.

vv. 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26). 2. In narrative texts, the q. is widely used to introduce direct speech, without any special theological reference. Rarely, it introduces indirect speech: “Say you are my sister” (Abram to his wife Sarai, Gen 12:13). The inf. abs. introduced by lamedh regularly functions like our colon or quotation mark, when introducing direct speech. Consequently, it can be omitted in translation (e.g., NIV: Gen 2:16; 8:15; 9:8; Num

11:18; Deut 31:25; 1 Sam 19:19; Jer 5:20; Zech 4:13). 3. The formula “thus saith the Lord” (KJV; NRSV “thus says the Lord” is better than NIV “this is what the Lord says” for Heb. koh ’Gmar ’“donday) introduces the solemn and authoritative message of God, at times a warning of impending judgment or the issuing of a divine directive, yet at other times a word of hope, delivered by God’s messenger, often a prophet, to another: Moses to Pharaoh with the directive, “Let my son/people go, so that he/they may worship me” (Exod 4:22; 5:1; 8:1[7:26]; 9:1; 10:3) and with the message of the impending death of the firstborn of Egypt (11:4); Moses to the Levites when Israel sinned with the golden calf, ordering them to slay the sinners (32:27); Joshua to all the tribes of Israel at the covenant renewal ceremony at Shechem with a directive to faithfully serve the Lord (Josh 24:2); an unnamed prophet to Israel with a word of encouragement in response to their cry for help (Judg 6:8); “a man of God” to Eli about the destruction of his house because of sin (1 Sam 2:27); Samuel to the people of Israel with an order to present themselves before the Lord (10:18); the prophet Nathan to David with God’s promise of a house and kingship for David forever (2 Sam 7:5); the prophet and seer Gad to king David with three options as a penalty for his sin of numbering the fighting men (24:12); Ahijah the prophet of Shiloh to Jeroboam announcing the division of the kingdom (1 Kgs 11:31); Shemaiah the man of God to Rehoboam with a message not to militarily resist the secession of the northern tribes (12:24); “a man of God” from Judah to the idolatrous altar at Bethel with a message of its impending destruction by a descendant of David (13:2); “an old prophet” living at Bethel to the man of God who came from Judah about his impending death because of his disobedience to the word of the Lord (13:21); Ahijah the prophet to the wife of Jeroboam about God’s judgment against him for his sins (14:7); Elijah to the widow of Zarephath about continuing miraculous provisions for her during the drought (17:14); “a prophet” to the besieged Ahab about the Lord’s coming deliverance of Israel from Ben-Hadad of Aram (20:13, 14, 28) and about his judgment against Ahab for his disobedience (20:42); Elijah to Ahab with a message of death (21:19); Elijah to

the messengers of Ahaziah with a message of death for spiritual apostasy (2 Kgs 1:4, 6, 16); Elisha to the men of Jericho with a message of the healing of their waters (2:21); Elisha announcing the coming deliverance of the city of Samaria from a siege (7:1). The writing prophets frequently use this and similar formulas to introduce divine messages of judgment and salvation. “Thus saith the Lord” introduces oracles of 444

“TDN(#606) judgment against the nations (Jer 47:2; 48:1; Ezek 25:3; 30:2; Amos 1:3; 2:1), against individuals (Amaziah the wicked priest of Bethel, who opposed Amos (Amos 7:17); against the men of Anathoth who opposed Jeremiah (Jer 11:22); against Coniah = Jehoiachin king of Judah (Jer 22:30); against the ruler of Tyre because of his pride (Ezek 28:2); against Gog the apocalyptic enemy of God’s people (Ezek 39:1), against the northern kingdom Israel (Amos 2:6), against sinful Jerusalem and Judah (Jer 4:27; 6:22; Ezek 5:8; 12:19; Amos

2:4), against the mountains of Judah for their idolatry

(Ezek 6:3), against false prophets and prophetesses (Ezek 13:3, 18), against apostasy (Jer 18:13; Ezek 20:30), against social injustice (Jer 6:6; 21:12; 22:3; 34:13; cf. Ezek 45:9), and it introduces calls for repentance (Jer 4:3; 7:3; Ezek 14:6). The same formula introduces messages of encouragement and consolation (Isa 7:7; 10:24; 28:16; 43:1; 44:2; 49:7; 66:12), of restoration and salvation (Isa 44:24; 49:8; Jer 30:2, 18; 31:23; Ezek 36:33; 37:12, 21; 39:25). Jeremiah employs it in his letter to the exiles in Babylon, giving directives to settle there until seventy years of exile are completed (Jer 29:4, 10). It introduces the divine commissioning of Cyrus of Persia as the Lord’s annointed (Isa 45:1) and words of encouragement to the prophet Ezekiel at his commissioning (Ezek 2:4; 3:11). The postexilic prophets Haggai (1:2, 5, 7; 2:6) and Zechariah (1:14; 6:12; 8:2, 20) use the formula “thus saith the Lord of hosts” (koh ’amar "“donay s°ba’ 6t), underscoring the Lord’s power behind his words, to introduce messages of encouragement to the struggling believing community of their time in the land. Divine directives to the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 13:1; 19:1; 26:2; 27:2) and to others (Ezek 44:9; 45:18; 46:1) are introduced by such formulas.

Similar formulas containing the vb. ’G4mar introduce solemn and authoritative messages given by humans, especially rulers, to other humans through the intermediary of a messenger: the words of Pharaoh directed to the enslaved Hebrews by the slave drivers and foremen with an order to fetch their own straw for brick making (Exod 5:10); the words of the nation Israel by the mouth of messengers sent by Moses to Edom, requesting passage through their land (Num 20:14); the words of Balak by his messengers to Balaam, asking that he come and curse Israel (Num 22:16); the mes-

sage of the whole assembly of the Lord, transmitted by the priest Phineas and other leaders, to the tribes living in Gilead with a rebuke for building an unauthorized altar (Josh 22:16); the words of Jephthah through his messengers to the king of the Ammonites with a warning against Ammonite aggression (Judg 11:14[15]); the words

of King David to Joab delivered by the messenger Beniah to come out of the refuge of the tabernacle (1 Kgs 2:30); the message of King Ben-Hadad of Aram to the besieged King Ahab of Israel to surrender all his wealth (20:2[3], 5); the message of the king of

Assyria delivered by a commander to those in besieged Jerusalem to surrender (Isa 36:14); the request of King Hezekiah delivered by high-ranking officials to Isaiah that he pray for besieged Jerusalem (37:3). Even the wicked priest of Bethel, Amaziah, reports the words of Amos to Jeroboam king of Israel in this manner (Amos 7:11). 4. The q. can mean command, especially when its subject is an authority figure. In the speech of Job, God “commands” the sun not to shine (NRSV Job 9:7), and in the

speech of Elihu, God “commands” sinners to repent from evil (NIV 36:10). In a communal lament, in rehearsing the sins of Israel past, God “commanded” the Israelites to destroy the nations opposing them, but they did not obey (Ps 106:34). In a prayer of confession of sin, the blessing of the land is mentioned, the land that the Lord had

445

“VAN (# 606) commanded the forefathers to enter and possess (Neh 9:23). The king can command his subjects to carry out various tasks (to find a musician—1 Sam 16:16; to take a census of the fighting men—1 Chron 21:17; to make a collection box for collecting monetary offerings for the temple—2 Chron 24:8; to bring his queen before him—Esth 1:17; to hang evil Haman—9:14). As leader of the postexilic Jerusalem community, Nehemiah gave orders for the shutting and reopening of the city gates for the Sabbath observance and to the Levites about guarding the gates in order to keep the Sabbath holy (Neh 13:19, 22; cf. v. 9; contrast 2:5, 7).

5. The q. can also mean promise, with either God or a human being as subject. The Lord promised (’mr || dbr) to visit Sarah that she might conceive (Gen 21:1), to

preserve the line of David (2 Kgs 8:19 || 2 Chron 21:7), and to make Israel numerous as the stars of heaven (1 Chron 27:23). In a wisdom psalm, the worshiper promises the Lord that he will obey his words (Ps 119:57). In exchange for the destruction of the Jews, evil Haman had promised to pay a large amount of money into the royal treasury (Esth 4:7).

6. Especially when used in collocation with the nom. /éb, heart, introduced by an appropriate preposition, the q. of ’mr can mean think, suppose. In a lament on the depraved state of humanity, the fool, the practical atheist, “says in his heart,” i.e., sup-

poses, that there is no moral governor in the world who metes out punishments and rewards (Ps 14:1; 53:1; cf. 10:6). In the Flood story, after Noah offered burnt offerings, the Lord “said in his heart,” 1.e., purposed, that he would never again curse the ground because of humanity and destroy all living creatures (Gen 8:21). Upon hearing that his wife Sarah would bear him a son in their old age, Abraham laughed with delight and “said to himself” (lit. said in his heart), “Will a son be born to a man a hundred years

old?” (Gen 17:17). In a prophecy of Hosea, the people of the northern kingdom “do not realize (tbal-yo’m‘ri lil“babam)” that the Lord remembers all their wicked deeds (Hos 7:2). In a judgment oracle against Babylon, the king of Babylon is judged because he said in his heart that he would become like God (Isa 14:13). Even by itself, the q. can mean think, used of Moses by a Hebrew in direct speech (Exod 2:14), of Pharaoh by the Lord in direct speech (14:3), of Agag king of the Amalekites by the narrator (1 Sam 15:32), of Job by the narrator (Job 1:5), and by Job about himself in direct speech

(HAY. 7. The ni. used impersonally can introduce proverbial sayings: about Nimrod (Gen 10:9), the mountain of the Lord (22:14), the nation Jacob/Israel (Num 23:23), Zion (Ps 87:5), and the Lord’s restoration from captivity (Jer 16:14-15); a quotation

from other literature (Book of the Wars of the Lord; Num 21:14); a typical question (Ezek 13:12); a report of Israelite spying to the king of Jericho (Josh 2:2); a metaphoric statement of judgment by a prophet (Jer 4:11); and a word of encouragement in a prophetic oracle of hope (Zeph 3:16-17). The ni. used impersonally can also introduce prophetic or prophetic-like namings and renamings of people and places, symbolic of divine blessing and judgment: “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel” (Gen 32:28[29]); “In the place where it was said to them, “You are not my people,’ they will be called ‘sons of the living God’” (Hos 1:10[2:1]); “One [of the cities of Egypt] ... will

be called the City of Destruction” (Isa 19:18); “No longer will they call you Deserted, or name your land Desolate” (Isa 62:4); “the days are coming ... when people will no longer call it Topheth or the Valley of Ben Hinnon, but the Valley of Slaughter”

446

“WAN (# 606) (Jer 7:32). In the days of the righteous king, “a villain (will no longer be) said to be

honorable” (see Isa 32:5 NRSV), and in the favorable year of the Lord, restored Zion “will be named ministers of our God” (Isa 61:6). In Daniel, the visions of the evenings and mornings “was told” to Daniel (Dan 8:26 NRSV).

8. The hi. appears only in Deut 26:17-18, meaning “declare” (NIV, NRSV) of both the nation Israel and the Lord when making a covenant. The one party to the cov_ enant takes this action in regard to the other party. Ullendorff offers the translation “recognize” in light of its use in Eth.: “‘Thou hast recognized (h’mrt) the Lord this day to be thy God ...’ and ‘the Lord hath recognized thee this day to be his peculiar peoplese?

9. The nom. ’6mer appears only in poetry. In a hymn celebrating God’s glory in nature it means “speech” (Ps 19:3-4), in a hymn celebrating God’s power “command” (68:11[12] NRSV), and in a prayer song “promise” (77:9). In the speech of Eliphaz, as the complement of the vb. gzr, it means “matter”: “what you decide on” (NIV); better: “you will decide on a matter” (Job 22:28 NRSV). The phrase 3“bu ‘6t matt6t ’dmer, “sworn are the rods of decree” (i.e., the decreed rods as instruments of chastisement) of the MT of Hab 3:9 is questionable (see R. D. Patterson, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, WEC, 1991, 238 and 242, who prefers to read the vb. ’mr). D. J. A. Clines (The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, 1, 1993, 326) has offered the translation of the MT mattét

Omer as “arrows (consisting) of speech,” in which the Heb. “rod” is understood as “arrow.” 10. The nom. ’émer I, “word, saying” appears only in poetry, esp. in Wisdom literature and epic poetry, with the exception of Josh 24:27, where Joshua says to all the people at the conclusion of the covenant renewal ceremony at Shechem: The stone of witness “has heard all the words of the LORD that he spoke to us” (NRSV). In the prologue to Prov, the proverbs are described as words or sayings giving moral and ethical insight (‘imré bind) for practical living in a sinful world (Prov 1:2). Lady Wisdom speaks “words” that are righteous, void of crookedness and deception (8:8), which ought to be heeded (2:1). By contrast, the adulteress’s words are smooth and seductive (2:16). Wise words from the mouth of the proverbial father are to be heeded by the son (4:20; 5:7; 7:24). By making foolish pledges, the youth can be ensnared by the words of his mouth (6:2). “Pleasant words” (’imré-no‘am) give refreshment to their hearers (16:24; cf. 15:26). Words of knowledge (’imré-da‘at) are sayings that give practical knowledge about how to live a godly life in a sinful world (19:27; 23:12). A person of practical, spiritual knowledge uses words sparingly (17:27). The sayings of the wise are “reliable sayings” (imré ’emet), which provide sound answers (‘“mdarim ’emet, 22:31). In the book of Job, Job speaks of the words of the Holy One (Job 6:10) and the words of a despairing man (6:26), as well as honest words (’imré-ydSer; 6:25). In condemnation, Bildad tells Job that the words of his mouth are a blustering wind (8:2). Eliphaz exhorts Job to lay up God’s word in his heart (22:22; || térd, instruction), to

which Job replies, “I have treasured the words of his mouth more than my daily bread” (23:12; || miswat s°patayw, commands of his lips). Elihu uses ’émer Ito mean the arguments put forth by Job and his other three friends (32:12, 14). In his rebuke of Job, Elihu claims that his own words come from an upright heart (33:3), while Job “multi-

plies his words against God” (34:37). Zophar uses the singular the only time it appears

447

“WAN (# 606) in the OT in the expression w‘nahalat ’imré mé’él, the heritage decreed for them by God (20:29 NRSV). In the book of Psalms, the words of the psalmist can constitute his prayer to God (Ps 5:2; t°pillati | ’imré-pi 54:2[4]). In a didactic psalm, the words of the poet can

be his instruction to his nation (tdrati || ’imré-p?, 78:1). After meditating on the glory of God revealed in creation and the perfection of his law, the psalmist prays that the words of his mouth might be acceptable to the Lord (19:14[15]). In songs of thanksgiv-

ing, kings should praise the Lord when they hear of the power of his word in bringing salvation (138:4), and those who sat in gloom because they rebelled against the words of God (’imré-’él) should give thanks to him for his subsequent deliverance (107:11).

Balaam describes himself as ““one who hears the words of God” in two of his oracles (Num 24:4, 16). In his song, Moses charges the earth, as a witness, to hear the words of his mouth (Deut 32:1). In the Song of Deborah, Sisera’s mother answers her

own question (Judg 5:29). In an oracle of judgment, God says that he slew unrepentant — Israel with the words of his mouth (Hos 6:5). In an oracle against idols, a prophet can mock the idols because “nobody hears your words” (Isa 41:26). Villains scheme to ruin the poor with lying words (imré-Seqer; 32:7). 11. The nom. ’imrd, word, appears only in poetry. In the wisdom Ps 119, it appears 19x, always with reference to God, personalized with the second person pronoun, your: your word hidden in the heart keeps one from sin (v. 11); your word gives spiritual direction (v. 133), which the believer obeys (v. 67) but the faithless do not (v. 158); your word should be the object of the believer’s song because of its righteous character (v. 172). God’s word becomes his “promise” to the pious (vv. 38, 58, 76, 82,

140, 162), which is sweet (v. 103) and able to renew and sustain the believer (vv. 50, 116, 154), worthy of meditation (v. 148), and it includes salvation (vv. 41 and 170). In

David’s song of praise to the Lord for his deliverance from enemies (2 Sam 22:31 = Ps 18:30[31]) and in the sayings of Agur (Prov 30:5), the word/promise of the Lord “proves true” (NRSV); cf. Ps 105:19, where the word of the Lord proved righteous Joseph true during his stay in Egypt (NIV). In the Song of Moses, “word” stands in synonymous parallelism with “teaching” (legah; Deut 32:2), and in the Blessing of Moses, with “covenant” (brit; Deut 33:9). It stands in synonymous parallelism with voice (gd/) in the song of Lamech (Gen 4:23) and in two prophetic oracles in Isaiah

(Isa 28:23; 32:9), where it can be rendered “speech” (so RSV in Isa). In a prayer psalm, the word addressed to God can be rendered “prayer” (Ps 17:6 NIV). In an individual song of thanksgiving, the psalmist declares that one reason to praise the Lord is that “you have exalted above all things your name and your word” (Ps 138:2). In a hymn of praise to the Lord—a hallelujah psalm—the word that the Lord sends to the earth, to his creation, becomes his command (Ps 147:15).

12. The nom. ma’“mar appears only in the late biblical book of Esther, where it means the “command” of the king (Esth 1:15), the “bidding” of Mordecai (2:20 NJPSV), and the “decree” of Esther in her role as queen concerning Purim observances (9:32 NIV).

P-BBH usage guides the usage in Sir and QL. The nom. ma’“mar appears in Sir 3:8 in the collocation “in word and deed (bm’mr whm‘sh).” The LXX uses eipein and leg to render the vb. ’mr in the vast majority of cases. 448

WIN (# 621) ae Language, tongue, speech: ~ /‘z (speak unintelligibly, # 4357), > /asdn (tongue, language, # 4383);

— sn (slander, # 4387); > Sapa (language, lip, shore, # 8557)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 1:328-45; THAT 1:211-16; TWAT 1:353-73; W. F. Albright, “Northwest-Semitic Names in a List of Egyptian Slaves from the Eighteenth Century B.C.,” JAOS 74, 1954, 222, n.47: F. Delitzsch, Prolegomena eines neuen hebrdisch-aramdischen Worterbuchs zum Alten Testament, 1886, 28, n. 1; C. F. A. Dillmann, Lexicon Linguae Aethiopicae, 1865, col. 728; F. A. Dombrowski, “Erwagungen und Vorschlége zu einem Vergleichenden Wurzelworterbuch der semitischen Sprachen,” ZDMG 134, 184, 35-38; W. Leslau, Comparative Dictionary of Ge’ez (Classical Ethiopic), 1987, 25; P. Marrassini, Formazione del Lessico dell’ Edilizia Militare nel Semitico di Siria, Quaderni di Semitistica 1, 1971, 106-10; S. Moscati, “La radice semitica ’mr,” Bib 27, 1946, 115-26; F. Rundgren, “Hebraisch bdséir ‘Golderz’ und ’amar ‘sagen’, Zwei Etymologien,” Or 32, 1963, 178-83; E. Ullendorff, Ethiopia and the Bible, 1968, 127. Jerome A. Lund

608 (Omer, speech, saying), > # 606

609 (’émer I, word, saying), > #606 610 (émer II, branch), > #580 614 (imrda, word, promise), > # 606

wr

WIN

(’eme3),

Rees cae (etmdl), the Dw 2 (sils6m), day before yesterday (# 8997).

ANE

yesterday day

before

(#621);

4MMN

yesterday

(#919);

In the Lachish Ostraca ’mS refers to a message sent the previous evening (KAJ

193.6). Arab. musy or ’amsi, yesterday; Arab. masa’, Eth. mesét, and Tigre mesé,

night. The Akk. amSali means yesterday, in late Babylonian possibly the day before yesterday (AHw, 45); mau means night (AHw, 687). Akk. timdali/u (cf. Heb. t°mdl) means yesterday (late Assyrian attests ittimali < ina [during] timali [AHw, 1360]); Syr. *etmaly, Mand. ’itmal, and Eth. temalem, yesterday. Akk. Sal¥imi (SalSami in the Amarna letters), the day before yesterday (AHw, 1150). Heb. Sil/§6m is apparently a derivative of Sal?§ (third) and y6m (day),

OT 1. The Heb. ’emes refers to the previous day or evening, including the time until the morning. In Gen 19:34 it refers to Lot’s daughter spending the night with him in order to conceive; there it is used in context with the next day (moh° rat, # 4740); i.e.,

the day following the previous night. In Gen 31:29, 42 reference is made to the dream in which God had spoken to Laban during the previous night. In 2 Kgs 9:26, at the slaying of Joram king of Israel, Jehu recalls the oracle the day after Naboth was killed, saying that the Lord had seen the blood of Naboth and his sons; ’emes means either the previous day or evening, when the deed was done. Job 30:3 is problematic because of an obscure vb. and the meaning of ’emeS, for

which numerous subjective emendations have been proposed. Fohrer adopts the sense of gnawing at roots in the desert, a land desolate and waste, but this requires emending ’emes to ’eres, land, as well as supplying a word for roots (413). It seems better to give

449

WIS(# 621) the vb. the sense of roam; many commentators then treat the following words adverbially, to speak of those who roam at night in a desolate waste (e.g., Hartley, 396). This is a doubtful solution because ’eme%, like its cognates, does not mean night or darkness in an absolute sense, but yesterday or last night. Gordis proposes that we find here the root mw (# 4631) as another word for roam; it is even possible the orthography with aleph can be regarded as a phonetic weakening of third person prefix, so no emendation would be required (330-31).

2. The day that is past is expressed by ’etmdl, as in Ps 90:4, which compares a thousand years with God to the day that has gone by (THAT 1:716). To this should be related the phonetic variant ’etmiil of Isa 30:33, where it refers to the previous preparation for the destruction of Assyria; the versions give it the sense of long ago, which corresponds to the general idea (Wildberger, 1210). The v. is difficult, but it seems to refer to the previous preparation of a fireplace (tpt, # 9532; cf. HALAT 1638-39) for the conflagration of Assyria (Wildberger, 1223-24). The combination of ’etmdl Sil6m (lit. yesterday, day before yesterday) is used idiomatically to say previously or formerly (1 Sam 4:7; 14:21; 19:7; 2 Sam 5:2); the same idiom is found with the phonetic variant

itt°mél (1 Sam 10:11). The MT of Mic 2:8 appears to have been corrupted by an incorrect word division; instead of “yesterday my people (w*’etmiil ‘ammi) rose,” the text should say “you against my people (w°’attem I°‘ammi) rise’; this minor change of the consonantal text is adopted by BHS, HALAT, RSV, etc.

3. The adv. Xil¥6m is used 24x, always in conjunction with either t°mdl (# 9453) or ’etmél, to mean formerly or previously; i.e., before the day spoken about (Exod 5:8; 1 Sam 4:7; Ruth 2:11). The idiom is used with the ablative preposition min (# 4946) to speak of time previous to the present (Exod 21:29, 36; Deut 4:42; 19:4, 6; Josh 3:4; 20:5; 1 Sam 10:11); it is used with the preposition k° (#3869) to compare or contrast with time previous (Gen 31:2, 5; Exod 5:7, 14; Josh 4:18; 1 Sam 14:21; 19:7; 21:5[6];

2 Kgs 13:5). It is used with the particle gam (# 1685) to equate the time previous with the present (Exod 4:10; 2 Sam 3:17; 5:2; 1 Chron 11:2). The MT has S/Swm at Prov 22:20, where it has traditionally been translated pre-

viously. If this be the true reading, it is the only case where the adv. stands alone. In the MT this is vocalized Salisim, which is traditionally translated excellent things, but in all

other occurrences the word refers to an officer. The NIV emends this to §“/oSim, meaning thirty, with the understanding that this is in some sense parallel to the thirty sayings of the Egyptian work called the Instruction of Amenemope. P-B In later Heb. ’emes is found as a nom. meaning twilight, evening, or nightfall, and in the Talm. is found as an adv. meaning last night or this evening (Jastrow, 79). The word ’etmdl is found in the Talm. and in the Aram. of the Tgs. (Exod 4:10), meaning yesterday or on a previous occasion (Jastrow, 61, 138). Day: ~ bdger II (morning, daybreak, # 1332); > yém I (day-light, day, eschatological day, today, # 3427) BIBLIOGRAPHY

THAT 1:716; G. Fohrer, Das Buch Hiob, KAT 16, 1989, 413; R. Gordis, The Book of Job, 1978, 330-31; J. E. Hartley, The Book of Job, NICOT, 1988, 396; H. Wildberger, Jesaja, BKAT X/3,

1982, 1209-10, 1223-24. A. H. Konkel

450

MINES#623) 622 (’“met, reliable, lasting, fidelity, truth),

623

ANE

DADS

> #586

NADAS Camtahat), pack (# 623).

nom.

sack, bag; burden,

Akk. matahu, bag, carry; Sam. ’emtat, sack; Aram. mth, bear, carry, lift up.

OT The nom. occurs 15x and only in the Joseph story (Gen 42:27-44:12). It describes the sack for carrying grain in which Joseph placed his brothers’ money, returning it to them and so puzzling and terrifying them greatly. No theological significance is given to the word’s usage. It is clearly distinct from Sag in 42:27, but refers to the same cloth container. Greenfield (92) equates the word with massa’, burden, pack (> # 5362). Sack: > ’amtahat (sack, bag, burden, pack, # 623); > Sag (sack, sack-cloth, # 8566) Burden, load, weight: > ’amtahat (sack, bag, burden, pack, # 623); > f‘n II (load, #3250); > trh (burden, load, # 3267); > y°hab (burden, anxious care, # 3365); > kin‘d (bundle, burden, # 4045); > massa’ I (carrying, burden # 5362); > njl (bear, weigh, #5747); > ns’ (lift, raise high, pardon, contain, bear, exalt o.s., #5951); > sbi (carry, bear a burden, # 6022); > ‘ms/‘ms (carry a burden, load, # 6673) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TWAT 7:849-55; J. C. Greenfield, “The Etymology of NIMS” ZAW 77, 1965, 90-92. Eugene Carpenter/Michael A. Grisanti

on

’nh (sigh, groan, # 634); > ’ng (groan, # 650); > hgh I (groan, moan, sigh, meditate, muse, chirp, mutter, #2047); > hagig (groan in prayer, # 2052); > z‘q (cry, howl, wail, #2410); > n’q (groan, #5543); > nhm (growl, groan, #5637); > nwh II (groan in anticipation, # 5664); > p‘h (groan in childbirth, # 7184); > 5’g (roar, # 8613) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TWOT 1:57.

David Thompson

635 (“nahé, sigh, groan), > # 634

639

aN me fleet) and ’°niyyd in the pl.

"IN / MIN (Cn, Pniyya), ship, fleet , vessel (# 639, #641). ’°ni is used collectively (viz.

ANE 1. Ugar. ’anyt (cf. ’anyt ym “ship of the sea” [RSP I, 118]; M. Heltzer, The Internal Organization of the Kingdom of Ugarit, 1982, 188-91); also Canaanite gloss in EA (HALAT, 69). 2. In addition to references to ships and shipping in the Bible (Strémberg-Krantz), there are various sources from the ANE texts, esp. Egyptian (Jones; cf. also the tale of Wen-Amun [= ANET, 25-29] and the shipwrecked sailor), Ugar. (Linder), and cuneiform (Salonen); but also visual representations (ANE 3) and original remains (ANE 4). 3. One of the major sources for ships in the ANE is visual representations, e.g., Egyptian paintings from Thebes depicting Syrian ships (ANEP, fig. 111), the Punt ships of Hatshepshut and Assyrian reliefs depicting various Phoenician-type ships, notably oared three-decked warships with ram (ANEP, fig. 106) and the hippos with the prow in the form of a horse’s head (ANEP, fig. 107). Later Phoenician coins also

contain depictions of ships (cf. also the seals noted under OT 8). There are replicas of these ships in the Maritime Museum in Haifa, Erets Israel. Recently a maritime scene was found at Dor, depicting a boat with duck-headed prow and what has been interpreted as a cultic ceremony when the boat left the harbor (E. Stern, JEJ 44 [1-2], 1994, 8-10 and BARey 21 [1], 1995, 50-55). Miniature clay models depict boats, e.g., one of a

456

"28 (# 639) river sailing craft from Eridu ca. 3400 BC and one from Dor (Stem, JEJ 44 [1-2], 1994,

fig. 10). 4. In addition to the riverine ship of Cheops discovered in a boatpit next to the Great Pyramid and ships recently found in pits at Abydos, maritime (underwater) archaeology has revealed interesting evidence in the form of shipwrecks (e.g., the work of the Institute of Nautical Archaeology in Texas). Mention could be made of examples found off the Turkish coast from the fourteenth to thirteenth century BC (Ulu

Burun and Gelidonya). In 1980 a ram was found off Athlit (near Haifa, now in the Haifa Maritime Museum) from the first half of the second century BC (N. Fawcett, Akroterion 39, 1994, 85, Fig. 14). Another wreck was found at Ma’agan Michael (north of Caesarea) in 1985, identified as a ca. 400 BC Phoenician merchantman. In

this article emphasis is on seafaring ships, but it should be noted that in 1986 a 2000-year-old hull was excavated from the Sea of Galilee (S. Wachsmann, BARev 14 [5], 1988, 18-33; cf. W. H. Charlton, JNA Quarterly 19 [3], 1992, 3-7, 15). Anchors (D. Haldane, BA 53 [1], 1990, 19-24) were originally only large stones with holes.

They are an important source indicating the tonnage involved as well as the routes that were followed. In some cases anchors were clavated to the deities, as in the case of Baal of Ugarit (O. Keel, JEJ 44 [1-2], 1994, 28, with note 11). The excavating of harbors (e.g., at Dor, Tyre, and Caesarea Maritima) is another source of information.

5. Ships could be large, like the Ugaritic ships that could carry 200 tons. In the beginning ships were built by joining planks together to form the shell before frames were inserted. Around 3000 BCE the Egyptians started to join planks by using twine (cf. ship of Cheops). Later the mortise-and-tenon method was used. As far as ship building is concerned (cf. Steffy and Vinson), there is a detailed depiction on an Egyptian relief from the tomb of Ti at Sakkara from ca. 2500 BC (E. M. Rogers, JNA Quarterly 19 [3], 1992, 8-11, 13). The shipwrights use various tools (axes, chisels, mallets,

and even a plumb bob) for the mortise-and-tenon joinery technique to fasten the planks, a custom that persisted into the medieval period. Mortises (slots) were cut into the edges and tenons were inserted to join the planks. When exactly the ram was introduced is still in dispute, but it seems that this occurred somewhere in the transition to the Iron Age (ca. 1000 BC).

6. Ships were propelled by oars or by sails. Sails were made from Egyptian flax (cf. Ezek 27:7). Some Assyrian reliefs depict rigging. In the ANE a large oar was used for steering; a proper stern rudder was introduced in medieval times. In ancient times ships kept as close as possible to the coast, but in the first millennium BC the Phoenicians ventured into the Atlantic. How far they went is still disputed (around the southern point of Africa?). The Phoenicians developed celestial navigation. Shipwrecks are described in the Ugaritic texts and in the Bible (1 Kgs 22:48[49]). OT

1. The first context is commercial, e.g., Solomon’s maritime activities.

1 Kgs

9:26-27 (= 2 Chron 8:18; cf. 1 Kgs 10:11 = 2 Chron 9:21) tells of the fleet of Solomon operating from Ezion Geber (Tell Khalefe) in the Gulf of Elat going to Ophir (cf. HALAT, 22-23; ABD 5:26-7 [Arabia or East Africa]) to fetch gold. zhb ’pr (Ophir gold) occurs on an ostracon from Tel Qasile (J. C. L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, 1, 1971, 17 = G. I. Davies, Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions, 1991, no. 11.002.1). The ships were manned by skilled sailors. 1 Kgs 10:22 (= 2 Chron 9:21) deals with the ’°n? tars?¥, ship of Tarshish, bringing gold, silver, ivory, ebony, apes,

457

"IN (# 639) and baboons (on these commodities cf. J. Gray, I & II Kings, 1977, 263 j and 267-68). Both are royal fleets (cf. 1 Kgs 9:26 wa’°nt ‘asa hammelek, 10:22 nt tarsix lammelek). There is a discrepancy in the cooperation between Solomon and Hiram: 9:27 has combined crews, but 10:22 has combined fleets, whereas 10:11 mentions only the

ships of Hiram. 2. Joint ventures are niyydt tarst¥ to fetch gold kingdom wanted to engage 2 Chron (20:35-37[36-37])

also described in 1 Kgs 22:48-49[49-50]: Jehoshaphat built from Ophir, but they sank (ni. Sbr). Ahaziah of the northern in a joint venture, but Jehoshaphat refused. The account in is different (cf. J. M. Miller, The Old Testament and the

Historian, 1976, 4); there was

a commercial agreement to build a fleet that went to Tar-

shish. The ships were also destroyed, but according to the Chronicler this was because of a prophecy against the agreement. 3.

A common

term is ’°n? tarsi, Tarshish

ship (HALAT,

1653a-165; ABD

6:332), which may refer to a specific type of boat (NIV fleet of trading ships; Strémberg-Krantz, 51: technical term for carriers of high quality) as in Isa 2:16, or it may refer to the destination, a trading place (cf. Jon 1:3 and Nora inscription; B. Zuckerman, Maarav 7, 1991, 269-301; on the locations that have been proposed, cf. G. W. Ahlstrém, Maarav 7, 1991, 41-49 [not in Spain!]); Isa 23:10 calls Tyre “Daugh-

ter of Tarshish.”’ Note the difference in the description of Jehoshaphat’s venture: 1 Kgs 22:48[49] reads ’°niyyét tarst¥ (NIV trading ships), but 2 Chron 20:37 has ’el ’°niyydt vay

tarst§, went to Tarshish, i.e., a place name (NIV has “to trade’).

4. A ship functions prominently in the story of Jonah (1:3-5), who fled from God and went to Tarshish by ship via the harbor of Joppa. Yahweh, the creator of the sea (v. 9: ‘sh ’et-hayyam) and controller of the seas (cf. Exod 14-15; Ps 65:7; 89:9[10]; 107:25-30), brought a tempest (riah-g°d6éld) over the ship, and it was at the point of breaking into pieces. The crew threw the cargo into the sea to make the ship lighter while Jonah was sleeping below deck (s“pind).

5. In addition to literal ships, ships and shipping terminology are used in the imagery of blessings and curses. In Gen 49:13 Jacob blesses the tribe of Zebulun; it will be a shore (cf. Deut 33:19) of ships (hdp ’°niyyét). The tribe of Dan did not join the battle with Deborah and Barak at Mount Tabor, but remained with the ships, i.e., on the coast (Judg 5:17), while Asher stayed on the beach (hép yammim) and the landing

place (mipras, # 5153). In the curses of Deut 28 the Israelites are warned that they will be returned (hi. Swb) to Egypt by ship (v. 68). The ships of Tarshish wail over the destruction of Tyre (Isa 23:1, 14), which is called “Daughter of Tarshish” (text prob-

lematic). Zion is secure because Yahweh neutralized the attacks of hostile forces by destroying (Sbr) them like ships of Tarshish shattered by the eastern wind (Ps 48:7[8]). Dan 11:40 prophesies of the king of the North attacking (5‘r) with ships. 6. Metaphorical use in Isa 2:16, the phrase “ships of Tarshish,” ’°niyy6t tars#¥ (and §*kiyy6t; cf. Strémberg-Krantz, 56-61), is used for pride, which will be humbled

(v. 17) on the Day of the Lord; also used of Babylon in 43:14 (but the text is a problem). Ship imagery is used in Isa 33:21,23 (s? ’addir) to describe the distress and salvation of Zion. Jerusalem is like a ship with loose riggings (hebel) and mast (toren, # 9568), a ship without spread sail (nés as ensign [> #5812], cf. BDB, 652; nés also occurs in Ezek 27:7a). In the future Zion will have broad rivers and streams, i.e.,

be inaccessible so that no ’°ni-s“yit (NIV galley with oars; Strémberg-Krantz, 42:

458

"38 (# 639) warship) will sail on them. The theological point is that God will be their Mighty One Caddir) there. The ships of Tarshish (’°niyyét tarsi) is an image of the glory of Zion (Isa 60:9). Job’s days skim past (lp) like papyrus boats (9:26: ’°niyyét ’ébeh). “Papyrus boats” are also indicated by the term gome’ (Egyptian gm3(?), Coptic kam; cf. HALAT, 188b-189a): the Nubians who send envoys in papyrus boats are lamented (Isa 18:1-2). Verse 1 contains the term silsal k*napayim, which may refer to some kind of ship (Strémberg-Krantz, 61-66; NIV whirring ships). In the numerical sayings of Prov 30 the ship is mentioned among the things that fill humans with awe: how can a ship sail on the sea (v. 19)? The wise woman of Prov 31 is compared to a merchant

bringing goods from afar (v. 14, ’°niyy6t sohér). 7. The most detailed description of a ship is found in Ezek 27 (Good, “Ezekiel’s Ship,” 79-103; Stromberg-Krantz, 75-151). The city of Tyre (cf. H. J. Katzenstein, The History of Tyre, 1973) was an important trading center to which sea-sailing ships (v. 9: °niyydt hayyam; cf. Ugar. ’anyt ym) came to trade. The term ’°niyy6t tarsi¥ also occurs. Tyre is described as a ship (vv. 4-9): with timbers (/°hdtayim v. 5a) of Senir pine, a Lebanese cedar mast (toren v. 5b), Bashan oak oars (misSS6t v. 6a), ivory inlaid deck (geres v. 6b), sail (mipras v. 7a) of fine embroidered Egyptian linen serving as ensign (nés, v. 7a; cf. Isa 33:23), covering (ksh; NIV awnings), etc. Tyre is cursed, and the sailors will abandon (yrd) the ships (v. 29)

and lament over Tyre’s destruction. The theological point in Ezek 27 is humiliation of the arrogant Tyre. Tyre is described as a ship, boasting “I am perfect in beauty” (v. 3), but Tyre will be destroyed (br) and sink (npl b°léb yammim, v. 27). 8. Lastly, attention is devoted to the ship and the Divine. In the hymn to the Creator (Ps 104; cf. C. Uehlinger, Bib 71, 1990, 499-526) the sea is listed as one of the creations (cf. Jon 1:9), the place where ships sail (v. 26). Verse 26b refers to the Leviathan with which Yahweh plays. Uehlinger sees a connection between this and the ships with prows in the form of animal heads, of which many examples have been found. They who go out on the sea in ships (Ps 107:23) praise Yahweh for the deliverance from the perils of seafaring (v. 31), leading them to safety (mahéz [# 4685], NIV note: “perhaps trading center”; Akk. mahazu, city or harbor [BDB, 562; HALAT, 538a: harbor]). In the OT Yahweh creates the sea and protects the seafarers, but he is never com-

pared to a ship. This is, according to A. J. Brody, true of other ANE deities (ASOR Newsletter 43, 2). A cylinder seal from the Hyksos capital Avaris (Tell ed-Dhab‘a) depicts a smiting god (identified as Ba‘al) and a sailing ship (I. Cornelius, The Iconography of the Canaanite Gods Reshep and Ba‘al, 1994, fig. 1; Uehlinger, 512-22, fig. 1). N. Avigad (BASOR 246, 1982, 59-61; cf. R. R. Stieglitz, BA 47 [3], 1984, 139) published a seal from the eighth to seventh centuries BC that depicts a ship and has the inscription ’nyhw (G. I. Davies, Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions, 1991, no. 100.730.1) = “Yahweh is my ship.”

The books of Macc contain information on ships in time of war: in the treaty P-B__ Romans it is stipulated that the enemy will not be supplied with ships (1 Macc the with 8:26, 28); a fleet supports the Egyptian army (1 Macc 11:1); the Seleucid army lands at Tripoli by ship (2 Macc 14:1).

NT

In the NT ship imagery is used: hope is an anchor and the tongue is like the

rudder of a ship (Heb 6:19; James 3:4-5).

459

JING 643) # 2480);

Ship, sailor: > ’°ni/’niyyd (ship, # 639/41); > hdbél (sailor, sailor, #4876); > s°pind (ship, # 6208); > siI(warship, #7469)

> mallah (mariner,

BIBLIOGRAPHY ANEP, ## 31-33; HBD 136-38; IDB 4:333-35; IDBSup 823-24; L. Basch, Le museé imaginaire

de la marine antique, 1987; G. F. Bass (ed.), A History of Seafaring Based on Underwater Archaeology, 1972; BRL?, 276-79; L. Casson, Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, 1971;

idem, Ships and Seafaring in Ancient Times, 1994; I. Cornelius, “A Bird’s Eye View of Trade in Ancient Ugarit,” JNSL 9, 1981, 22-25; idem, “The Commercial Relations of Canaan in the Second Millennium B.C.,” in Pillars of Smoke and Fire, 1988, 21-22; N. Fawcett, “Aspects of Seafaring in the Eastern Mediterranean from the End of the Bronze Age to 480 BC,” M.A. Thesis, Stellenbosch, 1993; E. M. Good, “Ezekiel’s Ship: Some Extended Metaphors in the OT,” Sem. 1, 1970, 79-103; M. C. de Graeve, The Ships of the Ancient Near East, 1981; D. Jones, A Glossary of Ancient Egyptian Nautical Titles and Terms, 1988; idem, Boats, 1995; B. Landstrgm, Ships of the Pharaohs, 1970; E. Linder, The Maritime Texts of Ugarit, Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis, 1970; idem, “Ugarit: A Canaanite Thallassocracy,” in Ugarit in Retrospect, 1981, 31-42; T. Save-Séderberg, The Navy of the Eighteenth Egyptian Dynasty, 1946; A. Salonen, Die Wasserfahrzeuge in Babylonien nach sumerischen-akkadischen Quellen. Eine lexikalische und kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchung, 1939; idem, Nautica Babylonica. Eine lexikalische und kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchung, 1942; J. M. Sasson, “Canaanite Maritime Involvement in the Second Millennium B.C.,” JAOS 86, 1966, 126-38; J. R. Steffy, Wooden Ship Building and the Interpretation of Shipwrecks, 1994; R. R. Stieglitz, Maritime Activity in Ancient Israel, Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis, 1971; idem, “Long-distance Seafaring in the Ancient Near East,” BA 47 [3], 1984,

134-42;

E. Stroémberg-Krantz,

Des

Schiffes

Weg

mitten

Erforschung der nautischen Terminologie des Alten Testaments, Boats and Ships, 1994.

im Meer.

Beitrdge

zur

1982; S. Vinson, Egyptian I. Cornelius

640 (“niyyd, lamentation), > #627 641 (’°niyyd, ship), > #639

643

“aN

“28 (nak), lead (# 643).

ANE _ The Akk. anaku means either tin or lead and is of unknown origin but seems to be a loanword (AHw, 49). Landsberger argued persuasively that the meaning should be tin (285-96); his arguments are based on the interpretation of metallic lists and the association of metals in trade and commerce. OT — The nom. is found only in Amos 7:7-8 in a series of judgment visions. The sole focus of this vision is the object called ’“nak, found in the hands of someone standing on (or possibly near) the wall. It may be argued that the word means tin (as is possible with the Akk. anaku) used by Amos as metonymy for sword, but the context seems insufficient for such a connection. In this vision the mode of judgment is veiled, unlike that of the grasshoppers (7:1-3) and the drought (7:4-6); destruction of the house of Jer-

oboam by the sword is found in 7:9, but it is not part of the vision. The vision appears to depict a builder examining the wall with a plumbline. This is a familiar and transparent prophetic image, like that of 2 Kgs 21:13, where the pronouncement of the end of

460

“28(#643) the North is a measuring line (gaw) stretched against Samaria and a plumbline (miSgOlet) against the house of Ahab (cf. Isa°28:17). An inspector on a wall would carry a plummet, which materially would have consisted of a metal like lead.

However, this traditional interpretation is far from certain. Brunet, following the conclusion of Landsberger for the meaning “tin,” proposed a shift of the metaphor; the prophet sees a wall of tin in the midst of Israel, a stock pile of strategic metal for the manufacture of arms against Israel, indicating the imminent destruction of the city (391-93). Holladay accepts without question the conclusion of Landsberger, argues that the meaning of the Heb. “nak must be based on the Akk. since there are other Heb. words for lead and tin, and follows the conclusions of Brunet for the meaning of

Amos 7:7-8 (492-94); he compares this to the image of the prophet Jeremiah being a wall of bronze in the midst of the people (Jer 15:20; cf. 1:18). Paul rejects the idea of a stockpile of strategic metal, but does accept the idea of a wall of tin (234-35), following the symbolism of other prophets. Ezekiel builds a wall of iron against Jerusalem (Ezek 4:3), indicating invincibility; if walls of bronze and iron are symbols of strength, then tin is a symbol of softness, uselessness, and perishability. Andersen and Freedman take a completely different approach, following the example of a play on words as in the next vision (Amos 8:1-3), where a basket of summer fruit (q@yis) signifies an end (gés) to the people of Israel (757-59). They propose three different meanings for ’nk; they suggest the Lord is standing by a glazed or plastered wall (as in the Vg.), with tin in his hand, which signifies grief or a wrong (based on a Talm. use of ’nk) that the Lord will place in the midst of the people. The meaning lead for ’“ndk is based solely on a conjectural interpretation of the image in Amos. There is now a consensus that the Akk. anaku does mean tin (Paul, 233), and this is the best linguistic evidence for the meaning of the Heb. Further, the

expression in Amos 7:7 does not naturally express a plumbline; the Heb. construct hémat ’?nak (lit. wall of ’“nak) suggests a wall made of a material, not a wall made with an instrument consisting of a certain material such as a lead plumbline. It is probably best to understand the phrase in Amos on the analogy of other prophetic symbols (Jer 15:20; Ezek 4:3), as indicating a perishable wall. The judgment of setting a wall of tin in the midst of Israel (Amos 7:8) would thus indicate their vulnerability, just as the brick of Ezekiel with ramparts all around portrayed the collapse of Jerusalem (Ezek 4:1-2). Just as Ezekiel is an iron wall against the besieged city (Ezek 4:3), so the Lord stands against the house of Israel with a sword (Amos 7:9). P-B_

The nom. is found in Syr., Mand., Arab., Eth., Armenian, Sanskrit, and late

Heb. meaning lead, used generally as synecdoche for plumbline. Metals: > ’@nak (lead, # 643); > b°dil (dross, # 974); > barzel (iron, # 1366); > zahab (gold, # 2298); > hel’d I (rust, # 2689); > hasmal (glow?, electrum, glowing metal, #3133); > kesep (silver, money, #4084); > masgér II (metal worker, # 4994); > ma““beh (foundry, #5043); > n°hoset I (copper, bronze, #5733); — sig (lead oxide, #6092); — séper II (bronze, plate, # 6220); > ‘dperet (lead, #6769); > pah II (thin sheet, #7063), > p‘ladot (steel?, #7110); ~ swr III (cast [metal], #7445); > sa“su ‘im (things formed by metal coating, #7589); > sph Il (arrange, overlay, plate, glaze, #7596); > srp (melt, smelt, refine, #7671); > qalal (polished metal, # 7838); > Sht II (alloyed, # 8822)

461

JIN (# 645) BIBLIOGRAPHY

;

F. L Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Amos, AB, 1989, 756-59; G. Brunet, “La vision de |’€étain,” VT 16, 1966, 387-95; T. J. Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, 1990; W. L. Holladay, “Once More, ‘nak = Tin,’ Amos VII 7-8,” VT 20, 1970, 492-94; B. Landsberger, “Tin and Lead: The Adventures of Two Vocables,” JNES 24, 1965, 285-96; S. M. Paul, Amos, Hermeneia, 1991, 233-35; G. V. Smith, Amos: A Commentary, 1989, 233-34; D. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, WBC, 1987, H. W. Wolff, Joel and Amos, Hermenia, 1977, 300.

A. H, Konkel 645 ANE.

28

728 Cnn), hitpo. complain (# 645).

Arab. ’anna, hanna, sigh, and Tigr. (“moo lugubriously [cow]’”) use this root.

OT This root (used 2x) describes unjustified complaining that is a resentful vocal reaction to a hardship or judgment sent by God (Num 11:1). This kind of negative talking is judged inappropriate if a person has sinned and deserves God’s punishment (Lam 3:39). Complaint, grumbling:

> ’nn (complain, #645);

> lwn I (howl, grumble, #4296);

> rgn

(murmur, complain, # 8087) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDNT 1:728-37; THAT 1:870-72; G. W. Coats, Rebellion in the Wilderness, 1968; S. J. DeVries,

“The Origin of the Murmuring Tradition,” JBL 87, 1968, 51-58. Gary V. Smith

646 Used in OT only in (NRSV) in the royal one was compelled” decree (D. J. Clines, 4:9[6] and commonly

DIS

DOIN (ns), q. compel, constrain (# 646).

Esth 1:8 in relation to the way of drinking “without restraint” feast provided by Xerxes, or perhaps “according to the law, no (RSV). In an autocracy, even the absence of a rule requires a NCB, 278)! The corresponding vb. in Aram. appears in Dan in the Mishnah, with the sense of oppress, trouble.

Urgency: > ’ws (urge, #237); press, push, # 7210)

> ’ns (urge, #646);

> nhs (compel, #5722);

> psr (urge,

Francis Foulkes

AT ot aint) REta int ek ge abs (ap II), nom.

(# 678).

ANE

nose,

ee eee oe

face, anger,

nostrils

The nom. in Akk. is appu; Ugar., ’p; Arab., ’anfun; all refer to nose (TDOT

1:351). The vb. in Arab. ’anifa, means despise, refuse (TDOT 1:351).

OT 1. The vb. ’np is used 14x; it is found in both the q. and hitp. stems. With the exception of Ps 2:12, the vb. always has the Lord as its subject. The q., be angry, is

462

FIN (# 647) found 1x in 1 Kgs, 1x in 2 Chron, 1x in Ezra, 4x in Ps, and 1x in Isa. The hitp., to be

angry, is used 4x in Deut, 1x in 1 Kgs, and 1x in 2 Kgs. The nom. ’ap is derived from the vb. ’np. The nom. is the most common designation for anger found in the OT. Of the 277x occurrences, 224x the reference is to anger, with the subject being either the Lord or humankind. The other 53x refer to the nose, nostrils, or face. 1 Sam 1:5 is an exception as it apparently refers to a double portion. 2. The semantic field of ’ap. (For an extended discussion on anger as a theological motif, > Anger: Theology.) (a) The nom. may be found in either the sing., ’ap, or dual form, ’appayim. When the reference is to the nose, the sing. form is used, while the dual form is used for either the face or nostrils—the latter is used 4x (Gen 2:7; 7:22; Exod 15:8; Lam 4:20). The most common usage, when the referent is face, is of someone bowing

his face to the ground paying homage (cf. Gen 19:1; 1 Sam 24:8[9]). (b) The nom. sing. or dual may also convey the sense of anger. In two instances the meanings of nose and anger overlap. In Job 4:9 and Ps 18:15[16] the phrase riiah ’ap is used. The NIV translates Job 4:9 as “the blast of his anger,” while Ps 18:15[16]

is translated “breath from your nostrils.” The phrase is translated literally in Ps 18:15[16], while the translation of Job picks up the underlying sense of the phrase. In both contexts it is evident that the breath from the Lord’s nostrils is an expression of his anger. The nom. ’ap is by far the most common word used to denote anger. Its occurrences are distributed throughout the OT: 40x in the Pent., 34x in the historical books,

62x in the poetical books, and 88x in the prophetic books. By comparison, the nom. hem, wrath, occurs 125x.

The nom. ’ap, conveying an intense emotional state, usually refers to divine anger, although it can also refer to human anger. To be angry is not simply being upset or indignant at someone or something. It is the type of anger in which the face may turn red and the passions are aroused. This type of anger in humans may indicate an irrational, out-of-control anger (cf. Num 22:27; 1 Sam 20:30). However, the Lord’s anger is

rational and controlled. (> Anger: Theology) (c) The nom. ’ap can be modified to express various degrees of anger. The most common expressions would be h*rén ’ap, burning anger, and h°r? ’ap, heat of anger. The nom. ’ap is modified by harén in 33 of the 41x harén is used (4x in the Pent., 7x in the historical books, 4x in the poetical books and 18x in the prophetical books). It occurs 8x in Jer alone, with another 2x found in Lam. The subject of this phrase is always the Lord. The nom. °77, heat/burning, modifies ’ap in all six of its occurrences. In four of the 6x the subject is a human; the other two occurrences have the Lord as the subject. (d) The nom. ’ap is also used 21x in connection with the nom. hémd, wrath: Deut (3x), Ps (1x), and the prophets (17x: Jer 7x; Ezek 5x; Isa 3x; Dan and Mic each 1x). ‘ap occurs with the nom. ‘ebrd, arrogance, anger, fury, 12x. The nom. ’ap occurs in construct with the nom. za‘ap, rage, anger 1x (Isa 30:30). (e) The nom. gesep, annoyance, irritation, displeasure, anger, is used in connec-

tion with ’ap 3x. The phrase in these three instances is b°’ ap ub“hemd ub‘qesep gadoél,

except for Jer 32:37, which has the first person pronominal suffix attached to the first

463

FIN (# 647) two noms. The NIV translates this phrase as “in furious anger and in great wrath” (Deut 29:28[27]; Jer 32:37) or “in anger and fury and great wrath” (Jer 21:5). The latter

translation represents the Heb. text more accurately since the phrase is not a construct phrase, but lists three separate words for anger, each with its own nuances.

(f) The nom. ’ap can have a positive sense when combined with the nom. ’erek. Prov 14:29 commends the one who is ’erek ’appayim, patient, literally “long to anger,” in contrast to the g°sar-riah, quick-tempered, literally short of spirit (cf. Prov 15:18; 16:32; 19:11; 25:15). In Jer 15:15 the prophet prays that the Lord will avenge his persecutors. Jeremiah notes that the Lord is long-suffering (’erek ’ap) and requests that the Lord allows him to keep his life (Thompson, NICOT, 395-96). The phrase, slow to anger (’erek ’appayim) is included in a listing of the Lord’s attributes 7x, together with his other attributes: love (hesed), fidelity (’“met), compassion (rahiim), and graciousness (hanniin; see Exod 34:6; Neh 9:17; Ps 86:15; 103:8; 145:8; Joel 2:13; Jon 4:2).

Num 14:18 simply links the Lord’s slowness to anger with his love (hesed). 3. Theological nuances of ’ap. (a) Pentateuch. Exod 32, which reports the incident of the golden calf, contains 5 of the 9 occurrences of ’ap in the book of Exodus. The anger (’ap) of the Lord burned (hrh) against the people (Exod 32:10; cf. 32:11). This is one of the 54x in which the vb. hrh, be hot, burning, has ’ap as its subject. God is passionately angry with his people for their lack of faithfulness and intends to annihilate (k/h) them. Moses, desiring to avert this anger, pleads with the Lord to turn (Swb) from his “fierce anger,” h“rén ‘ap, lit. burning anger (Exod 32:12), and instead to have compassion (nhm) on the people. The effect of Moses’ request on the Lord was a change of mind (> nhm, # 5714) concerning the proposed destruction (Exod 32:14). The remaining uses of ’ap in this chapter concern human anger (Exod 32:19, 22). Moses, passionately angry, broke the tablets of stone (32:19). His subsequent actions (32:20) further illustrate his anger with the people: he burned the calf, ground it into powder, mixed the powder with water, and forced the Israelites to drink the mixture. (b) Historical Books. In 2 Chron 12:12 it is noted that the Lord turned (Swb) from his anger (’ap) against Rehoboam because of the latter’s repentance. Hezekiah (2 Chron 29:10) intended to make a covenant with the Lord in order to turn away (wb) his fierce anger (h“r6n ’appé). In other words, it is possible to avert the anger of the Lord; however, there are instances in which the anger of the Lord cannot be turned aside (cf. Jer 23:20).

(c) Poetic Books. The poetic books reveal another aspect concerning the anger (ap) of the Lord.

It is only for

a moment

(Ps 30:5[6])

and is often restrained

(Ps 78:38). The Lord is compassionate, gracious, slow to anger (lit. long to anger, ’erek ‘appayim), and abounding in love and faithfulness (Ps 86:15; cf. 103:8, 145:8). (d) Prophetic Books. In Jer the nom. ‘ap is often used in conjunction with either héma or harén. The phrase h“rén ’ap is found in contexts in which the Lord is very

angry with nations, either Judah and/or foreign nations (4:8, 26; 12:13; 25:37; 25:38; 30:24; 49:37; 51:45).

Jer 4 illustrates the shades of meaning of this phrase. Without Judah’s repentance the wrath of the Lord will break out (4:8). The fierce anger (h%r6n ’ap) of the Lord has not turned away (4:8). Verse 9 gives some indication of the terrible 464

PIN (#650) consequences that day will bring, i.e., “The king and the officials will lose heart, the priests will be horrified, and the prophets will be appalled.” Verses 23-26 depict the condition of the earth as formless and void (cf. Gen 1:2), the heavens will no longer give their light, the mountains will quake, the people and birds will vanish, the land will become a desert, and the towns will lay in ruins. All this will take place because of the fierce anger (hr6n ’ap) of the Lord (Jer 4:26). Thus, this phrase depicts a burning anger that is stronger than the anger noted in Exod 32. As Israel’s history progressed, the Lord became increasingly angry because of their continual apostasy. That is why the nom. hdr6n finds a greater use in the later books. P-BThe vb. in Aram. is ’np with the meaning of swell, blow; be angry (Jastrow, 86b). The Aram. nom., ’p denotes nose; anger; overheated condition (Jastrow, 99b). In the LXX the vb., ’np, is usually translated as orgizomai or thymod. The nom. ’ap is normally translated by either thymos or orgé. Anger, rage, wrath: > ’np (be angry, #647); > z‘m (curse, be angry, #2406); > z‘p I (rage, # 2406); > hémd (rage, # 2779); > hrh I (be hot, become angry, #3013); > k‘s (be irritated, angry, #4087); — ‘br II (show anger, #6297); > qsp I (become angry, #7911); > rgz (shake, agitate, # 8074); > Anger: Theology BIBLIOGRAPHY

NIDNTT 1:105-13; TDNT 5:392-418; TDOT 1:348-60; 4:111-12; 5:171-76; THAT 1:220-24, 633-35; TWOT 1:58; R. Althann, “The Oracles of Jeremiah in Northwest Semitic Research,” Scriptura 16, 1985, 17-28; S. E. Balentine, “Prayers for Justice in the Old Testament: Theodicy and Theology,” CBQ 51, 1989, 597-616; B. E. Baloian, Anger in the Old Testament, 1992; T. B. Dozeman, “Moses: Divine Servant and Israelite Hero,” HAR 8, 1984, 45-61; V. Eppstein, ‘Day of Yahweh in Jeremiah 4:23-28,” JBL 87, 1968, 93-97; S. Erlandsson, “The Wrath of YHWH,” TynBul 23, 1973, 111-16; M. I. Gruber, “The Tragedy of Cain and Abel: A Case of Depression,” JOR 69, 1978, 89-97; A. J. Heschel, The Prophets, vol. 2, 1962; J. C. Holbert, “A New Literary Reading of Exodus 32: The Story of the Golden Calf,’ Quarterly Review 10, 1990, 46-68; J. R. Lundbom, “Double-Duty Subject in Hosea VIII 5, VT 25, 1975, 228-30; L. Morris, “The Wrath of God,” ExpTim 63, 1952, 142-45; J. A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, NICOT, 1980; A. Wolters, “Not Rescue But Destruction: Rereading Exodus 15:8,” CBQ 52, 1990, 223-40. Gale B. Struthers

649 (*napd, heron), > #7606 358 | PSI (n’g); groan (> #5543). Oe

PaX (’ng), q. and ni. to groan (#650); mieP ts (“naga I), groaning (# 651), by metathesis from

ANE.

Tgs. have pa. ’nq, choke, grieve; and a related nom., ’“niqd, affliction.

OT

1. Twice in q. in oracles of doom, ’ng describes the loud groaning of the mor-

tally wounded (Jer 51:52; Ezek 26:15). The ni., whose meaning the standard lexicons

do not distinguish from q., may perhaps denote an inward or a more intensely subjective groaning. Thus, Ezekiel is to groan quietly at the death of his wife (Ezek 24:17; without audible lamentation, v. 16). In pre-fall Jerusalem, persons moan and groan in

465

WIN(# 653) grief over the abominations done in her (Ezek 9:4). Here both the ni. and the coordination with moaning may signal the intensity of their grief. LXX translates with stenagmos or stenadein (to groan, groaning) in Ezek 24:17; 26:15, but with katodynan (to

express grief or suffering) in 9:4. LXX reflects a different Vorlage in Jer 51:52[28:52]. 2. All four occurrences of the nom. describe utterances made from desperate plights (LXX< all stenagmos). In Ps 12:5[6] Yahweh promises to arise in response to the groaning of the needy and maligned, with the groan itself perhaps associated with the prayer of 12:1-4[2-5]. Ps 79:11 and 102:20[21] cite the groaning of exiled prisoners, condemned to death. Again, the groaning may name the prayers themselves that these psalms house (79: 1-12; 102:1-19[2-20]). Association of “naga with the prayer itself is clear in Mal 2:13. P-B.

CD 19:12 mirrors Ezek 9:4. Cf. NT stenazein and stenagmos.

Groan, sigh, growl: > ‘nh (sigh, groan, # 634); > ’nqg (groan, #650); > hgh I (groan, moan, sigh, meditate, muse, chirp, mutter, #2047); > hagig (groan in prayer, #2052); > z‘q (cry, howl, wail, # 2410); > n’gq (groan, #5543); > nhm (growl, groan, # 5637); > nwh II (groan in anticipation, # 5664); > p‘h (groan in childbirth, # 7184); > 5’g (roar, # 8613) David L. Thompson

651 (“naga I, groaning), > #650 652 (“naga Il, gecko), > Reptiles 653

WIN (ns D, ni. be in poor health (hapleg., 2 Sam 12:15; #653); WIN (aniaS), adj. incurable, calamitous (# 631); the nom. NWN (is5a), wife, woman is a derivative (> #851). OT

oN

1. The vb. occurs only in 2 Sam 12:15, where David’s child with Bathsheba fell

ill. 2. The word ’GniiS occurs 8x. It fies other noms. In Isa 17:11 Ephraim blindness in not discerning God’s hand nothing in the day of disease (nah“ld; sil ae Xo ko) ba Jeremiah

uses

’Gnii§ 5x (15:18;

laments, “Why is my pain (k°’@b;

denotes a general state of affliction and modiis rebuked for their self-reliance and for their in their adversities, “yet the harvest will be as > #5710) and incurable (’Gnii3) pain (k°’éb; 17:9, 16; 30:12,

15). In his confession

> #3873) unending and my wound

he

(makkd;

> #4804) grievous (Gnas) and incurable?” (15:18). In another such confession, he

complains that his burden is too great, “you know I have not desired the day of despair Canis)” (17:16). Elsewhere he incisively challenges the Judeans to realize that God

fully well knows their self-deception, “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure (’GniiS). Who can understand it?” (Jer 17:9). Illnesses described with this

adj. are chronic illnesses. By applying the description to the heart, sin is described as a chronic affliction from which one cannot expect to recover or be healed. Though this does not carry all the theology of original sin, it is certainly a complementary concept. Jeremiah uses the same word to bring out the connection between the people’s sin and their affliction, “Why do you cry out over your wound (Seber, > # 8691), your pain (mak’ob,

466

> #4799) that has no cure (’Gnii5)? Because of your great guilt and

TION# 656) many sins I have done these things to you” (Jer 30:15). But, alas it is too late, “Your

wound is incurable (’Gnii5), your injury beyond healing” (Jer 30:12). Disease—fever, illness, infirmity: > ’n¥ I (be in poor health, #653); # 1853); (become # 4504); # 8831).

> dwb (wear away,

> dalleqet (fever, # 1945); > zdb (discharge, # 2308); > hil’ (fall ill, # 2688); > hihI weak, tired, ill, #2703); > harhur (heat of fever, # 3031); > madeweh II (disease, — psh (spread [of disease], # 7313); > gaddahat (fever, #7707); > Sahepet (illness, For related entries > sr‘ (suffer from skin disease, # 7665) R. K. Harrison

654 ('asa’, Asa), > Asa 655 (asiik, jar, jug, flask), > #3998

656

yiON

yIONX (’ds6n), nom. mortal accident (# 656).

ANE AKkk. asi A appears to share the same semantic field with the meaning physician (CAD, 1/II: 344-47). OT Inasmuch as the cognates (cf. Akk. and P-B below) convey the idea of ’Gs6n as healing, its four occurrences in the OT appear to be euphemistic for the opposite idea, i.e., serious or even fatal injury. Thus, Jacob fears that Benjamin will, if sent to Egypt,

incur death as he thought Joseph had (Gen 42:4; cf. 44:29). In the Book of the Covenant a woman who prematurely gives birth because of being struck in a brawl but who suffers no ’Gsdn (who does not die) shall be compensated by payment of a fine (Exod 21:22). If, however, ’as6n follows, her life shall be paid for by the life of the perpetrator (v. 23). The ’Gs6n could also possibly refer to the expelled fetus (Cassuto, Exodus,

275). P-BBoth Aram. ’Gs°ya’ and Arab. ’Gsin attest the root idea of healing or physician as well as the derivatives to be sad or melancholy. Late Heb. attests the OT meaning of deadly accident or even murder (Sir 34:22; 38:18; 41:9). Death: > ’bd I (perish, #6); > ’“damd (ground, piece of land, soil, earth, realm of the dead, #141); > ’asén (mortal accident, #656); > gw‘ (expire, die, # 1588); > hrg (kill, murder, # 2222); > zrm'I (put an end to life, #2441); > hedel (realm of the dead, # 2535); > hnt II (embalm, embalming, # 2846); > mwt (die, kill, execute, # 4637); > gtl (murder, slay, # 7779); ~ r°pa’im I (shades, departed spirits, #8327); > 5°61 (sheol, netherworld, #8619); > Sahat (pit, grave, # 8846) BIBLIOGRAPHY

J. Cottrell, “Abortion and the Mosaic Law,” Christianity Today, Mar. 16, 1973, 6-9; B. S. Jackson, “The Problem of Exod. xxi 22-5,” VT 23, 1973, 273-304; S. E. Loewenstamm, “Exodus 21:22-25,” VT 27, 1977, 352-60.

Eugene H. Merrill

657 (’ésir, [house of] chains, prison),

> #673

658 (asip, ingathering, harvest), > # 665 659 (’asir, prisoner), > #673

467

DON (# 662) 660 (‘assir, prisoner), > # 673

662

DON

DON (’dsam), store, storehouse (# 662).

ANE Cf. Ugar. ’sm, storehouse; Syr. ’assana’, supply, stock; Akk. iSittu (< iSintu), treasure, supply house (CAD I/J: 243-44); and possibly Sab. ‘sn, storehouse (and for the aleph/ayin correspondence in loanwords cf. Driver, 185 n.3). OT The nom. is a disleg., appearing in Deut 28:8 (“The LorD will send a blessing on your barns and on everything you put your hand to”) and in Prov 3:10 (“Then your barns will be filled to overflowing”). NIV renders both occurrences of ’asam as “barns.” Barns/storehouses filled with harvested crops are a sure sign of God’s blessing, and that blessing is God’s response to faithful, obedient living by his people. This is classic deut. theology. God honors righteousness and obedience with his blessing, a blessing that normally takes the path of prosperity and abundance. Storehouse, treasure:

> ’Gsam (stores, #662); > ’Gsdp (store, #667); > ‘sr (accumulate, amass, store up, #732); > gizbar (treasurer, # 1601); > genez I (treasury, # 1709); > ganzak (treasury, #1711); > Asn (be stored up, #2889); > kms (stored up, #4022); > matmén (treasure [hidden], #4759); > misk®ndét (stores, #5016); > n°kdt (treasure house, #5800); > nikkd (storeroom{[s], cell, room, #5969); > piggaddén (deposit, # 7214); > spn (hide, hidden, # 7621) Granary: ~ ma’“bis (grain, granary, #4393); > mag6r III (storage pit, #4473); > mazi (granary, # 4646) BIBLIOGRAPHY

G. R. Driver, “Linguistic and Textual Problems,” Bib 19, 1938, 185 n.3. Victor P. Hamilton

665

FON

apne Csp), q. gather, harvest, take (in, away), xterminate, unite against, conspire against, withdraw; ni. glean, shelter; pu. be gathered; hitp. gather (# 665); *)"ON (sip), ingathering (# 658); FON (Gsdp), storehouse (# 667); AON (dsep), harvest (# 668); NBOS (’“sépa), imprisonment, be herded together (#669); MBOX (“suppa), collection (#670); FOBOX (“%sapsup), rabble (#671); FONTS (m® "assep), pi. part. harvester (# 4417). ANE The word occurs in Akk. (AHw, 1:248-49) as well as Ugar., Phoen., and Aram. (see Tomback, Comparative Dente Lexicon of the Phoenician and Punic Pakgaases! 26-27; WUS, 30 #332; HAHAT'®, 83). One significant use is in the famous “Gezer Calendar,” where it refers to the “two months of ingathering” (FON IA"). Evidently this indicates the “ingathering of the summer fruit,” which was in the fall (Aug. to Nov.). (See KAI, 2:182 [# 182]; TSSI, 1:3; J. Renz and W. Réllig, Handbook der althebrdischen Epigraphik, 1995, 1:30-37, and esp. Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel, 1987, 32-38.) The hero Danel invokes the ear of corn to be gathered by Aqhat (KTU 1.19:11:24). Resheph (god of pestilence) “gathered” 1/5 of Keret’s family (KTU 1.14:1:18).

468

FON(#665) OT

1. The word occurs some 199x in the OT and is used in q., Ni., pi., pu., and hitp.

with a variety of meanings and contexts (see BDB, 62-3; DCH 1:346-49). 2. The Heb. words for “gather” and their occurrence in the OT are numerous and found in a variety of contexts. Some words have to do with the gathering of a har-

vest (sp, qbs, lqt), which for ancient Israel was their source of existence. Yahweh, the

covenant God of Israel, had promised his people he would bless them with fruitfulness and a good harvest if they would fulfill the conditions of the Mosaic Covenant (Deut 28:1-14). Throughout the history of Israel the people were constantly tempted to look to the pagan gods around them for a “good harvest.” When they disobeyed, they found themselves confronted with the “covenant curses,” which included an unproductive harvest (Deut 28:38-42; Isa 32:10)!

Sometimes the terms have to do with Yahweh’s gathering (’sp, gbs) his people back into the Land of Promise after he had scattered them because of covenant disobedience. In a predictive promise Moses tells Israel that Yahweh will drive them out of their land if they are unfaithful to the covenant stipulations. He, however, assures them

that the covenant-keeping God will “gather” them back into the land that he had given to them (Deut 30:1-10). This took place when Yahweh “gathered” Israel back into their

land after their exile in Babylon, but there is an eschatological aspect that remains. Some of the words can refer to the gathering of mundane things like “sticks” for firewood or “straw” for making bricks (qs5). Others refer to the gathering of more important things like “moveable possessions,” water, riches, sheep, or people (gwh II, ’sp, qbs, lqt). People can come together or be assembled for various reasons—for war, religious purposes, social reasons, etc. 3. (a) The word is used of “gathering” people together for various purposes (see DCH, 1:346; Gen 29:22; Exod 3:16; Num 11:16; 21:16; 21:23; Isa 11:12). The word is

also used in the sense of “gathering up,” or “collecting a harvest” (Gen 6:21; Deut 11:14; Ruth 2:7). That which is gathered or harvested varies (Exod 23:10; Lev 23:39; Num 11:32; Deut 11:14 [fruitfulness as a result of obeying God’s covenant]; Isa 17:5; 2 Kgs 22:4; 2 Chron 34:9; Jer 40:10, 12; see DCH, 1:347). (b) The word has the meaning “to gather” in the sense of “to remove, to take

away.” In Gen 30:23 Rachel says that God has “taken away” her disgrace of being barren. In 2 Kgs 5:3, 6, 7 Naaman is set free from leprosy. In Ps 85:3[4] God removes his wrath. In Jer 16:5 God says that he has taken away his peace, loyalty, and compassion from this people. As part of God’s punishment on his people, he says through the prophet Jeremiah, “TI will take away their harvest.... There will be no grapes on the vine. There will be no figs on the tree, and their leaves will wither” (Jer 8:13). In Joel 3:15[4:15] the word is not used in the sense of “gathering,” but rather in the sense of “withdrawing,” i.e., “the stars withdraw their shining” (HALAT 72; DCH,

1:347; see also 1QH 5:33). This is, however, in a context of eschatological judgment. Zeph 1:2 is in a context of God’s judgment, but the uncertainly of the meaning makes the passage difficult. The words are probably best understood as “I will utterly sweep away,” indicating God’s complete judgment (see Patterson, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, WEC, 1991, 300-302). Zeph 3:8 speaks of God gathering the kingdom together for judgment, which will take place in the Day of the Lord. 4. The ni. of this vb. seems to generally have a passive meaning, “‘to be gathered,” but the reflexive occurs in the sense of “to gather oneself together,” that is, “to

469

FON(#665) gather,” “to come

together.” The reflexive can also mean

(HAHAT'®, 84; DCH, 1:348).

“to return to a place”

(a) “To come together” is found in Gen 34:30; 49:1; Josh 10:5; Judg 6:33; 10:17; 20:11 (for other examples, see DCH, 1:348). (b) “To be gathered,” “to be brought into,” or to be “returned to a place.” Things can be “gathered” (Gen 29:3, 7, 8); fish are “gathered,” that is, “caught” (Num 11:22; cf. 2 Sam 14:14; Prov 27:25). People can be “gathered” or in a reflexive sense “return” (cf. Num 11:30; 12:14, 15; Isa 49:5). (c) The expression “to be gathered” can refer to death, that is, “burial.” It occurs in such phrases as “to be gathered to one’s people” (cf. Gen 25:8; 25:17; 35:29; 49:29, 33; Num 27:13; 31:2; Deut 32:50); “had been gathered to their fathers” (Judg 2:10); “to

be gathered to one’s grave” (cf. 2 Kgs 22:20/ 2 Chron 34:28); or simply “will be gathered” (Num 20:26). The exact meaning of this idiom is not clear. One question is, do the various prepositional additions all have the same meaning, or is there a distinction between them? It is difficult to see a distinction between the words “one’s people” and “one’s fathers.” Both seem to refer to the ancestors who have already died. In the light of 2 Kgs 22:20/2 Chron 34:28, where the phrases “to one’s fathers” and “to one’s grave” are parallel, it seems difficult to discover a difference in meaning between “one’s fathers” and “‘one’s grave.” The fact that the word could be used without any prepositional phrase suggests that the meaning was the same and there was no distinction between the phrases. Various suggestions have been offered as to the exact significance of the expression. (1) It has been suggested that the idiom refers to being buried in the family grave (DCH, 1:348). Pedersen elaborates on this, viewing the grave more or less as a link between the living and the dead (Pedersen, JLC, 3/4:480-82). (2) Others feel that it

simply means to join the ranks of the departed, thus moving into past history (C. Westermann, Genesis, BKAT, 1:486). (3) A view related to this is the idea that the one who has just died is reunited in Sheol with friends who have gone before and “therefore pre-

supposes faith in the personal continuance of a man after death” (KD, Pentateuch, 1:262; B. Jacob, Das erste Buch der Torah: Genesis, 1934, 536). (4) Wachter feels that

the expression refers to “dying” a peaceful death, when one is not murdered or killed in war: “in Frieden und Unversehrtheit” (Wachter, 72-75). (5) Levine sees more than one

meaning, saying that it can indicate being “buried,” or being brought to the family grave, or one resting with his ancestors in Sheol (B. A. Levine, Numbers

1-20, AB,

1993, 494). 5. Jenni states that the basic idea of the pi. here is an emphasis on the “results” of the action, which is seen in the use of the participle for a profession (Jenni, Pi ‘el,

158-60, 186). (a) The pi. can mean “to gather,” “to harvest” (Isa 62:9; Jer 9:22[21]). The har-

vest can be used to imply hope: Isa 62:9 describes the restoration of Jerusalem. The grain harvesters (m®°’assép) will eat the grain and praise God. A harvest that could be enjoyed was seen as a time of blessing and joy. (b) The word in pi. can also mean “to take in as a guest” (cf. Judg 19:15, 18). (c) It can mean “to bring up the rear,” “to act a rear guard,” that is, those who

would come behind and “gather up” the stragglers. Jenni (Pi’el, 159) gives another possible suggestion: “those who gather up stones to throw in their slings,” or for the

470

FION(#665) siege engines and catapults. This would fit the meaning “gather” and seems to be suggested by the fact that in the Assyrian army these units were at the rear of the columns, not in the front lines (G. Contenau, Everyday Life in Babylon and Assyria, 1966, 147). The word means “to bring up the rear guard” in Num 10:25; Josh 6:9, 13. In Isa 52:12 the Lord is said to be the One who will go before his people and the God of Israel will be their “rear guard.” “No enemy could possibly touch them, for the presence of God was all about them” (E. J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, 1972, 3:334).

6. The pu. serves as the passive of the pi., with the meaning “to be gathered” (cf. Isa 24:22; 33:4; Ezek 38:12; Hos 10:10; Zech 14:14).

7. The hitp. is used of people who have assembled together (Deut 33:5). 8. The word ’dsep appears only twice (Isa 32:10; 33:4), and possibly in Isa 24:22 and Mic 7:1 (HALAT, 72; DCH, 1:350). Isa 32:10 is an address to the women of

Jerusalem who are complacent and feel secure. This is only a false security, because the God who controls the universe and the harvest says, “In little more than a year you who feel secure will tremble; the grape harvest will fail, and the harvest of fruit (’dsep) will not come” (NIV). Wildberger suggests that the word may indicate more than just “harvest of fruit” and is to be taken as “the gathering in of the total harvest,” the point being that nothing would be left (H. Wildberger, Jesaja,, BKAT 1972-82, 3:1268). This would accord with the covenant blessings and curses listed in Deut 28. In Isa 33:4 God says that the spoil of the nations will be “harvested as by young locusts” (NIV). 9. The word ’asip is used twice and concerns the Festival of Ingathering (Exod 23:16; 34:22). In Exod 23:14-16 the three annual feasts of Israel are spelled out: the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Harvest (of the firstfruits of the grain, also

called the Feast of Weeks in Exod 34:22), and the Feast of Ingathering, which is “the Feast of Tabernacles.” The Feast of Ingathering could mean the harvest of the fruits (grapes and olives; Borowski, Agriculture, 40-44; W. C. Kaiser, “Exodus,” EBC, 2:444), especially in contrast to the “Feast of Harvest,” that is, “the Grain Harvest,”

which occurred in the spring at the end of the grain harvest. The “Feast of Ingathering” took place in the fall “‘at the end of the year” (Exod 23:16). For this reason others would broaden the meaning slightly and see this as a celebration of “all of Yahweh’s bounty, of field and orchard and vineyard alike” (J. I. Durham, Exodus, WBC, 1987, 333; see Exod 34:23). The popularity of the “Feast of Ingathering / Tabernacles” grew immensely and at the time of the NT was one of the major celebrations among the people of Israel (see S. Safrai, Die Wallfahrt im Zeitalter des Zweiten Tempels, 1981). 10. The word ’asdp, storehouse, is related to the Akk. word asuppu, meaning “annex” (AHw, 77, CAD, I, i, 349; HAHAT'8, 85; HALAT, 72). It is used 3x in the OT

(1 Chron 26:15, 17; Neh 12:25) and also in the DSS in 11QT 49:13. It has been sug-

gested that the storehouse is the same as the “treasuries” mentioned in 1 Chron 26:20 (R. Braun, J Chronicles, WBC, 1986, 252). The reference to the “‘storehouse” in Neh

12:25 is also a possible reference to the “treasuries” of the Temple. 11. The word ’“sép4, imprisonment, occurs only once (Isa 24:21-22), in a cog-

nate accusative construction. The context speaks about the eschatological judgment of God on the world, at which time he will punish the “powers in the heavens above and the kings on the earth below.” They will be gathered as a gathering of prisoners, who will be placed in a dungeon, then punished after many days. This has been related to 471

“ON(# 673) the imprisonment as depicted in Rev 20:1-3, where the forces of Satan are bound for a “thousand years” (see Young, [saiah, 2:178-79; Wildberger, 2:945-46). 12. The word “supp, collection, is used only once (Eccl 12:11). It refers to the

collected sayings of masters that were given from one Shepherd (DCH, 1:350). The phrase ba‘““lé ’“supét is difficult to understand. It has been suggested that it refers either (a) to “the masters of assemblies” or “council of scholars,” or (b) to the collec-

tions of the wise sayings of the masters.” For a discussion of these possibilities, see R. Gordis, Koheleth—The Man and His World: A Study of Ecclesiastes, 1971, 353-54; A. Lauha, Koheleth, BKAT, 1978, 219-20; M. V. Fox, Qohelet and His Contradictions,

1989, 324). 13. The word ’*“sapsup, rabble, occurs in the OT only in Num 11:4. Israel is in the wilderness, and “the rabble with them began to crave other food ...” (NIV). In Exod

12:38 this group is called “a mixed multitude.” This evidently refers to a group that had joined Israel when they left Egypt. Levine writes, “So it remains unclear whether reference here is to auxiliary fighting forces, or to camp followers and other non-Israelite hangers-on” (Levine, 321). What is clear is that this group complained and caused Israel to sin against God (note Heb 4:2; Jude 5). Gathering:

> ‘sp (gather, harvest, #665); > bsr (harvest grapes, # 1305); — htb (gather, cut,

# 2634); > kns (gather, # 4043); > lqt (gather, #4377); > ‘@da I (community, gathering, band,

# 6337); > ‘mr (gather grain, # 6682); > gbs (gather, # 7695); > qg°hilla (community, gathering, # 7737); > qwh I (gather, # 7748); > qs (gather, collect, # 8006) Harvest, gleaning: ~ ’sp (gather, harvest, #665); — bsr (harvest grapes, #1305); > y°bil (produce, yield, #3292); > lgt (reap, harvest, #4377); > ‘Il I (glean, #6618); > ‘mr (gather grain, # 6682); > qbs (gather, # 7695); > qsr (harvest, #7917); > t°bi’a (crop, yield, # 9311); > t°niiba, produce, # 9482) BIBLIOGRAPHY BRL’, 3-4; NIDNTT 2:32; O. Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel, 1987, 32-44; M. V. Fox,

Qohelet and His Contradictions, 1989; T. J. Lewis, The Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit, HMS 39, 1989; J. Pedersen, ILC, 3/4:480-82; L. Wachter, Der Tod im Alten Testament,

1967, 72-75.

I. Cornelius/Andrew E. Hill/Cleon L. Rogers, Jr.

666 (’asap, Asaph), ~ Asaph 667 (as6p, store), > #665

668 (dsep, harvest), > # 665 669 (’“sépd, imprisonment), > # 665

670 (“suppé, collection), > # 665 671 (“sapsup, rabble), > # 665

673

“ON TOS (sr), q. bind, keep back, imprison, fetter; : hitch (to a chariot or wagon); bind oneself (in an oath of abstinence); ni. keep confined, be restrained; pu. captured, imprisoned (# 673);

472

TON (# 674) ION (esr), nom. (house of) chains, prison, fetters (# 657); VOR/ sir), nom. prisoner (# 660, # 659). ANE

The vb. ’sr is common

VON Cassir/

in old and imperial Aram., Akk. (eséru), Ugar., Arab.,

Eth. ('asdrd), and Tigre (‘asra). The noms.

’assitr and ’Gsir are common

in Akk.

(asiru), including the Can. of the Amarna tablets, and Egyp. (’atira). The nom. ’ésiir as a “house of chains” is known in Akk. (bit eséri).

OT 1. The common vb. ’sr has the simple meaning bind, as in its frequent use in the Samson story (Judg 15:10, 11, 13, etc.). It frequently refers to being bound in prison (Gen 39:20; Judg 16:21; 2 Kgs 17:4) or being manacled (2 Sam 3:34; Jer 39:7, 40:1) as

a political prisoner. In Ezek 3:25 the confinement is probably that of social ostracization, though it could be literal.

2. The vb. is used metaphorically in several senses: (a) to accept an obligation (or prohibition) of an oath (Num 30:3, 4); (b) to harness, hitch, or tether (Gen 46:29; 1 Sam 6:7; 2 Kgs 7:10); (c) to begin (“tie on”) a battle (1 Kgs 20:14). In S of Songs it is

used of the male lover (king) being entangled in the woman’s hair as among the tresses (7:5[6]). The judgment of God (Ps 149:8) or his disciplinary action (Job 36:8, 13) may be described as a “binding.” On the other hand, God may set free those who were in spiritual or social bondage (Ps 146:7; Isa 49:9; 61:1).

3. The nom. ’Gsir (assir) refers to those imprisoned as a result of war or political disfavor (Gen 39:20; Isa 10:4; 14:17). The prisoner is often the special object of God’s favor and deliverance (Ps 79:11; 102:20[21]; Zech 9:12). Twice (Isa 24:22; 42:7) it is used in connection with masgér I (prison # 4993). 4. The nom. ’ésiir refers to bonds, whether literal (Judg 15:14) or metaphorical,

such as the captivating wiles of a woman (Eccl 7:26). P-B___ The vb. ’sris used in Mish. Heb. and late Aram. to mean bind or imprison. ’sr is also used in the sense of forbid or bind oneself in a vow. The nom. ’Gsiir refers to a "prisoner, “esr to a chain, ’Gs?r to a prisoner or something forbidden. The sense of a vow of religious obligation is found at Qumran, a notable occurrence being vows for abstinence in marriage in the Temple Scroll (53.14-21). Prison, restraint, closure: > ’“sépd (imprisonment, # 669); > ’sr (bind, imprison, fetter, hitch, # 673); > kl’ I (detain, imprison, close, shut up, # 3973); > misgeret (stronghold, dungeon, rim, table, #4995);

> sgr (close, # 6037); > sdhar (prison, # 6045); > ‘sr (restrain, imprison, stop,

close, # 6806)

BIBLIOGRAPHY R. Gordis, Koheleth—The Man and his World: A Study of Ecclesiastes, 1968, 282-85; M. Greenberg, Ezekiel, 1-20, 1983, 102, 120-21; M. H. Pope, Song of Songs, 1977, 629-31. A. H. Konkel

“ION Cissar), TOS8 (“sar), nom. binding obliga674

TOS

tion, vow of abstention (# 674).

The vb. from which the nom. is derived is found in Ugar. ’sr; OSA ’sr; Arab. ANE ’asura; Eth. ’asdrd, Tigr. ’asra, bind; Akk. eséru, lock in or up. The nom. asar occurs in Sam.

473

TON(#674) OT

The nom. occurs only in Num 30: 7x in the form ’issar (vv. 2[3], 3[4], 4[5],

10[11], 11[12], 12[13], 13[14]) and 4x in the form ’’sar (vv. 4[5], 5[6], 7[8], 14[15)).

The nom. is used 8x in tandem with the vb. ’sv, with the meaning bind/obligate oneself by a pledge, put oneself under a binding obligation (vv. 2[3], 3[4], 4[5] 2x, 5[6], 7[8], 10[11], 11[12]). The vow is one of abstinence, i.e., it is a negative promise to abstain from something (cf. e.g., Dummelow, 118; Kennedy, 357-58; Noth, 224-25; Snaith, 1967, 321; Wenham, 207; Budd, 322; Ashley, 574). The idea of abstinence is associated with the root ’sr, which means prohibit in Mish. Heb., bind in Bib. Aram. (Dan

6:8), while in Syr. the cognate nom. means penance or interdict (cf. Snaith, 1964, 267; 1967, 321; Ashley, 577).

Regulations governing vows are found elsewhere (cf. Lev 5:4-6; 27:1-33; Num 6:1-21; Deut 23:21-23[22-24]), but this is the only text that deals with vows made by women. A man was considered to be legally responsible for his own actions, and any

vow made by him was automatically binding (Num 30:2[3]). The situation was different in the case of women. Only the vow of those women in positions of independence (the widow and the divorced woman) were unconditionally binding (v. 9[10]). The majority of women had no independent right to make a vow. As Jenson (143) points out, role differentiation of men and women in any given society is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon. According to L’ Heureux (91), the implication of Num 30 seems to be that, generally speaking, women had to be protected against their own lack of responsible judgment. A more likely explanation is that, given the economic dependence of women on men in ancient Israelite society, it was felt necessary to protect fathers and husbands from excessive commitments made by women who were not ultimately responsible for finding the resources necessary to fulfil those commitments (Budd, 324; Olson, 205). Another possibility is that this legislation was designed to prevent women from undermining the authority of men by, e.g., vowing away a child without the consent of its father (Sturdy, 209; cf. Ashley, 576). While she remained unmarried,

a woman was under her father’s jurisdiction, and

he could either establish or repudiate any vow she made. When a woman married, she was under the authority of her husband, and he was vested with the power either to affirm or to nullify his wife’s vows (cf. Dummelow, 118; Wade, 228; Snaith, 1964, 267; 1967, 320, 322; Guthrie, 98). However, while the vows of most women were con-

sidered binding only after the approval (whether stated or tacit) of their fathers or husbands had been given, there was some measure of protection for these women and the integrity of their vows (Budd, 324; Olson, 205). When a woman under the tutelage of her father or husband made a vow, the law required the father or the husband to make a clear and immediate response. Once assent had been given, the woman’s vow was accepted as binding, and if her father or husband should later seek to annul it, he would

be deemed to have broken the vow and would have to bear the guilt for the default (v. 15[16]). P-B_ The Heb. vb. ’sr occurs with the meaning surround, enclose, chain, imprison; harness, put the horses to; bind, obligate; interdict, declare a thing forbidden according

to ritual law; ni. be forbidden, become subject to ritual prohibition. The Aram. vb. “sar, ‘asar is also found with the meaning chain, imprison; bind by spell, charm; tie up, put on; bind the bowels, check diarrhea; forbid; bind oneself by vowing a fast, be

bound; tie; be imprisoned; be forbidden. The following nom. forms also occur: Heb.

474

“TIEN (# 679) ‘issar, band, vow of abstinence; Aram. ’ésar, band, chain; vow; Aram. ’is°ra’, bundle, bunch, sheaf; chains; Aram. ’osra’, one who forbids; Heb. “sara, the act of tying (the horses), and, of the chariot, harnessing (Jastrow 1:57, 98).

Pledge, security: > ’issar (binding obligation, pledge, vow of abstention, # 674); > hb/ II (take in pledge, exact a pledge, # 2471); > hdb (pledge, collateral, # 2550); > nS’ I (lend against a pledge, #5957); > ‘bt (borrow, take a pledge from, #6292); > ‘rb I (stand security for, give security for, #6842); > pigqadén (deposited goods, store, supply, provision, #7214); > tq‘ (drive, thrust, clap one’s hands, blow trumpet, pledge, # 9546) Vow, obligation: > ’issar (binding obligation, pledge, vow of abstention, #674); (chatter, babble, vow rashly, # 1051); > ndr (make a vow, # 5623)

— bt’/bth

BIBLIOGRAPHY

T. R. Ashley,

The Book of Numbers, NICOT, 1993; P. J. Budd, Numbers, WBC, 1984; J. R. Dummelow, ed., A Commentary on the Holy Bible, 1909; H. H. Guthrie, “The Book of Numbers,” in The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, 1971, 85-99; P. P. Jen-

son, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World, 1992; A. R. S. Kennedy, Leviticus and Numbers, CB, 1910; C. E. L’Heureux, “Numbers,” in NJBC, 1990, 80-93; M. Noth, Numbers: A Commentary, OTL, 1968; D. T. Olson, “Numbers,” in HBC, 1988, 182-208; N. H. Snaith, “Numbers,” in Peake, 1964, 254-68; idem, Leviticus and Numbers, CBC,

1967; J. Sturdy, Numbers, CBC, 1976; G. W. Wade, “Numbers,” in Peake, G. J. Wenham, Numbers: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC, 1981.

1920, 213-30;

Robin Wakely

677 (ap I, and, also),

> Particles

678 (ap Il, face, anger), > #647 679

“DN (pd), gq. put on tightly (#679); “BS (épdd), nom. ephod, high priestly garment (> # 680); TTBS (“pudda4), nom. close-fitting cover (# 682).

OT

“DN

1. The vb. ’pd is a denom. from the nom. ephod, a part of the high priestly gar-

ment (Exod 29:5; cf. Lev 8:7). It means “to put on an ephod.”

2. The nom. ““pudda refers to the section of the ephod that sheathes the torso (Exod 28:8; cf. 39:5). In Isa 30:22 pagan idols are said to be plated (sph) with silver and overlaid (’“puddd) with gold. While this may suggest that ““puddé refers to plating or overlaying, synonymous with sph, it could alternatively refer to hammered gold, used for clothing the idol. The practice of clothing statues of deities in golden garments is well attested (A. L. Oppenheim, “The Golden Garments of the Gods,” JNES 8, 1949,

172-93). Band, tie: > ’pd (put on tightly, #679);

> ’“pér (bandage, #710);

> ’es ‘ada (band, #731);

~ hb (tie up, saddle, imprison, bind, # 2502); > hgr (bind, gird, #2520); > hasiq (clasp ring, # 3122); > htl (be swaddled, #3156); > keset (band [for magic purposes], # 4086); > migba‘a (head-band, # 4457); > ‘nd (wind, tie s.t., # 6698); > ‘qd (tie up, # 6818); > srrI (bind, tie up,

#7674); > gir (ally together, conspire, bind, # 8003); > rks (bind, tie, #8220); > rtm (tie up, # 8412 Rildal > "nak (lead, # 643); > b®dil (dross, #974); > barzel (iron, # 1366); > zahab (gold, # 2298); > hel’a I (rust, # 2689); > hasmal (glow?, electrum, glowing metal, #3133); > kesep

475

“IBN(# 680) cl

hg

i

a

(silver, money, #4084); > masgér II (metal worker, #4994); > ma “beh (foundry, #5043); + n°hoset I (copper, bronze, #5733); > sig (lead oxide, #6092); > séper II (bronze, plate, #6220); > ‘dperet (lead, # 6769); > pah II (thin sheet, # 7063); > p*lador (steel?, #7110), > swr III (cast [metal], #7445); > sa“su‘im (things formed by metal coating, #7589); > sph II (arrange, overlay, plate, glaze, #7596); > srp (melt, smelt, refine, #7671); > galal (polished metal, # 7838); > sht II (alloyed, # 8822)

T. Desmond Alexander

=5N

680

“iDS (’épéd I), nom. ephod, priestly garment,

cult object (# 680); TEN (pd), q. dress in an

ephod (only Exod 29:5; Lev 8:7) (> #679).

ANE Old Assyrian texts mention an epattu, a rich, costly garment (AHw 1:222a; CAD 4, 183). There is a difficult Ugar. phrase, krs ’ipdk (KTU 1.5 I 4-5), that Driver (CML, 103) interpreted as Anath’s robe. Oppenheim suggested that the more general background was the custom of draping statues of the gods with costly golden garments. OT 1. Three types of ephod are often distinguished: a simple linen garment worn by priests, the very elaborate high-priestly ephod described in Exod, and an independent cultic object used for oracles. The third type has sometimes been regarded as different in kind, perhaps an idol, the garment of an idol (Sellin), a box (May), or some other object. However, it is possible to relate all three types to the basic idea of a sacral priestly garment (Haran). The Urim and Thummim (~), used for divination, are in the breastpiece that is attached to the ephod (Exod 28:30). In Isa 30:22 “the ephod of

(’“puddat) your idol of gold” (NIV, “your images covered with gold”) is parallel to “your silver-covered idols” (NIV, “your idols overlaid with silver’), and this may refer to a garment after the Mesopotamian pattern. It is likely that ephods were found in a variety of different forms, the more practical garments of a simple design and the more ceremonial types made of costly materials and heavily ornamented (G. H. Davies, JDB 1:119 compares different kinds of crucifix). A distinction between simple priestly and more elaborate high-priestly garments is found in the priestly texts of Exod 25-40. The association of an ephod with teraphim (> #9572; Judg 18:14), probably small household deities, suggests that an ephod was a prized ornament in a well-endowed shrine, probably used by the priest only on special occasions. 2. The ephod is one of the defining features of active priesthood in 1 Sam 2:28; 22:18. It is a simple linen garment worn by Samuel (1 Sam 2:18) and by David (2 Sam 6:14). Even when a separate item, it is always associated with a priest. It could be carried in the hand (1 Sam 23:6) or be part of the temple furniture (21:9[10]). As an early medium of divine guidance David uses it to guide him in avoiding Saul (23:9) and in his military decisions (23:4-6; 30:7). The divinatory ephod would normally be carried, but possibly worn for the oracular ritual involving the Urim and Thummim. A negative view of the ephod is found in Judges. Israel prostitutes itself after the gold ephod that Gideon made in Judg 8:23-27. Micah’s elaborate private shrine includes an ephod, and the bitter mockery of Judg 17-18 implies the same critique of Israel’s idolatry as in Hos 3:4, where God’s disciplinary judgment includes depriving Israel of ephod and

teraphim.

476

“EN(# 680) 3. One finds 29x of the 40x ’épéd occurs in the elaborate description of the high-priestly ephod given in Exod (see also Sir 45). The details are unclear, but it appears to be a sleeveless overgarment with shoulder pieces (Exod 28:25) and bound by rings to the breastplate (28:28). It is one of the four distinctive garments of the high priest, and its materials are of the same extreme grade of holiness that also marks the innermost room of the tabernacle. The mix of colored wool and linen (28:15) is forbidden in secular contexts (Lev 19:19), perhaps because it is a holy feature of the tabernacle. The cost of the dyes used for the wool, the gold thread, the precious stones attached to the ephod (Exod 25:7), and the complex workmanship are characteristic features of Israel’s worship. The ephod thus reflects and conveys the worth and splendor of Israel’s God. Mention is made of the robe (m® ‘il, 28:31) and the decorated band (héSeb, 29:5) of the ephod. P-B

The ephod occurs in lists of the high-priestly garments (Sir 45:8; Mish. Yoma

7:5) and in two more detailed descriptions by Josephus (Ant 3, 162; Wars 5, 231-36). Ephods are mentioned in 4QShirShab! 23.2.5, perhaps as the garments of heavenly

spirits. Priests and levites: > ‘abnét (sash, esp. of priests, #77); > ’épdd I (ephod, priestly garment, cult object, # 680); > hdsen (breast-piece of highpriest, # 3136); > khn (perform the duties of a priest, #3912); > komer (pagan priest, #4024); ~- léwi (levite, #4290); — migba‘a (head-band, #4457); > mikndsayim (trousers, #4829); > pa“mén (bell [on priest’s robe], #7194); — taSbés (checkered work, #9587); > Aaron: Theology; ~ Priests and Levites:

Theology BIBLIOGRAPHY

IDB 2:118-19; W. F. Albright, “Are the Ephod and Teraphim Mentioned in Ugaritic Literature?” BASOR 83, 1941, 39-42; W. R. Arnold, Ephod and Ark, HTS 3, 1917; K. Budde, “Ephod und Lade,” ZAW 39, 1921, 1-47; P. R. Davies, “Ark or Ephod in 1:Sam. xiv 18?” JTS NS 26, 1975,

82-87; H. J. Elhorst, “Das Ephod,” JBL 30, 1910, 254-76; K. Elliger, “Ephod und Choschen: Ein Beitrag zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des hohepriesterlichen Ornats,” VT 8, 1958, 19-35; I. Friedrich, According Divination Freedman

Ephod und Choschen im Lichte des Alten Orients, 1968; M. Haran, “The Ephod to Biblical Sources (Hebrew),” Tarbiz 24, 1955, 380-91; H. B. Huffmon, “Priestly in Israel,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, 1983, 355-59; M. Levin, Melekhet Hammish-

kan (Hebrew), 1968; H. G. May, “Ephod and Ariel,” AJSL 56, 1939, 44-69; J. Morgenstern, “The Ark, the Ephod, and the Tent of Meeting,” HUCA 17, 1943, 153-266; 18, 1944, 1-52; A. L. Oppenheim, “The Golden Garments of the Gods,” JNES 8, 1949, 172-93; A. Phillips, “David’s Linen Ephod,” VT 19, 1964, 485-87; E. Sellin, “Das israelitische Ephod,” in Orientalische Stu-

dien, Theodor Néldeke gewidmet (Néldekefestschrift 11), 1906, 699-717; idem, “Noch einmal der alttestamentliche Ephod,” JPOS 17, 1937, 236-51; N. L. Tidwell, “The Linen Ephod,” VT 24,

1974, 505-7. P. Jenson

682 (’“pudda, cover), > #679 684 (’ph, bake), > Baking 477

TDN (# 685) MBS (apeh), baker (esp. bread) (# 685): chief oe

alae

baker in Joseph’s Egypt (Sar ha’dpim) (Gen 40

[7x]; 41:10); fem. bakers (’dpdt, 1 Sam 8:13) and a baker’s street (hiis ha’opim, Jer

37:21) are known. Hos 7:4 uses the image of the baker and the oven + #9486) to describe the plans of the conspirators against the monarchy. Arts, crafts, professions: (mason,

#1553);

> ’omman

— gallab

(barber,

(craftsman, #588); #1647);

> ’dpeh (baker, #685);

— dayyag

(fisherman,

#1900);

(tannir,

> godér ~ hoséb

(stonecutter, #2935); — hara¥ (craftsman, #3093); > hoséb (weaver, #3110); > tabbah (butcher, #3184); > ydsér (potter, # 3450); > yaqaS (fowler, #3687); > kbs (wash, # 3891); + korém (vinedresser, #4144); > maXgeh (butler, #5482); > ndgéd (shepherd?, #5924); > sayyad

I (hunter,

#7475);

> sdrép

(goldsmith,

#7671);

> ro‘eh

(shepherd,

# 8286a);

> rogéah (ointment-mixer, # 8382) BIBLIOGRAPHY

G. Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Palistina, I-VI, 1928-42, repr. 1964; R. de Vaux, Anclsr, 1974,

76-78; R. J. Forbes “Professions and Crafts in Ancient Egypt,” Archives internationales d’Histoire des Sciences 12, 1950, 599-618; idem, Studies in Ancient Technology, I-VI; VIUI-IX, 1955-1958; 1964; H. Grapow, Die Bildlichen Ausdriicke des Agyptischen, 1983; H. Hodges,

Technology in the Ancient World, 1970; IBD 123-28; O. Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World, 1978; J. Kelso, The Ceramic Vocabulary of the OT, 1948.

I. Cornelius

686 (’épd, where), > Particles

689

SDN

ODN (apil), adj. late ripening (hapleg.; # 689).

ANE ’apil is related to the Akk. apdlu, be late. The other derivatives of the root—’dpel, darkness, gloom, (# 694); ’apél, dark, gloomy (#695); ’“péld, darkness, gloominess, calamity (# 696)—denote darkness, possibly originating ani the sense of late in the day.

OT The only OT occurrence of ’apil is in Exod 9:32. The plague of hail had ruined the flax and barley crops (Exod 9:31) but the wheat and spelt were not destroyed because they ripened later. P-B In postbiblical Heb. and Aram., the nom. is used of late maturing crops and seeds. Ripening:

> ’Gpil (ripen late, #689);

> gml (accomplish, commit, achieve, ripen, # 1694);

> hnt I (ripen, # 2845)

BIBLIOGRAPHY U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, 1967; H. R. Cohen, Biblical Hapax Legomena in the Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic, 1978; N. M. Sarna, Exploring Exodus, 1986. M. G. Abegg, Jr. 692 (’apig I, stream-channel, tube, grooves), > #5643

478

DDN(#693) 693

pS

PN (apig ID), adj., strong, powerful (# 693).

ANE The adj. ’Gfig (hale and hearty, stout, robust, vigorous) occurs in Arab. In Akk., the vb. epéqu means be massive, solid.

OT One of the themes of Job’s reply to his friends (12:1-14:22), following the first discourse of Zophar (11:1-20), is God’s absolute power, which appears to him to be '

capricious (Hartley, 212), amoral (A. and M. Hanson, 56), malevolent (cf. Janzen, 104), even demonic (cf. Watts, 67); it brooks no obstruction, is restrained by no law,

and is wielded arbitrarily, indiscriminately, irresistibly, and destructively (12:13-25). The fabric of society can unravel at any time (Bergant, 82) for God pours contempt on princes and loosens the belt of the ’“pigim, the strong (12:21 [RSV; NRSV; Dhorme, 178; Clines, 276, 280, 301; Hartley, 211, 215; cf. JB]), or disarms the mighty (NIV; on

the needlessness of the various emendations of ’“pigim that have been proposed, see Dhorme, 178; Clines, 280). Davidson (109) points out that to loosen a person’s girdle was to incapacitate him (cf. Driver, 34), whether for labor (cf. Hartley, 215) or for battle. Clines (301) thinks that the mighty are probably warriors who are no longer girded for war when their belt is loosened and the sword fastened to their girdle hangs on their left side.

P-B

The nom. ’Gpiq occurs with the meaning spring, rivulet; ruler (Jastrow 1:104).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

D. Bergant, Job, Ecclesiastes, OTM, 1982; D. J. A. Clines, Job 1-20, WBC,

1989; A. B. Davidson, The Book of Job With Notes, Introduction and Appendix, CBSC, 1962; E. Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job, 1967; S. R. Driver, The Book of Job in the Revised Version, 1906; A. and M. Hanson, The Book of Job: Introduction and Commentary, Torch, 1976; J. E. Hartley, The Book of Job, NICOT, 1988; J. G. Janzen, Job, Interp, 1985; J. D. W. Watts, “Job,” in BBC,

1972, 4:22-151. Robin Wakely

[HBR_| Sac ap, ah tan loony (9: MAEM DEN (dpel),

nom.

darkness,

gloom

(# 694);

“néla), nom. darkness, gloominess, calamity (# 696); PENI (ma’“pél), nom. darki (# 4419); 71? 2ENfd(ma’pélya), nom. deep darkness (# 4420). ANE. This word is not used as a verb in the OT, but is used in postbiblical Heb. It is possibly related to Arab. ’afala, go under, sink, and Akk. apalu, be late. 1. The nom. ’dpel, darkness, gloom, occurs 9x in the OT only in poetry, with OT reference to darkness or calamity. (a) It refers to literal darkness, to the darkness of night in which pestilence and plague stalk their prey (Ps 91:6) and to the shadows in which the wicked wait in ambush for the righteous (Ps 11:2); it refers to the black darkness deep in a mine, which a miner must overcome when searching for copper and iron (Job 28:3 |! hosek, darkness [> #3125] and, salma@wet, shadow of death [#7516]); and it refers to the darkness of the netherworld (‘the land of deepest night’), to which Job expected to go

479

OBI (# 694) ‘épatd, darkness [#3125], || hds%ek, darkness [2x] 10:22 (Job at death [= ‘épd, > # 6547], salmawet, shadow of death [> #7516]). (b) It refers to the personification of thick darkness that Job wished would have obliterated the day of his birth (Job 3:6).

(c) Figuratively it refers to darkness of blind eyes whose sight will be restored (Isa 29:18); it refers to the darkness of the evil that will befall the wicked who rebel against the light (Job 23:17 || hoxek, darkness [# 3125]); and it refers to the darkness of disappointment that overtook Job when he found evil instead of the goodness and light he had hoped for (Job 30:26; opposed to ’ér, light [> # 240]).

2. The word ’Gpél, pitch dark, occurs only twice in the OT, both times in Amos 5:20, where the prophet refers to the darkness that will accompany the day of the Lord. The word is in |! ho¥ek, darkness (> #3125), and opposed to ’6r, light (> #240), and nogah I, brightness (> #5586). 3. The nom. ’“péld, darkness, gloominess, calamity, occurs 10x in the OT and refers to darkness, literal or figurative, usually that accompanies God’s judgment of the wicked and disobedient. Moses warned the Israelites of the curses that God would bring on them for disobedience, including such confusion of mind that they would grope about like a blind man in the dark (Deut 28:29). In contrast with the light of the way of righteousness, the way of the wicked is like deep darkness that causes them to stumble (Prov 4:19). Jeremiah foretold that the godless prophets and priests would be banished into darkness, where they would fall (Jer 23:12). Sometimes the darkness was

of supernatural origin, such as the plague of total darkness on the Egyptians that lasted three days (Exod 10:22). It is used of the darkness of the day of the Lord (Joel 2:2; Zeph 1:15), where in both cases it is || hdsek, darkness (#3125), ‘Gnan, cloud (> #6727), and ‘“rapél, deep darkness (> # 6906). It is used of the dark of night (Prov 7:9 || layla, night [> # 4326]). Isaiah foretold the deep darkness that will be the destiny of the mediums and spiritists and those who consult them (Isa 8:22 |! hasékd, darkness [> # 3128]). Isaiah also spoke of the spiritual darkness that will be dispelled when God’s people meet the needs of the hungry and oppressed (Isa 58:10 || hosek, darkness [> #3125]); and of the spiritual darkness that accompanies injustice (Isa 59:9 || hdSek, darkness [# 3125], and opposed to ’6r, light [# 240], and ndgah I, brightness [> # 5586]). 4. The nom. ma’“pél, darkness, occurs only once in the OT, with reference to

the supernatural darkness the Lord placed between the Israelites and the Egyptians (Josh 24:7; cf. Exod 10:22).

5. The nom. ma’pélyd, deep darkness, is derived from ma’“pél, darkness. Some regard this as ma’“pél yah, “the darkness of YAH,” where the divine name, yah, is used as the sign of the superlative. Others regard yah as an enclitic particle of emphasis. (Cf. S of Songs 8:6, Salhebetyad, vehement flame, for a similar use of yah.) This nom. occurs only once in the OT, in a figurative reference to the Lord’s dealing with Israel (Jer 2:31), “a land of great darkness” (NIV).

P-B The vb. is used in the q. and hi. stem in Mish. and Talm. Heb. and subsequent dialects. The nom. ’apéld occurs in the DSS. Darkness: > ’dpel (darkness, gloom, # 694); > ’°siin (approach of darkness, # 854); > hk (be, grow dark, grow dim, darken, conceal, confuse, #3124); > tuhdt (darkness, obscurity, inward

480

JEN (# 698) parts, #3219); > kamrir (blackness, deep gloom, #4025); > layla (night, # 4326); > nexep (twilight, darkness, #5974); > ‘wp II (be dark, #6415); > ‘“latd (darkness, dusk, # 6602); > ‘mm II (darken, dim, #6670); — “‘rapel (deep darkness, thick darkness, heavy cloud, # 6906); — sil III (be/grow dark, cast a shadow, #7511); > salmawet (darkness, shadow of death, # 7516); > qdr (be dark, mourn, # 7722) BIBLIOGRAPHY

NIDNTT

1:421-25; TDNT 7:423-45; TWOT 1:64; C. F. Keil, Jeremiah, KD, 72; W. McKane,

Jeremiah I, ICC, 52. James D. Price

695 (apél, dark, gloomy), > #694 696 (’“péld, darkness, gloominess, calamity), > #694

698

JES

JES (open), nom. right time (hapleg.; # 698); derivation dubious.

ANE The nom. is probably related to the Arab. iffan, time. A relation to Aram. ’6pna’ turning, interpretation, is dubious. OT 1. The nom. occurs only in Prov 25:11, a verse that contains several obscure words. The NIV translates, “A word aptly spoken (lit., spoken according to its time, ‘al ’opnayw) is like apples of gold in settings of silver.” In spite of the translation difficulties, however, the meaning is clear: it emphasizes the importance of speaking appropriately in various situations, a message conveyed in a number of the proverbs (e.g., 12:23, 25; 17:27-28; 23:9; and esp. 15:23). Because the word is unique and appears to

be an inappropriate dual form, some scholars have suggested emending the text (Scott, 153, suggests reading ’oznayw, his ears). McKane, 584, supports the idea that the nom. is a dual form of ’6pan, wheel, and designates some kind of “well-balanced” wisdom

saying (cf. also Barucq, 194). P-B The Heb. text of Sir 50:27 uses this nom. to describe Ben Sirach’s wisdom sayings and proverbs. Here it may mean proper metrical form. Time: — ’dbéd (ever after, #7); > ’dpen (right time, #698); > gil I (stage of life, # 1636); > zmn (be appointed, # 2374); > ‘6lam (long time or duration, # 6409); — ‘ét (time, # 6961); > pa‘am (foot, step, time, #7193); — peta‘ (instant, #7353); — tamid (continuance, unceasingness, regular offering, # 9458) BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Barucq, Le Livre des Proverbes, 1964; W. McKane, Proverbs, OTL, 1970; R. B. Y. Scott, Proverbs-Ecclesiastes, AB, 1985; R. N. Whybray, Proverbs, NCBC, 1994, 364. Anthony Tomasino

ODN (’ps), g. cease, come to an end (#699); DEN (‘epes), nom. end, extremity, nothingness (# 700).

481

PDN(#705) The word is cognate with Ugar. ’ps, end (KTU 6.13); some scholars connect ANE Heb. ’ps with Akk. apsii, deep water, (cosmic) sea (cf. CAD 1/2:194-97). OT

1. The verbal root ’ps occurs but 5x in the OT (Gen 47:15, 16; Ps 77:8[9]; Isa

16:4; 29:20). The psalmist laments that perhaps God’s steadfast love “had ceased.” Isaiah foresees the restoration of steadfast love in the tent of David when the destruction of Moab will have ceased (16:4). 2. Fifteen of the forty OT occurrences of the nom. ’epes are in construct with "eres (> # 824), as in “the ends of the earth” (e.g., Deut 33:17; 1 Sam 2:10).

Theologically, the formulas using ’epes in Isa reveal aspects of Yahweh's nature and character. The Lord God of Israel is unique, there is “no other” ('epes) god besides Yahweh (Isa 45:6, 14). He is also omnipotent in, and sovereign over, all of his creation; princes and nations are “nothing” (’epes) before him (34:12; 40:17). He both established (Prov 30:4) and judges the ends of the earth (1 Sam 2:10), and his rule over his people Israel is to be known to the ends of the earth (Ps 59:13[14]). Ultimately, the “ends of the earth” will come to Yahweh (Jer 16:19), revere his name (Ps 67:7[8]), and come to know his universal salvation (Isa 45:22; 52:10). Finally, Yahweh’s messiah-king shares in this universal authority, since he too is to possess the “ends of the earth” (Ps 2:8), and his greatness is to reach to the ends of the earth (Mic 5:4[3]). End, cessation, outcome: ~> ’ah“rit (end, outcome, #344); > ’ps (cease, come to an end, # 699); > btl (cease working, # 1060); > gmr (be at an end, cease, fail, # 1698); > hdl I (end, stop, #2532); > swp (come to an end, # 6066); > sara I (stopping, # 6239); > gés (end, limit, boundary, # 7891); > qsh I (bring about the end, shorten, # 7894) BIBLIOGRAPHY

ISBE 2:79, TDOT 361-62; W. Brueggemann, “The Earth Is the Lord’s:

A Theology of Land and

Earth,” Sojourners 15, 1986, 28-32; R. Gordis, “Studies in Hebrew Roots of Contrasted Meanings,’ JOR 27, 1936, 33-58.

Andrew E. Hill

700 ('epes, end, extremity), > #699 703 ('epa‘, worthless), > #8736 704 (ep ‘eh, adder), > #5729

705 ANE

FEN

FX (’pp), q. surround (#705).

The Akk. apdapu is of uncertain meaning, possibly “surround.”

OT This vb. is used exclusively in poignant descriptions of crisis, in a prayerful lament to move God to intervene (Ps 40:12[13]), and in thanksgiving songs, looking back to the crisis with the intent of enhancing God’s gift of deliverance (2 Sam 22:5; Ps 18:4[5]; 116:3; Jon 2:5[6]). It serves to convey the idea of intense suffering.

P-B_ The Qumran Hymns use the vb. in thanking God for deliverance from the “pangs of death” and “rivers of Belial” (1QH 3:28; 5:39).

482

PEN(#706) Circle, turn: > ‘pp (surround, #705); > hdrI (surround, enclose, # 2539); > hwg (describe a circle, # 2552); > ktr II (surround, # 4193); > ngp II (go round, surround, #5938); > sbb (turn go round, surround, # 6015); > ‘agdl (round, # 6318); > ‘tr (surround, crown, # 6496/7) Leslie C. Allen

706

PS (pq I) hitp. pull oneself together, gain composure, gain self-control (#706); EX (apigq ID, strong (only in Job 12:21; > # 693). ANE

DEN

Arab. ’afaga, excel, surpass.

OT 1. The relatively few occurrences of ’pq (7x) in the sense of restraining oneself apply both to God and humans. The term occurs in the genres of narrative, prayer, and prophetic announcement. 2. In narratives about persons, three individuals in positions of authority hold or do not hold themselves in check. Joseph loses emotional control when he meets his brothers in the palace and then regains it (Gen 43:31; cf. 45:1). Haman was filled with rage because Mordecai failed to offer homage. Despite his anger, Haman exercised self-control (’pq) (Esth 5:10). In a third narrative Saul acts out of constraint rather than restraint. With Samuel delaying his coming, Saul offers a sacrifice with the explanation, “I felt compelled” (1 Sam 13:12). Terms such as ’pq underscore the freedom of the human being as an acting agent who needs also to assume accountability for choices made. 3. Two of Isaiah’s three uses of ’pq occur within prayer, in which a plea is made for God to intervene. The prophet laments the downfall of the city of Jerusalem, specifically its temple, and asks, “After all this,

O LORD, will you hold yourself back?” (Isa

64:12[11]). In a complaint that has as its object to move God to action, the poet charges that God has withheld his tenderness and compassion (Isa 63:15). 4. In a proclamation of salvation oracle, God promises that he will act in behalf of his people (Isa 42:14). The part about the restraint is an allusion to the stylistic “allegations made against deity” in community laments (cf. C. Westermann, /saiah 40-66, OTL, 1969, 105-6; cf. Ps 79:5; 85:5[6]). God acknowledges his silences, his holding himself in check (pq). But now his intervention will bring changes, especially in nature: vegetation on the mountains will wither; watercourses will change; the dark will turn into light. By these actions God is preparing the way for the return of his people from exile (cf. 41:18-20). Restraint, control, withholding: ~ ’pq II (gain self-control, #706); # 2641); > hésk (refrain, withhold, #3104); > mn‘ (withhold, # 4979)

— htm (restrain o.s., Elmer A. Martens

709 ANE.

72s

“IBN (éper),

(#709).

nom.,

ashes,

loose

soil,

dust

The word ’éper likely derives from Akk. epru (HALAT 78).

483

“DN (#710) OT

1. Anexample of ’éper, ashes, is its use in cultic sacrifice: “ashes of the heifer”

(Num 19:9-10).

2. Most often the word is used in the mourning rite of putting hanes on the head (2 Sam 13:19), in combination with sackcloth (Esth 4:1, 3; Isa 58:5; Jer 6:26; Jon 3:6), or in the combination of dust and ashes (Job 42:6; Ezek 27:30; cf. Job 2:8). The Ezekiel passage is vivid with dust sprinkled on the head and the person rolling in ashes (Ezek 27:30). 3, Humiliation or contrition is expressed with this term. Job says, “I am reduced to dust (‘apar) and ashes (’éper)” (Job 30:19; cf. 42:6). Abraham speaks of himself in God’s presence as “nothing but dust and ashes” (Gen 18:27). God reduced the people

to a condition like ashes on the ground (Ezek 28:18), and the promise is that the wicked will be ashes under the feet (Mal 4:3[3:21]). In a lament the author claims that he has been trampled in the dust (’éper) (Lam 3:16).

4. Two passages refer to the eating of ashes as food: one depicts distress and sorrow (Ps 102:9[10]); another, the bare subsistence of an idol worshiper (Isa 44:20). 5. In a comparative sense, God scatters the frost like ashes (Ps 147:16), crowns

are given instead of ashes (Isa 61:3), and in a disparaging comment, some maxims are proverbs of ashes (Job 13:12). Dust, clay, dirt, loose soil: > ’Gbaq (dust, # 85); > ’éper (ashes, loose soil, # 709); > homer II (mud, clay, mortar, #2817); > tit (mud, mire, clay, # 3226); > tnp (dirty, #3245); > ‘pr (dust, # 6759); > roba‘ II (dust, rubbish, # 8066); > regeb (clods of earth, # 8073); > §*hdr (soot, blackness, # 8818); > Sahag (dust, clouds of dust, # 8836)

Roy E. Hayden

710 OT

“ES

“ENS (per), bandage (# 710).

This hapleg. occurs only in 1 Kgs 20:38, where a prophet “disguised himself

with his headband (’“pér) down over his eyes.” Band, tie: > ‘pd (put on tightly, #679); > ’“pér (bandage, #710); > ’es ‘add (band, # 731);

> hb§ (tie up, saddle, imprison, bind, # 2502); > hgr (bind, gird, # 2520); > haSiq (clasp ring, # 3122); > htl (be swaddled, # 3156); > keset (band [for magic purposes], # 4086); > migba‘a (head-band, # 4457); > ‘nd (wind, tie s.t., # 6698); > ‘qd (tie up, # 6818); > srrI (bind, tie up, #7674); > qr (ally together, conspire, bind, # 8003); > rks (bind, tie, # 8220); > rtm (tie up,

# 8412) T. D. Alexander

713 Ceprayim, Ephraim), > Ephraim

YAN (‘esba‘), nom., fem., 720

YASS

< YAS + N-pros-

thetic, finger (# 720).

ANE The nom. ’esba‘ occurs with the meaning “finger” in North-West and South-Semitic languages. The Assyr. ubanu “finger” (AHw, 1398-99) is related to Heb. bohen, thumb.

484

S°SN (#722) OT 1. In about half of the 31 Heb. and 3 Aram. occurrences the word is used in a concrete sense, the context describing priestly rites, e.g., Lev 4:6, 17. In the blood-rite of sin offering, the priest dips his finger into the sacrificial blood. The gesture of pointing the finger at s.o. (%/h ’esba‘, Isa 58:9 || dabbér ’awen) is considered as an offense. 2. The finger is the smallest unit of measurement (= 0, 0185/0, 019 m cf. BHH,

1159). “Four fingers thick” (Jer 52:21 comp. with 1 Kgs 7:26; 2 Chron 4:5 is the breadth of one hand—tepah/topah). The anatomical opposition of thumb and fingers is reflected on the lexical level (see #564). 3. Exod 31:18 and Deut 9:10 mention the finger of God writing. In Dan 5:5 “fingers of a human hand” appear. In Ps 8:3[4], where the works of creation are praised as “the works of your fingers,” the pl. form may denote God’s artistic skill (workmanship). The Egyptian magicians’ comment (Exod 8:19[15]) is of theological import: ‘esba‘ ’“lohim hi’ (“This is the finger of God”). It describes the power of God in the third plague (gnats), in the face of whom their skills fail them for the first time (v. 18).

“Finger of God,” combined with ’“/ohim only, seems to be a fixed formula. It is probably a case of synecdoche, referring to the divine powers of God’s hand (B. S. Childs, Exodus, OTL, 129). Hand, arm, finger: > ’esba‘ (finger, #720); > hdh (stretch out the hands, # 2063); > z°réa‘ (arm, forearm, # 2432); > yad (hand, power, side, # 3338); > kap (hand, hollow hand, # 4090);

> tq‘ (drive, thrust, clap one’s hands, blow trumpet, pledge, # 9546) Measurement,

standard, rule:

> zrh II (measure, # 2431);

~ mdd (measure, measure

off,

# 4499); > 5‘r (calculate, #9132); > tkn (regulate by weighing or measuring, #9419). For measurements of weight/volume: > 'épd (an ephah, # 406), for measurements of length: > ’amma I (cubit, ell, forearm, # 564) BIBLIOGRAPHY

E. Dhorme, L’emploi metaphorique des noms de parties du corps en hebreu et en akkadien, 1923, 1963, 137-54; P. Eronzaroli, Studi sul Lessico comune semitico, 1-3, 1964/65 Series 8, vol. XIX,XX.

= AANL

Manfred Dreytza

O84 ANE.

Ose

ON (asil II), eminent, noble (hapleg.) (# 722).

The word is related to Arab. ’asil, well rooted, of noble descent. The reading

*syl, noble, in the Aram. Ahigar (10:143) is uncertain (cf. APFC, 243). OT The term is applied collectively to the leaders (Moses, Aaron, his sons Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of Israel’s elders [see zagén, > #2418]) in Exod 24:11. Within the context of the sealing of the covenant, they “saw God.” The description of the pedestal of God’s throne “like a pavement made of sapphire” (v. 10) is reminiscent of Ezekiel’s vision, and like it evokes the majesty of God (cf. Ezek 1:26, 28). Despite

their remarkable experience (Exod 24:11): “God did not raise his hands against these leaders” (NIV)—for no one may see God and live (33:20). The LXX translates this word with epilektos, chosen. A theological difficulty P-B. of seeing God, and so Exod 24:11 became “they saw the place where the God that was of Israel stood.”

485

SSN(#724) Leaders:

> ’ad6n (lord, master, # 123); > ’alliip II (tribal chief, #477);

> ’asil II (eminent,

noble, # 722); > zagén (elder, # 2418); > horI, free man, freeborn, # 2985); > maptéah (badge

of office, #5158); > ndgid (prince, ruler, leader, #5592); > nas?’ I (chief, king, #5954); ‘attiid ~ saris (eunuch, court official, #6247); > seren II (Philistine prince, #6249);

(he-goat, leader,

# 6966);

> pehd (governor, #7068);

> pagid (officer, #7224);

> gasin

(commander, leader, # 7903); > rab II (captain, chief, # 8042); > rzn (rule, # 8142); > s6a‘ (noble, # 8777) BIBLIOGRAPHY

I

,

E. W. Nicholson, God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament, 1986. Kenneth T. Aitken

723 (‘assil, armpits, wrists), > # 3338

Le

238

OSs (sl ID, q. set apart, withdraw; ni. be shortened (# 724).

ANE. Suggested cognate Old South Arab. hwsl, to acquire (Miiller, 306). Driver identifies the vb. as a variant of ns/, take away, and associates it with the Arab. nom. asi, origin (Driver, 185).

OT

1. The basic meaning of the root seems to be one of separating off a portion. In

the q. stem, the vb. can mean

to withhold or retain, as in Gen 27:36, where Esau

implores Isaac about whether he had retained any of the blessing (stolen by Jacob) for Esau. A different nuance on the idea of withholding is found in Eccl 2:10, where the

author writes that all that his eyes desired, he did not deny from them, implying more the idea of restraining than retaining. 2. In Num 11:17 and 25, the vb. derives a sense different from the basic idea of

“separating off.” Here, the Lord separates off (NIV takes) a portion of the Spirit that he had placed on Moses, in order to anoint the elders of Israel. There is no indication that

as a result Moses possessed less of the Spirit than he had before; indeed, it is clearly not the intention of the text to give such an impression. Rather, the transfer of Spirit from Moses to the elders ordains them as his successors in office, similar to the way

that Elisha was ordained with a double portion of the Spirit that had been on Elijah (2 Kgs 2:9; cf. Wolff, 36). These incidents illustrate the belief that the one ascending to holy office receives divine unction from one’s predecessor, often symbolized by the laying on of hands (e.g., Num 27:23; Acts 6:6). 3. In the ni., the vb. is used to describe the three-storied chamber complex of

Ezekiel’s visionary temple (Ezek 42:6). It is difficult to determine precisely what is being conveyed, although the sense is certainly one of reduction in size. Eichrodt translates: “Hence from the lower and middle ones was taken room from the ground” (i.e., the lower and middle chambers were smaller than the upper chamber; Eichrodt, 536, 539). Elliger understands instead that the chambers were “terraced,” i.e., the upper ones smaller than the lower (Elliger, 91; also Zimmerli,

394). The NIV translates:

“They (the upper chambers) were smaller in floor space than those on the lower and middle floors.” Such an arrangement would seem to make better sense architecturally, even if the Heb. text allows various readings. 486

MIVBN¢ 731) P-B_ The Heb. text of Sir 46:8 states that the number of the Israelites was reduced (‘sl ni.) to two (Joshua and Caleb) because of Israel’s refusal to enter Canaan. The might of God’s wisdom is eternally established, with nothing added to it, nothing taken (‘s/ ni.) from it, and nothing lacking in his insight (Sir 42:21). Short: > gsh I (trim off, maim, shorten, scrape, # 7894); > gss (cut off, trim, cut off, cut to pieces, # 7915); > qsr II (be short, shorten, # 7918)

BIBLIOGRAPHY G. R. Driver, “Linguistic and Textual Problems:

Ezekiel,” Bib 19, 1938, 60-69,

175-87: K.

Elliger, “Die grossen Tempelsakristeien im Verfassungsentwurf des Ezechiel (42.1ff.),” FS fiir A. Alt, 1953, 79-103; R. K. Harrison, Numbers,

1990; W. Miiller, “Altsiidarabaische Beitrage

zum hebraischen Lexikon,” ZAW 75, 1963, 304-16; H. W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament, 1973; W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2: A Commmentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 25-48, Hermeneia, 1983. Anthony Tomasino

731

TIPS

MIYSN ('es‘Gda), armlet (#731); < TW (s‘d), march (> #7575).

OT There are only two occurrences of this nom. The proposal of HALAT that it denotes a “pace-chain” is surprising, given that it may be made of gold (Num 31:50) and worn by a king (2 Sam 1:10). Rather, the ’es‘add is a decorative armlet. Band, tie: > pd (put on tightly, #679); > ’“pér (bandage, #710);

> ’es ‘ada (band, #731);

> hb§ (tie up, saddle, imprison, bind, # 2502); > hgr (bind, gird, #2520);

> haSiiq (clasp ring,

# 3122); > htl (be swaddled, # 3156); — keset (band [for magic purposes], # 4086); > migba‘a (head-band, # 4457); > ‘nd (wind, tie s.t., # 6698); > ‘qd (tie up, # 6818); > srrI (bind, tie up, # 7674); > qSr (ally together, conspire, bind, # 8003); > rks (bind, tie, #8220); > rtm (tie up, # 8412) T. D. Alexander

ob.

73

“uN

TSN (sr), accumulate, amass, store up (#732); “SIS ( Osar), treasure, storehouse (# 238).

ANE. The vb. may be linked with Arab. ’asara and wasara, lace one’s/somebody’s waist, and ’aisar, bundle.

OT The vb. occurs 3x in the q.: in 2 Kgs 20:17 (= Isa 39:6), Isaiah’s words to Hezekiah, “The time will surely come when everything in your palace, and all that your fathers have stored up until this day, will be carried off to Babylon”; and in

Amos 3:10, “They do not know how to do right...who hoard plunder (lit. “store up violence,” ha’6s°rim hamas) and loot (56d) in their fortresses.” Note that in the previous v. the nations of Egypt and Ashdod are beckoned to observe Samaria’s crimes. By using the vb. ‘sr and the nom. %dd Amos has skillfully created a paronomasia on the names of these two countries ’sr/misrayim and X6d/‘aSdéd (Paul, 117). The vb. occurs once in ni. (Isa 23:18, “Yet her profit [Tyre] and her earnings will be set apart for the LORD; 487

“SS(# 732) they will not be stored up [yé’Gsér] or hoarded [yéhasén]”), and once in the hi. (Neh 13:13, “I put Shelemiah...in charge of the storerooms [wa’ds°ra ‘al ’6sarét]’). 1. The nom. ’ésar means both “treasure” and “treasury, storehouses.” The first meaning is present in wv. like Isa 30:6 (treasures used to purchase help from a helpless ally); Isa 39:4 (Hezekiah’s vast royal treasures); Jer 17:3 (God will deliver Judah’s treasures to Babylon as plunder); and 3x in Prov (10:2; 15:16, 21:6), the first of which contrasts riches with righteousness, and the second which contrasts poverty and piety with wealth and impiety, the third which speaks of treasure/fortune gained by lying. When the nom. designates “treasuries, storehouses,” they may be those belonging to Yahweh (Josh 6:19, 24), to Yahweh’s temple (1 Kgs 7:51 [= 2 Chron 5:1]; 1 Kgs 14:26; 15:18; 2 Kgs 12:18[19]; 24:13), to the palace (1 Kgs 14:26; 2 Kgs 12:18[19]; 24:13), to a city or nation (Joel 1:17), and, in a metaphorical sense, to God (e.g., Deut 28:12; Job 38:22). In the case of the latter two, the heavens are God’s celestial storehouses that house either his blessing (Deut 28:12) or his judgment (Job 38:22; cf.

Ps 135:7; Jer 10:13; 51:16). His instrument of blessing is rain; his instrument of judgment is snow and hail (Job 38:22) or wind (Ps 135:7; Jer 10:13; 51:16; see also Ps 33:7). Note that NIV translates ’6saré in Jer 50:25 as “The LORD has opened his arsenal.” Also, wisdom promises to make full the treasuries of those who follow her (Prov 8:21).

2. It is especially in conjunction with the second temple that the people were urged to “bring the whole tithe into the storehouse (el bét ha’6sar)” (Mal 3:10). For other references to storing tithes in the temple storehouses, see Neh 10:37-39[38-40]; 12:44;

13:12-13.

Nehemiah

uses

three

Heb.

words

for

storehouses:

Jiskd

(10:37-39[38-40]; cf. 2 Chron 31:11); niSkd (12:44); ’6s°rd (13:12-13). There is only an imaginary contradiction between vv. like Neh 10:38[39], which say the Levites are to bring the tithes into the storehouse, with vv. like Neh 12:44; 13:12; Mal 3:10, which speak of the laity bringing the tithes into storehouses. It is the people who make the contributions, while it is temple personnel who transport them into the storehouses, a practice supported by rabbinic tradition (Tosef., Pe’a 4:3-6; BTalm Ketubot 26a; PTalm Ketubot 2:7, 26d; and cf. Josephus, Ant., 20:181).

What is unique to Mal 3:10 is the divine promise, in return for faithful tithing, to “throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it.” This sentiment is close to that of Prov 3:9-10. Mal 3:10 speaks of bét ha’ dsar, while Prov 3:9-10 uses ’“saméka, (> # 662). In both cases the same point is made. Those who honor God with his tithes are in turn honored by him profusely—a blessing one cannot hold, or overflowing barns and vats. 3. The Heb. language of the OT has certain words that mean both treasure and something hidden (matmén, maspén), and words that mean both treasure and strength (hosen). There are different kinds of treasures, those given by God to his faithful ones, those given to God by his faithful ones, those obtained by unethical means, those used unethically, and those obtained in war.

There is nothing inherently evil about “treasure.” It is the lot of those who seek it (Prov 8:21 [’dsar]), and is worthy to be sought (2:4 [matmén]). The wise man has treasures, but the fool none (15:6 [hdsen]; 21:20 [’dsr]). But treasures appropriated unethically are worthless (10:2 [’6sar]) and will bring about the downfall of those who

488

NPN #734) pursue them (21:6 [’6sdr]). In fact, piety without treasures is far better than treasures without piety (15:16 [’dsar]). The above teachings may be compared with an Akk. composition, “Counsels of Wisdom”: “My son, if it be the desire of the prince that you be his, if you are entrusted with his closely guarded seal, open his treasure house [nisirtasu], enter into [it]; apart

from you there is not another man [who may enter it]. You will find therein untold wealth. Do not covet anything. Do not take it into your head to conceal something. For afterwards, the matter will be investigated, and what you have concealed will come to light” (W. G. Lambert, BWL, 1960, 102, lines 81-89). NT Three G words are used for “treasure” and “‘treasury.” They are: (1) thésauros (cf. Eng. thesaurus), 16x, treasure, riches; (2) thésaurizé, store up, pile up, hoard (Luke 12:21; Jas 5:3); (3) gaza, treasure (Acts 8:27), a reference to the Ethiopian eunuch in charge of all the treasury of Queen Candace. In many of these instances, esp. in the teachings of Jesus, a warning is sounded against the potential for wealth and riches to destroy a person. See esp. Matt 6:19-24. According to Jesus, it is the heart that follows the treasure, rather than the treasure that follows the heart (Matt 6:21; Luke 12:34). The heart must have, as its focus and attraction, a heavenly treasure, or as Paul writes, “Set

your minds on things above, not on earthly things” (Col 3:2). Recall also Jesus’ words to the rich young ruler to sell all he has and give to the poor, and thus obtain “treasure in heaven” (Matt 19:21; Mark 10:21; Luke 18:22). The latter is a treasure (1) that is

beyond the reach of corruption; (2) that is not yet possessed by the righteous; and (3) that the godly may add to (“lay up treasure’). All of this does not mean that Jesus calls all his followers to the renunciation of all possessions. Note first that the NT distinguishes between “treasures” and earthly goods in general. Second, the vb. “store up” refers not to simple possession, but to accumulation. P-B

Note Jastrow 1:32, 111; DSS.

Storehouse, treasure: ~ ’dsam (stores, #662); > ’Gsop (store, #667); > sr (accumulate, amass, store up, #732); > gizbar (treasurer, # 1601); > genez I (treasury, #1709); > ganzak (treasury, #1711); > hsn (be stored up, #2889); > kms (stored up, #4022); > matmén (treasure [hidden], #4759); — misk®ndt (stores, #5016); > n°kdt (treasure house, #5800); > nikkd (storeroom{s], cell, room, # 5969); > piggadén (deposit, # 7214); > spn (hide, hidden, # 7621) BIBLIOGRAPHY

1:68; H. Cohen, EncJud 15:1360-62; C. E. B. Cranfield, “Riches and the Kingdom of God,” SJT 4, 1951, 302-14; M. Haran, EM 5:204-12; M. Weinfeld, EncJud 15:1156-62.

IDB 4:693-95; ISBE 4:898-900; NIDNTT 2:829-53; TDNT 3:136-38; TWOT

Victor P. Hamilton

734 ANE

Pies

APS (egdah), precious stone, beryl? (# 734),

only Isa 54:12.

See the Arab. gadaha and the Aram. q°dah, strike fire (with flint).

489

2784 741) ee

‘OT iah, AB

eS

Ee

EE

EEE

eee

SS

eee

1. The NIV translates this word as “sparkling jewels,” McKenzie (Second Isa20, 1967,

138) understands

“beryl,” while Watts (/saiah 34-66, WBC

25,

1987, 234) renders “carbuncle stones.” The abundance of precious stones in the gates and walls of Zion are symbolic of the grand scale of Yahweh’s restoration of his people and his city. 2. For a theological introduction to the topic of gems in the OT, see ’ddem (# 138). Precious Stones: > ’eben (stone, rock, #74); > ’ddem (precious stone, # 138); > ’ahlama (jasper, # 334); > ’eqdah (beryl, #734); > bahat (precious stone, #985); > bareget (emerald, # 1403); > yah“lom (precious stone, #3402); > yas“péh (jasper, # 3835); > kadkod (ruby?, # 3905); > leem I (precious stone, # 4385); > ndpek (semi-precious stone, # 5876); > sdheret (mineral stone, #6090); > sappir (lapis lazulli, #6209); > pitda (chrysolite, #7077); > 5°b6 (precious stone, # 8648); > sdham I (precious stone, # 8732); > Samir II (emery, diamond?, # 9032); > S@¥ II (alabaster, # 9253); > tarsi¥ II (precious stone, # 9577) Jewelry, ornaments: > “li I (ornament, jewel, #2717); — h%riizim (necklace of shells, #3016); — tabba‘at (ring, #3192); > kimaz (ornament, #3921); > mixb°sdt (settings, #5401); > nezem (ring, #5690); > n°ti(?)pa (ear-ring, #5755); > ‘agil (ear-ring?, # 6316); > ‘dh Il (adorn o.s., # 6335); > ‘ks Gingle, #6576); > ‘ng (put on as a necklace, # 6735); > p*ninim (corals, pearls, #7165); > sawwar6én (necklace, #7454); > samid I (bracelet, #7543); > s©‘addé (anklets, #7577); — rabid (necklace, #8054); ~ Sah"rénim (crescents, # 8448); > sabis (ornament, # 8667); > sérI (bracelet, #9217); > tor (pendant, # 9366) BIBLIOGRAPHY IDB 2:898-905; ISBE 4:623-30; NIDNTT 3:395-98; J. S. Harris, “An Introduction to the Study of Personal Ornaments, of Precious, Semi-Precious and Imitation Stones Used Throughout Biblical History,” ALUOS

41, 1962, 49-83; L. Koehler,

“Hebraische

Vokabeln

I,’ ZAW

161-74; H. Quiring, “Die Edelsteine im Amtsschild des jiidischen Hohenpriesters

55, 1937,

und die

Herkunft ihrer Namen,” AGM 38, 1954, 193-213; W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 25-48, 1983, 82-84.

Andrew E. Hill

735 (aqq6, wild goat), > #7366 7AI

35x

278 (’rb), q. lie in ambush, lay an ambush, lie in wait (#741); DIN (Cereb), nom. hiding place (#743); 278 (oreb), nom. ambush (# 744); JINfA(ma’“rab), nom. ambush (# 4422).

ANE The nom. of ’rb is found in imperial Aram. in Ahigar, where it is used metaphorically of betraying speech (APFC, 223). The vb. is also found in the Amarna letters.

OT

The vb. ’rb occurs 26x in the MT, including 1 Sam 15:5, where the Greek indi-

cates the MT is defective. It has also been proposed for Job 25:3, in accordance with the LXX, with the suggestion that this provides parallel lines (Fohrer, 374), but better sense is provided by the MT (Gordis, 276). Emendations have been proposed for ambush in 2 Chron 20:22, such as confusion or a destroying angel; more likely the Chronicler has taken a realistic report of a human ambush that caught the invaders off guard, setting them against each other, and has turned it into a miraculous event motivated by the Lord just as the singers began to praise, in keeping with the motifs of a “holy war” (Japhet, 798). 490

M2 IN (# 746) The vb. is used of animals lurking for their prey (Ps 10:9; Lam 3:10-11), but this also serves as a metaphor for the way an enemy preys on his hapless victim. A large number of references occur in the stories of ambush (Josh 8:4; Judg 9:25, 32, 43; 16:2; 21:20), but ambush also occurs in poetic laments (Ps 59:3[4]; Lam 4:19) or in

warnings against evildoers (Prov 1:11, 18; 12:6). Often there is a criminal aspect to ambush (Deut 19:11; Ezra 8:31; Mic 7:2), which can be described as lurking for blood

(Prov 1:11; 12:6). Saul charges that there has been a conspiracy against him to betray him to David, who will ambush

him (1 Sam 22:8, 13). Wisdom

also uses

’rb to

describe the wayward woman who waits to seduce the imprudent man (Prov 7:12; 23:28). The ptc. ’6réb is used 15x, all of the occurrences being in Josh 8 and Judg 16, 20, except for Jer 51:12. All of the references are to those lying in ambush except for Josh 8:7, which indicates the place of ambush. The nom. ’ereb is used in Job 37:8 for

the lair of a preying animal and in 38:40 for the waiting of the lion in his den. A theoretical nom.

form ’dreb (#744) is proposed for Jer 9:8[7] and Hos 7:6. The nom.

ma’“rab is found in Josh 8:9; Judg 9:35; and Ps 10:8 as the place of ambush; in 2 Chron 13:13 it is the people of the ambush. The concept of ambush may be found in the text of Ps 35:12, which is certainly corrupt, but restoration is uncertain; Kraus proposes the restoration of Saki from a conjectured root skh, with the sense of seeking one’s life (391). Ambush is sometimes evil and negative. Though it has reference to the natural realm and is used frequently in war, it is a descriptive means of referring to what is criminal or immoral. Ambush may, of course, be a part of war waged by the Lord in which he defeats his enemies, as seen in Joshua and Chronicles.

P-B___ Later Aram. has the biblical sense of lurking or lying in wait. The Arab. ’aruba, ’ariba has the sense of being cunning or deceitful. Ambush: > ’rb (lie in ambush, lay an ambush, #741); > gkh (lie in wait, # 8495)

> s°diyya (ambush, malice, # 7402);

BIBLIOGRAPHY G. Fohrer, Das Buch Hiob, 1989, 374; R. Gordis, The Book of Job, 1978, 276; S. Japhet, J & I Chronicles, 1993, 797-98; H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 1-59, 1988, 391; Y. Zakovitch, “Judges 16,9.12, Psalms 10,8,” Les 37, 1972, 13. A. H. Konkel

743 (ereb, hiding place), > #741

744 (oréb, ambush), > #741 M2 IN (arbeh), nom. locust (# 746); 133 (geba), 746 Ha IS nom. locust (hapleg.; # 1466); "23 (gdbay), nom. locust (# 1479); O13 (gazam), nom. locust swarm (# 1612); 24M (hagab I), nom. grasshopper (# 2506); Piiela (hasil), nom. locust (# 2885; < 5on [hsl], q. devour [hapleg.; # 2887]); Sian (hargol), nom. cricket (hapleg.; #3005); p?? (yeleq), nom. locust

(# 3540); 2YO(sol‘am), nom. katydid (hapleg.; # 6155); 23'238(s“/asal), nom. locust

swarm (hapleg.; # 7526).

49]

MD7N 746) ANE

Like the Heb. ’arbeh, Ugar. ’irby is a generic term. Some link it to Akk. arabu,

to devastate, but its relation to Heb. rbh, to become

numerous,

is closer and more

likely. The G equivalent is akris. Yeleq may derive from /qq, lick/lap, or be related to Akk. ilgitu and Arab. walaga, which refer to the leaping gait of the camel. Cf. Syr. zahla’, creeping, unwinged, and LXX brouchos, unwinged locust. The vb. hs/ is probably a denom. of hasil; it means “consume” (q. or hi.; cf. Can. hazilu, are plundered). The nom. accords with Ugar. hsn (\l ’rby). This stage of the locust’s development corresponds to the G attelabos. The assumed root of hagab II is hgb, which in Arab. means to cover or conceal (here either the ground or the sun). Likewise, the assumed root of gazam is gzm, cut off, thus “the pruner” (cf. Akk. kisimmu; Arab.

gadama/gazama). For godbay, cf. Arab. gabi’. géba is more likely related to gbh, collect, than it is to gbh, be high. The etymology of harg6l is uncertain (cf. Akk. ergilu; Arab. hargal, hurgul, hargalat; hargala, leap). Since §gq means “rush to and fro” (hitpalpal), massaq indicates a rushing swarm. Sol ‘Gm may correspond to Egyp. snhm; the Aram. equivalent suggests “swallow” or “destroy.” Some take sémdar as from smr, pi. bristle up, but since locusts don’t have hairs, this probably refers to their dark brown

color (cf. Arab. asmar, black). The adj. appears in Jer 51:27 (yeleq samar, cf. Akk. samratum). Like the Heb. s“/asal, many ANE languages have an onomatopoeic term for locusts or crickets incorporating the double-s sound. ANE literature uses locusts to describe armies. The Ugar. Legend of KRT likens the king’s army to locusts (KTU 1.14 II 50 Ill 1, [V 29-31). The inscriptions of Rameses II and Merneptah compare defeated armies to locusts, emphasizing both their multitude and weakness. Assyrian royal annals compare the destructive power of invading armies to these insects. Assurbanipal’s library yielded a prayer to ward off locust invasions. Akk. has eighteen names for locusts. OT 1. Identification. The words yeleq, hasil, gazam, and ’arbeh likely signify successive stages (instars) in the life cycle of the migratory locust (Schistocerca grergaria). The yeleg is the locust in its first larval stage when it is black and hops, being wingless. Next, the hasil has partially developed wings and jaws; it is black and yellow. The yellow gazam has fully developed jaws and wings that eventually dry. Finally, the ’arbeh is the sexually mature adult; it is also the generic word for locust. If these terms do not represent developmental stages, they may refer to different species, colors, regional names, or simply be synonyms used rhetorically (Joel 1:4). hagab is another general term for locusts. gdbay indicates the same locust as ’arbeh, but in a swarming mode as signaled by the repetitive phrase g6b gobay (Nah 3:17, not a dittography). gébd is also a swarm (masXaq) of locusts (Isa 33:4 || hasfl). The hargél is any species of the Tettigoniidae family of large, edible locusts. It is often translated “cricket,” even though these insects are not very suitable for food. The sol ‘am or “bald locust” is also edible and probably of the Truxalis family. s“/asal mimics the whirring, chirping sound of the mole cricket (Gryllotalpa vulgaris), which attacks tree roots (cf. sels*lim, cymbals). 2. Literal use. (a) Food. Israel considered most four-legged winged insects to be detestable (Seges), but Mosaic legislation allowed four types to be eaten: the ’arbeh, sol‘am, hargol, and hagab (Lev 11:22; cf. Deut 14:19-20). Scholars have yet to precisely identify them all. The phrase “any kind of locust” (ha’arbeh I°mind) refers either to various species of locusts in general or to the locust in any of its instars. Locusts

492

MIN

746)

have six legs, so when Lev 11:20-21 describes them as walking on all fours, the number indicates a minimum. Douglas attributed their exemption from the list of detestable creatures as due to their hopping, bird-like locomotion, but it is more likely that they constitute an exception based on Israel’s presettlement pastoral habits (Milgrom). (b) Plagues. Locusts are well known for their amazing ability to form gigantic swarms than can wreak devastation on a scale almost beyond imagination, and highly reliable eyewitness accounts of modern plagues border on the incredible. The locust plague on Egypt (Exod 10) exceeded normal bounds, being described as unprecedented and never to be matched (10:14). This outbreak was eighth in a series of plagues that effectively persuaded Pharaoh to release God’s people from slavery, an event often recited in Israelite liturgy (Ps 78:46; 105:34). Moses’ intercession brought a strong west wind, which drove the insect troops into the Red Sea (yam siip), the same fate that met Pharaoh’s army (Exod 14:23-28), none of whom survived (14:28; cf. 10:19). Ironically, the same locust plague that formed part of Yahweh’s judgment on Egypt was also threatened by Moses on Israel, should God’s people lapse into covenantal disloyalty (Deut 28:38, 42). In addition to this pest that would devour (hs/) the crop, Yahweh would bring a distant nation to “swoop down” on Israel to devour (’k/) its livestock and land and then to besiege its cities (Deut 28:49-52). Solomon reflected the possibility of such a plague and military siege in his dedicatory prayer for the temple, citing it as one of many woes he hoped would prompt Israel to repentance (1 Kgs 8:37 || 2 Chron 6:28). Yahweh’s promise to Solomon was that in response to genuine remorse he would “forgive their sin” and “heal their land” (2 Chron 7:14). The book of Amos illustrates this cycle. Following a covenant lawsuit pattern (rib), Amos recounts Yahweh’s past judgments on his people, describing them as similar to the plagues on Egypt, including those of locusts (4:9-10; gazam). Then, as first in a series of visions, Yahweh shows Amos a devastating locust swarm that incites him to pray, bringing Yahweh’s change of mind (7:1-3; gdbay). Like the covenant mediator Moses, Amos foresaw covenant curses and interceded on behalf of his nation (cf. Exod

32:12-14). In contrast to reliance on magic to avert these disasters, the emphasis on moral repentance in the OT is unique in the ANE. Through Malachi Yahweh promises to rebuke crop-devouring insect pests (’okél, the eater) in response to obedience regarding the tithe (Mal 3:11). 3. Figurative use. (a) Multitude and destruction. As already seen, this analogy is particularly apt for the swift destructive power of armies. Like locusts, Midianite and Amalekite raiders invaded Israelite land not to rule but to ravage (Judg 6:5; 7:12). Nebuchadnezzar’s army was like locusts pursuing Egypt (Jer 46:23), but the Babylonian force itself would fall victim to a similar attack by the Medes and various other nations (Jer 51:14, 27; yeleq). Isaiah also prophesied judgment on Assyria, describing its spoliation as the harvest of young locusts (hasil, Isa 33:4). Nahum was particularly skillful at using the concept of locusts metaphorically. First, Nineveh would fall victim to a besieging army, which would devour it like the locust that takes everything (Nah 3:15a). Then in a sarcastic turn, Nahum used the locust metaphor as a taunt, insinuating that Nineveh’s large numbers will only worsen its condition (3:15b-17). Its merchants “strip the land” and then depart, leaving nothing of value behind. Its guards and official likewise defect at the first hint of hardship; through greed and cowardice Assyria self-destructs (Longman).

493

MIN(#746) (b) Small size. Comparisons and illustrations involving locusts also indicate small size and insignificance. Along with the ant, hyrax, and lizard, the locust is an example of a creature whose disadvantageous small size is offset by its wisdom, specifically the ability to move in concert (Prov 30:27). David lamented his agony as a victim of false accusation, saying, “I am shaken off like a locust” (‘arbeh, Ps 109:23).

The twelve spies who returned from Canaan compared themselves to grasshoppers (h“gabim) next to the Nephilim (Num 13:33). Isaiah likens all the inhabitants of the earth to grasshoppers (i“gabim) before the incomparable greatness of God, who chooses to strengthen his people (Isa 40:22). Piling up the similes, the nations are like blades of grass and fading flowers, a mere drop in a bucket and dust on the scales—less than nothing. (c) Movement. Locusts also appear in figures that denote movement, such as the leaping of horses (Job 39:20). Isaiah called Cush a land of silsal k°napayim, whirring wings (Isa 18:1, NIV). While this ambiguous phrase could refer to actual insects in this region (cf. s“lasal, swarms of locusts, Deut 28:42), the LXX and Tg. understood it as a reference to sail boats that move on the rivers like insects. This interpretation fits well with the “papyrus boats” of v. 2 (cf. Eth. salala, swim; Aram. s/s/, ship). In an obscure reference, Qohelet describes old age as a time when “the grasshopper drags himself along” (Eccl 12:5), meaning either that like a satiated locust an old man is full of life, or that like a locust at the end of its life cycle an old man limps along. The Talm. took “grasshopper” euphemistically to describe male impotence in old age. 4. Combined use. With literary mastery Joel combines the literal and figurative notions about locusts to heighten the impact of his message. In ch. | he describes a locust plague that hits the land in waves, the various terms for locust delineating developmental stages. Israel once benefitted from a locust plague on Egypt; now it suffers. Due to the extreme severity of the plague and its aftereffects, Joel calls on the people to repent. The insect invasion, however, is but a foreshadowing of the impending day of Yahweh, portrayed as a locust plague on an apocalyptic scale (2:1-11). In Egypt, Yahweh fought for Israel—now he will fight against it. The winged troops of God’s army come now for Israel’s destruction, not its defense; only those who return to Yahweh can endure it (2:11-14). Most modern interpreters understand the war of ch. 2 as an extended metaphor based on a real locust plague described in ch. 1, but Stuart follows

the Targum and a marginal LXX gloss, concluding that ch. 2 foretells a historical invasion by the Assyrians or Babylonians. Another possibility is that ch. 2 simply describes a second locust plague like the one in ch. 1 (Lewis).

P-B In the Apocrypha locusts are the basis of comparison for a huge crowd (Jth 2:20), myriad numbers of snowflakes (Sir 43:17), and a short life span (2 Esd 4:24). God sends them for judgment (Wisd 16:9). At Qumran the Temple Scroll adapted and interpreted the Mosaic dietary rules about locusts (11QTemple 48:3-5). The Mishna sought to clarify the identity and ritual cleanliness of locusts (Mish. ‘Eduyyot 7:2; 8:4; Mish. Hullin 3:7; 8:1; Mish. Terumot 10:9; Mish. ‘Aboda Zara 2:7). The Talmud has

over twenty names for locusts.

NT — John the Baptist subsisted on a diet of locusts and wild honey (Matt 3:4 || Mark 1:6). In the Apocalypse the fifth angel’s trumpet brings hordes of stinging locusts that are described in frightening detail (Rev 9:3-11).

494

DIAN (# 752) Animals:

> b*hémaé

(quadrupeds,

#989);

> zandb

(tail, #2387);

> h@zir (pig, #2614);

> hayyé | (animal, #2651); > keleb (dog, #3978); > ‘akbar (mouse, # 6572); > s°pardéa‘ (frog, #7630); > gippod (hedgehog/owl?, #7887); > rms (creep, swarm, #8253); > srs (swarm, teem, # 9237); — tan (jackal, #9478); > Reptiles: Theology; see the Index for Birds; Camel; Deer; Donkey; Dove; Flock; Gazelle; Insects; Lion; Maggot; Snake, etc. BIBLIOGRAPHY

IDB 3:144-48; TWOT 828-29; I. Aharoni, “On Some Animals Mentioned in the Bible,” Osiris 5, 1938, 461-78; L. Allen, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah, NICOT, 1976; Diet of John the Baptist,” AbrN 3, 1961-62, 60-74; G. Cansdale, All the Lands, 1970, 238-44; R. Dillard, “Joel,” The Minor Prophets 1, 1992; M. Danger, 1966; R. P. Gordon, “Loricate Locusts in the Targum to Nahum

F. I. Andersen, “The Animals of the Bible Douglas, Purity and 3:17 and Revelation

9:9,” VT 33, 1983, 338-39; J. E. Hartley, Leviticus, WBC 4, 1992; J. P. Lewis, “Joel,” NIV Study Bible, 1985; T. Longman, “Nahum,” The Minor Prophets 2, 1993; J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, AB 3, 1991; R. E. Murphy, Ecclesiastes, WBC 23A, 1992; J. Niehaus, “Amos,” The Minor Prophets 1, 1992; O. R. Sellers, “Stages of Locust in Joel,” AJSL 52, 1936, 81-85; J. A. Thompson, “Translation of the Words for Locust,” BT 25, 1974, 405-11; idem, “Joel’s Locusts in the

Light of Near Eastern Parallels,” JNES 14, 1955, 52-55; J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1-33, WBC 24, 1985. Robert C. Stallman

748 (“rubbd, chimney, lattice work), > #2707

dp?

as

YAN

(arba‘),

nom.

four (cardinal

number)

(#752); *B°29 (7°77), adj. fourth (ordinal num-

ber) (# 8055); 937 (rb‘ ID, denom. vb. (found only as q. pass. part. and pu. part.) square (# 8062); Y37 (reba‘ I), nom. fourth part, four sides (# 8063); 937 (roba‘ I), nom. fourth part (# 8065); YD" (ribbéa‘), adj. pertaining to the fourth (> # 8067).

ANE Babylonian cosmology discerned four phases of the moon, four forms of the sun’s appearance, and four turning points in the year. An Akk. title is Sar kibratim arba’im, King of the Four Corners of the World.

OT _ 1. Four often indicates the four cardinal points of the compass, based on human symmetry (left, right, before, behind). Perhaps because of this four is not a significant sacred number. There are four winds (Ezek 37:9; Dan 8:8; 11:4), four corners of the earth (Isa 11:12), and four primeval rivers (Gen 2:10). Encompassing all directions,

four often indicates completeness and comprehensiveness. Four groups of people are assigned four kinds of destroyers in Jer 15:2-3, and the four colors of the four horsemen of Zech 1:8-11 correspond to the four regions of the earth. The universal sovereignty of God means that judgment (Ezek 7:2) or salvation (Isa 11:12) reaches to the

four corners of the earth. Apocalyptic writing makes abundant use of the universal four (Dan 8:8; 11:4; Zech 6:5). Ezekiel develops the significance of four, replacing Isaiah’s seraphim with four living creatures with multiple fourfold attributes (Ezek 1; 10; cf. W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel I, 120). The four empires of Daniel (2; 7) comprehend the whole of world history. 2. Four is the characteristic number of a square or rectangular building, and as

such can indicate totality. It occurs frequently in accounts of the construction of the 495

DDN(#752) tabernacle (Exod 25-30; 35-40) and the temple (1 Kgs 7; Ezek 40-43; 11QT 30-42). The altar has four horns, which are probably its holiest parts (Exod 38:2). 3. A particularly interesting pattern is the n/n+1 pattern, or the graduated numerical saying. Frequently in poetry (37x in all) we find that a number in one line is followed by one higher in the next. This not only provides lexical parallelism, it also fits the characteristic way in which one line builds to a climax in the next (R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry, 1985). The repetition with variation highlights the second number, which is the one that often determines the significance of the saying (as Saul saw clearly in 1 Sam 18:7). A list of items corresponding to the second number often follows, with the final one usually climactic (Prov 30:18-19). The three/four pattern is particularly common, possibly because the two figures add up to seven. Amos 1-2 uses this pattern 8x, but only one item follows the initial statement, probably because the first three have been omitted and only the decisive and Chimat Hic sin is described. The same pattern is found in the Ugar. (CTA 16 11 84-85; CML’, 97). 4. Three and four are small “round” numbers, as is indicated by their occurrence together (Jer 36:23; but four and five in Isa 17:6). The “third or fourth generation” describes the number of generations living at any one time, and divine punishment will include all within the solidarity of the extended family (Exod 20:5; 34:7). In the fourth year the fruit of a tree is dedicated to the Lord (Lev 19:24). 5. Forty-year periods occur frequently in Israel and elsewhere to indicate a complete generation; 480 years (1 Kgs 6:1) comprises twelve generations (cf. 1 Chron 6:3-8[5:29-34]). The Exodus generation has to remain in the wilderness for forty years to die (Num 14:33), an experience that also demonstrated God’s grace (Deut 8:2, 4). The number came to have typological significance (by making the years equivalent to days) for Elijah (1 Kgs 19:8) and Ezekiel (Ezek 4:6; 29:11-13). It is the characteristic duration of a full reign in the deut. history (David, 1 Kgs 2:11; Solomon, 11:42; cf. the Philistine oppression, Judg 13:1; Saul, Acts 13:21). It is also a round number referring to sons (Judg 12:14) or a period of waiting (Gen 7:4, 12; Exod 24:18; 34:28; 1 Sam

17:16). The fortieth year is the prime of life, a good age for a new start, such as marriage (Gen 25:20; 26:34) or a reign (2 Sam 2:10; cf. Exod 2:22 with Acts 7:23).

P-B _ Sirach has several examples of graded numerical sayings, such as the nine/ten approved characters of 25:7-11, where the climactic tenth is the person who fears the Lord. NT The cosmic and universal significance of four, particularly as developed in Ezekiel, is taken up in the book of Revelation (4:6; 7:1) and other apocalyptic literature. Numbers: ~ ’ehdd (one, #285); > ’elep II (thousand, military contingent, #547); > (four, #752); > hames (five, #2822); > mé’a I (hundred, #4395); > ‘eser (ten, # > r°baba (ten thousand, myriad, # 8047/8052); > Seba’ I (seven, # 8679); > Salos, (three, a three, #8993); > 5“moneh (eight, #9046); > snayim (two, #9109); > sex # 9252); > tesa‘ (nine, #9596)

Numbering, counting:

> kss (reckon, bn BOrBUEe # 4082);

> mnh (count, #4948);

’arba‘ 6924); 5°1osa I (six,

> spr I

(count, number, reckon, rehearse, # 6218); > pqd (number, appoint, # 7212) Directions: > darém (south, #1999); > yam (west, sea, #3542); > yamin I (right, south, # 3545); > mizrah (sunrise, east, # 4667); > ma “rab II (west, #5115); > negeb (south, Negev,

496

aN (#755) # 5582); > sapdn I (north, #7600); > qadim (east side, east wind, # 7708); left hand, unlucky, northwards, # 8520); > témdn I (south, # 9402)

> smd’! (left side,

BIBLIOGRAPHY NIDNTT 2:688-89;, TDNT 8:127-39; TWOT 1:68-69; R. Althann, “The Meaning of MIVO°YI7N in 2 Samuel 15, 7,” Bib 73, 1992, 248-52; C. Burney, “Four and Seven as Divine Titles,” JTS 12, 1911, 118-20; M. Haran, “The Graded Numerical Sequence and the Phenomenon of ‘Automatism’ in Biblical Poetry,” SVT 22, 1972, 238-67; Jastrow 1:114; W. H. Roscher, “Die Zahl 40 im Glauben, Brauch und Schriften den Semiten,” Archiv fiir Schweizerische Geschichte 27, 1909, 91-138; W. M. W. Roth, “The Numerical Sequence x/x + 1 in the Old Testament,” VT 12, 1962, 307-11; idem, Numerical Sayings in the Old Testament: A Form-Critical Study, 1965; H. P. Riiger, “Die Gestaffelten Zahlenspriiche des Alten Testaments und Aram. Achikar 92,” VT 31, 1981, 229-34; W. G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques, JSOTSup 26, 1984; M. Weiss, “The Pattern of Numerical Sequence in Amos 1-2,” JBL 86, 1967, 416-23. P. P. Jenson

755 ANE

ITN (rg), q. spin, weave

8

(#755);

(ereg), beam, shuttle (# 756).

nom.

178

Phoen. ’rg, weaver.

OT 1. As a finite vb. ’rg occurs twice, Judg 16:13 in reference to Delilah weaving Samson’s hair, and Isa 59:5 in reference to the wicked who spin a spider’s web. 2. The act. part. “weaver” appears 12x. Four are in connection with the tabernacle and Aaron’s garments (Exod 28:32; 35:35; 39:22, 27). Four passages speak of spears that were like a weaver’s beam, alluding to exceptional weight and strength (1 Sam 17:7; 2 Sam 21:19; 1 Chron 11:23; 20:5). The hero’s name in 2 Sam 21:19 is

Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim. ’or°gim could be translated as weavers. The remaining three passages are 2 Kgs 23:7, which speaks of women who wove for Asherah; Isa 19:9, an oracle against Egypt including its workers and weavers; and Isa 38:12, where the prophet compares his short life to the thrum that a weaver cuts off. 3. The nom. occurs twice. One is in the Samson-Delilah passage (Judg 16:14, NIV “loom”). In Job 7:6 Job looks back at his life as a speedy sequence of time, comparing it with the fast moving shuttle that flies from side to side: his “days are swifter than a weaver’s shuttle.” Spinning, sewing, weaving, embroidering: > ’rg (spin, weave, #755); > dalld I (hair, thrum, loom, #1929); > haséb (weaver, #3110); > twh (spin, #3211); > kiSér (distaff, #3969); + manor (rod, #4962); > skk II (weave, intertwine, #6115); > ‘éreb I (knitted material,

# 6849);

— pelek I (spindle-whorl,

#7134);

> rgm

> §rad (woven, # 8573); ~ sbs I (weave, #8687); (sew, # 9529)

(embroider,

weave

together, #8387);

> 5“t? I (woven material, #9274);

> tpr

Robert L. Alden

756 (’ereg, beam, shuttle), > #755

760 (’arg°wan, purple), > #763 497

TIN (#761) 761

ANE

TAS

vn T2918 ('argaz), nom. saddlebag; chest(?) (# 761).

Cf. Syr. r°gazta; Arab. rigazat.

The word describes the object containing the gold rats/mice and images of the OT tumors afflicting the Philistines (1 Sam 6:8, 11, 15). The LXX renders it with argoz, a transliteration, plus thema and ergab (also a P-B transliteration). Bag, pouch: > ’argaz (saddlebag, #761); > harit (bag, # 3038); > yalqit (shepherd’s pouch, # 3541); > kis (bag, # 3967); > kar III (saddle-bag, # 4121); > mesek I (pouch, bag, # 5433);

~ mixp*tayim (two saddle-bags, sheepfolds, # 5478); > s°rér I(pouch, bag, # 7655) Eugene E. Carpenter

763

A354 238 Cargaman), nom. purple (# 763); Aram. Teas nom. masc. }]]08 (‘arg“wan), purple (# 760). Brenner defines ’argaman as a man-made color with a narrow color scope: red with several shades (Colour, 145-48).

ANE Ugar. has ’rgmn, sometimes meaning tribute and sometimes purple. A cognate in Akk. is argamannu, purple. The color of the material came from a pigment derived mainly from the murex shellfish (Murex brandaris, Murex trunculus). The Phoenicians held a monopoly on this dye. OT 1. Most of the occurrences of this word are in Exod 25-39 to describe the hangings of the tabernacle or the trimmings on the priestly vestments. 2. Since it was costly to produce this color from dye extracted from a seashell off the Phoenician coast, ’argamdn indicates wealth and luxury; e.g., the garments of the king of Midian (Judg 8:26), the clothing of the noble woman (Prov 31:22),

Solomon’s palanquin (S of Songs 3:10), the Shulammite’s hair (S of Songs 7:5[6]), and goods traded by the Tyrians (Ezek 27:7, 16; Lydia was such a seller of purple [Acts 16:14]). 2 Chron 2:7[6] seems to have the Aram. spelling, which is otherwise attested in Dan 5:7, 16, and 29, where it describes the clothing Belshazzar gave Daniel for interpreting the handwriting on the wall. Colors—Red: ~ ’dm (be red, #131); > ’argaman (purple, #763); > karmil (crimson, # 4147); > Saroq (brownish red, # 8601); > San? I (scarlet, #9106); > SaSar (vermillion/red, # 9266); > tl‘ II (clad in scarlet material, # 9433) BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Brenner, Colour Terms in the Old Testament, JSOTSup,

1982; J. Doumet, A Study of the

Ancient Purple Color, 1980; P. L. Garber, “Color,” ISBE 1:729-32; R. Gradwohl, Die Farben im Alten Testament, BZAW 83, 1963; L. B. Jensen, “Royal Purple of Tyre,” JNES 22, 1963, 104-18. Robert L. Alden

798 498

a8

MIS (rh ID, q. pluck (grapes, Ps 80:12[13]; myrrh, S of Songs 5:1; #768)>-

MIN 774) OT _ 1. In the prayer for restoration that is Psalm 80, the poet laments and asks God why he broke down the wall or the defences of Israel, his vine, whom he had planted in the Promised Land so that every passerby plucks (rh) the vine (Ps 80:12[13]). be the object of the plucking (NIV, RSV), both the Although the fruit of the vine could text itself and the context (cf. Ps 80:13[14]-19[20]) seem to suggest that the vine itself is being destroyed (H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 60-150, 138, 142-43). Indeed, parallel to the eens of Ps 80:12[13] is the ravaging (krsm) of it and feeding (r‘h) on it by boars in

[14]. 2. In a different setting, ’rh is used of the lover plucking or gathering myrrh with his spice, an action paralleled with his eating (’kl; > #430) honeycomb with his honey, and his drinking (Sth; > #9272) wine with his milk (S of Songs 5:1). All this is in part a tender description of the lover’s taking possession of his garden, his beloved, with all her intimate and erotic delights (G. L. Carr, The Song of Solomon, 59-60, 128-29). Breaking [off], pinching, plucking: > ’rh II (pluck, #768);

> mlq (pinch, #4916);

> gtp

(pick, pluck, #7786); > qrs (pinch, wink, # 7975)

BIBLIOGRAPHY G. L. Carr, The Song of Solomon, TOTC, 1984, 128-29; H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 60-150, 1989, 138;

R. E. Murphy, The Song of Songs, Hermeneia, 1990, 157, 162; M. H. Pope, Song of Songs, AB, 1977, 504-5. Cornelis Van Dam

714 ANE

MTN

MAS ny

Curwa, cf. MTN

werd),

stable, stall

One may connect Heb. ’urwd, whose pl. form ’ur6t is the equivalent of the

Neo-Assyrian pl. urdti, with Sum. and Akk. urum, “beam, timberwork,” possibly orig-

inally denoting the instrument that was used in harnessing a draught animal to a plough or chariot (Lewy: 12-13). Cf. Aram/Syr. ’airya’, Arab. ’iry, ’Griyat, stall. OT

According to 1 Kgs 4:26[5:6] Solomon had 40,000 “stalls” for his chariot

horses and 12,000 horses (or horsemen). The parallel v. in 2 Chron 9:25 says, “Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses...and 12,000 horses.” NIV reads 4,000 in 1 Kgs

4:26, which is the reading of some Septuagint manuscripts, but not the reading of the Heb. text. Admittedly, the 40,000 of 1 Kgs 4:26[5:6] seems excessive, even for 12,000

horses. Were there three ’urdt/ ury6t for every horse? On the other hand, the number 4,000 in 2 Chron 9:25 raises the problem: were there three horses in each ’urwd? The

larger number of 40,000 (versus 4,000) in 1 Kgs 4:26[5:6] may be an example of a type of textual corruption in which “extra noughts can be added to a number” (Wenham, 21). Cf. the reference to “700” chariots in 2 Sam 10:18, and the reference to “7,000”

chariots in the parallel v., 1 Chron 19:18; similarly, the mention of “4” years for the period of conspiracy planned against David by Absalom (2 Sam 15:7) is rendered by some manuscripts as “40” (see NIV footnote to 2 Sam 15:27). To be sure the Heb. text does not use zeroes, but this is Wenham’s way of describing one type of a variant that may be evidence of the use of a different type of pre-Massoretic notation. Davis (89), citing such a copyist’s error, says, “When contradictory numbers occur in parallel

499

TITS(#778) passages, the interpreter must take into view the intent of the passage and the nature of the events, in order to arrive at a conclusion as to which of the two numbers represents

the true reading of the text.” But this thinking leads to the conclusion that our “biblical text is conveying to us an infallibly correct copy of a set of errors” (Barr, 310). The only other use of the word in the OT is 2 Chron 32:28, “He [Hezekiah]...made stalls (’uraw6t) for various kinds of cattle, and pens (%wérét) for

the flocks.” This reference comes in a chapter that is devoted first to a discussion of Sennacherib’s campaign against Judah (vv. 1-23), second, and more briefly, to a presentation of Hezekiah’s reign (vv. 24-31), and third, a conclusion (vv. 32-33). The focus in the middle unit (vv. 24-31) is on the king’s illness and repentance (vv. 24-26)

and on the king’s holdings and enterprises (vv. 27-30). Among these are items like treasures, storehouses, and stalls and pens for his cattle and flocks. For the Chronicler,

worldly success and prosperity of a king is a corollary of that king’s righteousness. This explains why the Chronicler focuses on the material achievements of only righteous kings (e.g., Solomon, Hezekiah). Stable, lair, pen, stall: > ’urwd (stable, #774); > mikla’/mikla (pen, # 4813); > marbés (fold, lair, #5271); > repet (enclosure of cattle, # 8348)

BIBLIOGRAPHY J. Barr, Fundamentalism, 1977, 309-10; J. J. Davis, Biblical Numerology, 1968; S. J. DeVries, J Kings, WBC, 1985, 73; R. B. Dillard, 2 Chronicles, WBC, 1987, 74; J. Gray, I & II Kings, OTL, 1964, 143-44; J. Lewy, “Studies in Old Assyrian Grammar and Lexicography,” Or 19, 1950,

1-36; J. B. Payne, “The Validity of Numbers in Chronicles,” Near East Archaeological Society Bulletin 11, 1978, 5-58; J. W. Wenham, “Large Numbers in the Old Testament,” TynBul 17, 1966, 19-53. Victor P. Hamilton

776 (“riikd, healing, repair, mending), > # 8324

aaa

SN

}398 (4r6n), nom. ark, chest, coffin (#778); 73

pay

(bad II), nom. poles, carrying poles, bars of gates

(# 964); TT (zér), nom. molding (# 2425).

ANE

1. Analogies to ’“rén are widely attested in the ANE, being found in cognate

forms in Assyr. ardnu Akk. aranu, Phoen. ’rn, Arab. ’iran, Aram.

’réna’ and ’rna’,

Syr. ’Grona’, and Nab. ’rn’. All forms are used analogously under the domains of ark (as in chest, box, or sarcophagus). The postulated root is ’rn, which also correlates to BH ’oren I (# 815, pine, cedar) in Isa 44:14 (see also the PN Oren [’6ren II] in 1 Chron 2:25). Despite this widespread attestation, the etymology is uncertain. However, there may be some correlation between the ark of wood and the analogous tree in ’6ren. The extrabiblical nom. derivative ’“rénit, small bedside cupboard, could also imply this. 2. The nom. bad II is attested in Arab. badd (beam) and in Aram.; it relates to the oil press. bad II corresponds to the vb. bdd (be separated, isolated, # 969), the nom.

badad (alone, apart, #970), as well as to bdl (set apart, separate, # 976). The renderings of bad I, II, III, and IV are generally related, each having the underlying motif of something “in addition to,” or an extension of some kind (as in bad II the picture idea in extended poles of branches and bars of gates is especially prominent). Even in

500

JIS 778) bad1V the meaning suggests extraneous “loose talk,” as in the superfluous and insolent boasting of Moab (Isa 16:6; Jer 48:30). Whereas bad I stresses the notion of a part or portion of something (i.e., standing alone), bad III, though more specifically related to linen or material, suggests pieces of cloth. Extending this sense of isolation to a more spiritual level, bad V is used of false prophets (Isa 44:25; Jer 50:36), similarly “set apart” in the sense of being outside and alienated from the Lord’s calling. These nuances of extension apply to the poles designed to carry the ark; they protected the sanctity of the ark by preventing physical contact with it during transportation. 3. Another nom.

closely related to the ark is zér, also attested in Aram.

for

bracelet and edge, in Syr. for necklace, in Arab. zirr for button, and Akk. zirru for a reed hedge. The basic meaning is that which serves as a decorative border or addition, as it especially did for the ark of the covenant. It conveys the original notion of that which is pressed or bound, suggesting the process of manufacturing such objects (it may bear some semantic relation to zwr I [# 2318], which can mean crushed or pressed down). See also zarzir, girded (#2435).

4. The history of the ark should be considered in relation to ANE parallels that bear a resemblance, but there is no indisputable correlation to Israel’s ark. Some seek

analogies with Egyptian, Babylonian, Hittite, Amorite, Canaanite, and Arabic arks, tents, and tent shrines. Despite formal similarities and the fact that the Israelite ark and tent were not unprecedented in their ANE context, there is no consensus about the

analogies. We can affirm that these analogies do serve to illustrate that Israel’s tent and ark fit their ANE context in the early desert period, yet the Israelite articles are distinctive in their meaning and function, illuminating differences rather than similarities. For example, whereas divination (often related to idolatry and fetishism) was often the purpose of ANE tent shrines, revelation from Yahweh to his covenant people, providing a sign of his presence, was the central function of Israel’s tent and ark. OT

1. In the 202 occurrences of ’“rén it is surrounded by a cluster of words of

which poles, bad II, occurs 41x, relating to the articles of the tabernacle (the ark, altar

of burnt offering, acacia table for the bread). Similarly there are poles made for the items that have a gold molding, zér. See also Asherah poles (’“5érd, # 895). Molding, zér, occurs 10x, and is used exclusively of the items in the tabernacle: the ark, acacia

table for the bread, and incense altar. As all items close to the ark, either gold-covered, gold-rimmed, or gold-embroidered, the molding plays a role in the graded sanctity within the sanctuary before the meeting place of Yahweh’s presence. 2. Two words in Heb. translate as ark (’“rén and tébd, # 9310), yet usage does not overlap. The former generally refers to the ark of the covenant and the latter to the boat that Noah made to escape the Flood (Gen 6-9), as well as the papyrus vessel used to float the infant Moses down the Nile (2x). A secular usage of ’“rén does occur when it is rendered as coffin 1x (Gen 50:26) and chest for money (2 Kgs 12:10[11]; 2 Chron 24:8, 10, 11). The vast majority of occurrences specify the ark of the sanctuary (181x), which is variously designated a chest (10x), ark of the covenant (33x, e.g., Num 10:33; Deut 10:8; 31:9; Josh 3:3), ark of God (34x, e.g., 1 Sam 3:3; 4:11, 13, 17; 2 Sam 6:2, 3, 4, 6, 7), ark of the testimony (13x, e.g., Exod 25:22; 26:33, 34; 30:6), ark of the Lord (36x, e.g., Josh 3:13; 4:5, 11; 1 Sam 4:6; 5:3), ark of your might (2x, 2 Chron 6:41; Ps 132:8), the ark of the Lord’s covenant (9x, e.g., Num 10:33; Josh 4:7; 6:8; 1 Sam 4:3,

501

TITS (#778) 5), ark of the sovereign Lord (1 Kgs 2:26), etc. There are over twenty different designations for the ark, indicating its multifaceted and complex significance. 3. The form of the ark is delineated in considerable detail of size and materials, beginning in Exod 25. Although much has been debated about what the ark actually was, there can be no doubt that it was a precious article in the shape of a box at the very heart of Israelite worship from the desert period. What the ark contained may be more important than its shape and construction and may determine what the ark intimates in Israelite worship. According to numerous Exod passages, the foremost contents of the ark were the two tablets of the law given to Moses on Mount Sinai (a jar of manna and Aaron’s rod were also added). According to many scholars this explains the designation of the ark as the ark of the testimony (‘édiit; > # 6343) or the ark of the covenant. In later usage ‘édit can apply to the law code in general as a testimony of God (Ps 19:8[9]; 119:88; 122:4). It is used in reference to God’s testimony and is often linked with the tabernacle (“the tabernacle of the testimony,” Exod 38:21) as well. In several places the word testimony itself indicates the ark (Exod 16:34; 26:33, 34; 30:6, 26).

It is generally agreed that this testimony is best understood in light of the covenant concept, considering that it bore witness to the covenant of Yahweh with Israel

(Exod 34:27-28). Some have even suggested that testimony should be rendered as covenant throughout the ark passages. This emphasis on the covenant will play an important role in defining the theology surrounding the ark; however, the translation of ‘édit as testimony is reasonable, as long as we understand the testimony as the law that is the seal of the Lord’s covenant with Israel. Each of the three items in the ark forms a doublesided picture-testimony of both God’s provision and Israel’s rebellion: the covenant law is provided despite repeated disobedience, the manna provision tested their obedience to the limit (Exod 16:4, 20, 27-28), and the rod represented the blessing of the priesthood in a context of rebellion (Num 16-17).

Two important aspects of the form of the ark are the cover on the ark (kapporet, > #4114) and the cherubim (k°rab I, # 4131), which are of one piece with the ark cover. This cover has been variously translated mercy seat (KJV, RSV, NIV [revised to atonement cover]), propitiatory, and atonement cover, and has been understood as a throne, footstool, and the place of atonement. The two noms. kippurim (# 4113) and

kapporet derive from the pi. form of the vb. kpr (> #4105) and relate respectively to the “day of atonement” and the “place of atonement” (Num 29:11; Lev 23:27). Therefore, the translation of kapporet as the place of atonement or atonement cover is most suitable. The derivation of the word k°riibim (> #4131) is apparently undetermined, although a variety of ANE associations are-suggested by scholars. The biblical evidence begins in Gen 3:24, where the cherubim are shown as living beings; but they are not mentioned again until Exod 25, where they are only represented in gold. Of the seventeen references to them in Exod, most allude to the cherubim on the atonement

cover, although there are several references to the cherubim embroidered in the curtains of the tabernacle. The form of the cherubim is not described in detail in Exod, and

their face type is not even mentioned. Based on ANE parallels it is generally thought that they had human faces, unless otherwise noted (Ezek 10:14; 41:18). Pritchard’s pic-

tures of winged figures, many from Nimrud, show composite winged human figures and some winged animal figures with human faces (figs. 212, 458, 614, 617, 646, 647,

502

TITS #778) 855, 857). Pairs of Egyptian sphinxes, facing each other (fig. 650), bear some similarity to the ark cherubim, although they do not have human figures. Lack of details surrounding the form of cherubim may indicate that their form was common knowledge in the ANE. The best we can do is attempt to reconstruct a picture based on the text, for attempts to portray them occasionally rely too heavily on ANE analogues without careful examination of the OT text itself. We can with certainty affirm that the cherubim in the tabernacle were of one piece with the ark cover, made of pure gold, each standing toward the other with head bowed toward the ark cover and with wings forward and touching so as to overshadow the ark. The cherubim have been variously conceived as a throne, as supporters of a throne, guardians of a throne, as well as a footstool for a throne. This diversity of interpretation stems from the fact that the cover and cherubim (along with the tent and the ark) have been involved in a long debate concerning their function and relation to the nature of Yahweh’s presence in the sanctuary (see sec. 5, below). It should be kept in mind that the k°riibim were not exclusively connected with the ark. 4. From its inception the ark is known as the foremost item in the desert sanctuary and plays a leading role in Israel’s history and worship. It was known throughout the Conquest and settlement, during the judges, and into the monarchy, but disappears altogether at an unknown time (probably sometime close to the period of the late monarchy and Babylonian exile). In the desert the ark was the central symbol of Yahweh’s presence with Israel, leading them to the Promised Land and playing a major role in the crossing of the Jordan (Josh 3-4), the beginning of the conquest (Josh 6), and the reiteration of the covenant at Mount Ebal (8:30-35). Judg 2:1; 20:27 record that the ark was taken from Gilgal to Bethel, and was then taken to Shiloh (Josh 18:1; 1 Sam 1:3; 3:3)

until it was captured by Philistia (1 Sam 4). After its miraculous return, the ark remained at Kiriath Jearim for twenty years (5:1-7:2). During David’s reign the ark came to its resting place in Jerusalem (2 Sam 6), and it was finally placed in Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 8). Although the ark’s latter end is hidden in mystery, apocryphal tradition says Jeremiah hid it in a cave on Mount Nebo. The earliest narratives portray the ark in the Mosaic years of wilderness wandering as the central item of the encamped community and as sheltered in the elaborate tabernacle. It was the place of atonement, meeting, and revelation between the Lord

and Israel, the Most Holy Place before his presence. This emphasis on the presence is almost universally acknowledged. The important ark narrative in 1 Sam 4:1-7:2 relays the Philistine capture of the ark and its eventual return, highlighting the Lord’s prerogative over it after a time of considerable sin in Israel and the mistaken use of the ark in battle under the presumption that the ark guaranteed the Lord’s presence (a pagan notion, after all, that God could be manipulated). The incident also displayed to Israel’s enemies that the Lord, his people, and his ark could not be scorned without dire consequences. The sins associated with the ark can generally be classified as those born of a superstitious and false dependence on the ark itself (magical, fetish notions), rather than the Lord (by faith),

and those that express irreverence towards it. After this episode the ark and the tabernacle became permanently separated. Under King David the ark was finally brought to Jerusalem and was housed there in a tent (2 Sam 6:17; 7:2; 1 Chron 16:1).

The tabernacle and the bronze altar were still located at a high place in Gibeon

503

JTS(#778) (1 Chron 21:29; 2 Chron 1:3-5). The ark remained in David’s tent until Solomon completed the temple; there it stayed until it was lost. After the return from exile and the rebuilding of the second temple, the ark was not replaced, presumably because worship at the temple had taken on new characteristics, while in due course the NT proclaimed an open veil into God’s presence through the incarnation, death, and resurrection of

Christ, indicating the meaning in the original prefiguring of the ark and tabernacle and the reason for its inevitable supersession. 5. The centrality of the ark and its tabernacle has been as constant throughout the history of scholarship as in the biblical text. However, interpretation has varied widely. In pre-Reformation thought, although the ark was often associated with the real presence of the Lord, the tendency was to typologize, allegorize, and spiritualize its meaning (e.g., St. Augustine, Gregory the Great, Rabanus Maurus). During the Reformation, although spiritualization occurred, an emphasis on the actual presence of the Lord was more commonly emphasized. Luther paralleled the ark with the incarnation of Christ as well as with the heart of all believers. Calvin, however, avoided spiritual-

ization, while recognizing realistically the symbolism of the ark with its cherubim as a pledge of the divine presence. Modern critical scholarship on the ark began essentially with J. Wellhausen, who thought that the ark had existed towards the end of the period of the judges, although the tabernacle was a fiction from an hypothesized priestly source. His conclusions arose from attempts to demonstrate an exilic date for this centralizing “P” source, which he claimed constructed a tabernacle modeled on the Solomonic temple. The tabernacle and the ark served the purpose of P to legitimate the centralization of worship by locating the presence of God in the one tabernacle ark sanctuary. In order to do this, P had to show a connection between the tabernacle and the ark because according to the law the two were interdependent. He believed, however, that the ark and tent were

originally independent, and in that he set the stage for considering the underlying theologies associated with the ark and its tent as polarized. Since he made his conclusions known, there has been an ongoing tendency to view the topic of the presence in terms of polarities that stemmed from divergent theologies in the hypothetical pentateuchal sources of D (Deuteronomist) and P (Priestly). These polarities have been expressed in

a variety of ways that generally consider static elements as Priestly (P) in opposition to dynamic elements, which are seen as Deuteronomic (D).

The most significant development of this approach is seen in the traditionhistorical approach, developed largely by G. von Rad (and M. Noth). Central to this view of the history of Israel’s theology is the belief that there was a late, priestly coalescence of polarized ark and tent traditions..-The important questions that have arisen from this proposed polarization in D and P underlie much of contemporary discussion about the nature of the biblical text (i.e., formation) and what it conveys about the nature of Yahweh’s presence in Israel: is it immanent or transcendent? name presence or glory presence? manifestation meeting or dwelling presence? Von Rad concluded that the tent of meeting and the ark radically diverged theologically: i.e., the tent represented a theology of Yahweh’s intermittent manifestation and the ark Yahweh’s abiding presence. These two theologies were seen as completely different. The distinction between the tent and ark is related to their origin: the tent was from the south and represented a theology of glory/appearance/manifestation (in P), whereas the ark was 504

8 @ 778) from the north and represented a theology of dwelling/presence/name (in D). According to von Rad, these traditions were brought together at some point, and he suggested that it was the exilic priests who coalesced them in a revival of manifestation theology. However, within this scheme are acknowledged tensions between the very theologies said to have been coalesced. Nevertheless, a close examination of the texts in question reveals the impossibility of isolating theological polarizations along these tradition-historical lines, and the complete lack of consensus in identifying the proposed synthesis of a theological dialectic in P (which is itself seen in flux) has brought the historical-traditional methodology itself into question.

Related to this methodology is the underlying and widespread assumption that there was an enthronement theology in Israel’s view of Yahweh’s presence in the sanctuary centered on the ark, the atonement cover or “mercy seat,” and the cherubim. This enthronement concept is said to have been derived from the ANE (S. Mowinckel, et » al.), especially in Mesopotamian cult rituals, where the king was reenthroned at the New Year festival. Mowinckel thought that in Israel Yahweh was similarly reenthroned yearly. Although this view has been contested by many today, there is still the residual belief that the ark is intimately related to enthronement concepts. The question has long been debated: If Yahweh is enthroned in the sanctuary, what was the throne? The determining factor is whether the ark was indeed a throne or a footstool, or as many have conjectured, whether the ark cover was a footstool and the cherubim (or their wings) the throne. However, even prior to this question is whether Yahweh can be said to be enthroned in the fashion described in this view, and if not, what exactly was the nature

of Yahweh’s presence in the Most Holy Place. Accentuating this question is the frequent rendering in Bible translations of yos@b as enthroned when found juxtaposed with Yahweh and the cherubim on the ark. Exod 25:22 has been at the heart of much of the discussion, because the Lord says there that he would meet with Moses, “before the atonement cover that is over the Testimony” (see Exod 29:42-43; 30:6, 36). Subse-

quent related passages are all taken to mean that this portrays the Lord invisibly enthroned there. Although yos@b (not actually in Exod 25:22) has repeatedly been rendered as enthroned (e.g., 1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; 2 Kgs 19:15; 1 Chron 13:6; Ps 9:11[12]; 80:1[2]; 99:1; Isa 37:16), we must ask whether this is always justified. Because this is such a widespread assumption and so potentially contradictory for the

presence theology of the OT, it is important to evaluate it in the light of the picture we have in the text of the OT. Surveying all relevant OT texts, there is no indisputable example of yos@b juxtaposed with an earthly throne (or enthronement rituals) in reference to the Lord,

although the word is persistently used in describing Yahweh’s dwelling on earth or in heaven. yoséb is usually translated “to dwell” or “abide” (> # 3782) and occasionally “to sit,” yet in no clear case is yoséb found with the Lord dwelling on an earthly throne. In fact, the only place in the OT the Lord is unambiguously said to dwell upon a throne is in heaven (Exod 17:16; 1 Kgs 22:19; Isa 6:1; 66:1, heaven is throne, earth is footstool; Ps 99:5, mountain is footstool; Ps 103:19; Ezek 1:26). Even if the ark could be

associated with the imagery of a footstool (poetic language in Ps 132:7-8 makes the association somewhat ambiguous), it does not necessarily imply the cherubim are his

505

TITS (#778) throne, for nowhere is this expressed. (Needless to say, if the ark is a footstool, then it

can not also be a throne.) The Lord is indeed king in Israel, he reigns, and some see royal imagery surrounding the sanctuary. However, the only way it would seem appropriate to understand the passages with ydseb juxtaposed with kapporet or k°ribim as enthronement is if we can establish that either is actually a throne or seat of some kind unique in the biblical testimony. But there is no warrant, linguistic or otherwise, for construing the atonement coyer as an earthly throne. There also is no example in which the word kissé’ is linked with the ark itself, its cover, or the cherubim. (The closest association

with enthronement and the sanctuary are the passages that suggest Jerusalem or the sanctuary is Yahweh’s throne, but there is no hint that either the ark, atonement cover itself, or the cherubim 1s a throne.)

In light of the complex portrayal of God’s being and presence in the OT, we might ask whether “to sit” is the most adequate rendering in English of the texts that . show the Lord is yoéb upon a heavenly throne. It can be granted that if the intention was only to provide a metaphor or picture, then “to sit” might convey the best meaning. But supposing there is more than meets the eye here, perhaps something significant is being said about the presence of the Lord in his abiding dwelling at his throne in heaven

and his relationship (transcendent-immanent)

to the ark and its atonement

cover. These conclusions may pose a problem for the tradition-historical postulation that there are underlying enthronement conceptions with regard to the ark (which become polarized with the tent and then syncretized by P in the Israelite cultus). The portrayal is dynamic (e.g., Yahweh is present immanently, yet he is not bound to one locale for he is transcendent) and cumulative (e.g., he is king and holy Lord, the ark points to the covenant law, the cover indicates the need for atonement before him and his law, the cherubim witness to his glory). He both meets and dwells with Israel at the

ark as he manifests himself from heaven. The images are complementary, not polarized. An eminently relevant subject is OT theophany (>), which can only be defined here tentatively as a localized, immanent manifestation in time and space of God’s transcendent and invisible omnipresence for a specific purpose. The dominant themes in this manifestation of God are his holiness, power, and presence. Various types of theophany indicate diverse purposes, contexts, and individuals, considering the personal nature of Yahweh himself. 6. In conclusion, the theology deriving from the ark suggests cumulative motifs and functions. For example, the gold of the molding and the gold-covered acacia poles, the gold cherubim, and the gold-overlaid ark relates to the holiness of God. And while God is indeed perceived throughout the OT as king of Israel, the full weight of the imagery conveys the requisite need for sanctification and purity in the presence of a holy God. The holiness of those who approach Yahweh is critical to sustaining the covenant with Yahweh, a covenant that involved the conditionally abiding presence with Israel and the meeting presence for revelation in the Holy of Holies. The idea of a promise, or pledge of presence, is never far from the essence of the meaning of the ark. Nevertheless, the promise was not a corporeal presence, for God is incorporeal and invisible, and may be understood more in terms of the covenant promise, “I will be with you” (Gen 26:3; 31:3; Exod 3:12; Josh 1:5; Isa 43:2) and “I will be your God, and

506

TI98 778) you will be my people” (Gen 17:7; 26:24; Exod 6:7; Lev 26:12; Jer 7:23; 11:4). God is faithful to his covenant; he will be with Israel, upon the conditions of the testimony, not forsaking them. The personal knowledge of Yahweh reverberates throughout these promises. For example, Exod 29:42-46 suggests that the polarizations so often assumed are doubtful, for here we find the inseparable threads of meeting and dwelling alongside the implicit centrality of the law and ark (atonement), the ongoing need for consecration (the glory), and the abiding knowing of Yahweh (covenant promise). All these “suggest that any disentangling of proposed polarized theological traditions may only be hypothetical. Rather, what this text reveals is an overt and intense concern for the holiness of Yahweh, the need for atonement in his presence and before his covenant law,

and the indisputable theological continuity between the motifs of Yahweh meeting Israel and of Yahweh dwelling with Israel. The primary concern is not the manner of the presence but rather its covenantal conditions in light of the character of Yahweh. A final important question is whether we can establish a link between the law tablets in Exod 24:12-18, which are closely related to the glory theophany on Sinai, and the ark of the testimony in Exod 25. If so, then we can establish a relationship

between the glory and the law testimony. And if there is a definite relationship between the glory and the ark, then the long-standing tradition-historical polarization (tent means manifestation-glory-presence versus ark means enthroned-dwelling-presence) will not stand. The law is kept (by all accounts) in the holiest of places in its most highly protected interior of the ark of the testimony. This law is the word of the covenant, which is related to the sanctity of the meeting place, which in fact is the reason for the extraordinary measures taken to secure that sanctity: the glory of Yahweh’s presence and holy character represented by the law must be guarded. This law is given in glory theophany on the mountain and is expressly referred to as the testimony, therefore indicating a link between the glory and the law. Further references to the testimony in Exod 26:32-34 show that the presence of the ark is often assumed. The giving of the law is enshrouded in the glory manifestation on Sinai, and the stipulations for the ark are given in that glory, henceforth inseparably linking the law tablets to the ark and the glory. Also, in the final setting up of the tabernacle (ch. 40) the glory fills the sanctuary after the construction of the ark with its cherubim cover and the tabernacle have been completed. The glory and the tabernacle with its ark link the glory and the word of Yahweh; at the place of meeting before the law and cherubim the glory of the Lord is revealed. Meeting and glory are part and parcel of the covenant law (ark) and the covenant promise (dwelling); both motifs find a

complementary and cumulative relationship in the desert sanctuary. Another example from Exodus indicates that the tent has significance insofar as it houses the ark, which is important in relationship to the testimony within and the cover above (Exod 31:7). We do not have a coalescence of polarized ideas but complementary ideas: the tent is the place of meeting because it contains the meeting place at the ark, or more precisely ark cover, and it contains the testimony itself. Once again there is the atonement aspect of the cover that represents the need for holiness before the testimony law in meeting with Yahweh, as well as his divine forbearance through

the blood of atonement. The law motif and the meeting motif are inseparable; the concepts are distinct and complementary. 507

78 @ 778) P-B

1. Although there are two words in Heb. (%rén and tébda), the LXX

renders

them both with kibotos. This G word for ark suggests any boxlike container, regardless of its construction, and is used uniformly throughout. (Although the two Heb. words are both translated as ark, téba@ always refers to a water-worthy vessel and ’“rén is always a box of some kind.) 2. With what appears to be an interpretative emphasis, the LXX introduces the ark in Exod 25:9[10] as kibdton martyriou (an ark of the testimony), even though the MT does not have ha‘édiit in the context. Previous references in the LXX translate articulated tébd as the ark, and subsequently it renders the ark (kibotos) with an article (25:21; 26:33, 34; 30:26; 35:12; 40:3, 20) and often with a pl. martyria, indicating the

presence of the ten words (whereas the Heb. ‘édiit is singular). However, in Exod 25:10 the LXX stresses the unique role of this box: It would house the very tablets of the law and serve as a symbol of the Lord’s presence. Although the LXX usually combines testimony (martyriou) with the ark, there is further evidence in Exod 30:6 of this emphasis, where the testimony is uniquely genitive pl. kibdtou ton martyrion, clearly suggesting the ten words within. Exod 30:26 also gives a striking emphasis on the testimony by translating both the tent and the ark with the expression “of the testimony” in a parallel sequence, whereas the MT has two words—the tent of meeting, ’ohel mo ‘éd, and the ark of the testimony, ’“r6n ha‘édut. Heb. m6‘éd in combination with

skéné (approx. 130x), and ‘édiit (approx. 35x) is rendered in the LXX as martyrion.

The G nom. has assimilated both meanings, shifting the emphasis from the meeting to the covenant revelation. (This emphasis may not be satisfactory in some cases, where the emphasis is on the meeting and presence of Yahweh rather than just the law testimony.)

Exod 31:7 also suggests a close relationship between the testimony and the covenant. The LXX translates testimony as the ark of the covenant, diathékés, for the first time (though the same is attested as a var. in 25:14). The expression occurs 23x in the

LXX. The MT reads ’ét ’6hel mé ‘éd w®’ et-ha’ aron 1a ‘édut, the tent of meeting and the ark of the testimony. Also, at 27:21 the diathékés is put in the tent of meeting, skéné tou martyriou, showing this close relationship, as well as the link between meeting,

mo‘éd, and testimony, ‘@dut. This holds interesting implications for any attempt to polarize the meeting (tent) from the testimony (ark). See also 39:35[14] (cf. this with MT ’“r6én ha‘édut, where the LXX also renders it tés diathékés). Other examples in the LXX are Deut 10:8; 31:9; 31:25; Josh 3:3, 6, 8, 13[MT reads the ark of Yahweh], 14, 15[MT reads only ark], 17; 4:9, LO[MT reads only ark]; 1 Kgs 2:26[MT reads, ark of

the Lord God]; 1 Chron 15:25, 26. In these examples the LXX favors the covenantal idea and consistently understands the ark of the testimony in that light.

NT _ 1. The NT shares the LXX synonymous rendering of kibdtos for both the arks, that of Noah (tébd) and the ark of the covenant (’“r6n), as well as its emphasis on the covenant. 2. The nom. kibdtos (# 3066) occurs 6x, 4x in reference to Noah’s boat (Matt 24:38; Luke 17:27; Heb 11:7; 1 Pet 3:20) and 2x in reference to the ark of the covenant (Heb 9:4; Rev 11:19). The form kibdtos occurs only in kibdtos tés diathékés, the box of the covenant (elsewhere it is kibdton). The ark of the covenant is described once as

present in the heavenly temple (Rev 11:19), and once as located in the Most Holy Place

508

JIS

778)

in the original tabernacle, containing the law tablets, Aaron’s staff, and the gold jar of manna (Heb 9:3-5). 3. In continuity with the OT, the NT relates the ark of the covenant to the holi-

ness of Yahweh and his law: He meets Israel on his terms of both justice and mercy. There is the need for proper atonement for sin before a holy God and his covenant law (Heb 8:3-5). Yet, justice is met mercifully through substitution. As the tabernacle is echoed in “he tabernacled among us” regarding Christ’s incarnation (John 1:14), so also the ark’s role in the yearly blood atonement for Israel’s sin, as well as the complex of sanctification rituals surrounding the presence of Yahweh at the ark, point to Christ’s substitutionary death on the cross (Heb 7:27), his resurrection, and his ascension into heaven (Heb 1:3; 4:14; Mark 16:19). In this new covenant the Most Holy

Place is now opened through a perfect Mediator (1 Tim 2:5; Heb 5:9; 7:28; 9:11-12). The tabernacle is called a “copy and shadow” of what is in heaven (Heb 8:5; cf. Col 2:17), for the covenant promises could not be complete in an earthly sanctuary (John 2:19). Much more would be necessary for the eternal restoration of Adam’s fallen race: i.e., “he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb 9:12, 26, 28; cf. Rom 3:25). 4. The new covenant also resolves the complexities of the age-old immanence/transcendence dilemma: As God was present in heaven and on earth, manifest-

ing himself at the ark before the law and over the cherubim, his condescending and immanent-abiding presence in the tabernacle at the ark foreshadowed his incarnate presence in Jesus Christ. “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (eskéndsen, i.e., he tented, or tabernacled, John 1:14). The unity of the glory and the

dwelling of God are seen here. The covenant promise “I will be their God, and they will be my people (reiterated in Heb 8:10b; esp. 2 Cor 6:16) is thus fulfilled in Christ saying, “I will be with you” (John 13:33). That is, though “no one has ever seen God,” the Son has revealed the Father (John 1:18). In the story of redemption history God’s relationship with humankind is restored in the new covenant (1 Cor 11:25). Yet that is not the end of the matter, for the promise extends into the present in

that “he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence” (Heb 9:24). There is also the fact that believers (and the church) have become the dwelling place of the Lord in a new way (1 Cor 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:22). And further, the promise extends forever, when “the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ,” where he will reign on his throne forever and ever, world without end (Eph 3:21; Rev 7:15-17; 11:15; 22:1-5). The final meaning of the sanctuary and its

ark is fully disclosed: “And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away’” (Rev 21:3-4). It is there in his heavenly temple that redeemed humanity, before the throne of the Lord (distinct from the ark of the covenant), finds its ultimate place in his glorious presence (Rev 11:19). Tabernacle, tent, temple: > ’dhel (tent, tent-dweller, #185); > d°bir I (Most Holy Place, # 1808); > mé‘éd (meeting-place, assembly, tent of meeting, # 4595b); > migdas (sanctuary, # 5219); ~ mixkan (sanctuary, #5438); > paroket (curtain in front of Most Holy, #7267);

509

TIN(# 780) + sukké (tabernacle, tent, hut, shelter, Theology

#6109); > Aaron: Theology, ~ Priests and Levites:

BIBLIOGRAPHY

DCH 1:93-94, 372; TWAT 1:391-404, 512; J. Blenkinsopp, “Kiriath-Jearim and the Ark,” JBL 77, 1969, 143-56; A. Campbell, “Yahweh and the Ark: A Case Study in Narrative,” JBL 98, 1979, 31-43; G. H. Davies, “The Ark in the Psalms,” in Promise and Fulfillment, 1963, 51-59; idem, “Ark of the Covenant,” IDB 1, 1981, 222b-6a; R. L. DeWitt, Teaching From the Tabernacle, repr. ed., 1991; M. Dibelius, Die Lade Jawes, 1923; J. Dus, “Die Thron- und Bundeslade,” Thz 20, 1964, 241-51; Y. M. Grinzt and H. Freedman, “The Ark of the Covenant,” EncJud, 3:459-66; J. Gutmann, “The History of the Ark,” ZAW 83, 1971, 22-30; G. Hancock, The Sign

and the Seal: The Quest for the Lost Ark of the Covenant, 1992; M. Haran, “The Disappearance of the Ark,” JEJ 25, 1961, 211-33; idem, “The Ark and the Cherubim: Their Symbolic Significance in Biblical Ritual,” JEJ 9, 1959, 30-38, 89-98; O. Keel, The Symbolism of the Bible World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms, 1978; P. H. Kelly, “Israel’s Tabernacling God,” RevExp 67, 1970, 485-94; A. R. S. Kennedy, “Ark,” HDB 4, 1963, 653-68; J. A. Kitchen, “Ark,” NBD, 1984, 82; E. Klein, ITS” A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of English, 1987, 54; G. F. Knight, “Ark,” The Oxford Companion to the Bible, 1993, 55-56; J. O. Lewis, “Ark and Tent,” RevExp 74, 1977, 537-48; W. Lotz, M. G. Kyle, and C. E. Armerding, “Ark of the Covenant,” ISBE, 1979, 1:291-94; H. G. May, “The Ark—A Miniature Temple,” AJSL 52, 1935-36, 215-34; L. B. Mainz, “BD kipper . . .’ TDOT 7, 1995, 288-303; J. Morgenstern, The Ark, the Ephod, and the “Tent of Meeting,” 1945; R. Niebuhr, “The Ark and the Temple,’ Beyond Tragedy, 1937, 47-48; E. Nielsen, “Some

Reflections on the History of the Ark,” Law, History, and Tradition: Selected Essays by Eduard Nielsen, 1983, 59-70; J. B. Pritchard, The Ancient Near East in Pictures, 1969; G. von Rad, “The Tent and the Ark,” The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays, 1966, 103-24; H. Schmidt, “Kerubthron und Lade,” Eucharisterion fiir H. Gunkel, 1923, 120-44; R. Schmitt, Zelt und Lade

als Thema alttestamentlicher Wissenschaft: Eine kritische forschungsgeschlichtliche Darstellung, 1972; C. L. Seow, “The Designation of the Ark in the Priestly Theology,” HAR 8, 1984, 185-98: idem, “Ark of the Covenant,” ABD,

1992, 1:386-91; W. H. Shea, “The Travels of the

Ark of the Covenant,” Archeology and Biblical Research, 3, 1990, 73-79; C. Siegfried and S. Stade, Hebrdisches Worterbuch zum Alten Testamente, 1893, 16; K. Van Der Toorn and C. Houtman, “David and the Ark,” JBL 113/2, 1994, 209-31; J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel, 1958; J. W. Wevers, LXX: Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus, 1990; T.

Worden, “The Ark of the Covenant” Scrip, 5 1952, 82-90; M. Woudstra, The Ark of the Covenant From Conquest To Kingship, 1985; H. F. Griefswald Zobel, “T98 ’4r6n,” TDOT 1974, 1:363-74. Stephen T. Hague

780 OT

Tas

TIS Cerez), cedar (# 780).

The nom. ’erez is a common term (ca. 73x) for cedar. The Greek term is kedros,

which is etymologically related to the English word cedar. Possibly the Heb. term is generic and refers to several varieties of evergreens as well as the famous cedars of Lebanon (of which there are several varieties).

A cedar is a huge, flat-topped evergreen tree that can grow to heights of 100 feet with a trunk circumference up to 40-50 feet. In Ezek 31:3-5 it is described that ‘“‘t

510

Ma (# 782) towered higher than all the trees of the field; its boughs increased and its branches grew long.” The timber is fragrant, valuable, rot resistant, and knot free. It can be quite hard, close grained, and full of resin. It is used in the imagery of the flourishing righteous (Ps 92;12[13]). The word is usually mentioned with admiration; Solomon listed it first in his

_

botanical observations (1 Kgs 4:33[5:13]). It is called the glory of Lebanon (Isa 35:2; 60:13) and was noted for its strength (37:24). Its height was famous (2 Kgs 19:23; Amos 2:9). It was excellent and desirable (S of Songs 5:15). The wood was used in the construction of David’s house (2 Sam 5:11), of Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 5:6-10[20-24]), and of ships (Ezek 27:5) and idols (Isa 44:14). Sennacherib boasted of his ascending the mountains of Lebanon to cut cedars (2 Kgs 19:23). Cedar is twice mentioned for ritual cleansing (Lev 14:4; Num

19:6). In each

case it is listed with hyssop and scarlet yarn/wool. The reason for the use of cedar is not given, but cedar wood was prized for its aromatic qualities. Also it should be noted that cedar seems to symbolize the tallest plant life in contrast to hyssop, the lowliest. Perhaps a merism is involved here. The contrast between cedar and hyssop is also brought out by Rabbi Isaac bar Tanlai, “You were proud like the cedar ... but the Holy One humbled you like the hyssop that is crushed by everyone” (Midrash Hagadol, Metzora, 14). Trees: — “eld I (mighty tree, #461); > ’erez (cedar, # 780); > dren I (pine, # 815); > ’ésel (tamarisk, # 869); > b°rds (juniper, # 1360); > Jaz I (almond-tree, #4280); > ‘és (trees, tree, wood, timber, sticks, #6770); ~ ‘ar‘ar (juniper, #6899); — sammeret (acacia, [tree-]top, #7550); — Sagéd (almond, #9196); > Sigma (sycamore-[fig-] tree, #9204); > ¢°’aSSar (cypress, #9309); > tamar J (date-palm, # 9469); > tirzd (unknown tree, #9560); (> Tree of

Knowledge/Life: Theology) Larry L. Walker

789

moN

FATS (rh), g. be on the road, wander (#782); MIN (drah), nom. way, path, dam, barrier, man-

ner (of women), way one should go, behavior, proceeding (# 784); MITTIN (‘orhda), nom. caravan (# 785). The vb. form occurs only a few times, rarely with anything but a literal meaning. ANE The Akk. cognate nom. urhu almost always refers to a literal road or pathway, though the metaphorical usage is not unknown (AHw, 15:1429). OT 1. Like derek, its nearest synonym, ’6rah can refer to the ways of God, either in general (Ps 25: 4, 10; 44:18; 119:15; Prov 15:10; Isa 2:3; Mic 4:2) or in such phrases as

“way of life” (cf. Ps 16:11; Prov 2:19; 5:6; 10:17; 15:24) or “straight path” (Ps 27:11).

Thus, there is the prayer that Yahweh will reveal his ways (Ps 25:4), ways that bring his steadfast covenant loyalty (hesed) and reliability (’“met) to those who walk in conformity to his covenant (25:10). He who forsakes the way of Yahweh, however, can expect severe discipline, even death (Prov 15:10). Isaiah (2:3) and Micah (4:2) speak

of a glorious future day when all of God’s people will be taught his ways (derek) and walk in his path (’drah). The major difference between ’drah and derek (and other

511

FS

782)

synonyms) is that ’6rah speaks more of one’s condition or state than of action (TDOT 31281). The ultimate destination of the way of the Lord is life (Ps 16:11), so those who miss the way miss life as well (Prov 2:19). Such is the fate of those who are led astray by the alien woman; that is, the harlot (Prov 5:6; Whybray, Wisdom in Proverbs, 1965, 47-48). That path goes downward to Sheol, but the wise one takes the upward route, the one that leads to life (15:24).

2. Human life as a whole is called ’6rah.

Job complains that God has qe up

his way (’drah) so that he cannot pass and has made his pathway (n°tibad) dark (Job

19:8). The psalmist rejoices, on the other hand, that Yahweh searches out his path (drah) and knows all his ways (derek) (Ps 139:3). It is those who acknowledge him as God and Lord whose paths will be made straight or level (Prov 3:6).

More particularly, the path of the righteous is described as one incorporating justice (miSpat, Prov 2:8; 17:23; Isa 26:8; 40:14) and uprightness (yoSer, Prov 2:13; 15:19; Isa 26:7). Those who traverse it are called the “righteous ones” (saddigqim, cf. Prov 2:20; 4:18; 8:20; 12:28). Those who miss it, the wicked, are on another path alto-

gether, the “old way” as Eliphaz describes it (Job 22:15). It is this way that the psalmist says he has tried to avoid in order that he might observe the word of Yahweh, that is,

remain true to his covenant demands (Ps 119:101). Through that word he gains understanding and comes to recognize the falsity of the pathway of the sinner (vv. 104, 128). For just as the way of righteousness leads to life, so that of wickedness leads to darkness and death (Prov 1:19; 4:14-19). 3. The theological significance of the terms for journey (ascent, descent, march, walk) and path (step, track) lies primarily in their use as metaphor for life as relationship and pilgrimage within a covenant context. Thus, just as John Bunyan described the Christian life as the progress of a pilgrim on his way to the Heavenly City, so the OT speaks of life as a whole, and the experience of the righteous and the wicked specifically, as movement from a point of beginning to a goal or objective either sought by the traveler or inevitably reached by him with or without his planning for it. Journey, going, marching, walking, wandering: > ’rh (be on the road, wander, # 782); > ’sr I (walk straight, # 886); > drk (tread, march, # 2005); > hilk (go, walk, behave, # 2143); > zAlI

(slide away, #2323); > ys’ (go out, come forward, #3655); > yrd (go down, go up, descend, # 3718); > massa‘ (setting out, #5023); > nht (march down, descend, settle, # 5737); > s’n (tramp along, tread, #6008); > ‘dh I (stride, # 6334); > ‘lh (go up, ascend, bring up, # 6590);

> ps" I (step forth, march, #7314); > s‘d (step, march, #7575); > Swr I (descend, caravan, # 8801) Path, way: > ’rh (be on the road, wander, #782); > derek (way, distance, journey, manner, #2006); > madréga (steep way, #4533); > m®silla (highway, #5019); > ma‘gal II (track, # 5047); > mix‘6l (hollow way, #5469); > natib (path, #5985); > pls I (clear way, make a path, #7142); > S“bil (path, # 8666); > 5p?I (track, #9155) BIBLIOGRAPHY

M. Held, “Hebrew bay A Study in Lexical Parallelism,” JANESCU 6, 1974, 107-16; N. Waldman, “God’s Ways—A Comparative Note,” JOR 70, 1979, 67-72.

Eugene H. Merrill

pie

MMAN# 786) 784 (drah, way, path, dam, barrier, behavior), > #782

785 (6rhd, caravan), > # 782

786

nna

MMA

(4ruha), (food) allowance, (daily) portion

(6x; # 786; HALAT 84b).

- ANE _ Cognates occur in the Akk. vb. arahu II, devour, consume (AHw 1:63b; arahu B in CAD, A/2, 222a-b); and the Aram. nom. ’rh, food (cf. Panammuwa II, KAI, #215, line 18 [so Driver, 62, contra KAI, 2:224)]).

OT — Contrary to earlier Heb. lexicographers, the Heb. nom. ’*ruhd is not related to the root ’rh, hasten one’s way, wayfare (> #782; cf. arahu I, be hurried, hasten [AHw, 1:63a-b; arahu A in CAD, A/2, 221a-22a]). The nom. seems to refer to one’s daily

meal. Upon Jeremiah’s release at Ramah from among the captives to be taken to Babylon, the commander of the guard (Heb. rab-tabbahim, < Akk. rab-tabihu, chief of the slaughterers [AHw, 2:938a D 1; 3:1376b]), Nebuzaradan, “gave him [Jeremiah] an allowance of food (’*ruhd) and a present and sent him forth” (author tr.) (Jer 40:5).

Likewise, after Jehoiachin was released from prison in Babylon by Evil-Merodach (i.e., Amel-Marduk), Jehoiachin “ate food regularly before him [Evil-Merodach] all the days of his life. Now as for his allowance (wa’?ruhat6), a regular allowance

(“ruhat tamid) was given him each day by the king all the days of his life" (author tr.) (2 Kgs 25:29-30; Jer 52:33-34; cf. Neh 5:14, 18). Such allowances were evidently a

type of royal or official grant. A proverb offers the only instance where this nom. is used in a nonofficial setting: “Better a (daily) portion of vegetables where there is love than a fattened calf with hatred” (author tr.) (Prov 15:17). Food: portion, provision: > ’k/ (eat, consume, devour, # 430); > ’*“ruhda (allowance, #786); > lehem (food, bread, # 4312); > pat-bag (food-quota, table-ration, #7329); > syd (provision oneself, outfit 0.s, # 7472) BIBLIOGRAPHY

G. R. Driver, Review of Zum Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt: Ausgewdhlte Aufsdtze, by W. Baumgartner, in JTS NS 12, 1961, (61-64) 62; L. Koehler, “Zum hebrdischen Worterbuch des AT,” in Studien zur semitischen Philologie und Religionsgeschichte, FS J. Wellhausen, ed. K. Marti, BZAW 27, 1914, (243-62) 252-53; E. R. Weidner, “Jojachin, Kénig von Juda, in babylonischen Keilschrifttexten,” in Mélanges Syriens offerts 4 monsieur René Dussaud, 2 vols., FS R. Dussaud, Bibliotheque archeologique et historique 30, 1939, 2:923-35; Z. Yeivin, “Food: The

Biblical Period,” EncJud 6, col(s). (1414-18) 1415. Robert H. O’Connell

787

‘

as

"7S (272) (#787), 128 Caryeh) (#793), nom.

lion; AN (Caryeh) #10069), nom. lion

(Aram.). ANE

1. The word “77 is related to Akk. e/arii, eagle (the “lion” of the sky); ESA

’rw, ibex. The noms. ’@r? and abi’ may be dialectical variations emanating from the Mycenaean re-wo (Gliick). ’aryéh accords with the Egyp. rw; Eth. ’arwé, wild beast;

513

"IN(# 787) Berbian awar,

Cushite ar; Arab.

’arwiyat, collective wild beasts; but probably not

Akk. armii, mountain goat. Both ’*ri and ’aryéh are African lions. k“pir is attested only in Heb. (mostly poetry) and may not specify a younger lion. /abi’ (with [“biyya’, lebe’,

lib’@) corresponds to the Akk. /abu; ESA /b’, Arab. labu’ (masc.) and lubwa (fem.);

Egyp. rw; Ugar. lb’, a lion goddess (‘bdlb’t) and may designate the Asiatic lion. Layis I is related to Akk. neu, Arab. lait; Jud. Aram. léta’. The word ‘ayis (or ‘a§) in Job 9:9 and 38:32 is the name of a constellation identifiable as Leo only on questionable Arab. evidence. Ancient versions are confused; modern ones call it the Bear (Arcturus). It

may be Aldebaran, part of the Hyades, which is close to the Pleiades and Orion (Jud. Aram. yita’; Driver, 1-2). Referring to young animals, gir I/gdr correspond to Akk. gerru, young predatory beast; Moab. grn, gr(t); Syr. girya’, young lion, Arab. gurw, predatory beast, young dog; Jud. Aram. young dog (cf. Lam 4:3). Sahal accords with Ugar. Shi and Jud. Aram. Sahla’, but its derivation and precise meaning are uncertain, though OT contexts support “lion.” For 5’g (#8613) and 5°’agd, cf. Ugar. tigt and Arab. ta’aga. In postbiblical Heb. n‘r is the cry of donkey; cf. Arab. na‘ara, snoring, rattling, roaring. 2. Upper and Lower Egypt knew many lion cults, and from ancient times lions have been used to represent rulers, especially kings. Figures of lions guarded temples and thrones. The Sumerian and Akkadian pantheons in Mesopotamia feature lions as symbols of strength and ferocity. Rulers likened themselves to lions and used their images to adorn their gates, temples, palaces, and thrones.

OT 1. Animal. (a) Hebrew has many words for lion: "18 (r?) (# 787), 78 (aryeh) (# 793), nom. lion; 79/53 (gar I/gdr), nom. lion cub (# 1594/# 1596); VDD (k*pir), nom. lion, young lion (# 4097); x5 / mya? (lebe’/lib’d), nom. lion(ness)

(hapleg.; #4216/hapleg.; #4218); 8°22 / 8°25 (lab?’/°biyya’), nom. lion(ness)

(# 4233/hapleg.; # 4234); wD (layi¥ I), nom. lion (# 4330); WY (‘ayis), nom. lionness, bear? (hapleg.; # 6568); Smw (sahal), nom. lion cub (# 8828). For related vbs., see INW (5g), q. roar (of lion) (# 8613); (cf. TAN [s°’agd], nom. bawling, groaning [# 8614]);

Wd (n‘r I), g. growl (of lion) (hapleg.; # 5849). (b) Lions appear in the prose account of Samson. Based on his experience of killing a lion with his bare hands and later finding honey in the carcass, Samson posed a riddle to his thirty wedding companions, “Out of the eater, something to eat; out of

the strong, something sweet’ (Judg 14:14). The “answer” is actually a question, “What is sweeter than honey? What is stronger than a lion?” (14:18). The possible wordplay between the Heb. ’“r?, lion, and an equivalent of the Arab. ‘ary, honey, may have been unknown to the companions who found the riddle impossible to solve without the inside information that Samson’s wife extracted from him. The entire episode serves to emphasize the mismatch of Samson’s physical strength and weakness of his constitution as well as the incompatability of the Israelites and Philistines. People developed a reputation by killing lions. Samson was known for his strength (Judg 14:5-7). David slew a lion while taking care of the flock (1 Sam 17:34-37). Benaiah, as a “valiant fighter,” killed both a lion (ri, 2 Sam 23:20 | 1 Chron 11:22) and two of Moab’s “best men” (’“riél, K, lit. “lion of God,” actually a technical term for military leaders, Braun, 7 Chronicles, 158). Lions also appear as man-eaters sent by Yahweh in the cases of the disobedient prophet (1 Kgs 13:24-28), the disobedient companion of one of the sons of the 514

"NS (# 787) prophets (1 Kgs 20:36 [’aryéh]), the settlers in Samaria who did not worship Yahweh (2 Kgs 17:25-26 [’aryéh]), and the Moabites (Isa 15:9 [’aryéh]). God, however, protected Daniel in the den of lions, which then devoured the false accusers and their families at the king’s command (Dan 6:7-27[8-28]). Like other ancient kings but with

more grandeur, Solomon adorned his temple with lions, his throne having twelve (1 Kgs 7:29, 36; 10:19-20 || 2 Chron 9:18-19). Lions were known to live in remote places (S of Songs 4:8; cf. Job 28:8, Sahal). (c) Most references to lions occur in poetry and figures of speech; although lions inhabited Palestine, people were more affected by the presence of leopards. In a reversal of the Exodus, foolish Israel would travel through the hazards of the desert inhabited by the lion (/ab?’) and lioness (/ayi5) to seek help from Egypt, its former captor (Isa 30:6). For their rebellion, the leaders of Jerusalem would be attacked by lions, wolves, and leopards (Jer 5:6 [’aryéh]). The messianic future will see the lion and other predatory animals peacefully coexisting with the domesticated, even becoming herbivorous themselves (Isa 11:6-7 [’aryéh]; 65:25 [’aryéh]; cf. 35:9 [’aryéh]). The motif of a world turned upside down on both social and cosmic levels is fairly common in the ANE and the Bible (Prov 30:21-23; Amos 5:18, 20; 8:9; see Van Leeuwen). Although

Calvin saw in these Isaianic texts a prediction of mere kindheartedness among Christians, the language poignantly depicts a utopian situation in which Yahweh has turned the presently chaotic world rightside up (cf. Rev 21:4-5). The cherubim in Ezekiel’s visions had a lion on one of their multiple faces (Ezek 1:10 [’aryéh]; 10:14 [’aryéh]; 41:19 [kpir]), and Daniel dreamed of a flying lion representing a kingdom (Dan 7:4).

2. The lion as a figure for the nation and its heroes. Jacob’s blessing promised Judah to be the leader of the tribes and likened him to a lion (gir, ’aryéh, labi’, Gen 49:9); note fulfillment in the Davidic dynasty (cf. Rev 5:5). Balaam’s second and third

oracles affirmed Yahweh’s presence with Israel, who is compared to a ravenous lion (ri) and lioness (/abi’) whom Balak would be foolish to disturb (Num 23:24; 24:9). When Moses blessed the tribes of Israel, he compared Gad to an aggressive lion and called Dan “a lion’s cub, springing out of Bashan” (Deut 33:20, 22 [’aryéh]). The Gadites who defected to David had “the faces of lions” (1 Chron 12:8[9]; ’aryéh). Strong and brave fighters were likened to lions (2 Sam 1:23; 17:10 [’aryéh]). Ezekiel called the mother of Israel’s princes a lioness (/“biyya’) who reared her two cubs (gir)

into strong lions: one (Jehoahaz of Judah) whom Pharaoh Neco deported to Egypt, the other (Jehoiachin) to Babylon (Ezek 19:2-9). When Israel “lay down among the young lions,” it adopted the cruel ways of neighboring Gentile nations (Ezek 22:25; Zeph 3:3), but assimilation led to ruination. Not content to oppress their own, God’s people even roar against Yahweh himself, inciting his hatred (Jer 12:8 [’aryéh]). In a great reversal, however, after the exile remnant Jacob would become like a ravaging lion

(aryéh) in the forest and a young lion (k“pir) among the flock (Mic 5:8[7]); the Messiah would thus dominate the Assyrians, whose rulers often compared themselves with lions (5:6[5]; cf. Rev 5:5).

3. The lion as a figure for the enemies. (a) Israel’s psalms often use lions in simile and metaphor to represent one’s enemies who are usually unspecified, but may be either particular individuals or nations (Cush, a Benjaminite, 7:2[3]; ‘aryeh; Saul, 57:4[5]; labi’; the Babylonians, 74:4 [5’g]). These foes are likened to lions who are hungry, lie in wait, roar, and tear their prey (7:2(3); 10:93 17:125'22:13[14]; 57:4[5];

515

7S(# 787) k°pir; 74:4 [8’g]). The psalmists plead for rescue (22:21[22]; 35:17 [k©pir]; 58:6[7]; k€pir). One’s complaint sometimes takes the form of “groaning” like a lion (5° gd, nom. groaning, Job 3:24; Ps 22:1[2]; 32:3, and 5’g, q. groan, Ps 38:8[9]). The text of Ps

22:16[17], “they have pierced (ka’“r7, lit. like a lion) my hands and my feet (NIV)” is uncertain and hermeneutically difficult. (b) In prophetic literature, likewise, rulers and nations that oppose Israel are like lions who roar and growl (Isa 5:29 [abi’]; Jer 2:15 [k°pir]; 4:7; 50:17; 51:38 [kpir; n‘r I]; Ezek 32:2 [k*pir]; Amos 3:12 [k°pir]; Zech 11:3). In Joel, these forces appear like locusts as well as a lion (1:6 [’aryéh; labi’]), two animals that were compared to each other in the ANE (Dillard, Joel, 258-59). Since Assurnasirpal, Sargon II, Sennacherib,

Esarhaddon, and other Assyrian kings compared themselves to lions, it is wholly appropriate when Yahweh satirically mocks Assyria as being a lion that would soon be deprived of the prey it once held in abundance (Nah 2:11-13[12-14]).

4. The lion as a figure for Yahweh. Not surprisingly, as sovereign over all, Yahweh likens himself to a lion roaring at the earth. While he expresses his anger against Gentile nations like Edom and Moab (Jer 49:19; 50:44; Joel 3:16[4:16]), he most often

roars (s’g) against his own people who have broken covenant (Isa 31:4; Jer 2:30; 25:30, 38; Hos 5:14; 13:7-8; esp. Amos

1:2; 3:4, 8). As a lion roaring before attacking

its prey, Amos prophesied that Yahweh will roar from Zion, signaling impending judgment on the northern kingdom, which had become like the nations. In the idiom of theophanies that terrify, Yahweh “lifts up his voice” (NIV appropriately, thunders) from Jerusalem (Amos 1:2). No longer a protective shepherd (Hos 4:16), he comes as an attacking enemy into the pastures of the north. The southern kingdom, however, was hardly immune to judgment, for it had rejected the stipulations of its covenantal relationship with Yahweh and would experience consuming fire (Amos 2:4-5). While fire is a common metaphor of judgment (Ps 21:9; Isa 9:19[18]; Matt 3:10; Rev 20:14-15), the fire sent from Yahweh against Jerusalem was all too real, being kindled

in 587 BC by Nebuzaradan, a commander under Nebuchadnezzar II, king of Babylon (2 Kgs 25:8-10). In Amos 5:19 the image of a man fleeing a lion only to meet a bear criticizes the pseudo-security that Israel found in its practice of religion void of justice and righteousness. Occasionally, Yahweh is portrayed as a lion confronting particular individuals (Job [Job 10:16]; Hezekiah [Isa 38:13]; Jeremiah [Lam 3:10]). In spite of

Yahweh’s ferocity against his enemies, he will use his lion-like strength to safeguard his people (Joel 3:16[4:16]); his roar will even signal their return from dispersion (Hos 11:10). He thus acts as both predator and protector. 5. Proverbs likens a king’s anger to a lion’s roar (19:12; 20:2; 28:15). Given the scarcity of lions in society, the sluggard’s fear of them is as baseless as his laziness (22:13; 26:13; cf. 28:1). Eliphaz’s use of the image of disadvantaged lions illustrates the principle of retribution (Job 4:10-11). The lion is famous for his might (Job 37:4; Prov 30:30), yet dependent on God for food (Job 38:39; Ps 104:21). Superiority over lions emphasizes the superlative character of God’s favor on the righteous (Ps 34:10[11]; 91:13; Eccl 9:4).

P-B Ben Sira said, “I would rather live with a lion and a dragon than live with an evil woman” (25:16), and the Maccabean soldiers were likened to lions (1 Macc 3:4; 2 Macc 11:11). 4QpNah interprets the lion imagery of Nah 2:12-13[11-12] with reference to the first century BC conflicts between Demetrius III and the Pharisees, and

516

78 #799) between Alexander Janneus and the Sadducees. Like in the OT Psalter, 1QH uses lions metaphorically to indicate the enemies of the righteous (5:7, 9, 13, 19). NT Inthe NT /eGn (lion) symbolizes evil men and the devil as well as Christ (2 Tim 4:17; 1 Pet 5:8; Rev 5:5).

.

Animals: > b°hémd (quadrupeds, #989); > zanab (tail, #2387); - A“zir (pig, #2614); > hayyé I (animal, #2651); > keleb (dog, #3978); > ‘akbar (mouse, # 6572); > s°pardéa‘ (frog, #7630); > gippod (hedgehog/owl?, #7887); > rms (creep, swarm, #8253); > Srs (swarm, teem, # 9237); > tan (jackal, #9478); > Reptiles: Theology; see the Index for Birds; Camel; Deer; Donkey; Dove; Flock; Gazelle; Insects; Lion; Maggot; Snake, etc. BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABD 6:1109-67; IDB 3:136-37; ISBE 3:141-42; NIDNTT 1:113-19; TDOT 1:371-88; THAT 1:225-28; TWAT 1:404-18; F. S. Bodenheimer, Animal and Man in Bible Lands, 1960, 1972; R. Braun, / Chronicles, WBC

14, 1986; R. B. Dillard, “Joel,” in The Minor Prophets I, 1992; G. R.

Driver, “Two Astronomical Passages in the Old Testament,” JTS, 7, 1956, 1-11; J. J. Gliick, “ri and /@vi’—an Etymological Study,” ZAW 81, 1969, 232-35; J. Niehaus, “Amos,” The Minor Prophets I, 1992; J. R. Porter, “Samson’s Riddle: Judges XIV 14, 18,” JTS 13, 1962, 106-9; R. Van Leeuwen,

“Proverbs

30:21-23

and the Biblical World

Upside Down,” JBL

105, 1986,

599-610. Robert C. Stallman

793 (aryéh, lion), > #787

“18 Crk 1), gq. be, become long; hi. lengthen, extend;

live long, be long

(#799);

nom./adj.

"|S Carek), slow (# 800) ; 18 Carok), extended, long-lasting (# 801); JIS (orék), length (# 802).

ANE The Heb. ’rk is cognate with Ugar. ’rk; Akk. araku; Arab. ’araka, delay, and Eth. arga, become old. OT 1. The vb. as well as the nom. refer to measurements, whether of distance (ark, Gen 6:15; altar, Exod 27:1; temple, 1 Kings 6:2; Ezek 40:21) or of time (Gen 26:8; Num 9:19; Job 6:11).

2. A theological use of the vb. occurs in the hi. in the expression: lengthen or extend one’s days. It is God in whose hand is the power to extend life (Deut 5:33[30]; cf. 2 Kgs 20:1-6; Ps 91:16). It is within wisdom’s capacity to extend days (Prov 28:16;

cf. 3:16). To God belongs the right to shorten life or to grant long life (a sign of divine blessing). The latter is contingent on obedience to God’s laws. God threatens that peoples’ days will not be prolonged when they resort to the corruption of idolatry. Observing God’s decrees, as, for example, honoring one’s parents (Deut 5:16) and doing business with integrity (Deut 25:15), brings the promise of an extended life (Deut 4:40; cf. 5:16; 6:2; 11:9). The individual who hates ill-gotten gain “will enjoy a long life” (Prov 28:16). 3. The term ’erek ’appayim, descriptive of Yahweh, appears in credo-like statements about God (Exod 34:6; Num 14:18; Neh 9:17; Nah 1:3; cf. Joel 2:13). The idiom, an expression for long-suffering, is literally “long of nose” (’ap, > #678). God 517

JAAN 810) takes long to become angry. This characteristic, coupled with God’s steadfast love (Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2), is praised in the Ps (86:15; 103:8; 145:8). 4, Wisdom literature extols the individual who is not hot-tempered or quick to become angry. Such a person has great understanding (Prov 14:29) and is in a position to calm a quarrel (15:18). To be patient and forbearing, in Heb. idiom, is to “lengthen the spirit’ (cf. Job 6:11). The disciplined, restrained patient person is to be preferred over the one who takes a city (Prov 16:32). Extending: # 5742)

> ’rk I (become long, #799);

> yit (hold out, extend, #3804);

> nth (extend,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

IDB 3:150; NIDNTT 2:769; TDNT 4:376-79.

J. A. Thompson/Elmer A. Martens 800 ('arék, slow), > #799 801 (arok, extended, long-lasting), > #799 802 (orek, length), > #799

806 (“ram, Aram),

810

> Aram

Pas

AAS (‘armon) guardroom (of place, temple),

citadel (#810); #8227). OT = ’armén, guardroom, is variously translated: “palace” in some passages (2 Chron 36:19; Isa 23:13), “citadel” (1 Kgs 16:18; 2 Kgs 15:25; Ps 122:7; Isa 34:13), and “fortress” (Amos 1:4, 7, 10, 12, 14). Palace, temple:

> ’armon (citadel, #810); > bird (citadel, acropolis, #1072); > bayit I (house, dwelling, building, family, dynasty, # 1074); > hékal (palace, temple, #2121) W. J. Dumbrell

812 ('?rammi, Aramaean), > Aram 815 (dren I, pine), > #6770, Vegetation

817 Carnebet, hare), > #2651

824 ANE.

ys

YoOS (eres), nom. fem., earth, land (# 824).

Akk. ersetu; Ugar. ’rs cf. TDOT 1:388-92.

OT Occurring some 2505x, ’eres has a broad range of meaning, from the whole earth, through particular countries, especially the land of Israel, local districts, the soil, to the ground inside a tent (Josh 7:21). Theologically we will concentrate on ae two dominant senses: the earth and the land of Israel.

518

YIN# 824) A. The Earth 1. Universality and sovereignty. Though it is not always clear whether ’eres means “earth” or “land,” the expression kol-ha’ ares frequently means the whole earth, rather than just “the whole land” (cf. Gen 1:26; 11:4, 8, 9; Ps 8:1[2], 9[10]). Combined

with “heaven(s),” Samayim, the phrase “heaven and earth” expresses the totality of the created order, as the opening verse of the Bible summarily expresses it (Gen 1:1; cf. 2:4). As creator, Yahweh is thus the universal God of heaven and earth (Gen 14:19, 22; © 24:3; Ps 102:19[20], 25[26]; 115:15; 146:6; Isa 48:13) and can indeed “summon” them as witnesses to his historical dealings with Israel (Deut 32:1; Ps 50:21; Isa 1:2; Mic

6:2). The fact that Yahweh is universal Creator gives stability and durability to the world (tébél, > #9315;

1 Sam 2:8; Ps 78:69; 89:11[12]; 93:1; 96:10). It also means

that Yahweh’s sovereignty extends throughout the whole earth, by right of ownership—it is “his whole world” (Prov 8:31), “the whole earth is mine” (Exod 19:5; cf. Ps

24:1; 95:4-5). This concept can also be expressed by calling Yahweh the Lord of the whole earth (Josh 3:11, 13; Ps 97:5; Mic 4:13), the judge of the whole earth (Gen 18:25; Ps 94:2; cf. Isa 24), and king over all the earth (Ps 47:2, 7[3, 8]), or by stating that Yahweh’s glory fills, or is over, the whole earth (Ps 57:5, 11[6, 12]; 72:19), or simply that Yahweh “fills heaven and earth” (Jer 23:24). The great “power encounter” between Yahweh and Pharaoh is intended to demonstrate that “the earth is the LORD’s” (Exod 9:29), and indeed that there is no God like Yahweh “‘in all the earth” (Exod 9:14-16). From their unique historical experience, Israel was meant to learn the uniqueness of Yahweh: incomparable throughout the universe (Deut 4:32, 39). (> br’, create,

# 1343). 2. Human dwelling. While God’s universal ownership is the basic truth, the more direct fact is that the earth is where human beings live. “The highest heavens belong to the LorD, but the earth he has given to man (b°né-’G@dam)” (Ps 115:16). The earth is there to be “filled” by God’s human creation (Gen 1:28), and God’s rich provision of the resources of the earth and its climate are for human benefit (Gen 1:29; 9:1-3; Job 28:5; Ps 65:9-13; 67:6). The link between humanity and the earth is even clearer in the creation tradition that God fashioned man (’Gdam) from the dust of the earth (’*“damd) (Gen 2:7). The earth, then, while belonging ultimately to God who made it, is entrusted to humanity, to serve (‘bd) and keep (Smr) (Gen 2:15). Though the

reference is to the garden of Eden, the principle applies to human stewardship of the earth. Furthermore, just as God “walked” in the garden with his human companions (Gen 3:8), so the promise of God to an obedient people was that he would “walk” among them in their land as in his own dwelling place (Lev 26:11-12, using the same unusual hitp. form of Alk, stroll, > #2143; as in Gen 3:8), and the ultimate vision of

the Scripture is of God finally dwelling with humanity in the new earth (Rev 21:3). 3. Curse and covenant. Before the realization of that vision, however, humankind lives in the earth, which is under God’s curse as a result of sin. God’s sentence

upon Adam included the declaration, “Cursed is the ground because of you” (Gen 3:17-19). Significantly, ’“damG is used, indicating that the curse primarily affects human relationship to the surface of the earth—i.e., the soil on which we live and from which we eat. This is reinforced in the punishment on Cain, who is “cursed from the ground” (Gen 4:11-12, ’“damd; Cain sees himself as driven from the land, "4damd, and thus a wanderer on the earth, ‘eres, v. 14). ’“damd is also used in the longing for respite

Sg

PANS G 824) from the curse on the “ground” (NIV), expressed in the naming of Noah (Gen 5:29). In the specific case of Israel, the effect of the curse under the covenant would be felt most

clearly on the land (cf. Deut 28:18, 21, 33, 42, 51—all using ““damd). If the curse is related particularly to the earth as the place of human cultivation, the effects of human sin and pride are manifest in the earth (eres) as a whole. This is seen in two contexts particularly in the primal history; namely, the narratives of the Flood and the Tower of Babel. The whole earth had become “corrupt and violent” in God’s sight; this is the verdict of Gen 6, in which ’eres is used repeatedly (e.g., vv. 5,

6, 11-13, etc.). The picture is of universal sinfulness corrupting the earth and leading God to a virtual reversal of creation (v. 17). The same universal perspective frames the Babel story (Gen 11:1-9; NIV varies “world” and “earth,” but the Heb. is consistently kol-ha@ ares). The primal history thus reaches its climax with “the face of the whole earth” serving as the arena for human scatteredness and confusion.

In both cases, God responds not merely with judgment, but also with covenant promise, and in both cases the respective covenant affects the whole earth. After the Flood, God announces virtually a new creation, for animal and human life on the earth (Gen 8:17; 9:7, both ’eres). This is then confirmed in the Noahic covenant, which is

repeatedly affirmed to be with “all life on earth”; indeed it is, says God, “between me and the earth” (Gen 9:13, and the whole context, 8:21-9:17, in which ’eres is repeat-

edly used). In this covenant God promises to preserve the conditions for life on earth “as long as the earth endures” (Gen 8:22). Humanity, therefore, lives in the ambiguity of an earth that is both under curse and under covenant, a tension that Paul resolves

eschatologically in Rom 8:19-22. And after the debacle of Babel, God’s response is the covenant with Abraham, which not only includes the promise of specific land to his people (Gen 12:7), but through him promises blessing to “all peoples on earth” (kol

mixp* hot ha’“dama, Gen 12:3), or “all nations on earth” (kdl gdyé ha’ ares, Gen 18:18). The Abrahamic covenant thus becomes the foundation of the biblical theme of God’s redemptive mission. 4. Personification or metynomy. Because the earth is so closely intertwined with the relationship between the personal God and his human personal creation, it is often portrayed in personified terms. It is important to recognize this as literary or rhetorical personification, which expresses God’s action in or through the world, or creation’s role in relation to God, or the effects in nature of human action in relation to

God and each other. It is not a personalizing of the earth as such or a divinizing of the created order. When personified, ’eres can refer to the whole earth, to the land of Israel, or to

their inhabitants depending on the context, which is usually clear. Thus, the earth trembles under God’s anger (Ps 18:7; Isa 13:13), but also rejoices at the coming of his recti-

fying judgment (Ps 96:11-13; 98:7-9). It bears witness to his acts and words (Deut 32:1). Human evil and injustice make the earth (land) mourn (Hos 4:3) and cry out and weep (Job 31:38), and, most vividly of all, even vomit (Lev 18:25-28).

5. The ends of the earth. In his covenant with Abraham, God promised that all nations of the earth would be blessed through him. This divine purpose for the earth through the agency of Israel developed an eschatological motif regarding “the ends of the earth.” The phrase is used to translate both sing. and pl. forms of the Heb. gaseh, end (> #7895); qasa, end (> #7896). Since the sovereignty of Yahweh as universal

520

VOUS & 824) Creator extends over the whole earth, he can be called “creator of the ends of the earth” (Isa 40:28) and is therefore totally capable of carrying out his will anywhere in between. Likewise, he can be expected to “judge the ends of the earth” (1 Sam 2:10); his name and praise reach to the ends of the earth (Ps 48:10[11]); and Israel’s experi-

ence of Yahweh’s salvation makes him “the hope of all the ends of the earth” (Ps 65:5[6]). Among those things that will reach the ends of the earth are Yahweh’s name and praise (Ps 48:10[11]; Isa 42:10), the fear of God (Ps 67:7[8]), knowledge of God’s rule (Ps 59:13[14]), the salvation of God (Ps 98:3; Isa 49:6; 52:10), and the proclama-

tion of his redemption of his people (Isa 48:20; 62:11). Messianic texts include the Davidic king being granted the ends of the earth (Ps 2:7[8]) and the greatness of the ruler of Israel from Bethlehem reaching to the ends of the earth (Mic 5:4[3]). Ps 72, which clearly was written for the Davidic king, celebrates his reign in language that is extravagant unless heard in an eschatological key, not only including the ends of the earth in the extent of his rule (v. 8), but explicitly echoing the Abrahamic promise of blessing to all nations (v. 17) and envisaging the “whole earth” being filled with Yah-

weh’s glory (v. 19). Alongside this “centrifugal” perspective, the phrase is also used “centripetally” to portray people from the ends of the world coming to Yahweh (Jer 16:19), turning to him for salvation (Ps 22:7; Isa 45:22; cf. also Isa. 2:2-5; 60:3; 66:18, 23), or singing his praise (Isa 24:14-16; 42:10), an ingathering that parallels (and in the NT is linked to) God’s gathering of his own people from the ends of the earth (Jer 31:8; cf. Deut 30:4). Eschatologically, the expectation that Yahweh’s

light, salvation, knowledge,

and glory would go to the ends of the earth is particularly strong in Isaiah (Isa 48:20; 49:6; 62:11), though not confined to this book. Alternative expressions also include "epes (end, > #700; e.g., 1 Sam 2:10; Ps 22:27; Isa 45:22; 52:10; Jer 16:19; Mic 5:4) and ’Gsil I (farthest corner, > #721; only in Isa 41:9).

Though not using the term “ends of the earth,” another series of texts in the Deuteronomic history expresses similar universal hope in the desire that all peoples, or the whole earth, will come to know the name of Yahweh as the only God (Josh 4:24; 1 Sam 17:46; 1 Kgs 8:41-43, 60; 2 Kgs 19:15, 19). 6. New creation. The natural climax of such an eschatological, missiological

vision is that, when the nations of humanity are transformed into redeemed worshipers of Yahweh, then the earth itself will be transformed, mainly by the lifting of the deleterious effects of the curse. Accordingly, pictures of the new age of Yahweh’s unhindered reign and the people’s perfect obedience include the transformation of the earth and nature by the removal of all that harms or frustrates (Isa 11:1-9; 65:20-25). Ulti-

mately this leads to the vision of a transformation of the whole created order. In Isa 65:17 Yahweh declares, “Behold, I will create (béré’, lit., am creating) new heavens and a new earth,” which is not only a significant echo of the opening verse of Genesis,

but interesting in its use of the participle rather than the imperfect. The new creation is not merely a future event, but something God is engaged in bringing about now (cf. Isa 66:22, making). The NT reflects the same hope (Rom 8:19-22; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15; 2 Peter 3:13; Rev 21:1, 5).

52d

PANG 824) B. The Land 1. Divine ownership. The land on which Israel lived forms one of the primary theological and ethical foci of the faith of Israel and of the OT scriptures. And so the first surprising thing is that it is hardly ever referred to in the OT itself as “the land of Israel,” ’eres yisra’él (meaning the whole land, as distinct from the territory of the northern kingdom of Israel). The expression occurs in 1 Sam 13:9 in the context of the Philistine oppression, Ezek 40:2; 47:18 (geographical), and 1 Chron 22:2; 2 Chron

2:17 (referring to aliens in the country). Ezekiel uses ’admat yisra’él, perhaps deliberately avoiding the more politically territorial ’eres (Ezek 11:17; 12:19; 13:9). Much more often it is referred to as the land “of Canaan,” “of the Canaanites,” or “of the

Amorites” long after the settlement, as though intentionally to keep Israel aware that it had not always been their land. They owed it to Yahweh’s promise and gift. It is also possible that the strange reticence to use the phrase ’eres yisra’él may be due to the greater awareness that it was, and remained, Yahweh’s land.

Lev 25:23 is the clearest expression of Yahweh’s ownership of the land, basing the regulations for inalienability and redemption of family land on the affirmation “for the land is mine” (ki-l? ha’ ares) (Wright, 1990, 58-64). Elsewhere, however, it is called “the LORD’s land” (Isa 14:2, using ’“damd; Josh 22:19, using ’eres and ’“huzzd); “my land” (2 Chron 7:20; Isa 14:25; Jer 2:7; Ezek 36:5; 38:16; Joel 1:6; 3:2); “his land” (Deut 32:43; Isa 36:18 [in the mouth of the Assyrian commander]; Ezek 36:20 [in the mouth of the nations]). The concept of divine ownership rests, however, not only on

possessive word forms, but also on the prominent description of the land as Yahweh’s “inheritance” (> nah“ld I, #5709) (1 Sam 26:19; 2 Sam 14:16; Ps 68:9[10]; 79:1; Jer 2:7), a term used to describe family property. Possibly the earliest reference to the land as belonging to Yahweh actually predates the invasion of the Israelites. In the Song of Moses there is advance celebration of the arrival of the Israelites on “the mountain of your inheritance” (nah“lat®ka) and “the place...for your dwelling” (Exod 15:17). The mountain probably stands for the whole land and affirms Yahweh’s ownership of it even before the Canaanites have been dispossessed. 2. Divine gift. The other side of the coin of Yahweh’s ownership of the land is that he gifted it to Israel in the great historical-redemptive tradition. From the original promise of the land to Israel’s ancestors (Gen 12:7; 15:18-21, etc) to its possession under Joshua, and at many points in the story in between (e.g., Exod 6:8; 34:10-11; Deut 1:8 and passim), the theme of land promise and gift undergirds the narrative. The gift of the land was the tangible proof of Yahweh’s faithfulness and dependability and therefore called forth the response of gratitude and worship (Deut 26:1-11). Von Rad rightly distinguished these two dimensions of Israel’s land theology (i.e., divine ownership and divine gift), regarding them as cultic and historical conceptions respectively. But his view that they came originally from independent traditions has not been generally accepted (Wright, 1990, 5-13). This double-sided land theology generated in Israel a strong basis for ethics in general, and economic ethics in particular. In the law, for example, the fact that Israel had experienced alien status in Egypt, but now had a land of their own by God’s redemptive grace, is the motivation for just and compassionate treatment of aliens in their own land (Exod 22:21[20]; 23:9; Deut 10:18-19). In the prophets the great historical land-gift tradition puts Israel’s oppressive and exploitative behavior in a bad light

522

TN

824)

(Amos 2:9-10; Mic 6:1-5). So much of the moral, didactic rhetoric of Deuteronomy is

predicated on the gift of the land and on the need to follow an ethical lifestyle both in response to the gift and in order to prolong the enjoyment of it. In particular, Israel’s whole economic system, including the equitable division of land to the tribes, clans,

and families, the principle of inalienable family inheritance, the institutions of redemption of land and of sabbatical and jubilee years, and all the many mechanisms for the relief of poverty and restoration of the poor to participation in the blessings of the land, was based on Yahweh’s moral sovereignty in the economic sphere as the ultimate landlord (Wright, 1990, 119-73). 3. Land as “fulcrum”

in the covenant relationship. Given its intimate relation-

ship to both Yahweh and Israel (described, e.g., as the “inheritance” of both), the land

functions as a midterm in the relationship between them. The description of the land as Israel’s inheritance underlines the status of Israel as Yahweh’s “firstborn son” (Exod 4:22), a relationship that partly parallels but also surpasses the covenant metaphor (cf. Jer 3:19; Wright,

1990, 15-22). Israel’s behavior on the land determines Yahweh’s

response to Israel in the land, and the land will “respond” to both. The king’s just and benevolent government, for example, would bring environmental and agricultural benefits to the land (Ps 72:2-4, 12-16). But the people’s social evil made the land mourn (Hos 4:3). In the end, as threatened, the land that had vomited out the Canaanites for their wickedness repeated the performance on the Israelites (Lev 18:25-28), and the loss of land symbolized the broken covenant relationship between Yahweh and the people to whom he had given it. Part of the threat of the covenant curses included exile from the land and scattering among the nations (Lev 26:32-39; Deut 28:63-64). Depending, of course, on one’s view of the dating of those documents, Amos either reflected that tradition or was the earliest to predict such disaster for the land, whose

funeral song he sang with great pathos (Amos 5:1-2; cf. 7:11). Jeremiah likewise rejected any automatic security in the land tradition and threatened Jerusalem, the temple, and the land with destruction matching Shiloh because of the rampant violation of the Sinai covenant demands (Jer 7:1-15). And so it happened. But alongside the threat of the covenant curses lay the promise that beyond the judgment of land-loss could lie the future of a return to the land, a symbol again of a restored covenant relationship between a repentant people and God. Lev 26:40-45 significantly makes the land the fulcrum, or midterm, in God’s “remembering”: He will remember the Abrahamic covenant (v. 42a), the land (v. 42b), and the Sinai covenant

(v. 45). Deut 30:4-10 makes the same point with added rhetoric. And again, the prophets add their poetry to the vision of restoration to the land in the context of repentance, obedience, and renewed covenant (e.g., Jer 24:5-7, 30-31; 32:36-44; Ezek 36-37; Hos 2:14-23[16-25]; Amos 9:14-15).

4. Theological and ethical relevance. The theme of earth and land can be seen to flow in two directions in Christian development. On the one hand, the NT provides a Christological fulfillment perspective on the land, as it does on the other great realia of OT Israel. The land, considered as a political territory, receives no theological attention in the NT, though Jerusalem (which in some cases may symbolically include the land) is treated in various ways (Walker). But what the land stood for in Israel’s faith is certainly affirmed as a continuing reality in the Messiah. The language of “inheritance” is prominent in describing the present and future experience of those in Christ (e.g.,

523

“JN (# 826) 1 Peter 1:4; cf. Matt 5:5). In fact, Paul uses land inheritance language to speak of the

inclusion through Christ of those who formerly, by not having a share in the ownership of the land, were excluded from the covenant people, i.e., aliens or “Gentiles” (Eph 2:11-22; 3:6). Hebrews tells Jewish Christians that Christ has granted them the aeesty

that even Joshua’s conquest of the land had not fully achieved—another use of terminology with strong associations with the land (Heb 4:1-11). John redirects interest in the physical mountain of worship to the person of the Messiah (John 4:20-26). Christ himself, therefore, incorporates and fulfills the significance of the land, as he did also

for the law, the covenant, the temple, the king, the priesthood, the prophetic word, Wisdom, etc. (Davies). The effect of this, however, was far from being merely a spiritual-

izing evaporation of all the great social and economic themes associated with the land in the OT. The reality of Christian koindnia in Christ included such practical aspects of inclusion, authority, lifestyle, and socioeconomic responsibility in ways that clearly reflect these same dimensions of Israel’s life in the land (Wright, 1983, 92-102; 1990, 110-114; Martens).

On the other hand, the OT itself prepares the way for an ethical paradigm understanding of the relevance of the land. This can be seen in the way the twin perspectives on the land (divine ownership and divine gift) reflect exactly the same perspectives as regards the whole earth (see A. 1-2). Just as the land was gifted to Israel but remained under Yahweh’s ownership, and therefore his moral inspection, so also the earth as a whole has been entrusted to all humanity, but remains under God’s ulti-

mate ownership. “The earth is the LORD’s.” Accordingly, given the moral consistency of God, it is legitimate to extrapolate from the principles of Israel’s economic values and systems to analogous objectives for social and economic justice elsewhere in the world. This will not be a matter of slavish imitation, but rather of applying a paradigm from Israel’s land, with all necessary adjustments of history and culture, to other lands in which, as human beings, we are entrusted with stewardship of God’s earth (Wright, 1983, ch. 4). Land, earth: > ’“damd (ground, piece of land, soil, earth, realm of the dead, # 141); > ’eres (earth, land, # 824); > tébél (world, # 9315) BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABD 2:245-48; 4:143-54; TDNT 1:677-81; TDOT 1:88-98, 388-405; B. W. Anderson, “The Earth Is the Lord’s: An Essay on the Biblical Doctrine of Creation,” Interp 9, 1955, 3-20; W. Brueggemann, The Land, 1977, W. D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land, 1961; P. Diepold, Israel’s Land, 1972; N. Gottwald, The Tribes of Yahweh,

1979; E. A. Martens, God’s Design:

Plot and Purpose in the Old Testament, 1981; P. D. Miller, “The Gift of God: The Deuteronomic Theology of the Land,” Int 23, 1969, 451-65; G. von Rad, “Promised Land and Yahweh’s Land in the Hexateuch’” in idem, The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays, 1966; P. Walker,

Jerusalem Past and Present in the Purposes of God, 1992; C. J. H. Wright, An Eye for an Eye : Living as the People of God, 1983; idem, God’s People in God’s Land, 1990; W. Zimmerli, The Old Testament and the World, 1976.

Christopher J. H. Wright

396

“Ay

TAN (rr), q., pi. curse; ni., hoph. be cursed (# 826); nom. MINTA(m® éra), curse (# 4423).

524

“TIS (# 826) ANE The Heb. ’rr is cognate with the Akk. araru, curse, treat with disrespect, and its associated nom. arratu (“curse”); cf. CAD 1.II 234-36. There are also cognates in South Arab. and Eth. OT 1. With the ’rr root the curse operates as deterrent and as judgment (> Judgment: Theology). A curse is laid on anyone who dares to rebuild Jericho (Josh 6:26), who gives his daughter in marriage to a Benjaminite (Judg 21:18), or who withholds what has been vowed to God (Mal 1:14). The curse may be formalized by the addition of the phrase “before the LORD” (Josh 6:26; 1 Sam 26:19). When the curse operates as judgment, privation or servitude may be involved. Cain is “under a curse and driven from the ground” because of his fratricide (Gen 4:11), and the scheming Gibeonites are reduced to perpetual servitude for their deception (Josh 9:23; > Joshua: Theology). In their case the probable parallel of the Ugaritic Keret Epic (ll. 111-14), in which the hewing of wood and the drawing of water are both associated with female labor, suggests that they suffered the indignity of a typical Near Eastern effeminacy curse (cf. 2 Sam 3:29 [see REB, NRSV]; Jer 50:37). The q. passive part. ’Grdr occurs 39x in pro-

nouncements of curses of both the deterrent and judicial types, and most conspicuously in Deut 27-28, where long series of curses, in a manner redolent of the Near Eastern vassal treaties, warn against Israel’s defection from the God who has conferred his

benefits on her and has brought her into a covenant relationship with himself. There is an occurrence of the q. pass. part. in the Siloam Tomb inscription (eighth cent.), Il. 2-3 (“Cursed is the man who opens this’’); cf. Gibson, Textbook, 1, 1971, 23-24.

2. There are indications that the mere utterance of a curse was thought to initiate the action thus threatened (cf. Num 22:6, “those you curse are cursed’’), and something

of the sort is implied in the proverbial statement that “an undeserved curse does not come to rest” (Prov 26:2). However, the actual course of the Balaam story contests this

idea. The effectiveness of a curse depends on the status of the speaker and the receptivity of the cursed; moreover, the tendency is for God to be invoked to bring the curse into effect (cf. A. C. Thiselton, 293-99). 3. As noted in the discussion of ’ald (# 457, sec. 4), the curse is not necessarily irrevocable, whether in the ordinary human sphere or in theological usage. It has been argued on the basis of verbal correspondences running from Gen 2:5 to 9:20 that what was imposed in relation to man the “worker of the ground” was, if not undone, at least offset in the case of Noah the “man of the ground,” through the blessing of the seasonal cycle (see P. R. Davies, 35-56). A development in the opposite direction, from blessing to curse, is strikingly evident in the book of Malachi, where 1:6-2:9 has been described as an haggadic exegesis of the priestly blessing of Num 6:22-27 (see M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 1985, 332-34). The prophet takes the key terms of the blessing and converts them into a “destabilizing liturgical mockery,” an “anti-blessing.” He is especially concerned with the name of Yahweh, which the priests were to set upon the people of Israel (Num 6:27) but which was now being dishonored under their auspices (Mal 1:6, 11, 14; 2:2, 5; 3:16; 4:2). In the light of this sat-

ire on the priestly blessing, the references to “curse” in Mal 1:14; 2:2; 3:9 begin to resonate throughout the book.

P-B.

1. The q. passive part. ’Grdr occurs in a curse formula pronounced at Qumran

ceremonies of initiation (see 1QS 2:5, 7), and again in a general curse uttered against

525

WN (# 829) Belial and “all the spirits of his lot” in 1QM 13:4. There are also reconstructed occurrences of the q. pass. part. in several other DSS texts (see DCH 1:397-98). 2. The association of “curse” with poverty, seen as the result of a curse, is already discernible in Prov 28:27: “He who gives to the poor will lack nothing, but he who closes his eyes to them will have many curses (rab m®’ér6t).” Here the LXX has in the second stich “will be in much need (aporia).” At Mal 3:9 (lit. “you are cursed with a curse”) the Vg. renders by “you are cursed with poverty (in penuria),” while Tg. Hag 1:6 renders MT’s “purse with holes in it” by m°’érta’, most probably thinking of a curse of poverty (with MT ndaqiib related to BH ngb I [°apse?) Curse: ~ ’/h I (swear, curse, put under oath, #457); > ’rr (curse, be cursed, # 826), > brk (bless [euph. for curse], # 1385a); > gdp (revile, blaspheme, # 1552); > z‘m (be angry, curse, #2404); > ngb (pierce, bore, distinguish, curse, #5918); > gbb (curse, #7686); > qll (be

slight, swift, appear trifling, treat with contempt, # 7837); > Curse: Theology BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 1:405-18; THAT 1:236-40; S. H. Blank, “The Curse, Blasphemy, the Spell, and the Oath,” HUCA 23/1, 1950-51, 73-95; H. C. Brichto, The Problem of “Curse” in the Hebrew Bible, 1963;

E. Combs, “Has YHWH

Cursed the Ground? Perplexity of Interpretation in Genesis 1-5,” in

Ascribe to the Lord, ed. L. Eslinger and G. Taylor, 1988, 265-87; T. G. Crawford, Blessing and

Curse in Syro-Palestinian Inscriptions of the Iron Age, 1992; P. R. Davies, “Sons of Cain,” inA Word in Season, FS W. McKane, ed. J. D. Martin and P. R. Davies, 1986, 35-56; D. R. Hillers,

Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets, 1964; A. C. Thiselton, “The Supposed Power of Words in the Biblical Writings,” JTS NS 25, 1974, 283-99. Robert P. Gordon

829

wos

WN (’rS), pi. betroth (a wife); pu. betrothed (of a woman) (# 829).

ANE The Arab. nom. ‘aris and the Akk. ériSu mean fiancé, betrothed. The Akk. vb. erésu means desire, request, ask, inquire.

OT 1. The vb. occurs 11x. In the pi. it means to betroth a wife to oneself (see Neufeld, 142, n. 3), probably by paying the bride price (see Ackroyd, 44; Von Rad, 142-43; Mays, 50; Wolff, 52; Andersen

and Freedman,

283; Mayes,

311; Stuart, 59). The

meaning of the vb. is not “to become engaged” in the modern sense (Wolff, 52; Von Rad,

142-43;

Mayes,

311; some

commentators

[e.g., Driver,

1953,

229; Childs,

476-77] speak of becoming engaged, but this is misleading). Rather, the act of betrothal in ancient Israel seems to have been a public, legally binding undertaking upon which the validity of a marriage rested (Mays, 50). The betrothal appears to have been the final step in concluding a marriage, following which the only thing remaining was the consummation (Mays, 50; McKeating, 88). It seems likely that the bride price usually took the form of some kind of payment. However, the evidence suggests that it was possible for a poor bridegroom to substitute the marriage price with service (Gen 29:20, 27-28; Exod 2:21 [?]) or the performance of a daring deed of valor (Josh 15:16-17 [cf. Judg 1:12]; 1 Sam 17:25; 18:20-27 [cf. 2 Sam 3:14]; see, further, Neufeld, 95, 108; De Vaux, 26-27; Baab, 283-84; Plautz;

Hamilton, 563). The payment was made at the betrothal, from which point onwards the

526

WN (# 829) marriage, although not yet consummated, was legally in force (Neufeld, 142-43, 163; Mace, 172-73; McKeating, 88; Anderson, 58; Stuart, 59; Taber, 575; cf. Driver, 1965,

257). In the account of how Lot enjoined the men who were to marry his daughters to leave Sodom before Yahweh destroyed the city, the addressees are described as Lot’s sons-in-law (Gen 19:14). Samson’s betrothed is also referred to as his wife (Judg 14:15; 15:1). Betrothing a wife, therefore, seems to have been equivalent to marrying her (Exod 22:16-17[15-16]; Deut 20:7; 22:23-29; 28:30; 2 Sam 3:14; see Smith, 266;

Baab, 284; McKeating, 88; Stuart, 59). The equivalence of betrothal and marriage is also reflected in Matt 1:18, 20, 24-25, which shows that Mary’s betrothal to Joseph made her his wife, even though they did not have sexual relations until after the birth of Jesus (Baab, 284).

(a) The rules laid down for waging holy war (Deut 20:1-20; cf. 21:10-14; 23:9-14[10-15]; 24:5; 25:17-19) are characterized by compassion and humanitarianism. For example, a man who had betrothed a wife but not yet married her was temporarily exempted (for a year, according to 24:5) from his obligation for military service (20:7; see, further, Gurewicz; Landman [24-27]). It was an ancient and widespread belief in ANE societies that a bridegroom, and anyone else who had something to inaugurate, was particularly vulnerable to demonic influences. Men in this position were taboo and excluded from military service in the interests of (magical and ritual) purity,

which was believed to be essential for the protection and effectiveness of the army (Von Rad, 132; Thompson, 220-21; Mayes, 291). In Deut, however, the motive for relieving a fiancé from military service is

humanitarian. In the deut. laws governing holy war, the important aspects of normal life are given precedence over the requirements of the army (Craigie, 274). These laws, which also sought to curb extremes in warfare (including bestiality, unrestrained vandalism, and cruelty; see Von Rad, 133; Rofé, 37; Olson, 95), exhibit a strong concern

for individual humanity and for the environment in the midst of preparations for an enterprise that resulted so often in their destruction (cf. Miller, 160). Some (e.g., Nelson, 227; cf. Phillips, 135) maintain that these regulations with their utopian and idealistic tone were directed at those who had suffered from the adventurism of their kings,

who needed their confidence in Yahweh’s protection restored and who could be persuaded to restructure the practice of warfare along traditional lines. However, others (e.g., Craigie, 270-71) take the somewhat idealistic and unrealistic character of this legislation to be indicative of the antiquity of the passage which, it is argued, reflects a relatively early stage in the conquest of the land east of the Jordan. (b) In the regulations governing holy war, a man who had betrothed a wife, a man who had built a new house, and a man who had planted a new vineyard were temporarily exempted from military service (Deut 20:5-7). In 28:30, however, Israel is warned that, as a consequence of disobedience, all such exemptions would be canceled

in order to meet the advance of an overwhelmingly powerful foreign nation. Moreover, nothing would prevent the defeat of Israel, and those who would normally be exempted from fighting but who would be recruited into military service would be killed (see Craigie, 345). Members of the enemy army would ravish the wives betrothed by Israelites, occupy the houses built by Israelites, and enjoy the fruit of the vineyards planted by Israelites. Here, Israel is warned that whereas adherence to the covenant brings life,

527

WN (# 829) blessing, security, and well-being, breach of the covenant leads to frustration, chaos, and eventually death (Davies, 1964, 281).

(c) The marriages of kings in Israel and elsewhere in the ANE often had a political import (see Tsevat; Taber, 574), and those of David are no exception (see Levenson and Halpern, who argue that marital politics played an essential role in David’s rise to power). In order to strengthen his claim to Saul’s throne as the son-in-law and, hence, legitimate successor of the late king, David demanded from Ishbosheth, Saul’s

son, the return of Michal, whom David had betrothed at the price of a hundred Philistine foreskins (2 Sam 3:14; cf. 1 Sam 18:20-27, according to which David actually paid twice the agreed bridal price). In addition to enabling David to govern in Michal’s stead as Saul’s legitimate successor (Ben-Barak, 16; Flanagan, 1981, 61), the return of

his wife satisfied the condition imposed by David before he would accept the peace treaty brokered by Abner; made amends for the legal injustice inflicted on David when Saul went back on his agreement with David and gave David’s wife Michal to Palti the son of Laish (1 Sam 25:44); and afforded David a role, as husband and potential father, in the destiny of Saul’s house (Flanagan, 1990, 155).

The case of David’s marriage or remarriage to Michal is different from the situation envisaged by the law in Deut 24:1-4 (cf. Jer 3:1; see, further, Ben-Barak; De Vaux, 35; Anderson, 58; Martin, 87), which deals with the remarriage of a woman after her former husband has, of his own free will, divorced her. Given that David had

not divorced Michal and had not been reimbursed the equivalent of the bride price, he was acting strictly within his legal rights by reclaiming his wife (De Vaux, 35; Anderson, 58; Martin,

87). Referring to sources

from Eshnunna,

Babylon,

and Assyria,

Ben-Barak argues that the case of David and Michal is similar to that of the woman in Mesopotamian law whose husband had been taken under constraint, i.e., by force majeure, and who was left without adequate means of support. A woman in this position was allowed to remarry. However, although her second marriage was lawful, she continued to belong, from a legal perspective, to her first husband and should the latter return, then the woman’s second marriage was immediately and incontestably invalid and she had to return to her first husband. (d) Adopting the metaphor of marriage to portray graphically Yahweh’s covenant relationship with Israel, Hosea preaches a gospel of God’s redeeming love (May and Metzger, 1088). As punishment for adulterating the worship of Yahweh with the immoral fertility rites of Canaanite Baalism, Israel will be made to suffer public shame and personal privation (Hos 1:2-9; 2:2-13[4-15]). Ultimately, however, Yahweh is gracious and merciful (Exod 34:6; Num 14:18; Neh 9:17, 31; Ps 103:8; Jer 32:18; Jon 4:2), and his grace and compassion prevail over his anger (cf. Mic 7:18) (Andersen and

Freedman, 263). After taking disciplinary action against his unfaithful wife, Yahweh will woo her back (Hos 2:14[16]), remove the Baals (2:17[19]), establish a universal covenant (2:18a[20a]; cf. Lev 26:6; Isa 11:6-9; Ezek 34:25-31; Job 5:23), abolish war (Hos 2:18b[20b]; cf. Isa 2:4; Ps 46:9[10]), and betroth her to himself forever (Hos 2:19[21]) in (or with; see Pusey, 21; Stuart, 55, 59; JB; NEB) righteousness, justice, steadfast love, mercy (2:19[21]), and faithfulness (2:20[22]). The old marriage has

been annulled (i.e., the old, conditional covenant violated by Israel has been revoked by Yahweh). Instead of reconstituting the old marriage, there will be a new marriage (i.e., there will be a new, unconditional covenant, the integrity and permanence

528

of

WN (# 829) which will be guaranteed by Yahweh, who will overcome and heal Israel’s faithlessness [Mays, 51-52; Wolff, 55]), and this new relationship will have the qualities lack-

ing in the previous one (Stuart, 59). The threefold repetition of ’r§ in 2:19-20[21-22],

which has an almost incantational effect (Andersen and Freedman, 282), emphasizes not only the fact that Yahweh is effecting both reconciliation and restoration (Stuart,

59), but also the solemnity of the legally binding act of betrothal (Cheyne, 56; Harper, 243; Wolff, 52).

If the five occurrences of the preposition b° are to be translated “with” in the sense of “by means of,” then these qualities by which Yahweh will betroth Israel to himself constitute the bridal price of the marriage that Yahweh will pay (Pusey, 21; Harper, 243; Mays, 51; Wolff, 52-53; Stuart, 59; Knight, 59). However, Andersen and

Freedman (283) do not think that the preposition marks the bride price here. They maintain that righteousness, justice, loyalty, and love (the four greatest attributes of Yahweh) are not once-for-all payments at the time of the engagement, but constitute both what the groom contributes to and what he expects from the marriage relationship. Stuart (59) thinks that the preposition here may well connote both accompaniment (with/in) and payment (with/by means of). The consummation of the marriage and the new (or renewed) state of intimacy between Yahweh and Israel may be suggested by v. 20b [22b], where the vb. yd‘ (> # 3359), which is the most common OT euphemism for sexual relations, occurs (Honeycutt, 1972, 17; Stuart, 60). However,

Mays (52) thinks that it is better to interpret the knowledge of God here as an inclusive theological term for the response expected of Israel to Yahweh’s gracious acts and words. Hosea’s portrayal of the new covenant relationship between God and his people is mirrored in Jer 31:31-34 and in Eph 5:23-32. Terrien (54; cf. Kraft, 454; Hamilton,

566), makes the interesting point that Hosea rejects the idea of marriage as a contract of ownership, according to which the woman is considered to be nothing more than the property of a man, and pictures Israel not as the slave of her master, but as God’s trusted partner and friend. 2. The pass. of the pu. pf. and the pu. pass. part. are both used of a woman who is betrothed. According to Exod 22:16[15], a man found guilty of seducing and having ‘sexual intercourse with a virgin who was not betrothed was ordered to pay the marriage price for her and make her his wife. Should the girl’s father refuse to give his daughter to the man, then the seducer had to pay monetary compensation equivalent to the marriage present for virgins (v. 17[16]). The case is treated in the context of damaged property rather than of family law (Gray, 57). An unbetrothed daughter was considered part of her father’s property, and the law was designed to protect the father’s economic

rights. Compensation had to be made for the fact that the daughter’s value had been diminished as a result of the loss of her virginity (Driver, 1953, 228; Gray, 57; Jones, 133; Honeycutt, 1970, 424; Davies, 1967, 182-83; Hyatt, 240; Cole, 173). In the Mid-

dle Assyrian law (55), the man found guilty of such an offense was treated in a similar, though more severe way (e.g., he was ordered to pay three times the marriage price; see ANET, 185; Rylaarsdam, 1006; Stalker, 231; Davies, 1967, 183; Hyatt, 241).

There can be no denying that women had a subordinate role in Israelite society; that the virginity of a woman seems to have been treated as a value separate from her person (Clifford, 120; cf. Cunliffe-Jones, 129); that the laws regulating sexual behavior

529

WN (# 829) were one-sided and operated from a predominantly male perspective (Nelson, 228);

and that the laws were grievously inadequate in terms of gender equality (Olson, 103).

However, when considering OT legislation, one needs to bear in mind, first, that, in

several significant ways, Israelite society was different from our own, and, second, that Israelite women were afforded some measure of protection from the worst excesses of

male authority and domination (Nelson, 228; Olson, 102-3).

Legislation dealing with seduction or rape is also found in Deut. The seduction or rape of a betrothed virgin was considered adultery and was a capital offense (Deut 22:23-27). However, a more lenient approach was taken in the case of the rape (or seduction; see Weinfeld, 286-87; Mayes, 312-13) of an unbetrothed virgin: the guilty man was ordered to pay the victim’s father fifty shekels of silver and to marry the girl without the option of divorce (Deut 22:28-29). In such a case the father of the girl had no right to veto the marriage (Blenkinsopp, 105). Weinfeld (284-85) maintains that the divergences between the deut. law and its counterpart in Exod indicate that whereas the author of Exod 22:16-17[15-16] was concerned to protect the financial interests of the

virgin’s father by prescribing compensation for the loss of his daughter’s marriage price, the author of Deut was concerned to rectify the moral and personal wrong committed against the maiden by insisting that the offender marry her and by denying him the possibility of divorce. Weinfeld (285) further argues that the fifty shekels that the offender had to pay (Deut 22:29) was not to compensate the girl’s father for the loss of the marriage price, but was a fine for violation of the maiden. However, Phillips (152) suggests that the sum of fifty shekels of silver was probably considered an average bride price; that this amount was paid in order to compensate the father for damages; that the clause preventing the guilty man from divorcing the girl he was obliged to marry was probably designed to be a deterrent; and that the withdrawal of the right of the victim’s father to veto the marriage may have been motivated by the desire to ensure that the father did not later try to pass off his daughter as a virgin. (> Sexual Ordinances: Theology) P-B

In Heb. and Aram. the vb. ’rs means bind, join; betroth; pi. betroth to oneself,

engage in marriage; give away in betrothal; hitp. and nitp. be betrothed (only of the woman). The Heb. nom. ’Gris II means bound, engaged, (especially) tenant (who tills the owner’s ground in exchange for a share in the produces), and the Aram. nom. ’Gr‘s, risa’, ’“ri§a means bound, engaged; field laborer; betrothed. (Jastrow 1:120, 124). Marriage, # 1249); > marriage, # Divorce: >

engagement: ~ ’r§ (become engaged, #829); > b‘l I (marry, rule over, own, hrp IV (engaged, #3072); > h“tunnd (marriage, # 3164); > ybm (consummate the 3302); > kalld (bride, daughter-in-law, # 3987); > mdhar (bridal money, # 4558) grXI (banish, drive out, divorce, # 1763); > k°ritat (divorce, # 4135)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

P. R. Ackroyd, The Second Book of Samuel, CBC, 1977; F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Hosea: A New Translation With Introduction and 2 Samuel, WBC, 1989; O. J. Baab, “Marriage,” DB, Background to the Restoration of Michal to David,” cal Books of the Old Testament (SVT 30), 1979, NJBC,

1990,

94-109;

B.S. Childs, Exodus:

530

T. K. Cheyne,

Hosea

A Commentary,

OTL,

Commentary,

AB, 1980; A. A. Anderson, 1962, 3:278-87; Z. Ben-Barak, “The Legal in J. A. Emerton, ed., Studies in the Histori15-29; J. Blenkinsopp, “Deuteronomy,” in

With

Notes

and

Introduction,

1974; R. Clifford, Deuteronomy,

CBSC,

1889;

OTM,

1982;

MWAN(# 830) R. A. Cole, Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC, 1973; P. C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, NICOT, 1983; H. Cunliffe-Jones, Deuteronomy: Introduction and Commentary, Torch, 1964; G. H. Davies, “Deuteronomy,” in Peake, 1964, 269-84; idem, Exodus: Introduction and Commentary, Torch, 1967; S. R. Driver, The Book of Exodus, CBSC, 1953; idem, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy, ICC, 3d ed., 1965; J. W. Flanagan, “Chiefs in Israel,” JSOT 20, 1981, 47-73; J. W. Flanagan (with A. F. Campbell), “1-2 Samuel,” in NJBC, 1990, 145-59; J. Gray, “The Book of Exodus,” in The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on - the Bible, 1971, 33-67; S. B. Gurewicz, “The Deuteronomic Provisions for Exemption from Military Service,” AusBR 6, 1958, 111-21; V. P. Hamilton, “Marriage: Old Testament and the Ancient Near East,” ABD, 1992, 4:559-69; W. R. Harper,A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Amos and Hosea, ICC, 1966; R. L. Honeycutt, “Exodus,” in BBC, 1970, 1:305-472; idem, “Hosea,” in BBC 1972, 7:1-60; J. P. Hyatt, Exodus, NCB, 1971; H. R. Jones, “Exodus,” in NBC,

1972, 115-39; G. A. F. Knight, Hosea, Torch, 1972; C. F. Kraft, “The Book of Hosea,” in The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, 1971, 451-60; L. Landman, “Law and Con-

science: The Jewish View,” Judaism 18, 1969, 17-29; J. D. Levenson and B. Halpern, “The Political Import of David’s Marriages,” JBL 99, 1980, 507-18; D. R. Mace, Hebrew Marriage: A

Sociological Study, 1953; H. McKeating, The Books of Amos, Hosea and Micah, CBC, 1971; J. D. Martin, “The Forensic Background to Jeremiah III 1,” VT 19, 1969, 82-92; H. G. May and B. M. Metzger, eds., The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1973; A. D. H. Mayes, Deuteronomy, NCBC,

1979; J. L. Mays, Hosea: A Commentary,

OTL,

1969; P, D. Miller, Deuteronomy,

Interp., 1990; R. D. Nelson, “Deuteronomy,” in HBC, 1988, 209-34; E. Neufeld, Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws, With Special Reference to General Semitic Laws and Customs, 1944; D. T. Olson, Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses: A Theological Reading, 1994; A. Phillips, ZAW Deuteronomy, CBC, 1973; W. Plautz, “Die Form der Eheschliessung im Alten Testament,’

76, 1964, 299-304; E. B. Pusey, The Minor Prophets With a Commentary Explanatory and Practical and Introductions to the Several Books, 1891; G. von Rad, Deuteronomy:

A Commentary,

OTL, 1966; A. Rofé, “The Laws of Warfare in the Book of Deuteronomy: Their Origins, Intent and Positivity,’ JSOT 32, 1985, 23-44; J. C. Rylaarsdam, “The Book of Exodus: Introduction and Exegesis,” in JB, 1952, 1:831-1099; G. A. Smith, The Book of Deuteronomy, CBSC, 1918; D.M.G. Stalker, “Exodus,” in Peake, 1964, 208-40; D. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, WBC, 1987; C. R. Taber, “Marriage,” in IDB, 1976, Suppl. Vol.:573-76; S. Terrien, Till the Heart Sings: A

Biblical Theology of Manhood and Womanhood, 1985; J. A. Thompson, Deuteronomy: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC, 1974; M. Tsevat, “Marriage and Monarchical Legitimacy in Ugarit and Israel,” JSS 3, 1958, 237-43; R. de Vaux, Anclsr, 2nd ed., 1968; M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 1972; H. W. Wolff, Hosea, Hermeneia, 1974.

Robin Wakely

830

NOS

MWS (reset), nom. desire, request (# 830); Wd (moras II), nom. wish, desire, aspiration

(# 4626). ANE

The word “reset is attested in Akk. erésu, v. ask, desire; nom. eréSu, eriStu,

OT

1. The nom. “reset, desire, is an hapleg. in the OT, found only in Ps 21:2[3].

wish, desire; and Ugar. ’rst, also probably Arab. ’arS, blood price (Craigie, 189).

The word simply means “ask, request” and, in this passage, it is probably a reference to

a3T

WN (# 836) a prayer, a petition of sorts, that was offered for divine aid and victory prior to battle (Craigie, 190; cf. Leupold, 192). It is used closely with the phrase ta’“bat libbé, desire of his heart, reflecting some similarity (Ps 21:2[3)]).

2. The nom. méra¥ is used in the OT in three different books and conveys two basic meanings: mdérax I, possession or inheritance (#4625), and médras IL, wish, desire, or aspiration (#4626). The issue concerns the Heb. root to which the words belong: yrs, possess (> # 3769), or ’rs/%, desire, request (’“reset). It is clear that in Job 17:11 it must be translated as desires, for the term is used in parallel with zimmd, plans (># 2365), which suggests anticipation (wish, desire) rather than certainty.

The meaning of mdéraS in two other passagaes is that of possession, derived from yrs (HALAT 531). In Obad 17, the close connection in the context with yr¥, possess, points to possession. Likewise, Isa 14:23 points to possession, for Babylon is destroyed and the land becomes a “possession” for the hedgehog and swamps of water. Desire, coveting, craving, delight, happiness, longing, # 830); > hmd (desire, crave, long for, covet, treasure, care, #2911); > hq (desire, longing, lust, #3137); > ~ kaleh (longing, #3985); > kmh (long after, lust for, #4083); > méras II (wish, desire, # 4626); > ‘rg (long

pleasure: > *“reset (desire, request, # 2773); > hps I (want, desire, wish, y’b (long for, yearn, desire, #3277); #4014); > ksp II (desire, long after, after, pant after, # 6864); > 5’/ (ask,

request, wish, # 8626); > t’b I (desire, long after, #9289); > t°Saqd (desire, longing, appetite, # 9592) BIBLIOGRAPHY D. Clines, Job 1-20, WBC,,. 1989; P. Craigie, Psalm 1-50, WBC,

1983; T. Finley, Joel, Amos,

Obadiah, 1990; J. E. Hartley, The Book of Job, NICOT, 1988; H. C. Leupold, The Psalms, 1959. David Talley

oes

wR

WN (’25 1, nom. fire (# 836); WNIT (25 ID), nom.

2

ash, trifle (> #837); MWS (isSeh), nom. offer-

ing by fire (> # 852). ANE 1. The nom. is found in all Sem. languages except Arab.: Akk. ixdtu, fire, fire signal, ignition; Aram. ’Sh, fire; Ugar. ’ St, fire. 2. In Akk. fire is mentioned as giving heat and light. Fire was also used in cultic acts. As known from the Mari texts, fire signals were used to convey messages. Firebrands were used as signs of ownership on animals. Fire played a role in magic as a sign of destruction. The word can also refer to the fever of a sick person. Lightning, as fire that falls, was seen as a natural cause offire. Gods like Gibil and Nusku were lords

of fire, but other gods like Marduk and Nergal were given epithets in connection with fire. 3. In Aram. the treaty between KTK and Arpad mentioned the burning of the king or city by fire (like wax) as a threat or a curse if the treaty was broken (KAI, 222A

35730)

4. In Ugar. fire was a means of destruction used by the gods to secure their own positions (KTU 1. 6 II:33; V:14). Fire served for cooking and roasting (KTU 1. 23:14, 41, 44, 48); it was necessary in the manufacturing of the palace of Baal (KTU 1. 4

VI:22-32). The nom. also refers to the flame of a fire (KTU 1. 2 1:32). In the conflict 382

WN (# 836) between good, and evil, basic principles of the fire cult in the Persian religion, humans should place themselves on the side of good to which fire belongs. Fire is viewed as the protector of the good, divine order of life. In the final judgment fire will be the means employed for the last test, and in the end hell will be purified by fire. OT 1. The nom. has as referents an entity (Gen 22:7; Prov 6:27), the state of conflagration (Deut 5:5; Isa 43:2) and combustion (Isa 37:19), and the visible aspects of it,

such as flame and lightning (Judg 16:9; Ezek 1:4). Contrary to other literary traditions, the origin of fire is not narrated. 2. The method of making a fire is not mentioned. Because of the excessive energy connected with the making of a fire, the starting of a fire on Sabbath day was forbidden (Exod 35:3). Great care was taken to preserve a burning fire to avoid the necessity for rekindling. Such a necessary preservation of fire in hot coals may stand behind Prov 26:21 and Isa 30:14. Abraham apparently carried a piece of burning fire with him when he went to offer Isaac (Gen 22:6) (cf. White, 1-30).

3. Incidental references to fire for domestic purposes are relatively infrequent and standard. Its use was twofold, viz., for roasting/cooking/baking/boiling (Exod 12:8; 2 Chron 35:13; Isa 44:16; 64:2[1]; Jer 7:18) (> Baking: Theology) and for heat-

ing (Isa 44:16). 4. Fire was also employed for melting metal (Exod 32:24; Ezek 22:20) and manufacturing (Isa 54:16). It was used occupationally in processing crude metal ore. It served the dual purpose of burning out dross and melting ore to be molded or minted for useful purposes. Frequently, this refining process served as imagery for God’s action on the wicked (Jer 6:29; Ezek 22:20; 24:12; Zech 13:9; Mal 3:2).

5. The devastating power of insatiable fire was familiar (Job 31:12; Prov 30:16). Those guilty of starting fires that caused damage were punished (Exod 22:6[5]). 6. In civil life fire had both purgative and punitive uses. It was used to combat the contagion of diseases (Lev 13:52, 55), gross sexual sins (Lev 20:14; 21:9), false religions (Deut 7:5, 25; 12:3), and theft (Josh 7:15). A blazing furnace served as execution instrument for the disobedient in Babylon (Dan 3:6).

7. After a military campaign, fire was the instrument for cleansing the spoil taken in war, like gold, silver, bronze, iron, tin, lead, and anything else that could with-

stand fire (Num 31:22-23) (Wright, 213-23). The purgative and preventive role of fire merges with the punitive, especially in the conquest of Canaanite cities under the ban (Num 31:10; Josh 6:24; 8:8, 19; 11:11). The burning of a city with fire was a basic principle of ancient total warfare (Judg 1:8; 9:49; 18:27; 20:48; 1 Sam 30:1, 3; 1 Kgs 9:16), and eventually the same fate fell on Jerusalem (2 Chron 36:19), as Jeremiah had

sadly prophesied (Jer 17:27; 21:10; 22:7; 32:29). The distress of plundering and burning cities in war is sometimes characterized as consuming by fire (Num 21:28). The punishment prophesied for Israel’s enemies often included the burning of cities (Jer 43:12-13; 49:27), expressed with particular effect in Amos

1:4, 7, 10, 12, 14; 2:2, 5;

Hos 8:14, where the concept of holy war probably lies behind the formula “TI will send fire upon...” 8. Altar fires are frequently mentioned in rituals. The sacrifices were burned, completely or partly (cf. Morgenstern). The paschal lamb had to be roasted with fire (Exod 12:8). The remains of animals used in the cult had to be protected from

533

WN (# 836) profanation by burning (Exod 12:10; 29:34; Lev 4:12). Incense was burned on coals of fire and the cleansing power produced by this action was used ritually (Lev 16:12-13). Of particular interest is the legislation for a perpetual altar fire. The fire on the altar of the burnt offering was not allowed to be extinguished (Lev 6:9[2]; 10[3]; 12[5]; 13[6]).

This legislation indicates, according to some scholars, special veneration for a fire of heavenly origin as depicted in Lev 9:24, where fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed the burnt offering—especially if contrasted with the unauthorized fire of Nadab and Abihu (Lev 10:1; Num 3:4; 26:61). More probably, the perpetual flame is maintained as a symbol of God’s presence and human preparedness for perpetual sacrifice. The unauthorized fire of Nadab and Abihu may refer to an improper ritual rather than to an inherently unholy origin or quality (Gradwohl, 288-96; Laughlin, 559-65). There is no hint that the religion of Israel included the worship of fire as such. The sacrificing of children in fire was practiced in Israel (2 Kgs 16:2), but is depicted as sin (Deut 12:31; 18:10). The nom., an offering made by fire, can be applied to any offering that was wholly or partially consumed by fire. Thus it is applied to the burnt offering (Lev 1:9, 13), the grain/cereal offering (Lev 2:3), the fellowship/peace offering (Lev 3:3), the guilt offering (Lev 7:5), and the consecration offering (Lev 8:28).

9. Lightning as fire from heaven is sent out as an arrow/flash by God himself (2 Sam 22:13; Ps 18:12[13], 14[15]; 29:7). Lightning may have been regarded as his servants/ministers who perform certain tasks and who must praise him from the earth (Ps 104:4; 148:8). God sent lightning together with thunder and hail as a plague (Exod 9:23). Related, if not identical to lightning, is the fire of God that fell from the sky and burned up Job’s sheep and servants to test his faith (Job 1:16). The test of fire set by Elijah for Israel to decide between the Lord and Baal (1 Kgs 18:24) was answered by the fall of fire from the Lord (1 Kgs 18:38; see Tromp, 480-502). Elijah’s legitimacy as man of God was confirmed by the fall of fire from heaven (2 Kgs 1:10, 12, 14). When

the temple was dedicated, the presence of the Lord was demonstrated by fire from heaven (2 Chron 7:1, 3). The chariot of fire in the Elijah narrative came down out of

heaven (2 Kgs 2:11; cf. 2 Kgs 6:17). (> Elijah: Theology) 10. Of particular effect was the judgment and punishment of the wicked by divine fire (Ps 11:6; 97:3; Isa 30:30; Jer 21:14; Ezek 20:47[21:3]; Amos 7:4). Improper

rituals were punished by fire from the presence of the Lord (Lev 10:2). The complaining of Israel resulted in punishment by fire from the Lord (Num 11:1-3). The uprising of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram and the 250 Israelite men was punished by fire from the Lord (Num 16:35). According to Gen 19:24 the Lord rained down burning sulphur on Sodom and Gomorrah. Ezekiel prophesied as punishment from the Lord torrents of rain, hailstones, and burning sulphur on Gog and his troops (Ezek 38:22; 39:6). In the

apocalyptic imagery fire brings destruction of one of the beasts (Dan 7:11). 11. God manifested himself externally, among other ways, through fire (> Theophany). Yet his nature is more hidden behind it than revealed. Still it is a sign of the Lord’s grace. God’s presence was made known in fire (Deut 1:33; Isa 66:15), a blazing torch (Gen 15:17), the burning bush (Exod 3:2) and the pillar of fire (Exod 13:21, 22; 14:24; Num 9:15, 16; 14:14; Ps 78:14). Above all, in the theophany of Sinai

the Lord descended on the mountain in fire, accompanied by smoke (Exod 19:18). A cloud covered the mountain and the glory of the Lord settled on Mount Sinai. To the Israelites the glory of the Lord looked like a consuming fire on top of the mountain 534

WN (# 836) (Exod 24:17). All the commandments of the Lord were proclaimed out of the fire on the mountain (Deut 4:12, 15, 33, 36; 5:4, 22, 24, 26; 9:10; 10:4). The theophany in 2 Sam 22:9 (= Ps 18:8[9]) is described as smoke coming out from the Lord’s nostrils; a

consuming fire came from his mouth. The manifestation of the Lord is paired thunder, earthquake, great noise, windstorm, tempest, and flames of a devouring (Isa 29:6; 30:27, 30; Ps 50:3). Through the divine revelation to Elijah on Horeb misconception that the Lord could be identified with a storm god or a fire demon

with fire any was

rejected (Miller, 256-61). The Lord was not in the storm, earthquake, or fire, but in the

whisper (1 Kgs 19:12). In Daniel’s apocalyptic imagery, the Aram. word fire is used to describe the throne of the Ancient of Days (Dan 7:9-11). (> Theophany: Theology) 12. The nom. is used figuratively in the form of comparisons and metaphors to describe God’s jealous zeal (Ezek 36:5; Zeph 1:18; 3:8), his wrath (ap, > #678; Deut 32:22; Ps 89:46[47]; Jer 4:4; 21:11; Lam 2:4; Nah 1:6), his anger (Jer 15:14; 17:4; Ezek 21:31), his tongue (Isa 30:27), his words (Jer 5:14; 21:9; 23:29), and his judgment (Ps 21:9[10]; Lam 2:3; Amos 5:6). Perhaps the strongest metaphor to express the

judgment character of God is the equation of God to a consuming/devouring fire (Deut 4:24; 9:3). This is not to say that he is a personification of an element, but that he watches over obedience to his will with fiery zeal. The statement about a devouring fire is added as a warning to the people about the seriousness of their covenant responsibilities (Deut 9:3). In contrast to the judgment character, the positive, protective, and bright side of fire is always emphasized (Isa 4:5). The Lord will be a wall of fire around Jerusalem and the glory within her (Zech 2:5[9]; cf. the development of this theme in rabbinic midrash, Chernus, 68-84). Isaiah characterizes the Lord as the Light of Israel, which will become a fire and a flame against his enemies (10:17). Several

eschatological visions use the imagery of fire (Ezek 1:13; Mal 3:2). 13. Human speech (Prov 16:27), gossip (Prov 26:20), jealousy or passion (S of Songs 8:6), adultery (Prov 6:27) (cf. Crenshaw, 19-24), vexation (Ps 39:3[4]; Jer 20:9;

Lam 1:13), peril (Ps 66:12; Isa 43:2; Zech 3:2), personal disaster or decline of prosperity (Job 18:5; 20:26), adulterous activity (Job 31:12), and wickedness (Isa 9:18) are all

likened to fire. 14. The nom. is also used figuratively in the judgment on the nations. Israel is compared to an olive tree on fire (Jer 11:16) and to a vine on fire (Ps 80:16[17]; Ezek 15:4-7; 19:12-14). Babylon will be burned as stubble (Isa 47:14). Since dry thorns

burned very quickly, they could be used as a figure for swift destruction (Ps 118:12; Isa 64:2[1]).

15. Occasionally in the prophets, fire is mentioned in an eschatological context. Especially in these contexts it is difficult to distinguish the literal from the figurative. The fire of final judgment of the world is mentioned frequently (Isa 66:16; Zech 12:6). While by implication fiery judgment will signal the day of the Lord, fire is explicitly mentioned as a sign in Joel 2:30[3:3]. The references to eternal fire as hell (> Hell) are rare and disputed (Isa 66:24).

1. Fire as indispensable is noted (Sir 39:26). The practice of starting a fire by P-B striking a flint is mentioned in 2 Macc 10:3. At the time of the captivity the priests hid the sacred fire in a well where Nehemiah found it again (2 Macc 1:19-22). In Jewish apocalyptic, fire becomes the mark of the heavenly world. The house in which the Lord lives in heaven consists of and is surrounded by fire (J En. 14:9-22). Fire is the means 535

WN (# 836) of punishment in hell (J En. 91:9; 100:9; 2 Esd 7:38; 2 Bar. 44:15). The final judgment is a judgment by fire (J En. 102:1; 2 Bar. 37:1; 48:39; 2 Esd 13:10; Jub 9:15; 3:10). 2. The community of Qumran expected the ungodly to be judged by fire in the final judgment (1QS 2:15; 1QpHab 10:5; 10:13). They were also acquainted with the idea of eternal hellfire (1QS 2:8; 4:13; 1QH 17:13). There are traces of the idea of the

world conflagration (1QH 3:25). Fire denotes judgment and affliction (CD 2:5; 1QM 10:10). Fire is also used figuratively. The wheels of the throne-chariot show the likeness of fire (4QShirShabb* frg. 20-22:10). To illustrate vanity the evanescent character of fire is used as comparison (1QpHab 10:13). Fire is a characteristic of the wicked (CD 5:13). Refining by fire (11QTemplea 43:11; CD 12:14) and the burning of goods under ban (11QTemplea 55:9) are mentioned in the Qumran texts. 3. Rabbinic speculation concerned itself with the origin of fire, and the Midr.

lists it among the three elements that existed before the world. Several forms of fire are distinguished, e.g., fire that consumes but does not drink (ordinary fire) and fire that drinks but does not consume (fever) (TDNT 6:938-39). On the basis of the Sinai event

the Torah is associated with fire: its letters of black fire were written on its skin of white fire. This lies behind the frequent reports of fiery manifestations of rabbis during the study of the Torah and gives the reason why the scholar wholly dedicated to study is said to consist of fire. Sheol, originally the dark abode of all the dead, becomes increasingly the fiery place of punishment for the ungodly and is called Gehinnom/Gehenna. To this is added in the second century AD, as a result of Persian influence, the doctrine of an intervening purgatory (but cf. Barr, 201-35). Since fire expresses the glory of God and his sphere, it is also the matter of the heavenly world. God’s finger and the angels are composed of flaming fire. NT _ Fire is used as a sign of heavenly, divine glory (Rev 1:15) and as a picture of divine judgment (Matt 3:10). The phenomenon of fire on someone’s head is a sign of divine grace (Acts 2:3) (van der Horst, 49-60). The saying that everyone will be salted with fire may be understood as everyone who is sent to hell will be completely destroyed (Mark 9:49; Fields, 299-304). Only in one passage does the ancient doctrine of the world conflagration appear (2 Peter 3:7, 10, 12) (Thiede, 79-96). Fire appears as the opposite of the kingdom of God (Matt 13:42). Fire, flame: ~ ‘fd (log, burning stick, #202);

> és I (fire, # 836); > b‘rI (burn, blaze up, be consumed, # 1277); > gahelet (burning charcoal, # 1625); > goprit (sulphur, #1730); > yst (kindle, burn, set on fire, #3675); > ygd (burn, be burning, kindled, # 3678); — kidéd (spark, # 3958); — lbb II (bake cakes, # 4221); > lahab (flame, blade, #4258); > lht I (glow, burn, # 4265); — lappid (torch, lightning, #4365); — nisds (spark, #5773); — peham (charcoal, #7073); > resep I (live coal, #8363); > resep I (flame, glow, arrow, plague, #8404); > srp (burn, be burnt, # 8596); > sSabib (flame, # 8663) BIBLIOGRAPHY TDNT 6:934-41; TDOT 1:418-28; THAT 1:242-46; J. Barr, “The Question of Religious Influ-

ence: the Case of Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Christianity,” JAAR 53, 1985, 201-35; I. Chernus, “A Wall of Fire Round About: the Development of a Theme in Rabbinic Midrash,” JJS 30, 1979, 68-84; J. L. Crenshaw, “Impossible Questions, Sayings, and Tasks,” Semeia 17, 1980, 19-34; ER 5, 340-46; W. W. Fields, “Everyone Will Be Salted with Fire (Mark 9:49),” GTJ 6, 1985, 299-304; R. Gradwohl, “Das Fremde Feuer von Nadab und Abihu,” ZAW 75, 1963,

536

WN (# 837) 288-96; J. C. H. Laughlin, “The Strange Fire of Nadab and Abihu,” JBL 95, 1976, 559-65; P. D. Miller, “Fire in the Mythology of Canaan and Israel,” CBQ 27, 1965, 256-61; J. Morgenstern, Fire upon the Altar, 1963; C. P. Thiede, “A Pagan Reader of 2 Peter: Cosmic Conflagration in 2 Peter 3 and the Octavius of Minucius Felix,” JSNT 26, 1986, 79-96; N. J. Tromp,

“Water and Fire on Mount Carmel: a Conciliatory Suggestion,” Bib 56, 1975, 480-502; P. W. van der Horst, “Hellenistic Parallels to the Acts of the Apostles,” JSNT 25, 1985, 49-60; H. C. White, “The Initiation Legend of Isaac,” ZAW 91, 1979, 1-30; D. P. Wright, “Purification

from Corpse-Contamination in Numbers 31:19-24,” VT 35, 1985, 213-23. Jackie A. Naudé

837 OT

HALAT

wN 89 proposes

WN (2 ID) little, trifle (# 837). a homonym

(’é5) and understands

the construction

bdé-’é§ in Jer 51:58 and Hab 2:13 as comparable to b°dé-rig (“for naught’; see NEB); in these two passages the phrases are interchanged in the parallel clauses. Most English versions (e.g., NIV, NRSV) and commentators, however, read “for the fire” (’é¥ I,

> # 836). Little, trifle, insignificant: > ’2f II (little, trifle, #837); > dll I (be small, unimportant, # 1937); > 2° ‘ér (little, # 2402); > hwr II (become less, # 2579); > hsr (diminish, decrease, deprive, # 2893); — hrh II (disappear, be few in number, #3014); > m‘t (be few, diminish, become small, few, #5070); > s‘r (be trifling, insignificant, become trifling, # 7592); > gtn (be small, trifling, make small, #7781); > Skk (go down, abate, allay from upon, # 8896); > Sémes (little, # 9066) M. Daniel Carroll R.

844 (aSed, slope), > #2215

846 (’asdéd, Ashdod), > Ashdod

1 =U Tw (i§§a), woman, wife, female (#851). The 8 mee. nom. appears 782x in the OT, most frequently in Gen (152x), Judg (69x), 1 Sam (54x), 2 Sam (49x). ANE. ’is5@ is cognate with Akkad. aSSatu (iSSu is likely a Canaanite loanword [CAD I/J 267b; AHw, 399a]), Ugar. att, Aram. int’ta’/ itt®ta’, Arab. ’unta, and Eth. ’anest.

OT 1. ’ik¥d has both an irregular construct sing. form (’éSet) and plural form, where it is written as if a masc. nom. (n@Sim). This unique pl. form may have been influenced by the equally unique pl. form of #5, which is ““naSim. The plural ’is¥6t occurs only in Ezek 23:44. Why the plural of “wife, woman” is written as a masc. pl. (-im) instead of a fem. pl. (-6f) is not clear, but one novel suggestion is that plurals in -6t denote plurality of single entities, while those in -im denote plurality of those things that form groups. Thus, the pl. of ’ii5@ and ‘ir, “city,” both fem., are plurals with -im because women are considered in relation to polygamy and cities in relation to a larger area (D. Michel, Grundlegung einer hebrdischer Syntax...Genus und Numerus des Nomens, 1977).

537.

TWN(# 851) Most Heb. lexica (e.g., HALAT 70, 90) derive ’isSa from the vb. "ns, be weak, sick (> #653), that occurs only in 2 Sam 12:15 (“and he [the child Bathsheba had borne to David] became ill”) and in Sir 11:12 (“Another goes his way, a brokenhearted drifter, lacking strength and abounding in weakness” [P. W. Shehan, Wisdom of Ben Sira, AB, 1987, 235]). The vb. is cognate with Akk. enésu, “be weak,” and Arab.

’anuta, “be woman-like, feminine.” There is a good probability that Heb. ’iS4 pro-

vides us with an instance of a “primary noun” (TDOT 1:222), and, therefore, is not

meant to designate anything frail about a woman. bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman’

(i554), for she

was taken out of man (’2§).” Everything prior to ’iS§a’s creation was “from the earth” (adam, 2:7; trees, 2:9; animals, 2:19). In the creation account of ’isSd “earth” is never

mentioned. Rather ’is§@ comes from ha’adam, who for the first time identifies himself as ’2¥. ’adam does not emerge from ’Gdamé fully formed. First Yahweh-Elohim must shape him and then animate him. Similarly, ’is§@ does not emerge from ha’adam fully formed. Yahweh-Elohim extracts a “rib” and builds it into isa. Through the use of the vvaA

assonance

’?¥ /’i5§G, the biblical writer may have been drawing attention to “both the

differentiation of functions and the oneness of man-and-woman...in a new community of exchange, in a reciprocity of needs, in a mutuality of responsible concerns” (Terrien, 3). 3. The statement in Gen 2:24 that an ’?¥ is to forsake (a very strong vb. implying one. Whatever loyalties an ’i¥ has to his parents, his ancestors, or his community, all of

which are proper and noble, they must never take precedent over an ’75’s loyalty to his 155G. 4. Infrequently in the Bible is a law or commandment addressed to man and woman

together (Exod 21:29; Lev 13:29, 38; 20:27; Num

5:6; 6:2; Deut 17:2), and

even less frequently to woman alone. Note, for example, in Lev 18 and 20:8-21 (both dealing with forbidden sexual unions) that the only law addressed to a woman is one dealing with bestiality (18:23b; 20:16). In ancient Israel women would have virtually no access to men on their own initiative, but presumably would be able to engage in bestiality if they chose to. It is of interest that while OT law condemns male homosexuality (Lev 18:22), there is no corresponding law on lesbianism. 5. On the other hand, there are some laws directed particularly at the protection of women, especially in Deuteronomy. Note, for example, that in the Exodus version of the commandment about coveting (20:17), the order is house and wife (and the vb. for coveting a house and wife is hmd | > #2773]). By contrast, in Deut 5:21 the order

is wife and house (and the vb. for coveting a wife is md, while that for coveting a house is ‘wh [~ #203]). Furthermore, the v. gives a separate prohibition on wife-coveting instead of lumping the ’i55d in a list. While in many ways hmd and ’wh are synonymous, ’wh denotes a desire rising from an inner need while hmd refers to a desire stimulated by sight (Moran, 548 n.18). 6. One can perceive a similar change or advance in thinking about the ’is¥a when one compares the law about Hebrew servants in Exod 21:2-11 with that in Deut 15:12-18, or the law about seduction of a virgin in Exod 22:16-17[15-16] with that in

Deut 22:28-29. 538

MWS(# 851) 7. The combination of “house” and ’ix%4 as forbidden objects of covetousness recalls other instances in the OT where the two appear near each other (Deut 20:5-7; Jer 6:11-12; 29:5-6). The maxim (Prov 19:14) that “houses and wealth are inherited from parents, but a prudent wife is from the LORD” underscores the point that house and wife (or property and family) form the heart of man’s existence. 8. Israel is occasionally styled as Yahweh’s ’i55d (see par. 6 in the discussion of sv VA

iS). Cf. Isa 54:6; Jer 3:1, 3, 20; Ezek 16:32; 23:2-49; Hos 2:2[4]. In such instances

Israel is portrayed as an adulterous ’i54 whom Yahweh has either divorced or is on the verge of doing so. But that presents a problem. According to Deut 24:1-4 an ’i¥ may divorce an ’isSd, but not vice versa. But also, an ’?¥ may not remarry his ’iSSd if she has

been married to a second husband. This legal point raises the question of whether it is proper for Yahweh ever to transcend his own Torah in desiring the return of his i554. Does his compassion ever overrule his justice? W. S. Towner (Daniel, Interpretation, 1984, 89) in a comment on ch. 6 of Dan so responds: The corollary question is whether God is trapped by the immutability of his own law. One is sometimes stunned at the intensity with which the psalmist reminds God of his own commitments to crush the wicked and to slay the psalmist’s own opponents.... We also have words to Israel that God is capable of transcending his own law. God’s law is immutable, and yet God himself can suspend it if compassion so demands. 9. Frequently in Prov, esp. chs. 1-9, the ’iS¥4@, whom the son is told by his father o¥YYA

to avoid, is described as literally “loose/strange woman,” NIV “adulteress” (2:16; 7:5), or just zara (5:3, 20) by itself. Close to this is the phrase ’@Set ra‘, “immoral woman”

(6:24). Also most references to isa in the rest of Prov are pejorative—the beautiful but indiscreet woman (11:22); a disgraceful wife (12:4); a quarrelsome wife (19:13; 25:24; 27:15), i.e., women as the embodiment of evil and the prime channel of destruc-

tion for men. These consistent references to that type of an ’isSa present a stark contrast to the last unit of Prov, i.e., 31:10-31, an acrostic poem, almost hymn-like, celebrating the

virtues of an ’éSet hayil (“a wife of noble character,’ NIV, a phrase used elsewhere only of Ruth [Ruth 2:11], but more literally “a wife/woman of strength”). As such, Prov 31:10-31 is one of the rare instances in the OT that features praise of a person rather than God. Female: > ‘isd (woman, #851); ~ g°bird/g°beret (lady, queen, mistress, # 1485/1509); > na“ra I (girl, #5855); > n°qéba (female, # 5922); > pileges (concubine, # 7108); > Sidda (lady, # 8721) Male: > ’adam (Adam, people, # 132); > ’#¥ I (man, husband, # 408); > ’“nés I (men, single man, # 632); > ’asi¥ (man, # 861); > geber I (young man, #1505); > zakar (male, #2351); ~ m°tim I (men, people, # 5493); > na‘ar (boy, #5853) BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABD 6:947-61; EncJud 16:623-25; IDB 4:864-67; IDBSup, 960-68; TDOT 1:222-35; THAT 1:130-38; 247-51; TWOT 1:38-39, 59-60; M. Bal, Lethal Love. Feminist Literary Readings of Biblical Love Stories, 1987; P. Bird, “Images of Women in the OT,” Religion and Sexism, ed.

R. Reuther, 1974, 41-88; A. Brenner, The Israelite Woman: Social Role and Literary Type in

539

TWN(# 852) ane

Biblical Narrative, 1985; A. M. Grant, “’adam and ’ish: Man in the OT,” AusBR 25, 1977, 2-11;

L. Kutler, “A Structural Semantic Approach to Israelite Communal Terminology,” JANESCU 14, 1982, 69-77; W. L. Moran, “The Conclusion of the Decalogue (Ex 20,17 = Dt 5,21),” CBQ 29, 1967, 543-54; C. Myers, Discovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context, 1988; R. Scroggs, “Paul and the Eschatological Woman,” JAAR 40, 1972, 283-303; S. Terrien, Till the

Heart Sings. A Biblical Theology of Manhood and Womanhood, 1985, idem, “Toward a Biblical Theology of Womanhood,” Religion in Life 42, 1973, 322-33; P. Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, 1978; A. Wolters, “Proverbs xxxi, 10-31 as Heroic Hymn: A Form-Critical Analysis,” VT 38, 1988, 446-57; G. A. Yee, “‘I Have Perfumed My Bed with Myrrh’: The Foreign Woman (iX%@ zara) in Proverbs 1-9,” JSOT 43, 1989, 53-68. Victor P. Hamilton

852

WS

MWS (is¥eh), nom. gift, present; or offering by fire (# 852).

ANE_ 1. Akk. has a term eS¥eSu, which can refer to either a monthly festival or certain food offerings made at the monthly es¥esu festival (CAD E, 371-73). On this basis some would argue that Heb. ’isseh means food gift (offering) (e.g., Milgrom, 162, and Wenham, 56).

2. Ugar. has a word ’itt, which in two texts appears to mean gift, specifically, votive gift, since the whole expression is ty ndr ’itt (cf. Heb. ndr, #5623 and #5624). For this reason there are some scholars who suggest the translation gift or oblation (Hoftijzer, 130-34; cf. Milgrom, 162; McCarter, 90; and J. Gray, 254).

3. Although the meaning of the Ugar. term is still open to debate (see e.g., Wenham, 56 n. 8), there is an Arab. vb. ’atta, become much, abundant (Ugar. t = Heb. 5), which has a derivative nom. ’atdatu, goods, and adj. ’atitu, much in quantity, abundant,

numerous (E. W. Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon, 1863, 17-18). This suggests a translation “abundant gift, generous gift” for Heb. ’isSeh. Others have suggested an etymological derivation of the term ’is‘eh from an Arab. root ’anisa (e.g., ’anisa bi, be friends with ...). Thus the term could have originally meant a gift (to establish friendly relations), although at a later time this meaning might have been lost and replaced by the seeming relationship to Heb. ’é5, fire (see, e.g., the tentative discussion in G. B. Gray, 8-13). Similarly, see the Ugar. expression km.’ aht. ‘rS.mdw ’anst. ‘rS.zbin, because you have become brother to a bed of sickness, companion to a bed of plague (note the parallelism between ’aht, you have become a brother, and ’anSt, you have become a companion, CML 101, ll. 35-36 and 102, ll. 50-52). See also Eth. and OSA according to HALOT (1:73) and the possible derivation of Heb. ’7% (man, # 408) and ’iX¥4 (woman, # 851) from the same root, the original n

being retained in ’i5¥@ as well as, for example, in ’“n6¥5 (man, # 632) and the pl. of ’#¥ = xa (“nasim). OT

The standard translation of ’isSeh in the modern versions is “an offering by fire”

(e.g., NIV, NASB, NRSV), which is based on a derivation from Heb. ’é¥, fire (# 836).

This derivation and meaning is debated by scholars as reflected, for example, in the NEB rendering food offering (cf. also TEV). However, the issue is not settled (see the summary of views in Wenham, 56 n. 8, and the discussion under ANE and next sec.). (> Offerings and Sacrifices: Theology.)

540

TWN (# 852) 1. There are many who still affirm the meaning “offering made by fire” for 'i8Seh, deriving it from Heb. ’éS, fire (see e.g., HALOT 93-94, Levine, 7-8, and most of

the Eng. versions). The doubled §¥ in ’isSeh can be explained as the assimilation of an original t, which also reappears in assimilation when a pronominal suffix is added to @5 (see e.g., i556, his fire, in Deut 4:36) and as an actual t in cognate languages (e.g., Akk. iSatu and Ugar. ’ist). It has been argued that even if some of the ’ix¥eh offerings were not burned in the fire on the altar, “this does not prove that it was not originally derived from ‘fire’”’ (J. Blau, Israel Oriental Studies 2, 1972, 64-65 n. 11, emphasis

his). Moreover, it is suggested that “the semantic development fire > offering” can be seen in “the use of ’@5 in the sense of ‘offering’” in Num

18:9, which reads lit., “This

shall be to you most holy from the fire” (ibid.; but the LXX suggests a possible reading of ’isSeh here rather than ’é5). Furthermore, the proximity of ’é¥ to ’ix¥eh in Lev 3:5b suggests a play on words: The priests shall offer up the fat parts of the peace (fellowship) offering animal (lit.) “upon the wood which is upon the fire (’25), (as) an ’ix¥eh offering, a pleasing aroma to the LORD.” Others object to the traditional rendering based on the numerous cognates in other Sem. languages that do not appear to be related to a term for fire (see ANE above), and on the fact that the usage of the term ’isSeh is not limited to materials that were burned on the altar (see Milgrom, Leviticus, 161-62; idem, Numbers, 124; Hart-

ley, 13-14, and the survey of usage below). Today the two most prevalent renderings among these scholars are food gift (Milgrom, Leviticus, 161-62) or simply gift (Hartley, 13-14; Rendtorff, 63-69). Milgrom seeks to reinforce his food gift view also from the fact that ’isSeh is never used of the fat of the sin offering. He suggests that this is because the sin offering was not a gift, but was a mandatory offering brought for purposes of expiation. However, the guilt offering is just as mandatory and just as expiatory as the sin offering, and the fat of the guilt offering happens to be referred to by the term ’isSeh (Lev 7:5; see sec. 5-6, below).

The derivation of the term is certainly debatable. The numerous possibilities from ANE cognate languages are impressive, although no hard and fast conclusion can necessarily be drawn from them. The usage of ’iSSeh clearly shows that, even if it derives from ’é5, fire, its meaning developed beyond this original derivation. On one level it appears that ’isSeh may have essentially taken over the more general meaning of minhd, gift, present, offering, in levitical contexts where the usage of the latter is limited almost completely to its more narrow meaning, grain offering (> # 4966). The more general translation “gift” or “present” is probably best. This seems to be supported by the various usages of the term as well as the standard targumic translation of ’iS¥eh (see, e.g., Lev 1:9, where Tg. Onkelos has an Aram. form of gorban, offering,

gift [# 7933] for Heb. ’is¥eh). 2. The term ’ix%eh occurs 65x in the OT, possibly 66x, if we accept the common emendation of 1 Kgs 9:25 from “burning incense (w*haqtér ’itté ’“Ser) before the LORD” (NIV; the text as it stands is basically untranslatable so, following the LXX, NIV leaves out ’ittd ’“Ser) to “burning his ’iXXeh offering(s) (w°haqgtér with ’is56 or isSayw, his ’ix¥eh offering[s], or ’ét ’isSeh, the ’iSSeh offering[s]) before the LORD” (HALOT 1:94a; cf. also J. Gray, 254 and DeVries, 130, 133). In any case, ’is¥eh has a limited distribution: 58x in Lev-Num plus 4x in Exod (29:18, 25, 41; 30:20) and a final

541

TWN(# 852) 3x (or 4x) in Deut 18:1; Josh 13:14; 1 Sam 2:28 (and possibly 1 Kgs 9:25 as noted above).

The term ’is¥eh applies to the offerings on several levels. First, it can refer to the various kinds of offerings or portions thereof that were burned upon the altar (secs. 3-5 below). Second, it can be used for the kinds of offerings or portions of offerings that were presented to the Lord but then consumed by the priests or their families, not upon the altar (secs. 6-7 below). Third, it can be used in a general sense to refer to all the offerings that the sons of Israel presented to the Lord, whether they were consumed on the altar, by the priests and their families, or by the Levites (sec. 8 below). 3. Canonically, the first occurrence of ’isSeh is in Exod 29:18, where it stands in

apposition to another well-known sacrificial expression, a pleasing aroma (Heb. réah nthoah): “Then burn the entire ram on the altar. It is a burnt offering to the LORD, a pleasing aroma, an offering made to the LorD by fire” (NIV; cf. Exod 29:41; Num 29:6). In this case, the expression “a pleasing aroma” stands before ’isSeh, but it is more common to have ’is‘eh in construct form in first position standing in construct-genitive relationship to “a pleasing aroma” (see, e.g., “an "iSSeh offering of an aroma pleasing to the LORD” in Lev 1:9, 13, 17; 2:2, 9; 3:5; 23:18; Num 15:10, 13, 14; 28:8, 24; 29:36). The close relationship between these two expressions is manifest also in other instances where they are disconnected but, nevertheless, occur in close prox-

imity and refer to the same offerings. For example, in the ordination of the priests Moses was to take all the fat of the ordination ram, its right thigh, and representative parts of its grain offering, and put them on the hands of Aaron and his sons so that they could wave them as a wave offering before the Lord (Exod 29:22-24; cf. nwp I [#5677] and fniipd [# 9485]). Then Moses was to “take them (i.e., all those elements) from their hands and burn them on the altar along with the burnt offering for a pleasing aroma to the LORD, an offering made to the LORD by fire” (v. 25, NIV; cf. the parallel in Lev 8:28: “[Moses] burned them on the altar on top of the burnt offering as an ordination offering, a pleasing aroma, an offering made to the LORD by fire’’). In this instance, ’isSeh refers to those parts of the offering that were actually burned upon the altar of burnt offering. By way

of contrast, with regard to the grain offerings in general, “you are not to burn any yeast or honey in an offering made to the LORD by fire (lit., an ’isSeh offering to the LORD). You may bring them to the LORD as an offering of the firstfruits, but they are not to be offered on the altar as a pleasing aroma” (Lev 2:11b-12, NIV; cf., e.g., Exod 29:25, lit., for a pleasing aroma to the LORD, an ’isSeh offering to the LORD).

According to the former passage the burned portions of offerings could be referred to as ’iS¥eh offerings and, according to the latter, certain kinds of offerings could not be burned on the altar, and for that reason would be referred to neither as an 'is8Seh offering nor a pleasing aroma to the Lord. Of course, ’ix¥eh can also occur alone, without this associated terminology. For example, in Lev 22:22 the Lord commands that “you must not offer” blemished animals to the Lord, “and you must not put (lit., give) an ’is¥eh offering from them upon the altar to the LORD” (lit. trans.). Thus, either the whole of an unblemished clean animal could become an offering to the Lord or certain parts thereof could become an ’isSeh offering from such an animal. The latter verse is particularly instructive because it distinguishes between the meat of the animal as a 542

TWN (# 852) whole and the altar as The are burned

the possibility that only certain portions of the animal might be burned on an ’isSeh. term ’is¥eh is often used to refer to offerings or portions of offerings that or otherwise disposed of on the altar. For example, it can apply to: (a) the

whole burnt offering (e.g., Exod 29:18; Lev 1:9, 13, 17; 8:21), (b) the grain offering (Lev 23:13) or ’azkarad (memorial portion, > #260) of the grain offering (e.g., 2:2, 9, 16; 6:17-18[10-11]), (c) the combined burnt offering, grain offering, and even the liba-

tion of the regular offerings (i.e., the tamid, regular offering [> # 9458]; see esp. Exod 29:41; Lev 6:20, 23[13, 16]; Num 28:3-8), (d) the fat parts of peace offering animals (e.g., Lev 3:3, 5, 9, 11, 14, 16; 7:25), and (e) the fat parts of the guilt offering (7:5).

4. According to Exod 30:20b-21a, “when they (the priests) approach the altar to minister by presenting an offering made to the LORD by fire, they shall wash their hands and feet so that they will not die.” Moreover, in order to offer the offerings the priests “must be holy to their God.... Because they present the offerings made to the LORD by fire, the food of their God, they are to be holy” (Lev 21:6), and no priest who had a bodily defect could “present the offerings made to the LORD by fire. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God” (v. 21). All the ’is¥eh offerings that were burned on the altar were, of course, the material food stuffs that human beings would normally eat (see the list above). In fact, in some cases the term “food” (Heb. lehem, bread, food [# 4312]) is added to the regular construct chain referred to above, resulting in “the food of the offering made by fire of a soothing aroma” (see, e.g., Num 28:24 in the NASB), although it might be read syntactically as an apposition rather than a construct (cf. the NIV translation of Lev 3:11, “as food, an offering made to the LORD by fire’). The Heb. term ’isSeh occurs 10x in Num 28-29, referring specifically to the

offerings presented to the Lord at various appointed times (note that “appointed times” occurs only in the beginning at Num 28:2 and then at the end in 29:39, thus identifying the focus of the regulations in these two chs.; cf. Lev 23:1-38). In these chs. ’is¥eh

seems to refer in general to offerings that were offered completely on the altar (see sec. 5, below, for the sin offering in Num 28:15, 22; 29:5, 11, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 38).

Num 28-29 is a catalogue of “the food for (/é) my offerings made by fire, as an aroma pleasing to me” (Num 28:2): (a) for the regular daily offering (vv. 3-8; 1.e., the tamid, # 9458), (b) on every Sabbath in addition to the regular daily offering (vv. 9-10), (c) on the first day of every month in addition to the regular daily offering (vv. 11-15), and (d) on every annual festival occasion in addition to the regular daily offering (28:16-29:38; see the general article on “Offerings and Sacrifices” for a discussion of offerings as food). Of course, additional offerings even beyond those prescribed could be presented at the appointed times (see Lev 23:38 and Num 29:39), but the primary focus in Num 28-29 and in the parallel passage in Lev 23:1-38 is on the prescribed offerings. For example, we read in Lev 23:37, “These are the LORD’s appointed feasts, which you are to proclaim as sacred assemblies for bringing offerings made to the LORD by fire (Heb. ’isseh)—the burnt offerings and grain offerings, sacrifices and drink offerings required for each day (lit., the word/matter of a day in its day).”

Heb. ’ixSeh occurs 3x in the prescription for the regular daily offerings that were presented morning and evening (Num 28:3, 6, 8). The regulations for the burnt

543

TWN(# 852) offering and the grain offering of the morning and evening begins and ends with "isSeh (vv. 3 and 6), and the libation regulation, which is added separately (vv. 7-8), is included in the category of ’ix¥eh offerings (v. 8, referring to the whole set of offerings, including the libation; cf. Num

burnt

offering

and

15:3-7, 10, and nsk, drink offering [# 5818]). Like the

the grain offering

of the regular

daily offering

(see Lev

6:20-23[13-16]), the libation was offered up completely to the Lord: “Pour out the

drink offering to the LorD at the sanctuary” (Num 28:7b). This regular daily offering is doubled on the Sabbath (vv. 9-10) and expanded many times over on the first day of the month (vy. 11-14; note ’ix¥eh in v. 13, referring to the additional burnt and grain

offerings). The term ’ix*eh occurs 2x in the Passover regulations, at the beginning (v. 19) and at the end (v. 24) of the section that delineates each day of the week-long Feast of

Unleavened Bread (vv. 19-24). A daily sin offering seems to be included in this set of ’i¥eh offerings (v. 22; see secs. 5-6 below). Once again, in Num 29:6 the daily and monthly regular offerings are referred to as isSeh offerings, but this is kept separate from the extra offerings prescribed in vv. 1-5. Similarly, Num 29:13-38 catalogues the extra offerings presented to the Lord during the eight-day feast of Tabernacles, which began on the fifteenth day of the seventh month (v. 12). Like the Feast of Unleavened bread, a daily sin offering was also required during the Feast of Tabernacles. 5. In Num 28:15 (the regular monthly offering) and 29:5 (the New Year festival) the sin offering (and its libation? see 28:15, and Milgrom, Numbers, 243) is clearly separate from the burnt offerings and their accompaniments. The Heb. term ’isSeh is

not used in the Day of Atonement section (29:7-11), although it appears that the burnt offering and its accompaniments on that day could have been given this designation (see vv. 8-10). We have observed that daily sin offerings were required for the Feasts of Unleavened Bread (Num 28:22) and Tabernacles (Num 28:22; 29:16, 19, 22, 25, 28,

31, 34, 38). In the portion of the regulations for the Feast of Unleavened Bread that prescribes the extra offerings (Num 28:19-24), the term ’isSeh appears to include the sin offering referred to in v. 22 (contra Milgrom, Numbers, 244, comment on v. 24). The

term ‘is¥eh in v. 19 appears to serve as a heading for both the ‘6/4, burnt offering (# 6592), in v. 19 and the sin offering in v. 22: “(19) Present to the LORD an offering made by fire, a burnt offering of two young bulls ... (and) one male goat as a sin offering to make atonement for you.” All of these offerings are then referred to as “the offering made by fire (Heb. ’is¥eh) every day for seven days as an aroma pleasing to the LORD; it is to be prepared in addition to the regular burnt offering and its drink offering” (v. 24). The situation is different in the Feast of Tabernacle regulations (Num 29:12-38). Here the Heb. term ‘6/d, burnt offering, is placed in front of ’ix¥eh (29:13,

36), suggesting that the ’isSeh is limited to the burnt offering with its grain offerings and libations (see esp. v. 37 for the inclusion of a libation), and that the sin offering does not belong to the category of ’is¥eh.

These factors suggest the possibility that the terminology and the categories are not so precise and consistent that they can be used to draw hard and fast lines between offerings that can be referred to as ’iSSeh and those that cannot. As we will show below, this term is used in several different ways and must be understood in terms of its usage in a particular context.

544

MW (# 852) If we can rely on Num 28:2 as an overall description of the offerings in this ch. into which all of them fit, then it can be argued that Num 28 and 29 refer exclusively to

‘iSSeh offerings, at least in a general sense. Moreover, it appears that all the ’ix%eh offerings in these chs. were offered to the Lord on the altar. No parts of these offerings were taken back from the altar to be consumed by the people or the priests, although such offerings were also allowed on these occasions (Num 29:39). The burnt offerings were, of course, completely consumed on the altar, the grain offerings were also

burned completely on the altar (cf. Num 28:5, 8 with Lev 6:20-23[13-16]), and the libations were completely poured out to the Lord (see, e.g., Num 28:7b).

Moreover, the sin offerings in these chs. they were brought for the whole congregation which was sprinkled on the incense altar inside parts of which were burned on the altar (4:19), camp (cf. 4:21). They were not the kind of sin

were congregational sin offerings (i.e., at the appointed times), the blood of the Holy Place (Lev 4:18) and the fat The carcasses were burned outside the offerings from which priests could eat the flesh of the animal (contra Milgrom, Numbers, 242, comment on Num 28:15). Furthermore, since the fat parts of sin offerings that were burned on the burnt offering altar could be referred to as “an aroma pleasing to the LORD” (Lev 4:31, an expression

closely associated with ’isSeh; see sec. 3, above), and since the whole unit of Num 28-29 seems to refer to ’isSeh offerings (Num 28:2; see above), therefore, the fat of

these (and probably any) sin offerings might have been conceived of as “the food for my offerings made by fire (Heb. ’iSSeh), as an aroma pleasing to me” (Num 28:2b; contra Milgrom, Leviticus, 161-62). According to Lev 7:5, the fat of a guilt offering was burned on the altar as “an offering made to the LORD by fire,” and the guilt offering meat was generally treated the same as the sin offering: “The same law applies to both the sin offering and the guilt offering: They belong to the priest who makes atonement with them” (v. 7). The presentation of an ’is‘eh, however, was not the primary purpose of sin and guilt offerings. According to Num 28:22, on each day of unleavened bread the priests were to offer “one male goat as a sin offering to make atonement for you” (cf. also Num 29:5 and Lev 4, etc.). The primary purpose of sin offerings was to make atonement (see hatta’t, # 2633). Presenting a pleasing aroma to the Lord was secondary,

although it was not totally absent. This distinguishes the sin offering from the burnt, grain, and peace offerings, for which the term ’isSeh is most frequently used because making an ’is¥eh offering was indeed one of the primary purposes of these latter offerings. Furthermore, this could possibly explain the line of distinction drawn between sin offerings and burnt ’is%eh offerings in, for example, Num 15:24-25: “the whole community is to offer a young bull for a burnt offering . . . and a male goat for a sin offering. The priest is to make atonement . . . for it was not intentional and they have brought to the LorD for their wrong an offering made by fire and a sin offering.” The “offering made by fire” (Heb. ’i5Seh) in this context obviously refers to the burnt offer-

ing, and the sin offering is clearly distinguished from it (cf. also Lev 23:37). It might also explain why Lev 4:35 describes the burning of the fat parts of the sin offering animal as burning “it on the altar on top of the offerings made to the LORD by fire.” Here the distinction is made between the fat parts of the sin offering as opposed to the burnt

545

TWN(# 852) offerings, memorial portions of the grain offerings, and fat parts of the peace offerings, which would have already been placed on the altar (cf. also 5:12). An alternative translation would be to render the preposition ‘al as “in addition to” rather than “upon,” and take the turn of phrase in Lev 4:35 and 5:12 to mean that they should put the part of the sin offering to be burned on the altar as an addition to the (other) ’is¥eh offerings that were already burning there. This is certainly the meaning of this preposition in Lev 10:15, “The thigh that was presented and the breast that was waved must be brought with (lit., ‘upon,’ Heb. ‘a/) the fat portions of the offerings made by fire... .” As we have already shown, the breast and the thigh of the peace offerings were 'isSeh offerings. 6. According to Lev 7:35-36, one of the main purposes of the regulations in Lev 6:8[1]-7:36 was to carefully delineate “the portion of (lit., from) the offerings made to the LorD by fire that were allotted to Aaron and his sons . . . the LORD commanded that the Israelites give this to them as their regular share for the generations to come.” Thus, in some cases, only a portion of an ’isSeh offering was consumed on the altar and other portions “from” it were given to the priests as their portions. There were two subcategories of these priestly ’isSeh offerings. The first subcategory of ’ix‘eh offerings that were not totally consumed on the altar is those that were “most holy from the ’isSeh offering of the LORD” (e.g., Lev 2:3b, lit. trans.). In this case, the priestly portion was consumed within the tabernacle complex by the priests only, not their families with them (cf. below). It was their prebend for performing the service of the tabernacle (see, e.g., 10:12-13). This category includes, for example, that which was left over after the ’azkard (memorial portion, # 260) of the grain offering had been burned upon the altar (2:3, 10; 6:17-18[10-11];

10:12-13; 24:9; note that the grain offering of the priest was excluded from this, 6:22-23), and the bread of the Presence after its week of display in the Holy Place (24:8-9; see the remarks in Hartley, 401). The bread of the Presence in Lev 24:1-9 is particularly instructive here. The incense that was placed on the rows of bread constituted “a memorial portion to represent the bread . . . an offering made to the LORD by fire” (v. 7; i.e., the incense by itself was the memorial portion, and was identified as an ’isSeh offering). However, the bread itself “belongs to Aaron and his sons, who are to eat it in a holy place, because it is a most holy part of their regular share of the (lit., from the) offerings made to the LORD by fire” (v. 9). The bread was consumed by the priests rather than by fire on the altar but, nevertheless, it belonged to the category of ’isSeh offerings. Similarly, the fat of a guilt offering was also considered an ’isSeh offering (Lev 7:5). Moreover, its meat was considered “most holy” and, therefore, was to be con-

sumed by the priests alone inside the tabernacle complex (Lev 7:5-6). Does this suggest that the meat of the guilt offering that was eaten by the priests was an ’ik¥eh offering like the bread of the Presence? If so, then the same line of reasoning would seem to apply also to the fat and meat of the normal sin offering (see Lev 6:24-29[17-22] and sec. 5 above). Like the guilt offering, it was to be consumed by the priests as their prebend (see, e.g., 10:17; cf. hatta’t, sin offering [> # 2633 for remarks

on this passage]). However, if its blood had been sprinkled on the incense altar inside the Holy Place rather than the altar of burnt offering outside in the courtyard, then the carcass of the animal was completely burned up outside the camp (6:30[23];

546

TWN(# 852) cf. 4:11-12, 21). In this case, it would seem that the fat offered on the altar was considered an ‘isSeh to the Lord, but the meat was not since it was consumed neither on the

altar nor by the priests. It should be remembered that meat of neither the sin nor the guilt offering is ever clearly referred to as an ’iSSeh. One might conclude from this that it could not have been referred to as such (see e.g., Milgrom, Leviticus, 161-62). Alternatively, it is

possible that the reason it is never specifically referred to in this way is that this was not the primary purpose of these offerings, and that it was an ’ixSeh only in the general sense of that term (see sec. 8).

7. The second subcategory of ’isSeh offerings that was not totally consumed on the altar includes the portions of the peace (or fellowship) offerings (Heb. Xelem, # 8968) known as the “wave offering” breast (see Heb. t°niipd, #9485) and the right thigh of the “contribution” offering (see Heb. t“riimd, # 9556). Like the fat of a peace offering (see e.g., Lev 3:3-5), the breast and right thigh belonged to the category of 'isSeh offerings (Lev 7:30-34). However, unlike the fat, the breast and right thigh were given to the priests as their portions (see esp. v. 34), not consumed by fire on the altar. Moreover, unlike the first category of priestly portions, the meat of these animals was considered “holy,” not “most holy” (contrast Lev 10:12-13 with vv. 14-15 and then

22:10, 14-16). Therefore, not only the priests themselves but also their families and other dependents could eat the meat in a clean place, outside the tabernacle complex (10:14-15; cf. 22:10-16). The breast went to the priests and their families at large (7:30-31), and the right thigh belonged to the particular priest (and his dependents)

who officiated at the presentation of the particular offering (7:32-34). These priestly portions of the peace offerings were to be distinguished from those portions that were eaten by the common Israelite worshipers. The latter were not viewed as ’isSeh offerings but, instead, were considered simply “the meat of the fellowship offering belonging to the LORD” (7:21). As noted above, however, one would naturally offer the fat and priestly portions of the peace offering as an ’isSeh offering. According to the restriction against offering defective animals in 22:22, the Israelites should “not place any of these on the altar as an offering made to the LORD by fire.” A lit. rendering is, ““you must not place an ’is¥eh offering from these on the altar to the LorD” (cf. also 22:27 for the eight-day-old age restriction on sacrificial victims). 8. The last three canonical occurrences of ’isSeh describe the ’isSeh offerings to the Lord as the inheritance of the tribe of Levi, the levitical priests. They had no tribal

allotment in the land but, instead, according to Deut 18:1b “They shall live on the offerings made to the LorD by fire, for that is their inheritance” (NIV; lit., the ’iiSeh offerings of the LoRD and his inheritance they shall eat). According to the NIV, the

“i§Seh offerings” and “his inheritance” refer to the same things, although it is debatable whether the “his” in “his inheritance” refers to the Lord or the Levite (cf. Craigie, Deuteronomy, 258 n. 6). Some would argue that the ’is%eh offerings here are those parts of the offerings at the altar that were set aside for the priests and their families (cf. v. 3), while the “inheritance” refers perhaps to such offerings as the firstfruits, tithes, etc. (cf. v. 4; Driver, 214 and Thompson, 208).

Whatever the case may be in Deut 18:1, it is clear in Josh 13:14 that “the offerings made by fire to the LORD, the God of Israel, are their (i.e., Levi’s) inheritance”

(i.e., the whole tribe of Levi at least in that context, not just the Aaronic priest Levites).

547

TWN(# 852) Thus, ’isSeh can refer overall to the provisions for the tribe of Levi from the portions due to the Lord, not just the portions reserved for the Aaronic priests and their families. This appears to be an extended meaning of the term. As noted above, for the most part, ’iSSeh refers more specifically to the parts of offerings that were (a) burned on the altar, (b) reserved for the priests from those offerings of which a portion was burned on the altar, or (c) reserved for the priests and their families from those offerings of which a portion was burned on the altar (see above for the details). Whether in the general sense (i.e., in application to the Levites overall; see, e.g., Josh 13:14) or in the specific sense (i.e., in application only to the Aaronic priests and their families), the ’isSeh offerings constituted a privileged inheritance of the Lord’s portions that was owed to those who were set aside from the nation for the service of the Lord. 1 Sam 2:28 applies the term ’isSeh directly to the Aaronic priests, specifically to Eli and his rebellious sons: “I... gave your father’s house all the offerings made with fire (i.e., the ’isSeh offerings) by the Israelites” (1 Sam 2:28). Unfortunately, as the following verse shows, this privilege was not always received with fitting attitudes and actions of thankfulness and stewardship: “Why do you scorn my sacrifice and offering that I prescribed for my dwelling? Why do you honor your sons more than me by fattening yourselves on the choice parts of every offering made by my people Israel?” (v. 29). Eli’s sons were not satisfied with their due portions. They wanted all of the choicest parts with the fat (cf. vv. 12-17), and Eli allowed them their rebellion and arrogance (“you honor your sons more than me’). The benefit to the priests and their families of the ’isSeh offerings that were presented to the Lord is set forth in full detail in Exod-Num (see above).

P-B 1. In the Temple Scroll ’i'Seh refers to the burnt offering (e.g., 11QT 15:13, 34:14; Yadin 2:64, 147), the fat parts of peace offerings (e.g., 11QT 20:8; Yadin 2:88), and in the section on the Feast second [day] twelve bulls, [two sin offerJing, [and their cerea]l ordinance; for the bulls and for

of Booths the sin offering is included: “[And on the] rams, four]teen [male lambs] and one male goat [for a [offering and] their [drink offering] according to their the ram[s] and for the male lambs [and] for the male

goat, a burnt offering (Heb. ’is¥eh), a pleasing aroma to the LORD” (11QT 28:2b-6a; Yadin 2:123-24; cf. Num 29:17-19).

2. The LXX uses several different terms to render Heb. ’ix‘eh into G: most often karpoma, offering of fruits (33x; sometimes also for Heb. ‘6/4, burnt offering, # 6592), or nom. thysia, burnt offering, sacrifice, and vb. thysiasd, to sacrifice (17x;

normally for Heb. minhd, grain offering, # 4966, or a form of the zbh, [to slaughter a] communion sacrifice, #2283), but also holokautoma, burnt offering (7x; normally ‘old, burnt offering, # 6592). The most common G rendering of Heb. ’ixXeh, karpoma, offering of fruits, does not occur in the NT. The nom. thysia does, of course, occur in

the NT but is best treated under the entries for minha and zbh. 3. In the Mishnah ’is¥eh is often rendered “[Altar-]fire,” referring to the offer-

ing of portions on the altar (see e.g., Zebahim 9:1; Danby, 481). There is, however, one particularly interesting passage in which ’isSeh is used to express the concern for a frame of mind set on God during the offering. “It is said of the Whole-offering of cattle, a fire offering, an odour of sweet savour, and of the Bird-offering, a fire offering, an odour of sweet savour; and of the Meal-offering, a fire offering, an odour of sweet

548

TWN (# 854) savour; to teach that it is all one whether a man offers much or little, if only he directs his mind towards Heaven” (Menahoth 13:11; Danby, 513).

Offering, sacrifice:

> ’azkard (sign-offering, #260);

> ’ixSeh (offering by fire, #852);

>

‘asam (guilt offering, # 871); > zbh (slaughter, sacrifice, # 2284); > hatta’at (sin offering, # 2633); — tbh (slaughter, #3180); > minhd (gift, present, offering, sacrifice, #4966); > ma“sér (tithe, #5130); > ndr (make a vow, # 5623); > nwp I (move back and forth, wave, #5677); > nsk I (pour out, be consecrated, libation, #5818); > ‘ald I (burnt offering, #6592); ~> “risa (meal/dough offering, #6881); > gorban (offering, gift, #7933); > Sht I (slaughter, # 8821); > Selem (settlement sacrifice, # 8968); > tamid (regular offering, # 9458); > rima

(tribute, contribution, #9556); Levites: Theology

> Aaron: Theology;

> Offering: Theology;

> Priests and

BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 1:424; G. A. Anderson, “Sacrifice and Sacrificial Offerings (OT),” ABD 5, 1992, 870-86; C. Brown, “Sacrifice, First Fruits, Altar, Offering,’ NIDNTT 3:415-38; P. C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, NICOT, 1976; idem, Psalms 1-50, WBC, 1983; H. Danby, The Mishnah, 1933; S. R. Driver, Deuteronomy, ICC, 1916; D. Edelman, “The Meaning of gittér,’ VT 35, 1985,

395-404; G. B. Gray, Sacrifice in 1 and 2 Kings, OTL, rev. ed., 1970; nannte Feueropfer,’ V7Sup 16 (FS The JPS Torah Commentary, 1989;

the Old Testament: Its Theory and Practice, 1925; J. Gray, J. E. Hartley, Leviticus, WBC, 1992; J. Hoftijzer, “Das sogefor W. Baumgartner), 1967, 114-34; B. A. Levine, Leviticus, P. K. McCarter, Jr., 7 Samuel, AB, 1980; J. Milgrom, Leviti-

cus I-16, AB, 1991; idem, Numbers, The JPS Torah Commentary,

1990; R. Rendtorff, Leviticus,

BKAT, 1985; J.-M. de Tarragon, Le culte a Ugarit, 1980; J. A.Thompson, Deuteronomy, TOTC, 1974; S. J. deVries, 1 Kings, WBC, 1985; G. J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT, Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll, vols. 1-2, 1983.

1979;

Richard E. Averbeck

854

JIN

WN (’°Stin), nom. approach of darkness (# 854).

ANE The nom. is found in Christ.-Palest. ’Swn (time); Akk.-Sum. i5/sinnu (appointed time; festival) < Sum. ezen); Sem. wsm/n (decide on/fix an appointed time). OT 1. The word probably occurs 2x (Prov 7:9; 20:20). Some (e.g., Hooke, 406; RSV; NRSV; JB; NIV; NIVEC) treat the word as if it means deep/deathly /utter/pitch/blackest darkness. There are those (e.g., BDB; Hooke, 406; Fritsch, 824, 898; Rylaarsdam, 453; Jones, 93, 174) who take the word in Prov 7:9 and/or 20:20 to

be ’i6n, meaning pupil (of the eye), so that, when linked as a const. to layla the sense is middle/midst of night, and when dependent on hdsek the reference is to deep darkness. However, it seems more likely that in both texts the word is ’“Séin, which refers to the approach of darkness (see, e.g., NEB). 2. In Prov 7:6-9, there is a description of a young, immature, gullible man, who is seen walking the streets near the house of the loose woman, the adventuress (v. 5),

b’neSep-b°‘ereb yom b®’ix6n (which should almost certainly be emended to be’*Siin;

cf., e.g., BHS) grew dark” (v. of synonymous take the line as

layla wa’“péld, “in the twilight, as the day faded, at dusk as the night 9; NEB; REB). It is better to take the two parts of the v. as an example parallelism, with v. 9b reinforcing v. 9a (cf. McKane, 336), than to referring to four different degrees of darkness (pace Fritsch, 824). The

549

WWN(# 861) suggestion that the word ’2¥6n is to be derived from the root ysn, sleep, and “(at) the sleep (of night and darkness)” (Dahood, 14-15; Scott, 63, 65) does mend itself (cf. McKane, 336). In the Wisdom literature, the twilight seems sent the half-world of temptation, which is being considered but has not

translated not comto repre-

yet been entered (Cox, 144). It is that brief moment just before the light of day is overtaken by the darkness of night and oblivion (cf. Job 5:14; 24:15). 3. In Prov 20:20, a warning is issued to one who curses his father or his mother:

yid ‘ak néré be’°ysiin (this should almost certainly be emended to be’°Siin, following Q; cf. NEB) hdsek, “his lamp will go out with the approach of darkness” (on the metaphor of the lamp, cf. 1 Kgs 15:4; Ps 132:17; Prov 13:9). The legal punishment for cursing one’s parents was death (Exod 21:17; Lev 20:9; Deut 27:16), but here legal sanctions have been superseded by theological condemnation and exhortation (McKane, 541). The metaphor of the extinguished lamp signifies that the son guilty of this offense will be cursed by Yahweh and, as a consequence, will be cut off prematurely from the land of the living and consigned to the darkness of Sheol (McKane, 541). Sunrise, dawn, sunset:

> ’dr (light, daylight, dawn, lightning, #240);

— zerah I (dawn,

sunrise, # 2437); > mabd’ (entrance, sunset, west, #4427); > ma“rab II (setting of the sun, west, #5115); > neSep (dusk, twilight, dawn, darkness, # 5974); > Sahar (pre-dawn twilight,

# 8840) BIBLIOGRAPHY

D. Cox, Proverbs With an Introduction to Sapiential Books, OTM,

1982; M. Dahood, Proverbs

and Northwest Semitic Philology, 1963; C. T. Fritsch, “The Book of Proverbs: Introduction and Exegesis,’ JB, 1955, 4:765-957; S. H. Hooke, “The Proverbs,” in Peake, 1920, 397-410; E. Jones, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes: Introduction and Commentary, Torch, 1961; W. McKane,

Proverbs: A New Approach, OTL, 1970; J. C. Rylaarsdam, “The Proverbs,” in Peake, 1964, 444-57; R. B. Y. Scott, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 1965.

Robin Wakely VVA

855 (assur, Assyria), > Assyria

861

BIN ‘+

WW Casi), “man,” occurs as a hapleg. in Isa 16:7: “Lament and grieve for the men/raisin

cakes(?) [’“s#8@] of Kir Hareseth.” HALAT 96, links this nom. with the putative vb.’ 55,

(Arab. ’atta), spring up (# 861). Male:

> ’adam (Adam, people, # 132); > ’i¥ I (man, husband, # 408); > ’°nd¥ I (men, single — vay man, #632); > ’asi¥ (man, #861); > geber I (young man, #1505); > zakar (male, #2351); ~ mtim I (men, people, #5493); > na‘ar (boy, #5853)

Female: > ’isSa (woman, #851); > g°bird/g°beret (lady, queen, mistress, # 1485/ 1509); > na“rd I (girl, # 5855); > n°qéba (female, # 5922); > pilegex (concubine, # 7108); -> sidda (lady, # 8721) Victor P. Hamilton Aw A

862 (’“%i84, raisin cake), > Bread

550

WS 863

ANE.

WN

863)

WS (esek), nom. testicle (# 863).

Akk. isku, testicle.

OT The nom. is the anatomical term for testicle. The term is mentioned 1x in connection with a list of physical disabilities that automatically excluded a priest from the temple service (Lev 21:20). Sexual relations: — ’eSek (testicle, # 863); > zirma (phallus, emission, # 2444); > m°biisim (genitals, #4434); > nabliit (genitals, # 5578); > n°hdSet II (menstruation, lust, # 5734); > “gn (keep oneself secluded, # 6328); > ‘dnd (cohabitation, sexual intercourse, # 6703); > skb (lie

down, be ravished, be bedded down, #8886); > 5kh (exhibit strong testicles, to have strong carnal desire, #8889); > Sopkd (fluid duct of male organ, urinary tubule/organ, #9163); > Sexual ordinances: Theology Jackie A. Naudé

864

ay

DOS

OIDWN (edKAl I), nom. cluster(s), cluster(s) of

grapes (# 864).

ANE A loanword from Akk. ishunnu, ishhunnatu; Ugar. ’tkl; found also in Aram. (itkala’l; Arab. ’itkal; Eth. ’askal; Jew. Aram. ’itkala[’)).

OT 1. This word, like other words depicting the vineyard and its products in various contexts, is used in Num 13:23-24 (4x) to describe the cluster of grapes picked by the Israelite spies in Canaan. The bountiful cluster indicated the goodness (fob) and fertility of the land God was giving to Israel. The valley where the cluster was found was named the Valley of Eshcol (nahal ’esSk6l; Num 13:23-24). 2. The word is used as a simile to describe Israel’s sorry plight, a people with perhaps some promise remaining in them, just as a dried or diseased cluster of grapes may have some juice left in it (Isa 65:8). This v. in Isa. is commented upon in the PTalm. as follows: “the torah calls the (berry in the) cluster must (tir65) while people now call the dried berry must (i.e., in common parlance abstinence from “berry’ means from grapejuice, must, etc.)” (Jastrow 1:128). Israel’s misery in judgment is painful as when a vineyard worker finds no cluster of grapes with which to refresh himself (Mic TA): The word appears in the cupbearer’s dream in Gen (40:10) as a positive sign of his restoration. Clusters of bitter grapes are defined as the deeds the hostile nations around Israel have eaten (Deut 32:32). This v. in Deut contains a complete repertoire of words centering around the vine. Clusters of vines are used as metaphors for the breasts of the bride in the S of Songs (7:7, 8[8,9]). P-B.

The LXX uses botrus, cluster, to translate this Heb. word. In LH the word was

used to mean “bunch, cluster of grapes,” but in BTalm Hullin 92; Mish. Sota 9:9 it interestingly refers to “the scholars” of the Maccabean period. See Jastrow 1:128 for further references.

551

“DWN(# 868) Grapes:

> ’e5kél I (cluster[s] of grapes, # 864);

> b°’us (sour, unripe, wild grapes/berries,

#946); > zag (peel/skins of grapes, seed, kernel, #2293); > harsan (unripe grapes, # 3079); + ‘énab (grapes, cluster of grapes, # 6694); > peret (fallen grapes/berries, # 7261) BIBLIOGRAPHY

IDB 4:784-86; ISBE 4:986-87; TWAT 6:227-29; TWOT 1:78; A. Charbel, “Come Tradurre eskol

hak-kofer (C 1, 14),” BeO 20, 1978, 61-64. J. Déller, “Der Wein in Bibel und Talmud,” Bib 4, 1923, 143-67, 267-99; A. Herdner, “Un nouvel exemplaire du rituel RS 1929 N 3,” Syr. 33:104;

Eugene E. Carpenter

868

DUN

DWN (’exkar), tribute, payment (# 868).

ANE. The nom. is known in Akk. ixkaru A, work assigned to be performed, a kind of tax, materials for workmen, etc. (for exact references see CAD, I/J, 244-49). Only in

NA does the nom. refer to some kind of tax. The nom. ’skr occurs also in the recently discovered Heb. Kadesh-Barnea ostracon, most probably written in Aram. script and dating to the eighth/seventh century BC (Cohen, fig. 37; Davies, 85). It is found together with tb, a phrase that could be translated “good payment” (DCH, 1:414).

OT The nom. occurs only in Ps 72:10 and Ezek 27:15. Ps 72:10 clearly refers to some type of tribute, since ’eSkar is found in parallelism to minhd, gift. The entire psalm deals with the qualities of the king (perhaps even referring to the divine king, cf. 72:18-19) that provide the rationale as to why the king of Tarshish and the kings of Sheba and Seba will bring gifts and tribute, thereby acknowledging the superiority of the king of Israel. Tarshish and Sheba seem to have been chosen specifically in order to express the vastness of the king of Israel’s domain of influence. They often represent the farthest point away from Palestine (cf. Jon 1:3, where Jonah is said to board a ship [> # 639] to Tarshish in order to flee from the Lord). Ezek 27:15 is part of the lament for Tyre. It describes the magnitude and influence of the city in terms of different geographical locations, which are said to have some type of trade relation or—even further—vassal relationship to the powerful city. The men of Dedan (MT; the LXX has Rhodos, which the NIV has adopted), who traded with Tyre and the many islands, all

gave her presents. It is not entirely clear whether this reference is to some formal type of vassal or tribute payments or to a commercial dependency. P-B_ ’esk°rd, a wagon, wagon load, gift, tribute can be found in later Aram. texts, e.g., Tg. Isa 5:10 and Tg. Esther II, 1:3 (cf. Jastrow, 128).

Tax, gift, offering, tribute: > ‘eskar (tribute, payment, # 868); > ybl I (bring [gift, tribute], # 3297),

— middd II (tax, #4501);

(carrying, burden #5362);

> mas

(tribute, tax, forced labor, #4989);

> mas’ét (tax, offering, #5368);

> massa’

I

> sébel (orced labor, burden,

# 6023); > f°rimé (tribute, contribution, # 9556) Gift: > ’ahab (gifts of love, charm, # 172); > zbd (endow, #2272); > mgn I (deliver, # 4481); > nadan II (gift, wages of love, #5621); > ntn (give, present, offer, #5989); > skr II (hand over, #6127); > sbt (give, #7381); > Shd (give a gift, #8815); > Say (gift, present, # 8856);

> Salmonim (gift, # 8988) BIBLIOGRAPHY R. Cohen, Kadesh-Barnea: A Fortress from the Time of the Judaean Kingdom, \sraei Museum

Opes

OWN (# 869) Catalogue No. 233, 1983; G. I. Davies, Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions: Corpus and Concordance, 1991; B. A. Levine, “Finished Products, Staples...to Be Delivered,” JAOS 92, 1972, 72. Gerald A. Klingbeil

869 ANE

DwN

OWN (’axel), tamarisk (# 869).

Egyp. isr; Arab. ’tl.

OT The Heb. word is variously translated tree, grove, or oak by the KJV; the NIV always has tamarisk. In postbiblical literature this word became a general word for tree. In the OT itself, ’@¥el in 1 Sam 31:13 is parallel to ’@/4 in 1 Chron 10:12. This is a

small bushy tree with scaly leaves, thick foliage, and spikes of pink blossoms that provides ample shade for desert travelers (1 Sam 22:6). Abraham planted one at Beersheba in the desert area (Gen 21:33). 1 Sam 31:13 records the burial of the bones of Saul and his sons “under a tamarisk tree at Jabesh.” This tree is especially noted for its cool shade and its ability to withstand heat and long dry spells; it sends its roots deep down to find underground water. Trees: ~ ’éld I (mighty tree, #461); > ’erez (cedar, #780); > ’dren I (pine, #815); > ’é¥el (tamarisk, # 869); > b°rds (juniper, # 1360); > liz I (almond-tree, # 4280); > ‘és (trees, tree,

wood, timber, sticks, #6770); — ‘ar‘ar (juniper, #6899); — sammeret (acacia, [tree-]top, #7550); — Sagéd (almond, #9196); — Sigma (sycamore-[fig-] tree, #9204); > r°’as¥ar (cypress, # 9309); — tamarI (date-palm, # 9469); > tirzd (unknown tree, #9560); (> Tree of Knowledge/Life: Theology) BIBLIOGRAPHY

N. Hareuveni, Tree and Shrub in Our Biblical Heritage, 1984; M. Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 1982. Larry L. Walker

OWS (5m), q. become guilty, incur guilt, bear oi0 BUN guilt, guilty (part), stand under a curse, judgment, bear iniquity; ni. be in a state of guilt; hi. declare, pronounce guilty (# 870); DWN ('asam), nom. guilt offering, blame, guilt (> # 871); DUNC’ asém), guilty, under judgment (# 872); TWN (’asma), nom. guilt, blame, guilt offering (?), shame, object of guilt (# 873). ANE

Although Ugar. attests the lexeme ’tm (WUS, # 474), several scholars question

whether this Ugar. form serves as a cognate of the Heb. ’’m (TDOT 1:429; Kellerman, 319-22; Levine, 92, n. 101; de Moor, 178, nn. 88-89). Cf. Arab. ’atima, commit a fault,

to transgress, be guilty; ’itm, sin, transgression, outrage; Ge‘ez nasdmd, be bad = Tigrinya, hasdma. The vb. ’5m and its cognates occur 103x (’3m—35x, ’as’am—46x, ’aSma—19x, OT ’axém—3x), and almost one-half of those instances occur in Lev and Num (’3m—13x,

’aXam—32x,

’a’md—4x). The vb. occurs as a q. in all but two passages, where it

appears as a ni. (Joel 1:18) and a hi. (Ps 5:10[1 1)).

553

OWN (# 870) 1. Become guilty/culpable. The vb. and its cognates fundamentally refer to the guilt, responsibility, or culpability that a person must bear for some offense (Hartley, 76). Although the existential feeling of guilt likely accompanied offenses, the meaning of “feel guilty” (Milgrom, 1976, 9-12) or “realize guilt” (Kiuchi, 31-34) goes beyond the objective usage of ’aam for a person’s legal/moral culpability. In Lev 4-5, the vb. refers to the moral/legal standing of a member (4:27; 5:2-5, 17) or a leader (4:22) of the Israelite community or of the community as a whole (4:13), who has done wrong inadvertently but has not been punished. It signifies the state in which the perpetrator finds himself as a result of his offense. This offense could involve unintentional touching of an unclean animal or person (5:2-3), carelessly swearing an oath (5:4), misappropriation of property (Lev 6:4[5:23]), or a general offense against a fellow Israelite (Num 5:6-7). The primary issue in Lev 4-5 is the contamination or desecration of the sanctuary and the broader sancta. The person (or congregation) becomes culpable for either having already contaminated the sanctuary (4:3, 13, 22, 27; 5:2-5, 17, 19; 6:4[5:23]), or

being in a state where they would contaminate it if they had contact with it (4:23, 28). The primary aim of the guilt offering (see below) was to cleanse/purify the sanctuary. Outside of passages dealing with the cult, ’’m can refer to the basic idea of becoming guilty for any kind of wrongdoing (Judg 21:22; 2 Chron 19:10). Yahweh describes the guilt of those nations that delighted in their overthrow of God’s covenant nation (Jer 50:7; Ezek 25:12; Hab 1:11). He also draws attention to the guilt of his vassal nation for shedding innocent blood as well as being defiled through idolatrous worship (Ezek 22:4; Hos 4:15; 13:1).

Outside of its usage for consequential punishment (see below), the nom. ’asmd can refer specifically to the guilt offering (Lev 6:5[5:24]), or more frequently, to the state of guiltiness (4:3; 6:7[5:26]; 22:16; 2 Chron 24:18; 28:10, 13; 33:23; Ps 69:5[6]; Amos 8:14). Ezra employs this term to describe and confess Israel’s past history as one of guilt (Ezra 9:6, 13, 15) and to describe the arrogance of the people’s intermarriage with the Canaanites (10:10, 19). The adj. ’a@m also describes the state of guilt. David’s unwise policies put him in a state of guilt with respect to handling the political upheavals surrounding him (2 Sam 14:13). Joseph’s brothers (Gen 42:21) and those who intermarried with the people of the land in Ezra’s day were guilty of sinning against both their God and their countrymen (Ezra 10:19). 2. Guilt/reparation offering. In 30x of its 46 occurrences, ’asa@m serves as a technical term for an offering that represents the guilty person’s attempt to absolve wrongdoing by making restitution (Hartley, 77), also called the reparation offering (Hartley, 76; Milgrom,

1991, 339-45; Wenham,

104-12). The ’asam was actually a

penalty paid in the form of a sacrificial offering to God. The sacrifice did not relieve the offender of his duty to make full restitution for any loss he had caused another. In fact, the offender was fined 20 percent above the lost value. The ’45a@m merely squared the offender with his God, whose

honor had been violated (Levine,

18). The law

required this offering in the case of cleansing a leper (Lev 14:12-14, 17, 21, 24, 25, 28), the rape of a betrothed slave girl (19:21-22, see below), and the violation of a Nazirite vow (Num 6:12, see below). Num 5:5-10 refers to the reparation offering as an offering to cover a number of wrongs committed against a fellow Israelite.

554

OW (# 870) In light of the juxtaposition of sin offering (hatta’t, > #2633) and guilt offering (’a5am) in several passages (Lev 6:17[10]; 7:7, 37; 14:13; Ezek 46:20), scholars

have offered various suggestions concerning the distinctions between these two offerings (see TDOT 1:431-32; Hartley, 78-79, for a brief overview). Milgrom (1976, 127) contends that the “hattat like the asham deals with the problem of infringement upon sancta, but with this fundamental difference: the asham expiates for sancta desecra-

tion, the hattat for sancta contamination.” The primary aim of both sacrifices is the purification of the sanctuary (and sancta). The requirement of a guilt (reparation) offering was required in the case of the rape of a betrothed slave, not only because the girl had been violated, but also because the oath of betrothal taken before God had been broken (Milgrom, 1976, 133-37).

Num 6:9-12 delineates the purification ritual required of the Nazirite who violated his vow (whether inadvertently or not) by coming into contact with a corpse. The law required the defiled Nazirite to shave his hair and bring two turtledoves or pigeons as a sin offering and burnt offering (6:9-10). Two more steps precede his purification: He reconsecrated his hair and renewed his vow, beginning the term of his vow all over again (6:12); he offered an ’4Sam to make expiation for the desecration of the consecrated hair and vow (Milgrom, 1990, 47). The Nazirite had to supply a lamb as a guilt (reparation) offering (’a4Sam) to provide expiation for an offense committed against God, i.e., by descrating his property or name in an oath. All of this was necessary to restore the sanctum and, consequently, to pave the way for seeking divine forgiveness (cf. Milgrom, 1976, 66-70, for a more detailed explanation of this ritual).

In 1 Sam 6:3-4, 8, 17, where the Philistines returned the ark of the covenant to Israel, ’45am carries a similar connotation. The Philistines placed five golden tumors and five golden mice in the cart beside the ark of the covenant as an ’45am for Yahweh, i.e., some kind of propitiatory or compensatory sacrifice. 3. Consequential ’asam. Milgrom (1976, 11-12; 1991, 340-45) has offered the helpful category of consequential ’asam, i.e., the punishment or penalty incurred through wrongdoing. Outside the cult (passages dealing with Israel’s worship), both the vb. and its cognate nom. often signify consequential punishment. For example, the psalmist (Ps 34:21-22[22-23]) compares the fate of the righteous and the wicked. Yahweh offers redemption to the righteous but only condemnation for the wicked (cf. 5:10[11]; Isa 24:6; Jer 2:3; Ezek 6:6; Hos 5:15; 10:2; 13:16[14:1]; Joel 1:18; Zech 11:5). Outside of levitical contexts, the nom. ’4Sam (Gen 26:10; Jer 51:5) and ’asma

(1 Chron 21:3) signify retribution for wrongdoing. Milgrom’s suggestion is esp. helpful in understanding the translation crux offered by Lev 5:6. If ’aSam means guilt offering in this verse (NASB), the guilt offering and the sin offering are equated. However, in light of Milgrom’s suggestion (1976, 6), Lev 5:6 can be translated, “‘as a penalty (’a5am) for the sin he has committed, he must bring to the LORD ... a sin offering (hatta’t)” (NIV).

4. The servant of Yahweh as an ‘aSam. \saiah’s reference (Isa 53:10) to the ser-

vant figure as a guilt or reparation offering has intrigued many scholars. Because of the complex nature of this verse and the previously unattested reference to a man’s life as a reparation offering, various scholars regard ’aSam as a later interpolation, eliminate the term from the verse (see Whybray, 1981, 179, for an overview), or argue that the

555

OWN (# 870) verse’s uncertainty precludes its use in an argument confirming that the servant experienced a vicarious death (Whybray, 1978, 64-66). Regardless of whether the servant figure is the subject (“If he would render himself as a guilt offering,” NASB, cf. NRSV) or object of the vb. (“though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering,” NIV), his function as a guilt offering is intriguing. Why does Isaiah refer to him as an ’4%@m? Could it refer to the removal of the defilement of the people’s sins so that the servant figure can experience Yahweh’s favor once more? In other words, it might affirm that reconciliation between Yahweh and the servant will be realized one day. Offering another alternative, Hartley (80) suggests that Isaiah’s choice of ’asam to describe the servant’s (Christ’s) sacrificial death may be twofold. First it signifies that the servant’s death compensates God fully for the damages he has incurred by humanity’s sinning. Second, this death provides expiation for all sin, whether inadvertent or intentional. Wenham (111) contends that the reparation offering draws attention to the fact that sin has both a social and spiritual dimension, affecting our relationship with our neighbor and our Creator. Just as we must make right wrongs committed against others by paying them back for our wrongs, we must provide God reparation (through Christ’s death in our place).

P-B_ This word is found often in later Heb., usually indicating the offering given when some doubt about an act or eating something questionable has been committed, raising some question about its propriety. Other such acts may be involved also. The vb. came to mean destroy, as well as, become guilty (W7M 1:178). In LH the vb. meant (1) to neglect, be guilty; (2) to be waste. The nom. described a special offering for guilt; it also meant guilt. The offering was given when there was doubt about a sinful act of commission or omission. Jastrow lists four different offerings for the commission of an undoubted sin/offense (1:129). Guilt, evil, unrighteousness: > ’5m (become guilty, incur guilt, bear guilt, pronounce guilty, # 870); > dam (blood, bloodshed, blood-guilt, murder, # 1947); > wazar (unjust, laden with

guilt, #2261); > hwb (be the cause of guilt, #2549); > hét’ (sin, guilt, punishment of sin, # 2628); > ngh (be free, exempt from guilt, remain unpunished, #5927); > rs‘ (act wickedly, unrighteously, be guilty, pronounce guilty, # 8399) Offering, sacrifice: > ‘azkdrd (sign-offering, #260); > ’isSeh (offering by fire, #852); > 'asam (guilt offering, # 871);

> zbh (slaughter, sacrifice, #2284);

> hatta’at (sin offering,

# 2633); — tbh (slaughter, #3180); — minha (gift, present, offering, sacrifice, #4966); > ma“sér (tithe, #5130); > ndr (make a vow, # 5623); > nwp I (move back and forth, wave, # 5677); > nskI (pour out, be consecrated, libation, # 5818); > ‘d/a I (burnt offering, # 6592);

> “risa (meal/dough offering, # 6881); > gorban (offering, gift, #7933); > Sht I (slaughter, > ¢riimd (tribute, contribution, #9556); > Aaron: Theology; > Offering: Theology; > Priests and Levites: Theology

# 8821); > Selem (settlement sacrifice, # 8968); > tamid (regular offering, #9458);

BIBLIOGRAPHY ISBE 4:260-73; TDOT 1:429-37; THAT 1:251-52; TWOT 1:78-80; R. Averbeck, “To Know and Not to Know in Leviticus 5:1-6 and 17-19,” an unpublished paper presented to the Biblical Law Group, SBL Annual Meeting, November 20, 1989; J. Hartley, Leviticus, 1992; D. Kellerman, “’asam in Ugarit?” ZAW 76, 1964, 319-22; N. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature: Its Meaning and Function, 1987; B. A. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord, 1974; idem, Leviticus, 1989; J. Levy, WTM

556

1:178; P. McCarter, 1 Samuel, AB 8, 1980, 132-33;

OWN(# 871) J. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience: The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance, 1976; idem, Leviticus 1-16, AB, 1991; idem, Numbers, 1990; J. de Moor, “Studies in the New Alphabetic Texts from Ras Shamra,” UF 1, 1968, 167-88; L. Morris, “‘Asham,” EvQ 30, 1958,

196-210; N. H. Smith, “The Sin Offering and the Guilt Offering,’ VT 15, 1965, 73-80; H. C. Thomson, “The Significance of the Term ’asham in the Old Testament,” Transactions of the Glasgow University Oriental Society 14, 1953, 20-26; G. Wenham, Leviticus, NICOT, 1979; R.

Whybray, Isaiah 40-66, 1981; idem, Thanksgiving for a Liberated Prophet, 1978. Eugene Carpenter/Michael A. Grisanti

871 ANE

OWS

OWN ('asam), nom. guilt offering (# 871).

1. Semitic cognates for the Heb. root ’5m have been proposed from Ugar.,

Arab., and Eth., and specifically for the nom. ’asam, guilt offering, in Ugar., Arab., and Jewish Aram. (HALOT 95-96; cf. below). On the one hand, the relevance and even

existence of many of these supposedly cognate terms has been seriously questioned (see, e.g., TDOT 1:429-30; Milgrom, 1991, 339, and specifically for Ugar. see the remarks in Tarragon, 71, 172). On the other hand, there are those who maintain the

legitimacy of some of this proposed cognate evidence (see, e.g., Astour, 281-82, and the remarks in Tarragon, 71, 172, and Wansbrough). In Arab. the root is ’tm, not ’5m. The vb. means to transgress, be guilty, and the nom. means sin, transgression, outrage, guilt (TDOT 1:429-30). There is no debate here. The Ugar. and other parallels are, however, much debated. Some have argued that it occurs in the divine name Sgr w ’itm at Ugarit, referring to a healing god: “Disease was considered the result of some fault or guilt ('asam) that had first to be identified and then atoned. The patient had to have recourse to priests who ... administered for it [i.e., the disease] a sacred fine (also called ’a45am) ... Paying the ’a4sam was supposed to automatically bring upon a recovery. Therefore the healer-god, too, received the name ’a@s5am, as one of the gods of the Jewish colony in Elephantine was called” (Astour, 281-82 and n. 54, ’sm-bt’] at Elephantine; cf. Levine, 1974, 128-32,

esp. 132 for Elephantine and even a proposal of a Phoen. onomastic cognate). It appears from the incident of the Philistines and the ark of the Lord in 1 Sam 6 (see ’4Sam in vv. 3, 4, 8, 17) and from these other ANE languages and texts (cf. next

sec.) that the concept of the guilt offering for desecration of sancta was not limited to Israelite religion but was certainly known elsewhere in the ANE. 2. From a nonetymological but conceptual perspective, certain parallels have been proposed to ritual terms and procedures in Hittite and Hurrian texts, and even ancient Greece (Weinfeld,

106-7, 109, 111). For example, one Hittite-Hurrian pre-

scription reads: “a lamb for a burnt offering, a bird for a guilt offering, and a bird for a sin offering” (ibid., 107).

OT 1. The number of occurrences of the term ’45am meaning guilt (or reparation) offering in the HB is open to debate because of the wider than normal discussion about its meaning in specific passages. For example, according to Lev 5:6, “(the offerer shall bring his offering) as a penalty (lit., his ’aSam) for the sin he has committed, he must bring to the LORD a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin” (NIV; contrast NASB, “He shall also bring

D077

DWN(# 871) his guilt offering to the LoRD for his sin which he has committed”). In this instance most would argue today that ’aam refers to the consequence of the transgression (.e., the penalty) and should not be translated “guilt (or reparation) offering” (cf. Milgrom, 1991, 339-45, the so-called “consequential ’4iam’’). This avoids having the same offering referred to as both a guilt and a sin offering in the same verse (cf. also 5:7). The largest blocks of occurrences are Lev 5:14-6:7[5:14-26] (the basic regula-

tions for the guilt offering; cf. Num 5:7-8; Ezek 40:39), Lev 7:1-7 (the special regulations for the priests; see also v. 37, Num

18:9; Ezek 42:13; 44:29; 46:20), and Lev

14:12-28 (the cleansing of the leper). The guilt offering was also used in the case of premarital sex with a slave woman (Lev 19:20-22), the defilement of a Nazirite vow (Num 6:12), and the guilt offering of the Philistines when they sent back the ark

(1 Sam 6:3-8, 17). 2 Kgs 12:16[17] is particularly interesting: “The money from the guilt offerings and sin offerings was not brought into the temple of the LORD; it belonged to the priests.” The money referred to here is probably a combination of the guilt offerings when they were converted into a payment of money rather than animal offerings, and the money received from offerers who purchased their sin or guilt offering from the temple stockyards (Milgrom, 1991, 287-88; cf. sec. 5 below regarding Lev 5:15b, “a ram from the flock, one without defect and of the proper value in silver, according to the sanctuary shekel’’). Other occurrences are Ezra 10:19 (Milgrom, 1991, 359-60; cf. sec. 8 below) and Isa 53:10 (Hartley, 80; cf. sec. 9 below).

2. There have been numerous proposals regarding the meaning and significance of the ’asam offering, especially the difference between it and the sin offering (see hatta’t, #2633). Some of the proposals are (see the summaries in Hartley, 78, and TDOT 1:431-32): (a) The sin offering was for unintentional sins against human beings

and the guilt offering for unintentional sins against God and intentional sins against human beings (Philo). (b) The sin offering was for sins of ignorance and the guilt offering was for all intentional sins when there were no witnesses (Josephus). (c) The

sin offering was for mortal sins and the guilt offering for venial sins (Origen). (d) The sin offering was for intentional sins and the guilt offering was for unintentional sins (Augustine), etc. These and other early views are reproduced in various forms in modern scholarship. The confusion is so great that some scholars have concluded that the precise ancient distinction between them has been lost in the text as we now have it (see e.g., TDOT 1:431, and Anclsr 2:421).

Recently, Milgrom has proposed the view that “the asham expiates for sancta desecration, the hattat for sancta contamination,”

and offers the following pattern:

asham (the sacred > profane transition is dealt with by means of this offering) versus hattat (the sacred > impure transition is dealt with by means of this offering; Milgrom, 1976, 127, cf. idem, 1991, 49-50, 339-78). His approach has been well received in gen-

eral among scholars if not always in detail. There are still some problems. For example, the sin offering seems to deal primarily with the movement from impure (i.e., unclean) to pure (i.e., clean), not impure to holy.

In general, a good argument can be made for proposing that the benefit of making atonement (#4105) in the tabernacle was either consecration or purification or both, depending on the particular situation and the particular kind of offering used (note here the similarity to Milgrom’s distinction between the guilt and sin offerings, 558

OWN(# 871) respectively). Lev 10:10 sets forth two major dichotomies with which the priests were to be especially concerned: “You must distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean” (> Clean and Unclean). On the one hand, consecration changes the status of someone or something by shifting them from the realm of the common to the realm of the holy (Lev 10:10a). On the other hand, purification changes their condition from unclean to clean (Lev 10:10b).

The manipulation of the blood was the focal point of the sin offering ritual, and the primary purpose of the blood manipulation was to purify (or decontaminate) the sanctuary from the effect of the iniquities and impurities of the people, although the purification also (re)consecrated the altar for sacred use (see Lev 8:15; 16:19 and the discussion above). On the one hand, sin offering blood was never applied to a person’s body and was, therefore, never used for consecrating people to the Lord, even though it could consecrate a nonhuman sacred object (> Offerings and Sacrifices). On the other hand, guilt offering blood was, on occasion, applied to the body of a person in order to consecrate them (see, e.g., the leper in Lev 14; see sec. 8 below).

Milgrom is right with regard to the overall purpose of the guilt offering. The evidence suggests that its primary purpose was to make atonement for “desecration” of “sancta,” that is, the mishandling of holy (sacred) things by treating them as if they were common rather than holy. Although the term ’G4Sa@m does not occur in Lev 22:10-16 (see only ’asmé4 in v. 16, which in this case might mean guilt offering, see below), nevertheless it is a helpful passage. The holy food gifts were to be eaten by the priests and those in their household, not the common people. “If anyone (i.e., a com-

mon person) eats a sacred offering by mistake, he must make restitution to the priest for the offering and add a fifth of the value to it’ (Levine, 1989, 150). The word trans-

lated by “mistake” (5“gagd; # 8705) is the same one used in reference to the sin offering (cf., e.g., Lev 4:2, and the fuller remarks under hatta’t, sin, sin offering, # 2633). It

refers to straying or erring from the commands of the Lord, in this case, specifically the commands about “the LORD’s holy things” (i.e., the things dedicated to the Lord for the tabernacle or priesthood). The reason for the regulation is that for the common people to eat such gifts would be to profane (NIV desecrate) the holy gifts (NIV sacred offerings): “The priests must not desecrate the sacred offerings the Israelites present to the LORD by allowing them to eat the sacred offerings and so bring upon them guilt requiring payment. I am the LORD, who makes them holy.” The translation of the first part of Lev 22:16 is particularly difficult. It reads, lit.: “and they (the priests) shall not cause them (the common Israelites) to bear iniquity (or punishment) of guilt (or guilt offering) by their eating their holy things.” This could refer either to a person bearing guilt for what he or she had done, or it could mean that a person was responsible to bring a guilt offering for what he or she had done. In either case the passage is an instructive parallel to the major guilt offering pericope (i.e., 5:14-6:7[5:14-26], see below). 3. The main guilt offering pericope begins: “When a person commits a violation and sins unintentionally in regard to any of the LoRD’s holy things” (Lev 5:15a). The initial vb. and cognate accusative nom. define the issue for which the guilt offering was brought: the person has acted unfaithfully against God by committing a violation of the distinction between the common

and the holy (see m‘l, #5085, and Milgrom,

1991,

345-56). It means to commit a sacrilege (cf. Achan’s violation of the ban, Josh 7:1;

559

OWN(# 871) 22:20; 1 Chron 2:7). The same words can refer to a violation of one’s relationship with the Lord through idolatry (e.g., Num 31:16; Josh 22:16, 22, 31; 1 Chron 5:25; 2 Chron 33:19) or rejection of his commands (e.g., Lev 26:40; 1 Chron 9:1; 10:13; Ezra 9:2; Neh 13:27; Ezek 18:24; Dan 9:7; note esp. Deut 32:51, “you broke faith with me ...

because you did not uphold my holiness among the Israelites”), but in those instances no guilt offering is mentioned. In one case the vb. m‘l (> #5085) refers to the suspicion that a wife had been sexually unfaithful to her husband (Num 5:12, 27). Although, once again, there is no mention of a guilt offering, the woman is being accused of being “unfaithful” to her husband, the same expression as “commits a violation” in Lev 5:15 (see above). The guilt offering was, however, used to handle a similar case in which a man had sexual relations with a slave woman of another man (19:20-22). There are two other major

passages in which to commit a violation against the Lord is used for violations of the property of other people (6:1-7; Num 5:5-10). In both cases, as with the violation of the Lord’s sancta, there was a guilt offering presented to the Lord to make atonement and a restoration of the violated property plus one fifth to the one whose property had been violated. For this reason, some refer to the guilt offering as the reparation offering instead (see e.g., Milgrom, 1991, 342), but this takes into account only one aspect of the guilt offering. The violator did two things: he brought an offering to the Lord and made reparation for the property he violated. Whether it was a violation of the Lord’s property or that of another person, the final result for the one who committed the violation was that it would “be forgiven him” (Lev 5:16, 18; 6:7[5:26]; cf. 19:22). 4. Some scholars have argued that the guilt offering was brought in cases of violation of another man’s property only because there had been an associated violation of God’s name by swearing a false oath regarding the matter (Lev 6:3, 5[5:22, 24]; see esp. Milgrom,

1991, 365-73, but cf. also Knohl,

139-40, and others). However,

according to 6:7[5:26] (cf. v. 3b[22b]) the atonement and forgiveness brought by the guilt offering rectified the violation of “any of these things he did that made him guilty,” not a violation of God’s name through false oath. One would think that if the rationale of bringing a guilt offering in such cases was to make atonement for the false oath, the text would read here something like, “for the false oath which he swore.” To be sure, an oath violation was involved, but it seems that Lev 6:1-7[5:20-26] refers to a situation in which the matter came to the official law court because the cul-

prit had denied his violation of the other person’s property (vv. 2-3), the false oath being part of that denial (cf. the remarks on Lev 5:1 in relation to the sin offering, hatta’t, #2633, OT sec. 5-6). A false oath would normally involve the invocation of the Lord in the oath and possibly even in his presence (i.e., at a Yahwistic altar associated with a city, Deut 16:21-22 [cf. vv. 18-20 and 17:1-7], or at the central sanctuary,

17:8-13). Of course, cases could be settled out of court by following the regulations found elsewhere in the collections of laws in Exod-Deut. But if a matter became one for the official court, it also became a matter for the official cult.

Again, the pattern of terminology in Lev 6:4[5:23] is the same as in the sin offering pericope. Compare 6:4[5:23] (“when he thus sins and becomes guilty”) with, for example, 4:27, “if anyone of the common people sins ... and becomes guilty” (NASB). Contrast Milgrom’s rendering of 6:4a[5:23a], “when one has thus sinned and,

feeling guilty, he shall return that which he robbed ...” (Milgrom, 1991, 319, 344). This 560

OWN (#871) translation is doubtful, especially since the person who has taken a false oath is unlikely to have the kind of repentant heart that Milgrom assigns to the concept of “feeling guilty” (cf. sec.

5 below; see also Lev 6:7[5:26]). Once the matter had been

resolved in court in favor of the plaintiff, then the man who committed the violation

was required not only to restore the property plus a one-fifth fine, but he also had to bring a guilt offering to make atonement and obtain forgiveness from the Lord for his violation, which would have included a false oath (vv. 3 and 5 [23 and 27]).

The similar regulation in Num 5:5-10 relates to the same kind of violation as Ley 6:1-7[5:20-26], except that in Num 5 there is no mention of a false oath (contra Milgrom, 1990, 34-35, and Ashley, 112-15) and there was no kinsman to which the

reparation could be made. Apparently, if a person was confronted with his violation and was thereby convicted of the crime (i.e., he became legally “guilty,” v. 6b), then he was required to confess his violation openly (Num 5:7a; cf. Lev 5:5), restore that which he violated plus one-fifth (Num 5:7b-8a; if the person to whom restitution was to be made was no longer alive and there was no kinsmen, then the payment went to the priests), and finally bring his guilt offering to make atonement (and presumably obtain forgiveness from the Lord, although the latter is not stated in v. 8b). Thus, in both Lev 6:1-7[5:20-26] and Num 5:5-10, when the matter had become a matter for the offical court, it also became a matter for the official cult.

5. Returning now to the violation of the holy property of the Lord referred to in Lev 5:14-16, the restoration plus one-fifth fine referred to in v. 16 was apparently a regular legal pattern in Israel and was therefore transferred to cases in which the violated property belonged to the Lord (i.e., the tabernacle or the priestly families; see sec. 3 above). Once the restitution had been made, it was possible for the offender to make atonement and receive forgiveness from the Lord (vv. 15b and 16b). The expression “of the proper value in silver, according to the sanctuary shekel” (v. 15b) is difficult. This translation suggests that the value of the ram should correspond in some way to the value of that which had been violated (see, e.g., Levine, 1989, 30-31). Another possible translation would be something like this: “convertible into payment in silver, according to the sanctuary shekel” (see e.g., Milgrom, 1991, 319, 326-27). In this case, the line would mean that one could substitute monetary payment for the offering of a ram, probably at the discretion of the priests (cf. Exod 30:11-16 for money as a means of making atonement). 6. It will be recalled that, for the most part, the shift from Lev 4 to 5:2-4 in the sin offering pericope is from known sin to hidden sin (i.e., not known or not made known by the person who knew). A similar pattern appears in the shift from 5:14-16 to 5:17-19 in the guilt offering pericope. In fact, both 5:1 and 5:17 end with “(he) will be held responsible.” In the guilt offering pericope, the violation in v. 15 was done unintentionally and known by the violator, while the violation in vv. 17-18 was done unintentionally (v. 18) but was not known (vv. 17-18) by the violator. According to 5:17,

“If a person sins and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD’s commands, even though he does not know it, he is guilty and will be held responsible.” Milgrom has made two important but controversial proposals regarding this passage. First, he has argued that the NIV translation must be abandoned because “he is guilty and will be held responsible” is a “tautology” (Milgrom, 1991, 343-44). According to him, the only translation that makes sense is “and he feels guilty, he shall bear his

561

OWN(# 871) responsibility.” It seems more plausible, however, that “he is guilty” refers to the offerer’s legal status as a guilty person, while “(he) will be held responsible” means that he must bear the consequences of being guilty even though he did not know that he had committed a violation (cf. Hartley, 76-77).

Second, Milgrom also argues that these verses refer to a suspected violation, in which case the violator suspects that he has violated sancta but does not know what and how (see e.g., Milgrom,

1991, 331-34, 361-63). The parallel structure with the sin

offering pericope (see above), however, suggests that this person did not at first know that he had violated sancta, but “even though he does not know it, he is guilty and will be held responsible” (v. 17b). The assumption seems to be that he comes to know his error either through remembering after the fact or being informed by another person that, for example, the meat he had eaten was from the “holy” portion that belonged to a priest and his family (cf. the remarks on Lev 22:14-16 above, sec. 2; note the parallel with 5:2-4 in the sin offering pericope). Even though it was done in ignorance (vv. 17-18), if he did indeed come to know about it, he was still responsible for bringing a guilt offering to make atonement and obtain forgiveness (vv. 18-19; cf. once again the parallel in the sin offering pericope, 5:5-6). The text does not say that if in this case the violator would be responsible for full reparation and the one-fifth fine, and, furthermore, it is not clear from the text

whether Lev 5:17-19 is connected back to the previous section about violation of the Lord’s sancta (5:14-16) or forward to the section about violation of another person’s

property (6:1-7[5:20-26]), or both. On the one hand, it is likely that the reparation and fine are assumed from the previous section and not repeated because of proximity. On the other hand, the parallel of the expression “what is forbidden in any of the LORD’s commands” (5:17) in 6:3[5:22] and 6:7[5:26] suggests a connection forward in spite of the new introduction formula in 6:1[5:20]. Moreover, if this is correct, then 5:17-19

refers to cases where a person is willing to admit and deal properly with his violation in contrast with those that require official judicial action (6:1-7[5:20-26]). This would make 5:17-19 a close parallel to the law in Num 5:5-10 (see the discussion of the latter passage above, sec. 4). 7. That the guilt offering consecrated rather than purified is suggested by the fact that its blood atoned for the desecration of sancta, not the purification of the sanc-

tuary (see sec. 2 above). The blood manipulation of the guilt offering reflects this. The priest offered it to the Lord by splashing it around on the altar like that of the burnt and peace (fellowship) offerings (Lev 7:2; cf. 1:5; 3:2; etc.). In regard to the meat and the fat parts, however, the guilt offering was the same as the sin offering for the leader or the common person. The fat was burned on the altar as a “gift” to the Lord (Heb. i8Seh, # 852; cf. also the peace offering), and the meat became a prebend for the priest who made atonement with its blood (cf. Lev 7:3-7 with 4:26, 31; 6:26, 29). Therefore,

in some ways the guilt offering was like the burnt and peace offerings, but in other ways it was like the sin offering.

The law of the defiled Nazirite vow is especially helpful in making the distinction between the sin and the guilt offerings (see Milgrom, 1991, 356-58 for detailed remarks). On the one hand, according to Num 6:11 when a Nazirite accidently became defiled by contact with a corpse, he was to offer two doves or pigeons, and the priest was “to offer one as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering to make atonement 562

OWN (#871) for him....” The sin offering atonement purified the sanctuary from the contamination caused by the defilement of the Nazirites hair, which had been dedicated as holy to the Lord (v. 9; cf. v. 5). On the other hand, the guilt offering was part of the rededication ceremony and made atonement for the desecration of his previous hair and the earlier vow: “That same day he is to consecrate his head. He must dedicate himself to the LORD for the period of his separation and must bring a year-old male lamb as a guilt offering. The previous days do not count, because he became defiled during his separation” (vv. 11b-12). The sin offering purified, while the guilt offering made reparation and (re)consecrated the Nazirite. 8. Another good example of the use of the guilt offering is the ritual procedure for the cleansing of the “leper” (i.e., Lev 14:1-20; the term leper probably refers to any person whose skin showed any kind of infectious blemishes). Milgrom argues that the leper brings a guilt offering because his leprosy might have been caused by desecrating sancta in some way, at some time (Milgrom, 1991, 363-64; cf. 2 Chron 26:16-19 and

the ANE lit. cited there). However, there is a better explanation that takes into account the larger framework and nature of the covenant established between Yahweh and Israel (see Exod 19-24).

After the initial cleansing by special water and the “scapebird” (Lev 14:1-9), the first standard blood atonement ritual was the guilt offering (14:10-18). The sin offering followed (14:19a), and then came the burnt and grain offerings (14:19b-20a),

all of which together accomplished the full atonement for the leper so that he could become clean (14:20b). Now, it appears that the point of the guilt offering at the beginning of this series of offerings was to reconsecrate the leper so that he could once again become part of the “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod 19:6), from which he had been expelled and therefore, in a sense, “desecrated” because of his diseased con-

dition (Lev 13:45-46). Here it is important to recall that in Exod 24:5-8 it was the blood of burnt and peace offerings that was used to ratify the Sinaitic covenant. This is one of the few cases in Scripture where the blood was actually physically applied to both the altar (v.

6) and the people (v. 8). The blood was holy and was used to bind the people (v. 8) to the Lord (represented by the altar, v. 6). By this ritual Israel was transformed into “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod 19:6). The next occasion on which the blood was applied to both the altar and the people was the ordination peace offering blood that was applied to the right earlobe, thumb, and big toe of the priests, and the remainder was splashed around on the altar (29:19-20). By this means Aaron and his sons were made to be the especially holy priests of “the kingdom of priests.” The leper ritual just described included the same kind of blood manipulation, but in this case it was the blood of a guilt offering because atonement had to be made for the desecration of the leper during his days of leprosy (Lev 14:14). He was a holy member of the holy nation who had, for a time, been desecrated.

The same rationale of Israel as “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod 19:6) is reflected in the Ezra 10:19 reference to the putting away of foreign wives in postexilic Israel. The NIV has the entire verse in parenthesis and reads correctly: “They all gave their hands in pledge to put away their wives, and for their guilt they each presented a ram from the flock as a guilt offering.” Since the nation was sacred, to marry foreign wives was to commit sacrilege—a violation of sancta (see the remarks in

563

OWN(# 871) Milgrom, 1991, 359; cf. Lev 21:7, 9, 14 for the concept of profaning the holy priesthood by illegitimate marriage). 9. The term ’asam, presumably with the meaning guilt offering, also occurs in Isa 53:10, where it is said of the Suffering Servant: “though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.” How was the Suffering Servant a guilt offering? The answer depends on how one understands the guilt offering to begin with. In fact, there might be several dimensions to the answer. For example, it is certainly true that “the servant’s death compensates God fully for the damages he has incurred by mankind’s sinning” (Hartley, 80). However, in light of the discussion of the leper (sec. 8), it might be especially significant that this section of Isaiah speaks from the perspective of the entire nation being in Babylonian captivity. Could it be that the term ’a@Sam was used here precisely because the holy nation had been expelled (i.e., desecrated) from the land. If so, in this context the purpose of the expiatory sacrifice of the Suffering Servant was to restore the people to the land and to their God. It is parallel to the restoration of the leper in Lev 14 (see NT sec.). Furthermore, Isa 53 is replete with references to disease

and illness, again suggesting a connection between the Suffering Servant and the dreaded disease(s) that could cause a person’s expulsion from the community of faith.

P-B_ The Qumran scrolls use the terms ’45am and ’aSmd primarily with the meaning guilt, but there are a few occurrences referring to the guilt offering. The Temple Scroll describes a part of the temple that was constructed especially for the purpose of keeping the sin and guilt offerings of the priests separate from those of the common people (11QT 35:10-15). There is also a passage in the Damascus Document that states: “When anything is returned which is without an owner, whoever returns it shall confess to the Priest, and apart from the ram of the sin-offering [Heb. ’asam, guilt offering, not sin offering], it shall be his” (CD 9:14; translation from Vermes, 93). Of course, there are extensive references to the guilt offering in RL (see, e.g, the references listed in Danby, 823). In the LXX, the most common term for guilt offering is plémmeleia, mistake, trespass; trespass offering—a G word that never occurs in the

NT. NT 1. Unfortunately, the NT use of OT terminology for offerings and sacrifices is not always specific and clear enough for us to be sure of the precise OT referent. For example, when John the Baptist said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29, cf. v. 36), it is not certain whether he was referring to Jesus as the Passover lamb (Exod 12:3-5, see above), the regular daily morning and evening burnt offering lamb (see, e.g., Num 28:3-8), a sin offering lamb (see, e.g., Lev 4:32; 12:8), a guilt offering lamb (see, e.g., Lev 14:13, Num 6:12), just generally to a sacrificial victim (i.e., “lamb” might have taken on this general meaning in the NT), or the Suffering Servant of the Lord mentioned in Isa 53:7b, “he was led like a lamb to the

slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.” The Passover lamb option has been favored by some but the general consensus is that it refers to Isa 53:7. This suggests that the numerous references to the “Lamb” in Revelation also have this background (Rev 5:6, 8, 12-13; 6:1).

2. The account of the Ethiopian eunuch witnesses this same connection back to Isa 53 through the direct quotation of Isa 53:7-8 (Acts 8:32-33; cf. v. 28) and Philip’s

564

QW(# 871) Christological explanation (v. 35). It is significant that, although in the Lev 5:14-6:7 guilt offering pericope the prescribed offering was a ram (5:15, 18; 6:6), the guilt offering prescriptions for the cleansing of a leper (Lev 14:10, 13) and the renewing of an interrupted Nazirite vow (Num 6:12) require a male lamb. This corresponds with both Isa 53:7, where the Suffering Servant is referred to as a “lamb,” and 53:10, where he is

labeled as a “guilt offering.” Jesus as God’s supreme Suffering Servant was mistreated and finally executed by those he came to serve and, at the same time, made atonement

for their sin. 3. The same theme appears to be the as a sacrifice on our behalf in 1 Pet 1:18-19, silver or gold that you were redeemed ... but without blemish or defect.” Peter quotes Isa

background for Peter’s reference to Jesus “it was not with perishable things such as with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb 53:9 in 1 Pet 2:22, and his expanded discussion of Christ’s example to us in vv. 23-25 as a Suffering Servant (cf. v. 21) contains numerous clear allusions to Isa 53 (e.g., “when they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate” [cf. 53:7]; “he himself bore our sins in his body” [cf. 53:4, 11]; “by

his wounds you have been healed” [53:5]; “you were like sheep going astray” [53:6]). This suggests that the allusion in 1 Pet 1:19 might also be to Jesus as the Suffering Servant guilt offering (cf. also Peter’s other Isaianic quotations and allusions, e.g., 1 Pet 1:24-25; 2:6, 8, 9; 3:14-15; etc.). In light of the proposed connection between the appearance of ’asam in Isa 53:10 and the concept of the kingdom of priests (see OT sec. 9), it is interesting that the same combination of theological concepts occurs in 1 Pet 2:9-10, 21-25. However, the actual terminology in 1:19, “without blemish or defect,” might suggest that this is a combined allusion referring to both the Suffering Servant in Isa 53 and the Passover lamb or other OT sacrifices, which were always required to be unblemished (see, e.g., Exod'12:5#ev l:34521% 4:332;\etc.): Offering, sacrifice: > ’azkard (sign-offering, #260); — ’isSeh (offering by fire, #852); > ’asam (guilt offering, # 871); > zbh (slaughter, sacrifice, # 2284); > hatta’at (sin offering, # 2633); — tbh (slaughter, #3180); — minha (gift, present, offering, sacrifice, #4966); > ma“Sér (tithe, #5130); > ndr (make a vow, #5623); > nwp I (move back and forth, wave, # 5677); > nsk I (pour out, be consecrated, libation, #5818); > ‘ola I (burnt offering, # 6592); > “isd (meal/dough offering, #6881); > gorban (offering, gift, #7933); > Sht I (slaughter, #8821); > Selem (settlement sacrifice, # 8968); > tamid (regular offering, #9458); > t*rima (tribute, contribution, #9556); > Aaron: Theology; ~ Offering: Theology; ~ Priests and Levites: Theology

BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT

1:429-37;

G. A. Anderson,

“Sacrifice

and Sacrificial

Offerings

(OT),” ABD,

1992,

5:870-86; T. R. Ashley, The Book of Numbers, NICOT, 1993; M. Astour, “Some New Divine Names from Ugarit,” JAOS 86, 1966, 277-84; C. Brown, “Sacrifice, First Fruits, Altar, Offering,” NIDNTT, 3:415-38; J. E. Hartley, Leviticus, WBC, 1992; I. Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School, 1995; B. A. Levine, In the Presence of the

Lord, SJLA, 5, 1974; idem, Leviticus, The JPS Torah Commentary, 1989; J. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, SILA 18, 1976; idem, Leviticus I-16, AB, 1991; idem, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers, 1990; B. J. Schwartz, “A Literary Study of the Slave-Girl Pericope—Leviticus 19:20-22,” Studies in the Bible, SH 31, 1986, 241-55; G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 3d ed., 1987; J. E. Wansbrough, “Antonomasia: The Case of Semitic ’tm,” Figurative

565

PWN (# 879) nym ap ih i

ests

tg

a

Language in the Ancient Near East, 1987, 103-16; M. Weinfeld, “Social and Cultic Institutions in the Priestly Source Against Their Ancient Near Eastern Background,” Proceedings of the Eight World Congress of Jewish Studies, 1983, 95-129; Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll, vols. 1-2, 1983. Richard E. Averbeck

872 ('asém, guilty, under judgment), ~ # 870 873 (axmé, guilt, blame, shame, object of guilt), > #870

874 ('akmird, ’aSmoret, night-watch), > #9068

876 (’esnab, lattice?; window), > #2707

879

AWN

AWN (aSSap), nom.

(#879).

1/II, 431-435); Aram.

conjurer (Dan

1:20; 2:2)

ANE. 2 Oe

Akk. GSipu, exorcist (CAD tA Ae ele ae

’aSap, nom. conjurer (Dan

OT

The Heb. term is found in Dan 1:20; 2:2 and the Aram. cognate in Dan 2:10, 27;

4:7[4]; 5:7, 11, 15. For an extended discussion on mantic practices, see gsm, practice divination (# 7876). Malcolm J. A. Horsnell

880

MEWS

MEWN (asp), quiver (# 880).

ANE_ The word is found in Ugar. ’utpt (WUS # 475), but it seems clearly to be a loanword from Akk. ispatu (CAD 7:257-58; AHw, 397), although Albright derived it from Egyp. ’sp’t (HALAT 95).

OT _ This fem. term is found 6x in the OT (all poetic contexts). Only in Isa 22:6 and Job 39:23 is it used in purely military contexts without any metaphoric connotations. In the Servant Song of Isa 49:2, it is used as a metaphor for a secret or hidden place, one of security. It is used metaphorically in the familial blessing of Ps 127:5. In Jer 5:16, it occurs in the difficult phrase “their (the Babylonians’) quivers are like an open grave.” The phrase may suggest that as an open grave is filled with death, i.e., corpses, so the quivers of the enemy are filled with death, i.e., the agents of death, arrows. Bow, arrow, archery: > ‘aspd (quiver, # 880); > zigét (flaming arrow, # 2338); > hés (arrow, # 2932); > thh (distance of bowshot, #3217); — ydreh I (archer, #3452); > yeter II (bowstring, #3857); > geet (bow, #8008); > rbb II (shoot, #8046); > rbh II (archer,

# 8050); > fl? (quiver, #9437); > Warfare: Theology BIBLIOGRAPHY

TWOT 1:80; W. F. Albright, The Vocalization of the Egyptian Syllabic Orthography, 1934, 10. K. Lawson Younger, Jr.

882 (espar, date cake),

566

> Bread

NEWN(# 883)

oy

ys

EUS

NUN

(aSpot),

| dunghill (883).

nom.

ash heap, refuse

heap,

OT 1. This word is used in parallel with dust (‘apar, > #6760). God “raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap” (1 Sam 2:8; Ps 113:7). Those who once were royally treated are now lying on ash heaps (Lam 4:50), such as Job sitting on the ash heap and scraping himself with a potsherd (Job 2:8). 2. The word is used 4x to describe the gate of Jerusalem commonly called the Dung Gate (Neh 2:13; 3:13, 14; 12:31).

Dung, excrement, refuse, urine: > ’aSpdt (ash-heap, refuse-heap, dung-hill, # 883); > gil II (befoul, dirty 0.s., #1671); —~ ddmen (dung, manure, #1961); > h%ra’im (dung, #2989); > yeSah (filth, diarrhea, #3803); > madménd I (dung pit, # 4523); > siha (offal, # 6054); > peres I (offal, contents of stomach, #7302); — sé’a (filth, human excrement, # 7362); > sapia‘ (dung [of cattle], # 7616); > sig (excrement, # 8485); > Syn (urinate, # 8874) Dust, clay, dirt, loose soil: > ’abaq (dust, # 85); > ’éper (ashes, loose soil, # 709); > homer II (mud, clay, mortar, # 2817); — tit (mud, mire, clay, # 3226); > mp (dirty, # 3245); > ‘pr (dust, # 6759); > roba‘ II (dust, rubbish, # 8066); > regeb (clods of earth, # 8073); > S*hér (soot, blackness, # 8818); > Sahagq (dust, clouds of dust, # 8836)

Roy E. Hayden

884 (’aSg°l6én, Ashkelon), > Ashkelon

886

suN

AWN (Sr 1), q. walk straight; pi. lead on, reprove;

pu. be led on (# 886); nom.

TWNOWS (asur,

assur), step (# 892). OT

1. The vb. form, cognate to Ugar. ’sr, occurs in the q., pi., and pu. stems, usu-

ally in a figurative sense of pursuing a course of life. Thus, Prov 4:14 warns against going (bw’) on the path (’drah) of the wicked or walking (¢°’as¥ér, pi., perhaps to be read as q. te’°Sar with HALAT) in the way (derek) of evil men. Here ’Sr appears to have a rather generic meaning as its parallel vb. bd’ suggests. A more nuanced meaning may be found in Prov 9:6, where wisdom commands, “Leave your simple ways and you will live; walk (’iXri) in the way (derek) of understanding.” The vb. clearly connotes a lifestyle characterized by prudence. The identical idea appears in Prov 23:19: “Listen, my son, and be wise, and keep your heart (w®’ aSSér, lit., “walk”) on the right path (derek).” Yahweh promises Ephraim to answer him and lead him (wa’“Sfirenni) (NIV, “care for him” Hos 14:8[9]). The context demands that ’sr here have the meaning of a

righteous way of life. The vb. occurs twice in Isa 9:16[15], once as a pi. part. functioning as the

subject and once as a pu. part. accusative. “Those who guide” (m®’aSs“ré) mislead the people who, thus misguided (m°’ussarayw), go astray. Though none of the usual terms for road or path appears, it is clear that the metaphor of a journey or lifestyle is in view. 2. The nominal form ’aSur, step, is attested 8 or 9x, primarily in poetry and wisdom texts and with figurative meaning. The psalmist boasts that “my steps (’@Sur) have held to your paths (ma‘gal)” (Ps 17:5). Here one of the metaphorical terms for “path” (ma‘gal) as a way of life is used. The identical idea of holding to the path is found in

567

“WN (# 887) Ps 37:31; 40:2[3]; 44:18[19]; 73:2. Prov 14:15 declares that “a simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his steps (/a’“Surd).” The contrast between the naive and the wise is the same as that in Prov 9:6, where the cognate vb. Sr was used. Job proclaims that his feet have followed after the very steps of (’a5ur) Yahweh and that he kept his way (derek) (Job 23:11). In another discourse he invokes God’s judgment upon himself if his steps (assur) have turned from the path (derek) (31:7). Clearly “step” as both vb. and nom. describes adherence to a manner of life, usually in a positive sense of walking after God. Journey, going, marching, walking, wandering: ~ ’rh (be on the road, wander, #782); >

aX.

’Sr

I (walk straight, # 886); > drk (tread, march, # 2005); > hlk (go, walk, behave, # 2143); > zhlI (slide away, # 2323); > ys’ (go out, come forward, #3655); > yrd (go down, go up, descend, #3718); > massa‘ (setting out, #5023); > nht (march down, descend, settle, #5737); > s’n

(tramp along, tread, # 6008); > ‘dh I (stride, # 6334); > ‘lh (go up, ascend, bring up, # 6590); > ps‘ I (step forth, march, #7314); # 8801) Path, way:

> s‘d (step, march, #7575);

~> ’rh (be on the road, wander, #782);

> Swr I (descend, caravan,

> derek (way, distance, journey, manner,

# 2006); > madréga (steep way, #4533); > m®silla (highway, #5019); > ma‘gal II (track, # 5047); > mis‘6l (hollow way, #5469); > natib (path, #5985); > pls I (clear way, make a path, #7142); > §bil (path, # 8666); > 5p?I (track, #9155) Eugene H. Merrill

887

“wR

“WR (Sr ID), pi. be/consider fortunate; pu. be

. called happy, blessed (# 887); TWN (eer), nom. fortune (# 890); TWN (Ser), nom. fortune (# 891); “TWN (aire), blessed (> # 897). ANE

See ’aSré, blessed (> # 897).

OT The vb. ’Sr II appears to be a denom. vb. derived from the nom. form ’asré, “happy/blessed is....” (a formula that occurs 45x in the OT, much like the beatitude statements in the NT), and ’eser, quently, ’Sr II means “to say ’a¥ré” The nom. form ’aré occurs (> ’aSré [# 897] for a treatment of

happiness (Hillers, 321-22; Janzen, 215). Conseto someone (Hillers, 321). 26x in Psalms alone (e.g., 1:1; 32:1; 33:12; 106:3)

this form). 1. The vb. occurs 9x, once as a pu. and 8x as a pi. Leah (Gen 30:13) and Job (Job 29:11) affirmed that people in their time did or would pronounce them blessed. The beloved lover’s maidens (S of Songs 6:9) pronounced her blessed, and the children of the virtuous woman in Prov 31:28, in recognition of her selfless service to them, will

declare her praiseworthiness. Those who lay hold of wisdom are also considered fortunate (3:18). The reading of Ps 41:2[3] is uncertain and should be read as a pi. instead of

a pu. (see LXX; W. VanGemeren, “Psalms,” EBC 5, ad loc.). 2. In his description of the ideal Davidic ruler, the psalmist declares that all nations will recognize his blessedness and stature (Ps 72:17). In 41:2[3] ’r II occurs as

part of a triad of divine blessings for the prudent man (blessings inherent in the Mosaic and Davidic covenants). QL, LXX, and a number of Heb. mss support a pi. (rather than pu.) reading with a 3ms suffix, May he bless him/pronounce him happy. The 568

MIWN# 895) juxtaposition of three semantically similar vbs. occurs frequently in Ugar. letters (e.g., KTU, 5.9; cf. Dahood, 249).

3. After encouraging his covenant people to test his promise to bless tangibly their covenant obedience, Yahweh promises that his provision of abundant harvest and

protection will cause the surrounding nations to recognize their fortune (Mal 3:12). In the next disputation Yahweh confronts the Israelites’ misunderstanding of his promise to bless them. They declared that their covenant loyalty went unrewarded and, from their perspective, the arrogant rather than the submissive can be pronounced blessed (3:15). 4. The nom. form, ’dSer, happiness, occurs the only time in Gen 30:13 as part of Leah’s excited exultation concerning the recent birth of her son Asher by Zilpah (an obvious play on the vb. ’Sr II). Blessing: > ’asré (truly happy, blessed, how happy, #897); > brk II (bless, praise, greet, # 1385) Happiness, joy, rejoicing: > ‘sr II (be fortunate, # 887); > blg (be cheerful, happy, # 1158); > gad II (luck, fortune, # 1513); > gyl (exult, # 1635); > hdh (gladden, rejoice, make happy, # 2525);

> ‘Iz (exult, #6600);

> ‘ls (enjoy, appear glad, #6632);

> ‘Is (rejoice,

# 6636);

> Sw (rejoice, # 8464); > smh (rejoice, make glad, # 8523) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 1:45-49; THAT 1:257-60; TWOT

1:80-82; M. Dahood, Psalms 1-50, 1965; D. Hillers,

“Delocutive Verbs in Biblical Hebrew,” JBL 86, 1967, 320-24; W. Janzen, “’ASré in the Old Testament,’” HTR 58, 1965, 215-26.

Michael A. Grisanti

889 (’“Ser, who, which), > Particles 891 ('6Ser, happiness),

> # 897

892 (aSur, step), > # 886

895

:

TUS

TMAWS (%Sérd),

(a) wooden

cult-object;

pole

(Asherah pole in NIV, #895); (b) goddess

(direct reference not accepted by NIV). Derivation unknown.

ANE Asherah (Atiratu/ASratu/ASertu) in the second millennium Asia Minor to Mesopotamia. In Ugar. myths she (‘trt) was wife the gods.” She was the goddess (Elat) of Tyre and Sidon. She is the sea. Cf. Akk. a¥ratum, consort of Amurru (see Lipifski). In the first millennium references to her are found only on

was worshiped from of El and “mother of ’tirat ym: Asherah of

the fringes of the culture area, especially in Arabia. It is generally held that the Kuntillet ‘Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qém inscriptions refer to some cultic object associated with Yahweh, and not exclusively—as some still maintain—his consort. Outside of the possible references in the Bible, she is not well attested in the Syria/Palestine region.

OT

Most scholars accept that the word is used as the name of the goddess in 1 Kgs

15:13 (= 2 Chron 15:16); 1 Kgs 18:19; 2 Kgs 21:7; 23:4 (perhaps 7); and the textually

doubtful Judg 3:7 (possibly Astarte). All references in the OT, whether to goddess or to 569

"TWN(# 897) IUxXa=LA the cult object, are uniformly antagonistic. The ’“Sérd (pole, Asherah) is also said to be used within the worship of Yahweh, but is never approved. The ’“sé@rd was also at times described as being in the temple, either as a symbol in the worship or as the image of a “guest goddess” (2 Kgs 21:7; 23:6). If an image, she could only be the consort of Yahweh, even if Baal was also a “guest god” there. There is apparently no part of the Bible that accepts the poles (’“Sérim) as legitimate cult objects, even though the pillars, massébd, are sometimes accepted (Gen 28:18; perhaps Hos 3:4).

P-B_

LXxX translates this word as alsos, sacred grove, which is also the meaning as

understood in Jewish literature (cf. Abodah Zarah). This association was unchallenged (cf. AV) until the Babylonian evidence was studied (cf. RV, BDB).

> Idolatry: Theology Idolatry:

> ’‘/il (Nothing,

#496);

> ’“5érd (wooden

cult-object,

pole, goddess, #895);

> gillilim (images, idols, # 1658); > dagén (Dagon, # 1837); > k*mds (Chemosh [god of the Moabites], #4019); > mdlek (Molech, #4891); — massékd I (cast statuette, #5011); > mipleset (terrible thing, dreadful object, #5145); — semel (image, #6166); — ‘asab

(god-image, #6773);

> ‘astoret (Astarte, #6956); > pesel (cultic image, statue of a god, > frapim (figurines, mask, #9572); > Idolatry:

#7181); > tomer II (scarecrow, #9473); Theology BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 1:473-81; TWAT 1:438-44; J. Day, “Asherah (deity),” ABD 1:483-87; idem, “Asherah in Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature,’ JBL 105, 1986, 385-408; C. Frevel, Aschera und der Ausschlieslichkeitsanspruch yhwhs, 1995; T. S. Frymer, “Asherah,” EncJud the Hebrew

1:703-5; J. M. Hadley, “Yahweh and ‘His Asherah,’” Ein Gott allein? 1994, 235-68; A. Lemaire, “Who or What Was Yahweh’s Asherah?” BARev 10, 1984, 42-51; E. Lipinski, “The Goddess

Atirat in Ancient Arabia, in Babylon, and in Ugarit,” OLP 3:101-19; W. L. Reed, The Asherah in the Old Testament, 1949; N. Wyatt, “Asherah,” DDD, cols 183-95. J. M. Hadley

897

wN "WN (asré), truly happy; blessed; how happy, Me ay blessed (#897), const. pl. of WS (*’eSer), blessed (#890); SWS (dSer), happiness (hapleg. in Gen 30:13; #891); (possible) denom. vb. from ’asré: TWN (Sr ID, pi. to be, make, or pronounce happy, blessed; pu. to be made or pronounced happy, blessed (> # 887). ANE

There is no known Sem. cognate to ’¥r II, which occurs in all phases of the Heb.

language. It is to be distinguished from ’Sr I, walk, go forward, guide (> # 886), which does have Sem. cognates, though some claim the root originally belonged to ’sr I (HALAT 94). OT

1. Translation and meaning of ’axré. 'aSré is an abstract nom., occurring always

as a construct, intensive pl., often with an exclamatory sense. While a literal rendering

would be, “Oh, the blessednesses of,” the meaning is: “how happy, blessed is ...” or, “truly happy, blessed is....” As is sometimes expressed, what the world calls “lucky” or “fortunate” the Scriptures call ’asré, with a decided emphasis on a life in right relationship with God. 570

"WN(# 897) Eng. versions generally render ’asré with either happy or blessed, the former sometimes limited to “secular” contexts while the latter functions more as a “spiritual” or “religious” term (for the differences between ’axré and bariik, > # 1385, section 7).

Thus the NIV, which is not atypical, translates ’aré with blessed 37x (and once with blessings), while rendering it how happy just 4x and happy once; cf., e.g., 1 Kgs 10:8 (= 2 Chron 9:7, the words of the Queen of Sheba; but note the similar context of Eccl 10:17, rendered with blessed); see also Gen 30:13, with ’der (Leah’s joy over the birth of another son). In like manner, in Ps 137:8-9, the NIV pronounces the one who will

take Babylon’s babies and smash their heads against the rocks as happy rather than blessed, omitting entirely the second ’aSré in v. 9 (for the reverse process, cf. the NJPSV, which elsewhere renders with happy, but in Ps 137 pronounces a blessing). This NIV distinction, however, is unjustified, and it is improbable that the biblical

authors saw any clear differences between the usage of ’asré in 1 Kgs 10:8 and, e.g., Deut 33:29a (“Blessed are you, O Israel! Who is like you, a people saved by the LORD?”), while it seems certain that the meaning of ’asré in Ps 137:8-9 was under-

stood to be identical to its meaning throughout the rest of Psalms. Nonetheless, because some modern readers tend to associate the word happy with a superficial, circumstance-based joy, while others think of blessed in exclusively spiritual terms, the most accurate rendering of ’aSré is probably “truly happy,” although for translation purposes, how happy, or simply happy, may often be preferred. Note then, that in the following citations from the NIV, the one who is “blessed” is truly happy. 2. OT usage of ’asré. The real nature of the happiness of the one who is ’asré can be seen by comparing ’asré in 1 Kgs 10:8 with selected verses in Psalms. In 1 Kgs, the Queen of Sheba exclaims, “How happy your men must be! How happy your officials, who continually stand before you and hear your wisdom!” In other words, ’asré are those whose king is Solomon and who have the privilege of standing in his courts. The spiritual parallel is: “Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD” (Ps 33:12; cf. Deut 33:29); “Blessed are those you choose and bring near to live in your courts!” (Ps 65:4a[5a]); “Blessed are those who dwell in your house” (84:4a[5a]). This promise lies at the heart of the Psalter. In fact, it is a twofold ’asré that introduces the Psalms, form-

ing an inclusio to Ps 1-2: “Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers ... Blessed are all who take refuge in him” (1:1; 2:12b). These statements serve as a paradigm for the usage of ’aSré throughout the book (23x), combining the wisdom and devotional sides of the word, namely obedience to the Torah (1:1-3) and reverent worship of the Lord alone (2:10-12). This also sets the mood for the Psalter in general (cf. ABD 1:759).

Thus, in Psalms, truly happy is the one (or, the nation) whose God is Yahweh (33:12), who trusts him and hopes in him (34:8[9]; 40:4[5]; 84:12[13]; 146:5), who knows him and worships in his temple (65:4[5]; 84:4[5], 12[13] [with the emphasis on making a pilgrimage]; 89:15[16]), who fears and obeys him (112:1; 119:1-2; 128:1), who maintains justice and does what is right (106:3), whose sins are forgiven (32:1-2), who is merciful to the weak (41:1[2]), who is blessed with a large family (127:5; cf. 128:2; cf. Gen 30:13), and who is disciplined by him (Ps 94:12; cf. Job 5:17). This should not be missed at Ps 128:2, which the NIV renders with blessings, thereby losing

continuity with the ’asré of 128:1 and, more broadly, with the threefold ’asré in 127:5; 128:1-2 (cf. Fischer, “Selig,” 192-96).

ot

"WN(# 897) In Proverbs, the primary emphasis is that the one who finds wisdom and lives wisely is ’axré, stated most clearly in Prov 3:13a; see also $532, 34504721 9:29: L8icek

also 20:7 (see Fischer, “Bestatigung,” 57-62). In keeping with this, there are also references to the truly happy state of the one who trusts in and fears the Lord (cf. 16:20; 28:14), all part of the wisdom experience. The prophetic usage of ’aSré is confined to Isaiah, encouraging patient trust (Isa 30:18, with kh; cf. also 32:20, with a promise of great liberty to come) and obedience (56:2). Cf. also Dan 12:12 with hkh. Note also

that the more sparsely attested verbal usage of ’Sr, to be, pronounce, make happy, is primarily found in Prov (Prov 3:18; 4:14; 9:6; 23:19; 31:28), emphasizing that it is the

path of wisdom alone that makes one truly happy; and note ’sr b°derek in 4:14; 9:6; 23:19, possibly comparable to the twofold occurrence of ’asré and derek in Ps 1:1; 2:12; cf. also Job 29:11; Ps 72:17; S of Songs 6:9; Isa 3:12, although some read here "imritt; 9:16[15]; Mal 3:12, 15; and > smh; # 8523.

3. Is ’asré a late foreign borrowing? H. Cazelles has argued, “Since ’ashrey has a peculiar grammatical form and was introduced into the language of the OT at a late period, it is logical to conclude that it is a foreign expression which was taken over into the OT,” following J. Dupont in positing an Egyptian origin for “the pronouncement of blessings” (TDOT 1:447). However, there is no need to postulate a direct connection

between any ANE and biblical material here, since there is no evidence of an exact formulaic borrowing (in spite of interesting Egyptian “parallels”), while it is entirely reasonable to think that a cultic (or, even wisdom) emphasis on pronouncing obedient worshipers to be “truly happy” before the Lord would naturally develop on its own. In fact, Cazelles notes that “the blessing formula barukh, ‘Blessed be (is),’ in Israel is very old” (TDOT 1:445; contrast TDOT 2:300), and in order to argue for a late date for ’asré, he must claim that its occurrences in Deut 33:29 and 1 Kgs 10:8 are redactional,

also paying insufficient attention to its appearance in what he acknowledges to be some of the “oldest” collections in Proverbs. P-B_ Inthe recently published 4Q525 (cf. RB 98, 1991; and see B. T. Viviano), ’asré introduces a series of beatitudes. Rabbinic usage of ’asré follows the pattern of Psalms and Proverbs, in particular the wisdom emphasis on the truly happy state of the Torah-keeping life. Blessing: # 1385)

~

y

via

’asré (truly happy, blessed, how happy, #897);

> brk II (bless, praise, greet,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

NIDNTT 1:206-18; TDOT 1:445-48; THAT 1:257-60; TNDT 4:362-70; TWOT 1:80-81; J. Dupont, “Béatitudes égyptiennes,” Bibl 47, 1966, 185-22; I. Fischer, “Bestatigung gegliickten Lebens—Seligpreisungen im Alten Testament,” TPQ 142, 1994, 57-62; idem, “Selig, wer auf die Tora mit Lobliedern antwortet!: Seligpreisungen in den Psalmen,” TPO 142, 1994, 192-96: W. Janzen, “asré in the Old Testament,” HTR 58, 1963, 215-26; W. Kaser, “Beobachtungen zum alttestamentliche Makarismus,” ZAW 82, 1970, 225-50; E. Lipifiski, “Macarismes et psaumes de congratulation,” RB 75, 1968, 321-67; B. T. Viviano, “Eight Beatitudes from Qumran,” TBT 31,

1993, 219-24. Michael L. Brown

572

WW (# 899)

89

595

wes

WW

(55),

hitpo.

(hapleg. # 899).

take

courage,

take

heart

OT The rebellious Israelites are repeatedly denounced in Isa 40-55 for their faltering faith. In 46:1-13, Yahweh contrasts the helpless plight of Babylonian gods, which have to be carried by their devotees, with his own power to bear and protect his wor_ shipers. There is a strong denunciation of rebellious Israel’s idolatry and failure to trust the God who had carried his people from their birth (46:3). In 46:8, the meaning of the word w*hit’osasu is difficult to determine and, as Whybray (116), for one, points out, the word has never been satisfactorily elucidated. Some derive the vb. from ’is, man. Thus, e.g., KJV and RV have “show your-

selves men.” However, this is grammatically untenable (Skinner, 78; cf. Muilenburg, 541). LXX reads stenachate, groan, lament, and this has influenced Whitehouse (135)

to modify the Heb. text and render it “‘afflict yourselves.” Vg.’s confundamini, be confused, has led Lagarde (cited by Muilenburg, 541; Watts, 165), BDB (84), and others

the word and translates “be confused.” Wardle (465) recommends the reading “own your guilt,” which seems to require the emendation of MT to whit’ aks“mi. Motyer (370) thinks that this would suit the emphasis on rebellion and stubbornness. RSV and NRSV follow the Syr. and translate “and consider” (hitbénani), but JB, which claims to follow Syr. as well, translates “be dismayed.” NIV has “fix it in mind.” On the basis

of a Sumerian-Akkadian glossary, in which asSisu is equated with Sémii (Heb 5m‘, hear), Driver (cited by North, 1967, 162) infers the meaning “show yourselves attentive or obedient,” and this translation is considered by North (1967, 162) and Ackroyd (359) to suit the context well. However, taking the word to be borrowed from Aram. and to mean to found, Torrey (cited by Muilenburg, 541) translates, “put yourselves on a secure foundation” (cf. Arab. ’assasa, Akk. aSaSu, Rabbinical Heb. ’5¥ [found, establish, be strong, be well

grounded]; cf. the Palest. Syr. of Matt 7:25) or “be assured.” This derivation is also favored by Muilenburg (541; cf. RV mg.; North, 1971, 96) and by Watts (164-65), who

translates “and take hold of yourselves!” Regrettably, although many proposals have =—=yvr-yvaA

P-B — The vb. ;55 (glitter, be polished; be thick, substantial; be pressed, dark; pi. make

firm, found) occurs. The nom. ’eSes (a crystal or ball reflecting the light, reflector) is also found (Jastrow 1:130-31). Power, strength: > ’4bir (strong, powerful, #51); > ’6n I (generative power, strength, # 226); > ’ayil I (man of power, #380); > él IV (strength, power, #445); > ’ms (be strong, strengthen, be superior over, #599); > ’apiq II (strong, #693); > ’55 (take courage, # 899); > gbr (accomplish, excel, swell, rise, be strong, #1504); > dobe’ (strength, # 1801);

~ zimrda II (strength, # 2380); > hzq (be strong, overpower, support, seize, #2616);

> hayil

(capacity, power, property, # 2657); > hason (strong, #2891); > ykl (able, endure, be victorious, conquer, #3523); > ysr II (strengthen, #3580); > kabbir (strong, #3888); > koah I (strength, power, possession, means, # 3946); > kellah I (maturity, full vigor, # 3995); > m°’dd (power, might, #4394); > ma’“mas (exertion, #4410); > nsg (overtake, be able to, afford, appear, # 5952); > ‘zz (be strong, defy, show a shameless, #6451); > ‘sm I (be mighty, vast,

numerous, make strong, # 6793); > tgp (overpower, # 9548)

573

TN (# 908) BIBLIOGRAPHY

P. R. Ackroyd, “The Book of Isaiah,” in The Interpreter’s One-Volume

Commentary on the

Bible, 1971, 329-71; J. L. McKenzie, Second Isaiah: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB,

1968; J. A. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary, 1993; J. Muilenburg, “The Book of Isaiah Chapters 40-66: Introduction and Exegesis,” in JB, 1956, 5:381-773; C. R. North, The Second Isaiah: Introduction, Translation and Commentary to Chapters XL-LV, 1967; idem, Isaiah 40-55, Torch, 1971; J. Skinner, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah Chapters

XL-LXVI, CBSC, 1960; W. L. Wardle, “Isaiah XL.-LXVL.,” in Peake, 1920, 460-73; J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 34-66, WBC, 1987; C. Westermann, Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary, OTL, 1969; O. C. Whitehouse, Isaiah Vol. II: XL-LXVI, CB, 1908; R. N. Whybray, Isaiah 40-66, NCBC,

1975. Robin Wakely

906 (ét I, [particle]), > Particles

908

mS

TN (ét IID, plowshare (?), axe (# 908).

OT ’ét has traditionally been rendered plowshare in Isa 2:4 (ll Mic 4:3) and Joel 4:10. But this sense is doubtful given that ’ét is distinguished from a plowshare (mah*résa) in 1 Sam 13:20-21. Based on its use to cut down a tree (2 Kgs 6:5), ’ét refers to some kind of axe (Zorell, 89). Plowing: ~ ’ét III (plowshare?, axe, #908); > g°diidI (ridge, # 1521); > hrsI (plow, engrave, prepare, plan, #3086); > ma“nd (furrow-length, #5103); > nyr II (break up [unplowed ground], #5774); > telem (furrow, #9439) Axe, chisel: > ’ét III (plowshare?, axe, # 908); > garzen (axe, chisel, # 1749); > kaS¥il (axe, hand axe, #4172); > magzérd (axe, #4477); > m°gérd (stone saw, # 4490); > massér (saw, # 5373); > ndh II (wield [with an axe], #5616); > s°gdr/sagar (double axe or javelin, # 6038); > gardom (axe, adze, # 7935) Mark D. Futato

910

mats

MMS (th), q. come; hi. bring (# 910).

ANE This root is attested in several WestSem.. languages, including Ugar. and Arab. The Aram. causal stem is used in a private letter from Egypt dating from around 500 BC (cf. Gibson, TSSJ, 2:129, line 10). Although the dialect of the inscriptions from Tell

Deir ‘Alla (in Transjordan) has been much disputed, the occurrence of ’th there is probably to be taken as another Aram. example (combination II, line 14, J. A. Hackett, The Balaam Text from Deir ‘Alla, HSM 31, 1980, 26).

OT 1. This vb. is found 21x in Heb. poetic passages and 15x in the Aram. sections of Ezra and Daniel. In the simple stem of both Heb. and Aram., it refers to the physical movement of people, animals, temple vessels, etc. But occasionally it may indicate the coming of God. In his farewell blessing, Moses described the great theophany at Mount Sinai. In a verse that emphasizes the brilliance of light emanating from the presence of God, Moses says Yahweh “came” from the mount with myriads of holy ones (Deut 33:2); this may be the source for the NT view that the law of Moses was mediated through angels (Gal 3:19, Heb 2:2). When God comes to reveal himself to

574

JINN 912) people in a theophany, both his transcendent greatness and his immanent relationship to humankind are revealed. This vb. also occurs in Elihu’s description of God in Job 37:22. In terms reminiscent of Moses, he mentions the brilliance of sunlight breaking through clouds after a storm has abated (v. 21) and says God “comes” in golden splendor. The universal omnipotence of Yahweh is manifested when he raises one up to come from the north to tread on the nations (Isa 41:25), a conqueror known from the context as Cyrus. This term may also be used of people coming to God in the context of repentance (Jer 3:22). Coming to someone implies trust in, submission to, or a request for help from that person. 2. The part. takes on eschatological significance when Isaiah uses it for “things to come” (Isa 41:22; 44:7; 45:11). Similarly, Daniel’s dream describes the coming of

the son of man in the clouds of heaven to receive his eternal kingdom and the coming of the Ancient of Days to deliver the saints of the Highest One from the beasts that were waging war against them (Dan 7:13, 22). NT The Aram. form was apparently well known in the early church, as used by Paul in the fixed formula maranatha, “Come, O Lord” (1 Cor 16:22). This is probably the imperative form of this root preceded by the Aram. word “Lord” (see TDNT 4:466-72). John the Baptist foretold of a mightier one who was coming after him (Matt 3:11), but later while in prison wondered if he was the Coming One (Matt 11:3). John the apostle also refers to Jesus as the Coming One (John 4:25; 6:14; 11:27). Coming, approaching, entering: > ’th (come, bring, #910); > bw’ (go, come, arrive, enter, #995); > zrq Il (creep in, # 2451); > ngs (draw near, approach, offer, #5602); > grb (draw

near, approach, offer, # 7928) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDNT 5:858-71; TDOT 2:20-49; THAT 1:264-69, 674-81; TWOT 1:84; J. A. Fitzmyer, “More About Elijah Coming First,” JBL 104, 1985, 295-96; H. Fleddermann, “John and the Coming One

(Matt 3:11-12-Luke

3:16-17),” Society of Biblical Literature:

Seminar

Papers,

1984,

377-84; E. Jenni, “‘Kommen’ im theologischen Sprachgebrauch des AT,” Wort-Gebot-Glaube: W. Eichrodt zum 80.Geburtstag, ATANT 59, 1970, 251-61; C. F. D. Moule, “A Reconsideration

of the Context of Maranatha,” NTS 6, 1959-60, 307-10; F. Schnutenhaus, “Das Kommen und Erscheinen Gottes im AT,” ZAW 76, 1964, 1-21; G. von Rad, “The Origin of the Day of the Yahweh,” JSS 4, 1959, 97-108. Bill T. Arnold

912 ANE

TINS

pins (aton), she-ass, female donkey (#912).

The Akk. cognate of this term, atanu, refers either to a she-ass or a mare.

The ritual slaughter of an atanu helped to cement peace treaties in Mari in the Old Babylonian period (ARM 2 37.11); cf. also the cognates in Aram., Syr., Arab., and OSA dialects. OT

The ’@t6n (asina) is mentioned 34x in the OT, generally rendered as donkey in

the NIV (but cf. Gen 32:15[16]; 45:23, where it is rendered as female donkeys). It

occurs mainly in nontheological contexts (e.g., the she-asses of Abraham, Gen 12:16;

575

JINN# 912) of Jacob, 32:15[16]; of Joseph, 45:23; of Judah, 49:11; of David, 1 Chron 27:30; of the Shunammite woman, 2 Kgs 4:22, 24; cf. also the five hundred she-asses that are listed

as part of Job’s possessions, Job 1:3; 42:12). Lost she-asses serve as the providential means for Saul’s meeting with Samuel (1 Sam 9:3-5, 20; 10:2, 14, 16), but no signifi-

cance is attached to them. There is, however, one specific ’@t6n of biblical note, viz., Balaam’s donkey, memorialized in OT, NT, and rabbinic texts. (In the NT, see 2 Pet 2:15-16, which speaks of “Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness. But he was

rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey—a beast without speech—who spoke with a man’s voice and restrained the prophet’s madness.” In RL, the donkey’s mouth is one of the ten things created on the eve of the Sabbath at twilight; see Mish. Avot 5:6, and note also there “the mouth of the earth,’ Num 16:32; and “the mouth of the well,” Num 21:16-18; cf. also bSanh. 105a-b, along with the various midrashic comments to Num 22, e.g., Gen. Rab. 93:6, which relates that “Balaam, the wisest of the heathen, could

not withstand his donkey’s rebuke.”) Interestingly, while the OT preserves the vivid memory of Balaam’s attempt to curse the Israelites, overruled and reversed by the Lord (cf. Deut 23:4-5; Josh 13:22; 24:9-10; Neh 13:2; Mic 6:5), it mentions the extraordi-

nary incident of the talking donkey only in Num 22:21-33. There, after Balaam saddles his donkey and begins his journey, the mercenary prophet’s spiritual blindness and insensitivity are highlighted by the fact that it is the donkey, not the highly touted visionary and diviner, that three times sees and avoids the angel of the Lord with drawn sword in his hand, sent because of God’s anger with Balaam for accepting Balak’s invitation to curse Israel. Through his sight, the donkey spared Balaam’s life. Thus, the donkey is the real “seer” between them! The shock of the incident reaches a climax when, after the beast refuses to move and is beaten for a third time by her master, the Lord opens the donkey’s mouth, who challenges Balaam (Num 22:28: “What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?”). Amazingly—underscored by the straightforward manner in which the narrative is recorded—Balaam expresses no surprise that his donkey is talking to him, but instead enters into a dialogue with it (vv. 29-30). It is only then that the Lord opens Balaam’s eyes (accentuating the fact that, up to that point, his eyes were still not opened to the supernatural phenomena taking place), allowing him to see what the donkey already saw without divine revelation (note that the text does not say that the Lord opened the donkey’s eyes, but rather states three times, “When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD,” vv. 23, 25, 27; cf. also v. 32). As if this were not enough, the angel

then rebukes Balaam for mistreating his faithful animal (v. 31). Thus, the pathetic picture of Balaam, who made the fatal mistake of thinking that a greater monetary bribe would somehow alter the emphatic and clear will of God (Num 22:12; cf. ISBE 1:404), is painted in the most unflattering terms, forever etched in the minds of the hearers. The outcome that follows in chs. 23-24, as well as Balaam’s final end (Num 31:8; Josh

13:22), is an easily anticipated conclusion. For Maimonides’ rationalist problems with this account, chalking it all up to a prophetic vision, cf. his Guide for the Perplexed. For ’Gt6n in Zech 9:9, see h“mér, # 2789. 576

TINS #912) Donkey: ~ ’Gtdn (she-ass, #912); > h*médrI (male ass, donkey, #2789); > ‘ayir (stallion of an ass, # 6555); > ‘aréd (wild ass, # 6871); > pere’ (zebra [wild ass], # 7230); > pered (mule,

# 7234) Michael S. Moore/Michael L. Brown

916 (attigq, gallery), > #1215 919 ('etmol, the day before yesterday), > #621 921 (etnd, gift to prostitute, pay),

> #5989

924 (etnan, gift to prostitute, pay), > #5989

STi.

N3 (# 930)

928 (b°, in, with),

> Particles

929 (bi’d, entrance), > #995

930 ANE.

“NS

“N32 (b’r D, pi., make clear, explain (# 930).

Akk. baru(bwr), appear (G-stem), make clear, convict (D-stem).

OT This vb. denotes making something clear. It is used, in conjunction with ktb, write, of inscribing words clearly: Moses in Deut 27:8 instructs the Israelites to

inscribe “all the words of this law” on stones to be set up on Mount Ebal; Habakkuk is told to inscribe on stone tablets a vision of coming judgment on the Babylonians (Hab 2:2). The vb. is used on its own at Deut 1:5, where it is said that Moses “began to expound this law.” The vb. is thus linked in the OT to law-giving and revelation. In Deuteronomy the two uses of the vb. underscore the idea that the Israelites are accountable for their response to God’s law (cf. Deut 4:5-8; 11:26-32; 30:11-16; etc.): they

have heard it clearly set out, and it is, furthermore, publicly accessible to them in the form of a written witness. In Habakkuk the inscribing of the message of judgment suggests its certainty (cf. Hab 2:3): once written, the judgment will not be revoked. The vb. is, therefore, used in different contexts from related words in the OT (> méiis,

interpreter, official, # 4885; pSr, interpret, # 10599; ptr, #7354) and with a different nuance: the emphasis is on the clarity of the message given, not on the act by which a mysterious dream or riddle is made clear. P-B

Used in Mish. and Sam. with the meaning “explain.”

NT _ Diasapheo is used in Matt 13:36, where the disciples ask Jesus to interpret the parable of the tares. There is no obvious link between Matt 13:36 and Deut 1:5. BIBLIOGRAPHY D. Tsumura, “Hab 2:2 in the Light of Akkadian Legal Practice,” ZAW 94, 1982, 294-95. Philip E. Satterthwaite

578

“N83 (#931) 93]

“3 te

TN (b°ér 1), nom. well, pit (# 931). The word | bér (cistern,

> #1014)

is related to the same

root as b°’ér I. ANE

The cognates in Akk., Ugar., and Aram. have the same meaning, well.

OT 1. People dug (hpr; krh) wells. The words for digging occur in the song recorded in Num 21:17-18: “Spring up, O well! Sing about it, about the well that the princes dug (hpr), that the nobles of the people sank (krh)—the nobles with scepters and staffs.” Wells were important for shepherds and for desert or seminomadic peoples. For example, Abraham and Isaac both dug (hpr; krh) wells wherever they sojourned (Gen 26:18, 22). A well could either contain brackish or fresh water. The latter is called mayim hayyim, living water, in Heb., but “fresh water’ in the NIV. 2. Wells were so important that they gave rise to disputes (Gen 21:25; 26:19-21). Other references also indicate the importance of water rights. Israel asked permission to pass through Edom’s territory, promising not to drink from Edom’s wells (Num 20:17), since that was part of Edom’s portion from God (Deut 2:5-6). Later

Israel requested the same privilege from Sihon, king of Heshbon (Num 21:21-22). A well might also provide a quick hiding place (2 Sam 17:18-19, 21). 3. Some place names were known for wells: Beersheba (well of the oath or well of the seven, Gen 21:30[31]; 26:33), Beeroth (wells, Josh 9:17), Beer Lahai Roi (well

of the Living One who sees me, Gen 16:14). In the latter example, God’s dealing in a special way at a particular place sometimes resulted in a symbolic naming of that place (cf. Gen 22:14; 28:19; A. P. Ross, Creation and Blessing, 1988, 321-23, 381-82, 469).

4. The term b°’ér could also refer to a natural spring or to a pit. When Hagar fled from Sarai, an angel of the Lord met her at a spring (‘ayin) of water, also identified as a b°’ér (Gen 16:7, 14). The pits in which some men were trapped during the incursion of the nations were tar pits, “Now the Valley of Siddim was full of tar pits (be’“rot be’*rot), ... some of the men fell into them” (Gen 14:10). These pits were holes from which the bitumen oozes to the surface. 5. b°’ér has several figurative meanings: a pit of corruption (“... God, will bring down the wicked into the pit [b°’ér] of corruption,” Ps 55:23[24]); a prostitute or an adulterous woman (“a prostitute is a deep pit (Siihda) and a wayward wife is a narrow well [b°’ér],” Prov 23:27). be’ér is also used in a positive sense: “You are a garden fountain [ma‘yan], a well [b°’ér] of flowing water streaming down from Lebanon” (S of Songs 4:15; cf. Prov 5:15: “Drink water from your own cistern [bdr], running water from your own well [b°’ér]’”’). The deep or corrupt pit represented a place from which one could not easily escape. Cistern, well, pool, reservoir: > b°’ér I (well, #931); > bdr (cistern, well, grave, # 1014); > b°reka (pool, # 1391); > géb I (cistern, # 1463); — mikal (reservoir, #4782); > miqweh (accumulation of water, #5224) Fountain, spring: > mabbak (spring, # 4441); > ma‘yan (spring, #5078); > maqoér (spring, # 5227); > nb‘ (bubble, # 5580) Digging: > hpr I (dig, seek out, #2916); > hsb (quarry, hew out, dig, #2933); > htr (dig, break through, #3168); > krh I (dig, be dug, #4125); > ngr (pick out, hew out, dig out, # 5941); > gwrI (dig, bubble, # 7769)

Sibe)

WN (#944) Pit: > magér III (storage pit, # 4473); > madménd I (dung pit, #4523); > mikreh (pit, # 4838); ~ pahat (pit, # 7074); > Saha I (pit, # 8757); > Sahat (pit, grave, # 8846) ad

;

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ISBE 4:1055-56; B. H. Grigsby, “Washing in the Pool of Siloam: A Thematic Anticipation of the Johannine Cross,” NT 27, 1985, 229; V. H. Matthews, “The Wells of Gerar,” BA 49, 1986, 119; J. A. Thompson, Handbook of Life in Bible Times, 1986, 114, 120.

Bryan E. Beyer

937 (b°’ér Seba‘, Beer-sheba), > Beer-sheba

WN (b’S), q. stink; ni. become odious; hi. emit a ant URS stink; cause a stink, (#944); WN2 (b°’65), nom. stench (#945); DwND (b°’ uxim), nom. pl. stinking things (#946); NWN (bo’ sa), nom. stinkweed (# 947). ANE.

The root b’ is a Sem. root with a semantic range that includes both the physical

and the figurative (e.g., Akk. ba’aSu to smell bad, be of a bad quality; CAD 2, 4-5).

OT 1. The vb. b’§ occurs 18x in both literal and metaphorical uses, always with strong negative overtones. In the first two Egyptian plagues, the fish die so that the river stinks (Exod 7:18, 21), and the frogs die so that the land stinks (8:14[10]). Echoes of the former plague may be present in God’s claim in Isa 50:2 that he is able to dry up the waters so that the dead fish stink. The manna of the wilderness tradition emits a stink (hi.) when left overnight during the week (Exod 16:20), but not on the Sabbath (16:24), which amounts to a sensual reinforcement of the Sabbath pattern.

2. The physical revulsion of a person to a stink is used metaphorically to indicate a strong disgust and revulsion for a person or a nation. Stinking wounds are a result of sin in Ps 38:5[6], and in Eccl 10:1 the repulsive and corrupting character of folly is conveyed by a comparison with the way dead flies make perfume stink. The vb. is used 4x in Samuel to indicate a political challenge, according to Tsevat (242-43). Saul’s early military success meant the Israelites became odious to (ni. + b) the Philistines and led to full-scale war (1 Sam 13:4; cf. 2 Sam 10:6). Achish thought that David

had caused himself to be odious (hi.) among his own people (1 Sam 27:12), while Ahithophel advised Absalom to make himself stink (ni.) toward David (2 Sam 16:21), thus excluding any possibility of reconciliation and forcing an absolute decision upon waverers in the rebellion. While Tsevat considers that the vbs. here bear no sense of literal odium, retaining the sense of smell gives the idiom an appropriate directness and offensiveness. Such behavior deliberately provokes a strong reaction. 3. On the basis of context and the LXX translation, Ackroyd (1951) has argued that several verses reflect a root b’s II, to be ashamed, a byform of bw. However, such

a translation is not demanded and would eliminate some vivid imagery. 4. The b°’usim (only Isa 5:2, 4) are the putrid and rotten grapes in the Lord’s vineyard that contrast with good grapes (‘énab; > # 6694). They describe’ metaphorically the character of Israel, which had every encouragement to produce good fruit but rebelled against its maker. b°’6S is found 3x, portraying the stink of decomposing corpses of people (Isa 34:3; Amos 4:10) or locusts (Joel 2:20; || sah°nd; > #7462). In

580

WN (# 946) Amos 4:10 the first half of the verse describes the onset of death, and the second half vividly portrays the results by evoking the stench of the corpses. See further # 946. 5. The nom. bo’Sa is found only in Job 31:40, describing the evil-smelling plants that would replace barley if Job was not innocent. They have been identified as stinkweed (DCH 2:89). NT

Martha’s fear that Lazarus, dead for four days (John 11:34), would stink (026)

highlights the reality of his death and the power of Jesus in reversing an extended process of decay. P-B_ The vb. does have some interesting uses in RL, e.g., the use of insulting language. Smell, stench: > b’s (stink, become odious, #944); > zwr III (stink, be offensive, # 2320); > znh I (become foul-smelling, # 2395); > hnn II (be stinking, loathsome, # 2859); > srh II (stink, spoil, # 6244); > sah“nd (stench, # 7462); > rwh B (smell, # 8193); > Smell: Theology

BIBLIOGRAPHY P. R. Ackroyd, “The Hebrew Root W832” JTS NS 2, 1951, 31-36; idem, “A Note on the Hebrew Roots WND and WD,” JTS 43, 1942, 160-61; M. Tsevat, “Marriage and Monarchical Legitimacy in Ugarit and Israel,” JSS 3, 1958, 237-43. P. Jenson

945 (b°’6s, stench), > #944

946 ANE

UNS

WND (b°’u5), nom. sour, unripe, Pp wild grapes/berPp

ries (# 946).

Mish. Heb. ’bsym; Copt. bees.

OT The word is used in one passage in the OT (conj. in Lam 2:6; but cf. BHS). In Isa 5:2-4 it is used in vv. 2 and 4 designating the unacceptable grapes/fruit that the Lord’s vineyard produced. The vines produced inferior grapes, not good grapes. These grapes were wholly unexpected and not the product the Lord had planned for, but were the product of their own doings, not the Lord’s, who had done everything good for his vineyard (vv. 3b-4a; cf. Jer 2:21). This metaphorical usage emphasizes the corrupt, immoral, rebellious nature of the people the Lord had raised (Isa 1:2).

P-B

The LXX translates each time using akantha, thorns, thistles, while the Vg. pre-

fers grapes (uvae), wild grapes (/abrusca). Grapes: > ’e5kél I (cluster[s] of grapes, # 864); > b®’ us (sour, unripe, wild grapes/berries, #946); > zag (peel/skins of grapes, seed, kernel, # 2293); — harsan (unripe grapes, # 3079);

~ ‘énab (grapes, cluster of grapes, # 6694); > peret (fallen grapes/berries, # 7261) Eugene E. Carpenter

947 (bo’ SG, stinkweed), > # 944

949

a3

M3 (baba), nom. pupil (# 949). 581

m2 G#953)

The pupil is called the eye’s babd in Zech 2:8[12], a metaphorical reference to OT the preciousness of Israel to the Lord as well as his protection of them. Eye, wink: ~ ’ix6n (pupil of eye, #413); > babd (pupil of eye, #949); > syn (view with suspicion, #6523); > ‘ap‘appayim (flashing of eye, #6757); > ars (wink, pinch, # 7975); > rzm (flash, #8141); > t°ballul (spot in eye, # 9319) BIBLIOGRAPHY

fr

NIDNTT 3:511-21; T. J. Finley, “‘The Apple of his Eye’ (babat ‘éné) in Zechariah ii 12,” V7 38,

1988, 337-38. Allan M. Harman

951 (babel, Babylon), ~ Babel/Babylon

“32 (bgd), q. act faithlessly, treacherously, per953

3

fidiously;

commit

faithlessness

(#953);

TI23

(beged 1), nom. faithlessness, perfidy, treachery, fraud (# 954); NI723 (bdg°dét), nom. faithlessness, perfidy, treachery (hapleg.; #956); T132 (bagdd), adj. unfaithful, pernicious, disloyal, treacherous, traitorous (hapleg.; # 957). ANE

In Arab. dial., the vb. bagada means outwit, deceive, dupe.

OT The vb. bed occurs 43x (Erlandsson, TDOT 1:470), mainly in the prophetic literature. The nom. beged occurs 2x, while the nom. bég“dét occurs once (Zeph 3:4) and the adj. bagdd twice (Jer 3:7, 10). Although attempts (on these, see, e.g., Erlandsson, TDOT 1:470; R. L. Smith, 321) to connect the vb. to the nom. beged, garment/clothing, have received considerable support (see Pusey, 35; R. L. Smith, 321; Verhoef, 267),

they are not compelling. In the majority of instances, the object of the vb. is God (see sec. 2, below), but bgd is also used of those cases where human beings commit acts of

faithlessness or treachery against one another (sec. 1). 1. (a) The law in Exod 21:8, part of the legislation seeking to regulate the treatment of slaves in Israel (21:1-11), forbids the master of a house who has dealt faith-

lessly with a female slave to sell her into foreign servitude as if she were a slave bought unconditionally for general purposes. Instead, the slave owner must let the woman be redeemed, presumably by a near kinsman (cf. Lev 25:47-54). The reference here is to the man who purchases a girl with the intention of taking her to be his wife or concubine, but then reneges on the arrangement, either before the union has taken place (see S. R. Driver, 1953, 213; Rylaarsdam, 996; Davies, 176; Stalker, 230; H. R. Jones, 133; Clements, 1972, 133; Cole, 166; NEB) or, more likely, afterwards (see Noth, 179;

Durham, 1987, 322; Clifford, 1990, 53). (b) As a result of an evil spirit sent by God that disrupted the harmony between the king and his subjects (Judg 9:23), the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech after he had reigned for three years (v. 22). The implication is that the spirit of discord came in fulfillment of Jotham’s curse and as inevitable retribution on the fratricidal Abimelech for his mass murder and on the Shechemites for their support of him (cf. 9:56-57). This is not the only text in the OT that considers God the source of both good and evil (Isa 45:7; Amos 3:6). There are several texts describing how God 582

723(#953) sent a mischief-making spirit (cf. Moore, 253) that impelled people blindly to their ruin (cf. 1 Sam 16:14; 18:10; 19:9; 1 Kgs 22:19-23; Job 2:10). (c) A contrast is drawn between the good man, whose careful words bring good results both for himself and others, and the treacherous or unfaithful (masc. pl. q. act.

part.), who crave disruption and violence (Prov 13:2). A warning is given in 23:28 about the harlot, who is responsible for increasing the faithless (masc. pl. q. act. part.) _ among men. Here, argues G. R. Driver (196; cf. McKane, 1970, 392), the word bég°dim has a singular, abstract sense (treachery). Others (see BHS) prefer to emend MT to b°giidim, deceived, or to b°gadim, treacheries (cf. Hooke, 407; HALAT). Reli-

ance on a faithless man (masc. sing. q. act. part.) in time of straits is likened to a decaying tooth or a palsied foot (25:19). Just as a crumbling tooth and a paralyzed foot are incapable of fulfilling their functions, so a false sense of security in a period of crisis is useless (for a different, but less convincing interpretation, see Martin, 161; Hooke, 408; E. Jones, 208). Job sorrowfully complains that his brothers (i.e., his friends) are treacherous as an intermittent stream that is a source of disappointment, despair, and death for those

who rely upon it (Job 6:15). Just as seasonal wadies flow abundantly in winter, but dry up in the summer when water is urgently required by those traversing the desert, so his friends, by withholding unqualified compassion, comfort, and solidarity, have proved unreliable, inconsistent, and deceptive, failing him when he needs them most. The essence of true friendship is loyalty (6:14), but Job’s friends, convinced that he must be in the wrong, frightened by his suffering, and alarmed at the possibility that they might become the target of the divine displeasure, have cheated Job of an understanding sympathy (cf. Clines, 196; Habel, 40-41). Despite their physical proximity and their verbal communication, they have left Job in the lurch, and such desertion is treachery, the dis-

honoring of the agreement implied by brotherhood/friendship (cf. Clines, 178; Habel, 3H). The expectation that a sufferer has a right to expect to be consoled is not restricted to the realm of private, interpersonal relations, but holds equally in the area of group relations. In Lam 1:2, part of a “political funeral dirge” (Gunkel) bewailing Jerusalem’s fall, the personified city is depicted sitting sorrowfully, solitary, desolate, and bereft of comfort, weeping bitterly in the night because she has been betrayed (bag°di bah, they have dealt treacherously with her) by all her former friends and lovers (i.e., all her faithless political allies who have now become her enemies).

Jerusalem

has been abandoned in her time of need with none to comfort her. The pi. part. m*nahem (from the vb. nhm), refers to one who not only consoles with comforting words, but who also takes measures to alleviate or mollify suffering (cf. Westermann, 125). (d) The vb. is used of those whose outward appearance masks the inner realities (Jer 12:1, 6; Carroll, 285). It is applied both to those who, while mouthing words in praise of God, betray him in action (cf. Green, 81; Boadt, 100) and to those who, while

using benevolent and conciliatory language in conversations with others, have malicious intentions and plan ambushes in their minds (cf. McKane,

1986, 268; Carroll,

285). The q. act. part. (const.) occurs in tandem with the nom. beged in Jer 12:1, where the prophet, experiencing a contradiction that threatens the integrity of his belief, interrogates Yahweh about the prosperity of all who are treacherous (RSV; NRSV)/ 583

TAD (# 953) traitorous (NEB)/faithless (NIV)/swindlers (Bright, 1965, 83). The prophet’s distress

and anger are understandable. By attacking the vested interests of powerful leaders, including those in his home town of Anathoth, he is said to have incurred such hostility that he was threatened with death if he did not cease to prophesy (11:21b). In his reply to the prophet’s complaint and appeal for the punishment of the wicked (12:3), Yahweh first informs Jeremiah that what he is currently experiencing is but a preparation for a more difficult and demanding ministry that will tax his faith and courage even more (v. 5), and then warns him not to trust even his closest relatives since they, too,

deal treacherously (q.) and will reject and betray him (v. 6). (e) In Ps 59:5[6], a petitioner, beset without cause by fierce and murderous ene-

mies, urgently pleads with Yahweh to awake and punish all the nations that treacherously plot evil (RSV; NRSV; cf. Dahood, 1973, 65, NIV [wicked traitors], and Buttenwieser, 713 [evil traitors]). Some commentators (e.g., C. A. and E. G. Briggs, 1960b, 50; Buttenwieser, 715; cf. Mays, 1994, 213) argue that an individualistic inter-

pretation of this psalm is untenable since the nation is here personified. However, the apparent switch in focus from an individual’s affliction to the iniquity of nations has been explained in other ways (on this, see, e.g., Anderson, 434-35). Several commentators (e.g., Kirkpatrick, 334; Stuhlmueller, 1985a, 275; Tate, 1990, 94) consider it possi-

ble that a prayer for judgment on personal enemies has been adapted to serve as a collective lament for national use. Anderson (435) thinks that the national features of the psalm may have been derived from cultic language and that Yahweh’s intervention

in the affairs of an individual were understood to have a universalistic aspect. Rogerson and McKay (1977a, 51) are of the view that the depiction of the assailants as national enemies may be due to the fact that the psalmist was appealing to the national God, or may be explained as a way of indicating the magnitude of the threat to the petitioner.

The fact that the phrase bog“dé ’dwen is a hapax legomenon is no reason to abandon MT

and follow LXX, po““lé ’awen, those who work evil (pace Anderson,

437). As the more difficult reading, MT is to be preferred (C. A. and E. G. Briggs, 1960b, 56). Nor is it necessary

to conclude

that MT

is a kind of shorthand

for

kol-big°dé-po “lé-’Gwen, all the treacherous workers of evil (pace C. A. and E. G. Briggs, 1960b, 55-56; Tate, 1990, 93). Some (e.g., C. A. and E. G. Briggs, 1960b, 51; Dahood, 1973, 69; Bratcher and Reyburn, 524) think the reference is to the heathen nations who have broken their pact with Israel or with its king. If this were correct,

then bed would (Dahood,

here mean

to prove faithless to covenant

1966, 156; 1973, 69). Delitzsch (1889b,

or treaty stipulations

188) thinks that the psalmist is

speaking mainly about heathen-minded Israelites. Stuhlmueller (1988, 460) suggests that the psalmist may have in mind traitorous Israelites who are conniving with foreign conquerors. Tate (1990, 93, 97) takes the phrase to be more general in scope and to refer to any evil, treacherous people, whether foreign or domestic, who are proving faithless to a relationship.

(f) The vb. occurs in Ps 73:15, part of a meditation on the justice of God in which an individual struggles to reconcile the belief that God is good with the apparent inequities in his government of the world (Dahood, 1973, 187; May and Metzger, 710). In the psalmist’s experience, efforts to be righteous have brought only suffering. Eventually, he is led to the conviction that the prosperity of the wicked is only temporary 584

“TA3(# 953) and that, despite being burdened with sorrows and afflictions, the righteous person enjoys the supreme blessing of a personal relationship with God. However, before reaching this elevated state of consciousness, he refrained from publicizing his perplexity, despair, and near loss of faith with others because of the negative impact this would have had on their spiritual well-being: “I would have betrayed this generation of your children” (NIV). As Delitzsch (1889b, 316-17) and others (see Kirkpatrick, 435-36; C. A. and E. G. Briggs, 1960b, 145; Mays, 1994, 242) have pointed out, all the faithful in Israel shared collectively in a filial relation to God (cf. Exod 4:22; Deut

14:1). Unfaithfulness to this relation would have amounted to treachery (cf. C. A. and E. G. Briggs, 1960b, 145), a malicious desertion (Delitzsch, 1889b, 317).

(g) In Isa 21:2, the words habbégéd bégéd have been translated in different ways. RSV, JB, and Bright (1964, 503) have “the plunderer plunders” (cf. Kissane, 1960, 220), but NRSV, NIV, Kaiser (119), Watts (1985, 269), and Motyer (174) are almost certainly more accurate. NRSV has “the betrayer betrays.” NIV, Watts (1985, 269), and Motyer (174) read “The traitor betrays” (cf. NEB and REB [‘‘the traitor betrayed’’]; Mauchline, 1970, 164). Kaiser (119) has “the false one acts falsely.” The vb. here seems to refer to the deceits, treacheries, and violations of the social order that

accompany war (Gray, 352; cf. Oswalt, 391). The v. is frequently understood to be both an announcement by Yahweh that he is bringing to an end all the sighing caused by the oppressor Babylon, and a call to the Elamites and Medes to besiege that city (see Ackroyd, 1971, 344; Kelley, 252-53). Many interpreters think that this oracle refers to Cyrus’s conquest of Babylon in 539 BC; that the Elamites and Medes were contingents in Cyrus’s armed force; and that it is this army that is described as the plunderer and destroyer (see Whitehouse, 241; Thomson and Skinner, 75; Jensen, 242). However, some commentators (e.g., G.

A. Smith, 1927, 206-8; Dummelow, 430; Bright, 1964, 503-4; Watts, 1985, 271-74) think that the plunderer/destroyer is more likely to be Assyria, against whom Babylon is in rebellion, with the Elamites and Medes fighting either in support of Babylon (so Bright, 1964, 504) or on behalf of Assyria (so G. A. Smith, 1927, 207). The prophet would then be warning the beleaguered people of Judah that they would soon be in serious jeopardy and would have to face, virtually alone, the wrath of Assyria.

Bright (1964, 504) suggests that the background to Isa 21:2 may have been either the events of 691-689 B.C: (see also Oswalt, 389; Motyer, 172-74) or those of

652-648. On this reading, it is easy to understand why the prophet found the vision depicting Babylon’s collapse too terrible to contemplate. However, this interpretation raises difficulties, the most serious of which is the fact that the latter part of the v. seems to promise that the oppressive domination of the destroyer was being brought to an end. Moreover, the prophet’s state of anguish may have been caused by the overpowering nature of the divine word (cf. Ackroyd, 1971, 344; Kelley, 253), together with the uncertainty and/or desolation created by a titanic struggle between great powers (cf. Whitehouse, 242; Thomson and Skinner, 76; Ackroyd, 1971, 344). Kaiser (123), followed by Motyer (173-76) thinks it possible that the poet’s horror at the revelation he has received may have been caused by a complicated eschatological conception in which the fall of Babylon was the precursor of worldwide revolt and conspiracy on the part of the nations prior to the establishment of God’s rule over the earth. Seitz (157-59, 162-68) maintains that Isa 21 and 22 cover several historical periods ranging

585

“Tal (# 953) from the Assyrian assault on Judah (cf. ch. 22), to the Babylonian attack on Arabia

(21:13-16), to the fall of Babylon (21:1-10). (h) bed occurs 4x in Isa 33:1, an oracle aimed at an unidentified destroyer, “a treacherous one, with whom none has dealt treacherously!” (RSV; cf. NRSV). NEB

and REB have “betrayer still unbetrayed” and NIV reads “O traitor, you who have not been betrayed.” If the emendation of the doubtful kann“lot°ka to k°kallot’ka of 1QIsa*, “when you complete/cease,” be accepted, then the v. asserts that, after this foe has completed his own perfidious work, he will be betrayed and annihilated. Many (e.g., G. A. Smith, 1927, 334-44; Dummelow, 437; Kissane, 1960, 361; Mauchline, 1970, 223; Oswalt, 590-94; Watts, 1985, 421; Motyer, 262-65; Seitz, 233-35) think the

enemy being reproached here for attacking and plundering without provocation and in breach of a treaty or some other agreement (vv. 7-8) is Assyria. Some (e.g., Sheppard, 567) think it more plausible that Babylon is the addressee. Whitehouse (335) points out that while the oppressor in Isaiah’s day was Assyria, this title was, in later times, applied to the Babylonians. Seitz (235-36) argues that the destiny of Zion in 701 BC has been linked in the book of Isaiah to the ultimate fate of Zion following 587 BC. The gracious divine deliverance of Zion in 701 BC becomes a “type” that foreshadows Yahweh’s final forgiveness, comfort, and restoration of Zion (see chs. 40-66) following the Babylonian sack of Jerusalem in 587 BC. Attempts have been made to link Isa 33:1-6 to the Hellenistic period in general (see Kaiser, 342) or to specific episodes of the Maccabean struggle (see Scott, 1956, 348),

but these have not commanded much support. Kelley (284) maintains that the fact that the oppressor is unnamed supports the view that the passage was designed for liturgical use, to be recited whenever Israel was suffering affliction from foreigners. 2. In the majority of cases, however, the object of bgd is God. (a) In 1 Sam 14:33, the vb. has the sense of reneging on a known obligation. To propitiate Yahweh and secure divine assistance in the battle against the Philistines, Saul precipitously laid a solemn oath on his army, forbidding them to partake of food until nightfall (v 24). Despite being weak from hunger, the Israelites won a great victory over the Philistines on that day; but after the fighting had subsided and the prohibition was no longer in force, the exhausted and ravenous soldiers “flew upon” the spoil (v. 32), seized sheep, oxen, and calves, slaughtered them, and then ate them with the blood, which was a breach of cultic regulations (cf. Gen 9:4; Lev 17:10-14; 19:26; Deut 12:16, 23; cf. Ezek 33:25) and required expiation (see Goldman, 81, for a sum-

mary of some of the main Jewish interpretations of the nature of the cultic infringement that is alluded to here). Believed to contain the life of a creature, the blood ought to have been returned to its divine source by being allowed to drain from the carcasses into the ground as a drink offering to Yahweh (see Brockington, 324; McCarter, 249). On learning what his men had done, the distressed Saul said b°gadtem (lit., you have

acted faithlessly/treacherously or broken faith [NIV]). NEB’s translation is dramatic: ““This is treason!’” (cf. REB: “‘This is treacherous behavior!’”; TEV: “‘You are traitors!’”’). Some commentators (e.g., H. P. Smith, 119; S. R. Driver, 1966, 115; McKane,

1963, 97) think that another vb. is called for here, but no really convincing arguments have been adduced for departing from MT. (b) Just as idolatry (>) is frequently referred to in terms of sexual license, so marriage symbolism is used in the prophetic texts not only to describe the relationship

586

TWAS (# 953) between Yahweh and his people, but also to illustrate graphically Israel’s flagrant treachery and betrayal that violate the integrity of the personal relation between God and his people (on loyalty and the marriage metaphor, see Sakenfeld, 112-16). The adj. bagoda, false/faithless/disloyal is applied to Judah (Jer 3:7, 10). The disloyalty of the house of Israel to God is likened to the betrayal of a wanton woman who is unfaithful to her partner (3:20). In 3:8, the complaint is made that faithless

Judah learned nothing

_ from Yahweh’s divorce of her apostate sister Israel (a reference to the defeat and exile of the northern kingdom in 722 BC), who, according to 3:11, appeared almost virtuous when compared with reprobate Judah (on this comparison,

see, especially, Carroll,

145-46). Not only did wayward Judah repeat the offense of Israel by engaging in apostasy, but she committed further treachery by hypocritically feigning to pay homage to Yahweh under cover of idolatrous rites (Dummelow, 460). Judah’s faith was one of light, easy, endearing words divorced from deeds (Achtemeier, 1987, 28); it was an acknowledgment of God in profession, but not in practice (Green, 41); it consisted of

maintaining the outward shows of orthodox Yahwism while acting contrary to the demands of Yahweh’s covenant. While expecting her divine husband to fulfil all his marital commitments,

she had no intention of fulfilling hers (Achtemeier,

1987, 28),

which caused the relationship to be fractured. True religion demands complete loyalty, trust, sincerity, and steadfastness of purpose (cf. Clements, 1988, 33). Real faithfulness

to God must be formed in the innermost depths of one’s being, in complete, trusting, obedient, grateful dependence on God (Achtemeier, 1987, 34). In Jer 5:11, no distinction is made between Israel and Judah: both have been

utterly faithless to Yahweh (pace JB, which omits “and the house of Judah” and takes “Israel” here to be a reference to Judah only). Judah is once again the focus in 9:2[1], part of a section (9:2-9[1-8]) that expresses the contempt and despair caused by the lying, deceiving, oppressing, stubbornly untrustworthy people who are all cheats, “a conspiracy of traitors” (JB; cf. NEB; REB; McKane, 1986, 198). Not only does deceitfulness of life erect a barrier between God and his people (cf. Cunliffe-Jones, 95), but the poison, corruption, and treachery it generates causes communities to disintegrate (McKane,

1986, 198-203; Carroll, 238). Faithlessness to God inevitably leads to acts

of faithlessness against members of the community (cf. Erlandsson, TDOT 1:471). (c) The imagery of the covenant as a marriage between God and Israel is also used in the book of Hosea, where the people are denounced for their betrayal of those covenant bonds that are so closely akin to the marriage covenant (cf. Honeycutt, 28). The Israelites are condemned for their complacent religiosity and infidelity (Hos 5:3-7); they have become defiled by playing the harlot (v. 3) and they are so filled with the spirit of prostitution (and with pride [v. 5]) that they are incapable of repentance and renewal and of acquiring that genuine knowledge of God that is fundamental to the communion of covenant faith (v. 4). Israel is accused of having dealt faithlessly with Yahweh (Hos 5:7) and of having borne alien/illegitimate children (either a reference to

the progeny resulting from intermarriage with Canaanites or a metaphorical allusion to the faithless union with heathen gods that produced a generation estranged from Yahweh and alienated from their sacred covenantal heritage [cf. Harper, 271; Mauchline, 1956, 619]). Israel’s character is so flawed and her conduct so incompatible with the demands of covenant life as to preclude that quality of communion with Yahweh that

587

Ta(# 953) worshipers have come to expect (v. 6). In Hos 6:7-10, three or four places (Adam [v. 7]; Gilead [v. 8]; Shechem [v. 9]; and Bethel [v. 10?]) are cited as a kind of geographical guidebook to Israel’s long history of betraying God (see, e.g., Mays, 1969, 99: McKeating, 112; pace Andersen and Freedman, 436-37). People began to deal

faithlessly with God in the earliest period (6:7). They transgressed the covenant shortly after entering the Promised Land (cf. 9:10), at Adam (probably a geographical allusion

[with Box, 539; Mauchline, 1956, 629; Ackroyd, 1964, 609; Honeycutt, 33; Wolff, 121; Andersen and Freedman, 436, 438-39; Tucker, 713; McCarthy and Murphy, 223], as in Josh 3:16, rather than a reference to Adam [pace Pusey, 41; Dummelow; NIV]).

Israel’s infidelity and corruption are so deeply entrenched that God’s grace, mercy, and forgiveness are constantly being thwarted (Hos 6:11b-7:2). As 4:1-3a makes clear, the inevitable consequence of a lack of faithfulness, loyalty, and knowledge of God is violation of the divine commandments and a life of communal disorder (Sakenfeld, 108).

Israel’s persistent turning away from his proven covenant loyalty has left God with no choice but to win his people back through radical judgment (cf. Wolff, 129). (d) In similar vein to Hos 6:7-10, Ps 78 complains that, despite God’s care for his people throughout their history from the Exodus to the early monarchy, the people were continually guilty of ingratitude, malicious breach of faith (Kraus, 1989, 129-30),

and defection. One generation after the other proved to be perverse, disloyal, and treacherous as a defective bow that discharges its arrow wide of the mark, disappointing both aim and expectation (v. 57; cf. Delitzsch, 1889b, 373). Israel’s history of repeated infidelities is held up as a warning mirror (Delitzsch, 1889b, 356; cf. Kidner, 1977, 281), and salutary lessons are elicited for the members of the psalmist’s own generation so as to inform, correct, and nurture their faith (Mays, 1994, 254) and to

admonish them to prevent history from repeating itself (Kidner, 1977, 280; cf. Tate, 1990, 295). Yet, taken as a whole, the psalm shows that God prevails against faithlessness (Mays, 1994, 258). His mercies can outlast human inconstancy (Rogerson and McKay, 1977a, 140; cf. Clifford, 1981, 138; Weiser, 542; Kidner, 1977, 280; Stuhlmueller, 1985b, 26, 29-30; Tate, 1990, 295-96).

(e) Israel’s long history of infidelity and apostasy is also castigated in Isa 48:8, where God discloses that he always knew that his people, who had been rebellious even at birth, would deal treacherously. This provides a contrast to Hos 2:14-20[16-22] and Jer 2:2, which view the early years after the Exodus as the time when the young bride Israel was most devoted to her husband, Yahweh. However, it corresponds to

other (mainly prophetic) texts that consider that Israel was rebellious from its very beginnings (see Deut 32:5; Isa 1:2-3; Jer 7:24-26; 11:7-8; Ezek 2:6-8; 3:9, 26; 12:2-3; 16:3, 45; Hos 6:7; 9:10; 10:9; 11:1-4; 13:4-6). Obstinately and inveterately sinful (Wardle, 465), impervious to revealed truth (Motyer, 378), persistent idolaters (v. 5),

hardened hypocrites (vv. 1, 4, 8), and intractable skeptics (v. 4), the undeserving people did not merit God’s loving forbearance (v. 9) and redemption (v. 20). Yet even in the face of Israel’s unrelenting obstinacy and recalcitrance, God’s forbearance perse-

vered, his will remained intent on good, and his resolve to transform blind and deaf Israel into a fit instrument to fulfil his purpose continued steadfast. (f) In Zeph 3:1-7 and in other prophetic texts (see Isa 56:9-12; Jer 5:30-31; 6:13-14;

8:8-12;

14:13-18;

22:1-30;

23:1-40;

26:12-15;

28:1-17;

36:30-31;

13:1-23; 22:23-31; Mic 3:1-12; 7:3), the leaders of the community

588

Ezek

in Jerusalem

“TA3 (# 953) (officials, judges, prophets, and priests), who were responsible for the socioeconomic, political, judicial, and religious welfare of the city, are arraigned for corruption and held culpable for rebellion, pollution, oppression, obstinacy, lack of trust, and irreli-

gion (cf. Taylor, 1956b, 1028). Zeph 3:4 indicts the city’s prophets for being faithless (an°sé bog*dét, men of treacheries [J. M. P. Smith, 245, and Roberts, 207, think the ending 6t has an abstract force here]). Those who professed to interpret the divine will _ and who were entrusted with the task of instilling unwavering faith in and fidelity to the righteous, dependable, and just God were themselves faithless and disloyal (cf. Gordon,

1920b, 570; Eakin, 286). The fire of God’s jealous wrath will consume the

earth (v. 8). However, after he has poured out his indignation on unrepentant degenerates, God will engage in transforming action that will not only lead to the conversion and purification of all nations (v. 9), but will also establish a new people in Israel, a humble, lowly remnant totally dependent on him (v. 12), and free of deceit (v. 13). (g) An offense of faithlessness against a fellow member of the covenant family constituted an act of disloyalty against God, in whom, as their common Father and Cre-

ator, the unity of the Israelites was grounded. This understanding becomes explicit in Mal 2:10-16, where the vb. occurs 5x (vv. 10, 11, 14, 15, 16). Mal 2:10-16 is a difficult

passage, which has evoked many and varied literal and figurative interpretations (see R. L. Smith, 321-25; Glazier-McDonald,

113-20, and the literature cited there). How-

ever, this pericope appears to make the point that every offense of infidelity against a member of the covenant community imperils one’s covenant relation with God (cf. Pusey,

607;

Verhoef,

262-81;

Glazier-McDonald,

83-120).

God’s

abhorrence

for

divorce and his demand for marital fidelity seem to be interwoven with the theme of the people’s apostasy and the divine demand for truth and loyalty to the covenant. The double treachery of divorcing native wives (vv. 10, 13-16) and marrying foreign women (v. 11), who lead their husbands into worship of foreign gods (cf. Exod 34:16; Deut 7:3-4), not only ruptures the marriage covenant witnessed and ratified by God (cf. Gen 31:50; Prov 2:17), but also violates the bond between Israelites and their heavenly

Father and profanes the covenant by which Yahweh separated Israel to himself from other nations (Grieve, 586). (h) In Ps 119:158, disgust is expressed for the faithless (“renegades” [JB]; “traitors” [NEB; REB; TEV]) because they do not keep Yahweh’s commandments. For the author of this psalm, the t6rd is binding, but not restrictive, galling, or negative (cf. C. A. and E. G. Briggs, 1960b, 417; Kirkpatrick, 705; Kidner, 1977, 419-22; Kraus, 1989, 413, 420; Bratcher and Reyburn, 997). As the expression of the divine will (see Oesterley, 499), the t6rd is the divinely intended channel of true life (vv. 17, 37, 40, 50, 93, 116, 144, 156, 159; Allen, 143), liberating worshipers (cf. vv. 45; 96), infusing

them with truth and grace, and providing them with a means by which they can establish fellowship with the living God (see Rogerson and McKay, 1977b, 93; Stuhlmueller, 1988, 487). Devout obedience to the t6rd is a source of unfailing joy (vv. 14, 16, 24, 35, 47-48, 54, 70, 77, 92, 97, 111, 113, 119, 127, 143, 159, 162-63, 167, 172, 174), wholeness, peace (v. 165), wisdom (vv. 32, 34, 66, 97-104, 125, 130, 144, 169), comfort (vv. 50, 52, 76), and hope (vv. 43, 49, 74, 81, 114, 116, 147, 166). To fail to adhere faithfully to Yahweh’s instruction, guidance, and beneficial revelation (Durham, 1972, 410) is to deny oneself salvation (v. 155).

589

“TAS(# 953) 3. The vb. bgd occurs 4x and the nom. beged once in Isa 24:16c, where the plosive quality of the consonants of the five words from the root bgd serves to hammer home the ugliness of the idea of plunder through deceit, cruelty, and oppression (Oswalt, 452). Together with vv. 1-6 and vv. 17-18b, Isa 24:16c describes in apocalyptic-like language a universal judgment that will involve all peoples in a common ruin because of breach of the “everlasting covenant” (v. 5), thought by many (e.g., G. A. Smith, 1927, 441; Dummelow, 433; Peake, 453; Thomson and Skinner,. 89; Bright, 1964, 506; Irwin, 244; Erlandsson, TDOT 1:472; Seitz, 179-84; cf. Ackroyd, 1971, 346; Kidner, 1972, 604; Kelley, 261; Herbert, 148; Sheppard, 562) to be the

Noahic covenant that forbade bloodshed rejected by others (e.g., Scott, 1956, 298). Several commentators

(Gen 9:5-6), though this identification is

(e.g., Thomson

and Skinner, 89; Kissane,

1960, 272;

Wright, 65) think that the unnamed city of chaos in Isa 24:10 is Jerusalem. In supporting this identification,

Millar (15-21, et passim)

argues

that the author,

who

was

searching for an explanation for the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC, saw in the city’s devastation a collapse of creation and a return to chaos, which would be a prelude to a new creation. Hanson (314) also identifies the unnamed city with Jerusalem,

maintaining that this passage may reflect the period of the temple’s controversy ca. 520 when, in the mind of a group of dissident visionaries, the city was controlled and defiled by the hierocratic party. S. R. Driver (1893, 119-20; 1907, 221) thinks that the city is Babylon, not the literal Babylon, but Babylon the type of the powers opposed to God and his people. According to Seitz (235), in 24:16c, Assyria is replaced by Babylon in God’s purpose concerning the whole earth, and it is the Babylonians who are the treacherous ones who deal very treacherously. Seitz (174) maintains that, with the

exception of 26:1-2, the city in chs. 24-27 stands in opposition to the will and justice of God and must be destroyed. The fact that the city is unnamed, he continues, lends support to the view that city life in general is being condemned. Various attempts have been made to identify the anonymous oppressor and the city of chaos (on this, see, e.g., Kelley, 261; Kaiser, 176-77; Millar, 15-21). It is

probably idle to speculate about the identity of the city of chaos since it seems to be representative of all those world powers that have been guilty of defying God and oppressing his people (see Bright, 1964, 506; Ackroyd,

1971, 346; Kelley, 261-62;

Oswalt, 448). Sheppard (562) argues that the identification of the city was deliberately left elusive in order to foreshadow Israel’s antagonists, as yet unnamed, in the final confrontation between God and the evil powers of the world. G. A. Smith (1927, 438)

considers Isa 24 to have too universal an application and its language to be too imaginative, enigmatic, and even paradoxical to be applied to an actual historical situation.

4. The theme of several texts in which the root bgd occurs is the fate of the faithful and that of the faithless. (a) Against the backdrop of Babylonian oppression of Judah, the perplexed author of Hab 1:13 raises the profoundly disturbing question of theodicy: Why does just, pure, and holy Yahweh countenance the faithless and remain silent when the wicked swallow up the righteous? In his response to the prophet’s question, God asserts that the divine justice is inexorable and that, in the meantime (i.e., until the divine purposes have been realized), the righteous must be patient and live be’“minat6, in his faithfulness (2:4). Here, the word “faithfulness” seems to include steadfast integrity (pace Achtemeier, 1986, 46) as well as complete trust in

590

“TAD(# 953) (cf. Robertson, 175-85) and dependence on God (cf. Achtemeier, 1986, 46) and the unshakable belief that God will be true to himself (cf. G. A. Smith, 1903, 140-42;

S.R. Driver, 1906, 76-77; Stephens-Hodge, 770; Sweeney, 740-41). The words hayyayin bégéd (lit., the wine acts treacherously/is a treacherous dealer) in 2:5 have been treated in different ways. RSV (“wine is treacherous”), NIV (“wine betrays him”), Ward (14), Garland (258), R. L. Smith (105, 107-8), and Robertson (174, 184) accept MT. If this rendition is correct, then the meaning would probably be that the oppressor boasts like a boisterous drunk, but is unstable and never satisfied (cf. Ward, 14; Watts, 1975, 137; R. L. Smith, 108; Sweeney, 741). JB (“wealth is ... a treacherous thing”), NRSV (“wealth is treacherous”), TEV (“Wealth is deceitful”), de Vries (495), Achtemeier (1986, 48-49), and Roberts (112-13, 116-17) follow 1QpHab, which reads hén yibgéd. On this reading, the reference is to the instability of the unrighteous man’s wealth and power and the inability of the insatiably greedy to reach the prized goal of true life. Following LXX and taking bégéd with geber yahir, NEB translates “the traitor in his over-confidence”

(cf. REB:

“one who is conceited, treacherous, and arro-

gant”). Many commentators (e.g., Patterson, 180-81) suggest slight emendations, on the ground that the reference to wine (omitted in LXX and Pesh.) has no place in this v. Thus, Dummelow (590) suggests the translation: “Woe to the proud and the faithless, the haughty man....,” and Gordon (1920a, 567) reads “Ah! proud and treacherous man, haughty....”” Others have suggested emending hayyayin to hayy6éneh, the oppressor, or to hayy°wani, the Greek (see Taylor, 1956a, 989-90), or to hdy, woe, (Wellhausen, cited by G. A. Smith, 1903, 145; S. R. Driver, 1906, 77).

(b) In Ps 25:3, a petitioner who seeks deliverance from afflictions that beset him appeals to God to vindicate the humble and faithful and to bring to the shame of disgrace or defeat those who are wantonly treacherous (RSV; NRSV) or who break faith without cause (NEB; REB; cf. NIV: who are treacherous without excuse). Given the

context, this v. is better understood as a request (see RSV; NRSV; C. A. and E. G. Briggs, 1960a, 219; Bratcher and Reyburn, 246) than as a statement of confidence (pace, e.g., JB; NEB; REB; NIV; TEV; Delitzsch, 1889a, 339, 342; Davison, 133-34; Kirkpatrick, 132; Buttenwieser, 808; Oesterley, 189; Dahood, 1966, 154; Kissane, 1964, 110; Weiser, 237, 239; Craigie, 215, 219; Kraus, 1988, 317). Here,

those acting treacherously are those who are guilty of a faithless, traitorous desertion of God, unlike the faithful who patiently and expectantly wait upon him (cf. Kirkpatrick, 133; Kissane, 1964, 112; Kraus, 1988, 320).

(c) Several texts in Prov give the assurance that the faithless will receive just retribution. According to Prov 2:21-22, those who are upright and have integrity will retain possession of the land, whereas the wicked will be cut off from it and the treacherous/faithless/perfidious/traitors (v. 22) rooted out of it. The land was considered Yahweh’s supreme gift of salvation, and here, as in Deut and elsewhere (Deut Aad Ch, Gen 17:1, 8-9; Ps 37:3; Jer 23:5-6), faithlessness and disobedience pose a serious threat

to continued possession of it. In Prov 2:20-22, however, Israel is divided into two nations (McKane, 1970, 288): the upright, who walk in the way of good men and keep to the paths of the righteous (v. 20), and the wicked, who desert the paths of rectitude and walk in the ways of darkness (v. 13). As Collins (19-20) points out, humanity is not, in reality, divided neatly into two sharply distinct categories, the righteous and the wicked. To take such a contrast as absolute would be to distort reality. However, the

591

“TAS (# 953) a a eS eee

EEE

oversimplification of reality created by holding up two types as models representing two tendencies or directions can be a useful device in preaching and teaching because, like caricatures or cartoons, it is effective in clarifying in people’s minds the most important features of contrasting positions and in heightening their awareness of the need to choose between them. Prov 11:3 gives the assurance that the upright are guided safely by their integrity, whereas the perversity of the treacherous destroys them. In contrast to the upright, whose righteousness delivers them from perils, the treacherous are ensnared by their own evil desires (v. 6). These vv. reflect the orthodox view of strictly retributive justice (cf. Hooke, 402; pace Cox, 175). Although this outlook can be criticized for being too facile and frequently inconsistent with actual experience, there can be no denying that the course of an individual’s life is heavily influenced by the intrinsic nature of that person’s inner self (cf. Tate, 1972, 39). Moreover, it is possible to achieve a positive appreciation of the rewards of righteousness by taking them as metaphors for spiritual and psychological fulfillment and contentment (Collins, 37-38). Prov 13:15 asserts that while sane appraisal and sound intellectual judgment win favor, the way of the faithless, who lack integrity and good sense, is their ruin (following those [e.g., BHS; RSV; NRSV; Dummelow, 384; cf. LXX; Pesh.; Vg; Tg.] who emend MT ’étan, enduring/perennial, to ’@dam, their ruin).

The wicked person is considered a ransom (k6éper) for the righteous and the faithless a ransom for the upright (Prov 21:18). In a legal context, the word koper refers to the sum of money that is paid to discharge liability to a legal penalty (see Exod 21:30). Prov 21:18 may be expressing a similar idea to that conveyed by Isa 43:3-4, where Yahweh announces that he is giving Egypt, Ethiopia, and Arabia as ransom for Israel. By this kind of substitution, the ransom paid by the wicked secures the freedom of the righteous (Walls, 565; cf. Martin, 132; Fritsch, 905). The reverse picture is found in 1 Peter 3:18, where the righteous suffers for the unrighteous. However, some

commentators (see Tate, 1972, 67-68) consider it improbable that Prov 21:18 means that the wicked are the ransom for the righteous, and other interpretations of the v. have been proposed. According to JB, this proverb seems to assume that there is a certain quota of misery in the world to which God condemns the wicked but from which he protects the righteous (cf. Prov 11:8). In similar vein, McCreesh (459) thinks it possi-

ble that the proverb simply means that the brunt of this world’s evils is borne by the wicked and not the just. Referring to Rashi, who compared the case of Haman and Mordecai in Esth 7:9-10, Scott (1965, 126) thinks the point of the proverb is that the wicked get into the trouble they have planned for the righteous. McKane (1970, 561) thinks that the emphasis in Prov 21:18 is on reward and retribution: “The righteous man’s meat is the wicked man’s poison.” Cohen (cited by E. Jones, 179) suggests that 21:18 is referring to two parties in a lawsuit: the innocent party, who is acquitted, and the guilty party, who falsely accused him and who is now charged with perjury. Prov 22:12 confidently asserts that Yahweh is the vigilant guardian of knowledge (‘éné yhwh nas‘rii da‘at, the eyes of the LORD keep watch over knowledge) who overthrows or confounds the words of the faithless (wayy*sallép hib°ré bogéd; see RSV; NRSV;

Scott, 1965, 128; McKane,

1970, 245; 570-71; Tate, 1972, 70). Many

understand the v. to affirm that God’s providence vindicates truth and destroys lies (see TEV; McCreesh, 459). A forensic setting for the proverb is favored by Thomas 592

“TAS(# 953) (93-94), who, connecting da ‘at with Arab. da‘a (sought, demanded), translates “law-

suit” and then suggests that bgd, which frequently expresses failure to respect one’s obligations, may also belong to legal terminology and may refer to perjurers. In similar vein, NEB and REB understand the v. to be referring to Yahweh’s monitoring of claims at law and his overturning of the case of the scoundrel (NEB) or perjurer (REB). On the ground that there is little connection between v. 12a and v. 12b (see Hooke, 406; Fritsch, 908), some commentators

recommend a flexible reading of MT. Thus,

e.g., for v. 12a, Hooke (406) suggests the reading, “The eyes of Yahweh are upon those who keep knowledge,” and Martin (138) and E. Jones (185) propose, “The eyes of the Lord are on the righteous.” However, such approaches to the MT have not met with much support.

P-B_

The vb. bgd occurs in Heb. with the meaning act violently, rebel, be faithless.

The nom. b°gidd (faithlessness, rebellion) is also found (Jastrow 1:137). Unfaithful,

fraudulent,

perfidious,

treacherously, perfidiously, #953);

rebellious,

treacherous:

~ bgd

(act

faithlessly,

> m‘l (behave or act contrary to one’s duty, faithless,

#5085);

> mrh (be refractory, obstinate, #5286); > m°Sibd (unfaithfulness, apostasy, defection, #5412); > swg I (deviate, diverge, decline, be faithless, rebellious, # 6047); > sé ‘ép (disunited, divided

in heart and mind,

conflicting,

schismatic,

#6189);

— srr I (be stubborn,

rebellious, # 6253); > rmh II (betray, deal treacherously with, # 8228); > Sqr (deal/act falsely, betray, #9213)

Faith, fidelity: — ’mn I (support, be faithful, believe, put trust in, #586); > hsd II (show o.s. kind, # 2874) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 1:470-73; THAT 1:261-63; TWOT 1:89-90; E. Achtemeier, Nahum-Malachi, Interp, 1986; idem, Jeremiah, KPG, 1987; P. R. Ackroyd, “Hosea,” in Peake, 1964, 603-13; idem, “The Book of Isaiah,” in The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, 1971, 329-71; L. C. Allen, Psalms 101-150, WBC, 1983; F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Hosea: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB, 1980; A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms. Volume 1: Introduction and Psalms 1-72, NCBC, 1972; L. Boadt, Jeremiah 1-25, OTM, 1982; G. H. Box, “Hosea,” in Peake, 1920, 534-43; R. G. Bratcher and W. D. Reyburn,A Translator’s

Handbook on the Book of Psalms, 1991; C. A. and E. G. Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms. Vol. I, CC, 1960 (1960a); idem, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms. Vol. II, ICC, 1960 (1960b); J. Bright, “Isaiah-I,” in Peake, 1964, 489-515; idem, Jeremiah: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 1965; L. H. Brockington, “I

and II Samuel,” in Peake, 1964, 318-37; M. Buttenweiser, The Psalms Chronologically Treated With a New Translation, 1969; R. P. Carroll, Jeremiah: A Commentary, OTL, 1986; R. E. Clements, Exodus, CBC, 1972; idem, Jeremiah, Interp, 1988; R. J. Clifford, “In Zion and David a

New Beginning: An Interpretation of Psalm 78,” in Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith, 1981, 121-41; idem, “Exodus,” in NJBC, 1990, 44-60; D. J. A. Clines, Job 1-20, WBC, 1989; R. A. Cole, Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC, 1973; J. J. Collins, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, KPG, 1980; D. Cox, Proverbs With an Introduction to Sapiential Books, OTM, 1982; P. C. Craigie, Psalms 1-50, WBC, 1983; H. Cunliffe-Jones, Jeremiah: God in History, Torch, 2d ed., 1972; M. Dahood, Psalms I: 1-50. Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 1966; idem, Psalms II: 51-100. Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 1973; G. H. Davies, Exodus: Introduction and Commentary, Torch, 1967; W. T. Davison, The Psalms. Vol. 1: I-LXXII, CB, ca. 1904; F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Psalms. Volume I, KD,

593

“TAS(# 953) 1889 (1889a); idem, Biblical Commentary on the Psalms. Vol. II, KD, 2d ed., 1889 (1889b); G. R. Driver, “Problems in the Hebrew Text of Proverbs,” Bib 32, 1951, 173-97; S. R. Driver, Isaiah: His Life and Times and the Writings Which Bear His Name, 1893; idem, The Minor

Prophets Nahum, Introduction

Habakkuk,

to the Literature

Zephaniah,

Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, CB, 1906; idem, An

of the Old Testament,

seventh

ed., 1907; idem, Notes

on the

Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel With an Introduction on Hebrew Palaeography and the Ancient Versions and Facsimiles of Inscriptions and Maps, 2nd ed., 1966, idem, The Book of Exodus, CBSC, 1953; J. R. Dummelow ed., A Commentary on the Holy Bible, 1909; J. I. Durham, “Psalms,” in BBC, 1972, 4:153-464; idem, Exodus, WBC, 1987; F. E. Eakin, “Zephaniah,” in BBC, 1972, 7:270-90; C. T. Fritsch, “The Book of Proverbs: Introduction and Exegesis,” JB, 1955, 4:765-957; D. D. Garland, “Habakkuk,” in BBC, 1972, 7:245-69; B. Glazier-McDonald, Malachi: The Divine Messenger, 1987; S. Goldman, Samuel: Hebrew Text & English Translation With an Introduction and Commentary, Soncino, 1962; A. R. Gordon,

“Habakkuk,”

in Peake,

1920, 566-68

(1920a);

idem, “Zephaniah,”

in Peake,

1920, 569-71

(1920b); G. B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah I-XXVII, ICC, 1975; J. L. Green, “Jeremiah,” in BBC, 1972, 6:1-202; A. J. Grieve, “Malachi,” in Peake, 1920,

585-87; N. C. Habel, The Book of Job, CBC, 1975; P. D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic, 1975; W. R. Harper, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Amos and Hosea, ICC, 1966; A.S. Herbert, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah Chapters 1-39, CBC, 1973; R. L. Honeycutt, “Hosea,” in BBC, 1972, 7:1-60; S. H. Hooke, “The Proverbs,” in Peake, 1920, 397-410; W. H. Irvin(and J. Jensen), “Isaiah 1-39,” in NJBC, 1990, 229-48; J. Jensen (and W. H. Irwin), “Isaiah 1-39,” in NJBC, tary, Torch,

1990, 229-48; E. Jones, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes: Introduction and Commen-

1961; H. R. Jones, “Exodus,” in NBC,

1972, 115-39; O. Kaiser, Isaiah 13-39: A

Commentary, OTL, 1974; P. H. Kelley, “Isaiah,” in BBC, 1972, 5:149-374; D. Kidner, “Isaiah,” in NBC,

1972, 588-625; idem, Psalms 73-150:

A Commentary on Books III-V of the Psalms,

TOTC, 1977; A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms, CBSC, 1957; E. J. Kissane, The Book of Isaiah Translated from a Critically Revised Hebrew Text With Commentary. Vol. I (I-XXXIX), 1960; idem, The Book of Psalms Translated from a Critically Revised Hebrew Text with a Commentary. Vol. Commentary, Commentary, P. McCreesh, Commentary,

Il, 1964; H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 1-59: A Commentary, 1988; idem, Psalms 60-150: A 1989; P. K. McCarter, 1 Samuel: A New Translation With Introduction, Notes and AB, 1980; D. J. McCarthy and R. E. Murphy, “Hosea,” in NJBC, 1990, 217-28; T. “Proverbs,” in NJBC, 1990, 453-61; W. McKane, J & IJ Samuel: Introduction and Torch, 1963; idem, Proverbs: A New Approach, OTL, 1970; idem, A Critical and

Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah. Volume 1: An Introduction and Commentary on Jeremiah 1971; G. C. Martin, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs, CB, 1908; J. Mauchline, “The Book of Hosea: Introduction and Exegesis,” JB, 1956, 6:551-725; idem, Isaiah 1-39, Torch, 1970; H. G. May and

I-XXV, ICC, 1986; H. McKeating, The Books of Amos, Hosea and Micah, CBC,

B. M. Metzger, eds., The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1973; J. L. Mays, Hosea:

A Commentary,

OTL, 1969; idem, Psalms, Interp, 1994; W. R. Millar, Isaiah 24-27 and the Origin of Apocalyptic, 1976; G. F. Moore, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges, ICC, 2d ed., 1918; J. A. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary, 1993; M. Noth, Exodus: A

Commentary, OTL, 1966; W. O. E. Oesterley, The Psalms Translated With Text-Critical and Exegetical Notes, 1959; J. N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah Chapters 1-39, NICOT, 1986; R. D. Patterson, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, 1991; A. 8. Peake, “Isaiah I-XXXIX,” in Peake, 1920, 436-59; E. B. Pusey, The Minor Prophets With a Commentary Explanatory and Practical and Introductions

594

to

the

Several

Books,

1891;

J.J.M. Roberts,

Nahum,

Habakkuk,

and

ID (#955) Zephaniah: A Commentary, OTL, 1991; O. P. Robertson, The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, NICOT, 1991; J. W. Rogerson and J. W. McKay, Psalms 51-100, CBC, 1977 (1977a); idem, Psalms 101-150, CBC, 1977 (1977b); J. C. Rylaarsdam, “The Book of Exodus:

Introduction and Exegesis,” in JB, 1952, 1:831-1099; K. D. Sakenfeld, Faithfulness in Action: Loyalty in Biblical Perspective, 1985; R. B. Y. Scott, “The Book of Isaiah Chapters 1-39: Introduction and Exegesis,” in JB, 1956, 5:149-381; idem, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 1965; C. R. Seitz, Isaiah 1-39, Interp, 1993; G. T. Sheppard, “Isaiah

1-39,” in HBC, 1988, 542-70; G. A. Smith, The Book of the Twelve Prophets Commonly Called the Minor, EB, 7th ed., 1903; idem, The Book of Isaiah. Volume I: Chapters I-XXXIX, new, rev.

ed., 1927; H. P. Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel, ICC, 1961; J. M. P. Smith, “A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Micah, Zephaniah and Nahum,” in J. M. P. Smith, W. H. Ward, and J. A. Bewer,A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah and Joel, ICC, 1974, 3-363; R. L.

Smith, Micah-Malachi, WBC, 1984; D. M. G. Stalker, “Exodus,” Peake, 1964, 208-40; L. E. H. Stephens-Hodge, “Habakkuk,” in NBC, 1972, 767-72; C. Stuhlmueller, Psalms I (Psalms 1-72),

OTM, 1985 (1985a); idem, Psalms 2 (Psalms 73-150), OTM, 1985 (1985b); idem, “Psalms,” in HBC, 1988, 433-94; M. A. Sweeney, “Habakkuk,” in HBC, 1988, 739-41; M. E. Tate, “Proverbs,” in BBC, 1972, 5:1-99; idem, Psalms 51-100, WBC, 1990; C. L. Taylor, “The Book of Habakkuk: Introduction and Exegesis,” JB, 1956, 6:971-1003 (1956a); idem, “The Book of Zephaniah: Introduction and Exegesis,” JB, 1956, 6:1005-34 (1956b); D. W. Thomas, “A Note

on NY Ain Proverbs XXII.12,” JTS (New Series) 14, 1963, 93-94; C. H. Thomson and J. Skinner, Isaiah I-XXXIX, 1921; G. M. Tucker, “Hosea,” in HBC, 1988, 707-15; P. A. Verhoef, The Books

of Haggai and Malachi, NICOT, 1987; S. J. de Vries, “The Book of Habakkuk,” in The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, 1971, 494-97; A. F. Walls, “Proverbs,” in NBC,

1972, 548-69; W. H. Ward, “A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Habakkuk,” inA Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah and Joel, ICC, 1974; W. L. Wardle, “Isaiah XL-LXVI,” in Peake, 1920, 460-73; J. D. W. Watts, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, CBC, 1975; idem, Isaiah 1-33, WBC,

1985; A. Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary, OTL, 1965; C. Westermann, Lamentations: Issues and Interpretation, 1994; O. C. Whitehouse, Isaiah I-XXXIX, CB, 1905; H. W. Wolff, Hosea,

Hermeneia, 1974; G. E. Wright, Jsaiah, LBC, 1965. Robin Wakely

954 (beged I, faithlessness, perfidy, treachery), > # 953

955

Tas

13 (beged II), clothes, garment (# 955).

OT 1. The most common word for clothing, beged, occurs more than 200x. Usually this word has a broad range of meaning, similar to the English words “cloth,” “clothing,” or “garment.” It refers to clothing in general in contrast to other things. Sometimes, however, the context may reveal something more distinctive about beged. For example, Esau’s clothing had a distinctive smell (Gen 27:15, 27), Joseph’s were torn (37:29), and David in his old age needed additional cover to stay warm (1 Kgs 1:1).

When the text further defines the nature of the garment, it may be to define the color or the ritual cleanness.

595

733 # 955) (a) A modifier defines the kind of garment by a color or further description: rigma (embroidered garments, Ezek 26:16), ’argaman (purple materials, Num 4:13, Judg 8:26), ¢°kélet (cloth of solid blue, Num 4:6-7, 9, 11-12), piStim (linen clothing, Lev 13:47, 59). (b) A garment could be ritually unclean. Leviticus details the sources of uncleanness as well as the manner of disposition (Lev 13-14). Garments could be washed and become clean (see Lev 11; 13-15, e.g., 11:25; 13:6; 14:8; 15:5).

2. Clothing is a basic human need. For example, Jacob asked the Lord to provide him with food and clothing, “If God will be with me ... and will give me ... clothes (beged) to wear...” (Gen 28:20).

(a) Out of concern for the poor, the Deuteronomic law prohibits creditors from keeping garments of their debtors and demands a humane treatment of the poor (Deut 24:17). See P. C. Craigie, Deuteronomy, NICOT, 1976, 308-9.

(b) Ezekiel explicates the Deuteronomic law by defining the godly person as one who is generous and concerned with humanity: “He does not oppress anyone ... provides clothing (beged) for the naked” (Ezek 18:7, cf. v. 16; see W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 1983, 2:379-80).

3. Clothes wear out. This obvious everyday experience is transformed in the service of poetry to inject a theological perspective on this world. First, the old and useless garment is a metaphor for the wicked, “they will all wear out (blh, > # 1162) like a garment (beged). Like clothing (/°ba5) you will change them and they will be discarded” (Ps 102:26[27]; cf Isa 50:9). Second, the worn garment is a metaphor for this present world order. For example, Isaiah compares the world and its inhabitants to “a garment” (beged) whose destruction is inevitable (Isa 51:6, 8). He posits, in contrast, the new order of God’s righteousness (vv. 6, 8). 4. Garments signify social station and status.

(a) Priests. The word beged also specifies the holy, priestly garments (Exod 28:2; 39:1, 41; 40:13; Lev 16:4, 23, 32). God required Aaron and the Aaronic priests to

appear in special vestments whenever they officiated in the tabernacle/temple. These vestments were made of the same material as those used for the tabernacle, signifying the holy office of the high priests (J. I. Durham, WBC, Exodus, 385). (Priests > #1912) Zechariah speaks from the vantage point of the postexilic community. (> Postexilic Restoration: Theology; Zechariah: Theology) Concerned with the seemingly trifling and slow nature of the fulfillment of the new era, he receives an encouraging word regarding God’s zeal for his people. In the fourth vision, Zechariah witnesses to a marvelous transformation of Joshua, the high priest, who was God’s representative among the people who had been defiled by exile. His filthy garments (beged), representing the sin of the people and their defilement before and during the exile, were removed. Furthermore, Joshua received “rich garments” (mah“las6t) from the angels who clothed (/bs) him, and they put “a clean turban (sanip) on his head.” These acts symbolized the reinstatement of the high priestly office and his choice of Jerusalem (Zech 3:2-8).

(b) Warrior. For Isaiah, red-stained spots on clothes signify God’s victorious battle over the nations. In reponse to the rhetorical question, “Why are your garments (/°bas) red ...?,” the prophet receives this answer, “Blood spattered my garments

596

13 (# 955) (beged), and I stained all my clothing (malbiix)” (63:2-3; cf. 59:17 “clothes [beged] of vengeance”). (> Divine warrior: Theology) (c) Widows were distinguished by their garb. After Tamar had changed her widow clothes (Gen 38:14, 19) for that of prostitute, her father-in-law, Judah, did not

recognize her as his daughter-in-law. 5. Garments signify special times. Qoheleth’s reference to white garments may well allude to the seasons of contentment and joy (Eccl 9:8). Garments also signify a period of mourning (2 Sam 1:2; 13:31; 14:2; 2 Kgs 18:37 = Isa 36:22; Jer 41:5 > gyn,

lament, # 780). A wisdom saying likens the seasonal inappropriateness of gaiety to the forceful removal of s.o.’s garment on a cold day (Prov 25:20). 6. The word beged is also a metaphor for the fullness and joy of God’s salvation. The phrase “garments (beged) of salvation” speak of the fullness of God’s deliverance and blessing (Isa 61:10). The phrase “garments (beged) of splendor” amplifies the royal and holy status of God’s people (52:1). Clothes—mantle,

skirt, robe:

— kandp

(wing,

skirt, outermost

(covering, clothing, cloak, # 4064); > m® ‘il (robe, #5077); > §ul (skirt, # 8767); > takrik (robe, # 9423)

edge, #4053);

— k°sit

> Sdbel (flowing skirt, # 8670);

Clothes—rags: > b/dy (rags, # 1170); > melah I (worn out clothes, # 4874); > s®habdt (rags, # 6080) Fabrics, material: > b°romim (fabric of two colors, #1394); > h*tubét (colored fabric, # 2635); > “éz (fabric made out of goat’s hair, # 6436); > seba‘ (colored, dyed fabric, # 7389); > §a‘atnéz (material, linen?, #9122); > tl‘ II (clad in scarlet material, # 9433)

BIBLIOGRAPHY ANEP, figs. 1-66; ISBE 2:401-07; A. F. L. Beeston, “Hebrew Sibbolet and Sobel (Isa 47:2),” JSS 24, 1979, 175-77; M. Dahood, “To Pawn One’s Cloak,” Bib 42, 1961, 359-66; G. Dalman, Arbeit

und Sitte in Paldstina, 1987 (repr. 1937), 5:199-356; E. Dhorme, L’emploi métaphorique des noms de parties du corps en hébreu et en akkadien, 1963; M. Gorg, “Zum sogenannten priesterlichen Obergewand,” BZ 20, 1976, 242-46; H. W. Honig, “Die Bekleidung des Hebrders: Eine biblisch-archdologische Untersuchung,” diss. Ztirich 1957; M. G. Houston, Ancient Egyptian and Persian Costume and Decoration, 1954; A. Jirku, “Zur magischen Bedeutung der Kleidung in Israel,” ZAW 37, 1917/18, 109-25; H. F. Lutz, Testiles and Customs Among the People of the

Ancient Near East, 1923; J. W. McKay, “My Glory—A Mantle of Praise,” S/T 31, 1978, 167-72; W. Magass, “Texte und Textilien,”-LB 34, 1975, 23-36; J. Ruppert, Le costume juif depuis les temps patriarchaux jusqu’a la dispersion (Le costume historique des peuples de l’antiquité) 1938. Robert L. Alden

956 (bog°dot, faithlessness, perfidy, treachery), > #953 957 (bagéd, unfaithful, pernicious, disloyal),

> #953

963 (bad I, piece, part, limb), > # 969 964 (bad Il, poles, bars), > #778

965 (bad III, piece of linen), > # 7324 966 (bad IV, fabrication, falsehood, babble), > #968

597

Ta (# 967) SS SS

' “3 (bad V), nom. diviner, oracle priest (# 967); perhaps related to vb. N13 (bd’), devise, think 13 967 out (1 Kgs 12:33; Neh 6:8; > # 968). ANE. ARM

Akk. baddum, military functionary [Amorite, in Mari texts] (CAD 2, Dae Cte 15, 192).

OT

The term appears in Isa 44:25; Jer 50:36; Hos 11:6.

For an extensive discussion on mantic practices, see gsm, practice divination (# 7876). Malcolm J. A. Horsnell

x45

268

S13 (ba’), gq. invent, devise; make up, fabricate, concoct, lie (# 968); 2 (bad IV), nom. fabrica-

tion, falsehood, lie; idle or empty talk, babble (# 966). ANE.

The tri- and bi-radical forms are well attested: OSA bd’, devise, invent, think

up, make up; bd’n, idle talk, empty talk, chatter, babble, loose talk; gossip; Arab. bada’a, begin, originate, create, produce for first time, do for first time, give precedence; badda’, begin, make a beginning; Hur. badu, falsehood; Phoen. bd, idle talk; ba’, lie; Ugar. bd, invent, improvise (Ullendorf, 347; Gray, 31); speak falsehood (Huehnergard, 113); Aram. bd’, invent, fabricate; Emp Aram. ba’, invent, lie; JAram.

b°da’, fibbing; idle, empty talk; Egyp Aram. bada’, fibbing; Syr. bd’, invent, devise, make up, feign, pretend, speak falsely; bedyd, fictitious; budaya, idle, empty talk; Mehri ba’, lie.

OT 1. The vb. bd’ occurs twice (1 Kgs 12:33; Neh 6:8) and the nom. bad IV occurs 3x (Job 11:3; Isa 16:6; Jer 48:30). While Isa 44:25 and Jer 50:36 might be examples of

bad V (oracle prophet), it is possible that these are homonymic wordplays on bad IV and bad V [see OT 4 below].

2. In Job 11:3 the nom. baddeykdconnotes “endless empty babblings,” as its parallelism with rob d°barim, multitude of words, and ’?* §“patayim, verbose speaker, suggests. Zophar refers to the ancient process of legal argument in which disputants would continue to argue their case until one or the other conceded the issue (Job 11:6;

Clines, 253-60; Hartley, 193-94). Zophar complains that Job’s speech was a filibuster designed to wear out his disputants in order to win his case. On the other hand, it is possible to take baddeyka as “your fabrications”—a pejorative characterization of Job’s claims of his innocence and God’s injustice. This would harmonize with its parallelism with /‘g, deride (God) (> #4353; BDB, 541; HALAT 483). Zophar would then be accusing Job of fabricating a false story of his innocence and making a false claim against God’s justice; Job needs to acknowledge the truth (11:5-12) and repent of his sins (11:13-20). The suggestion that baddeyka denotes “your boastings” (Habel, 201) is overly dependent on an erroneous understanding of Isa 16:6 and Jer 48:30 [see OT 3]. 3. The nom. pl. of bad is used twice in reference to Moab’s boasting in colloca-

tion with words for pride: g*’6n, pride; gé’eh m°’dd, great boasting; gab®hd tig®’ 6nd w*ga’“watd, his conceit, pride and arrogance; 598

rum libbé (his haughty heart) and

NT (# 968) ‘ebrato (his arrogance) in Jer 48:29-30 (cf. Isa 16:6). Because it is used in reference to Moab’s pride, many assume that baddayw denotes “his boastings” (e.g., W. Holladay, Jeremiah, 343). This is a classic example of confusing the denotation, connotation, and

referent of a word. While it refers to Moab’s boastings, the actual lexical denotation is “fabrications” or “empty talk” [see ANE and P-B]. This use of baddayw is a pejorative characterization of Moab’s proud claims; they are fictional inventions of a fertile imagination. Moab’s boast is nothing more than empty talk, as the emphatic idioms 16’ kén (“[they are] not so”) and 16’ kén ‘asi (“they accomplish nothing”) emphasize. Moab cannot make good on her empty boasts and false claims: “Her boasts (baddayw) are empty (/6’ kén)” (Isa 16:6) and “her violence ... is futile (J6’ kén) ... and her boasts (baddayw) accomplish nothing (/6’ kén ‘asi)” (Jer 48:30). Rabin erroneously concludes that the collocation of 16’ kén demands that baddim means power (Rabin, 57-58). 4. The nom. pl. baddim refers to false prophets in Isa 44:25 and Jer 50:36 (BDB, 95). Because of parallelism with g6s°mim, diviners (Isa 44:25), some prefer to read barim, seers (HALAT 146; North, 144), as a reference to baru-priests who performed cultic divination (cf. Saggs, 331-32; Oppenheim, 212; Wilson, 93-98). Others posit a homonymic root bad V, oracle priest (# 967) (KBL* 109; Driver, 19-20; Noth, 34; Wagner, 358), and connect it with Amorite baddum, cult functionary, official (ARM, 192). On the other hand, it is possible that Isaiah and Jeremiah are using bad IV

(empty talk) and are punning on barim or baddum as a derogatory description of Babylonian cultic oracular priests. This fits nicely into the anti-Babylonian polemic of Isa 40-55 (cf. Merrill, 3-18). These prophets are nothing more than empty talkers and liars, who utter empty fabrications that will not come to pass (Isa 44:25). 5. Both usages of the vb. bd’ occur in collocation with milléb, in the heart, to denote devise, invent, make up (Neh 6:8; 1 Kgs 12:33). The connotation is neutral

when it refers to innovative actions but negative when referring to fabricated lies. In Neh 6:8, bd’ is used in reference to false accusations

that Sanballat had invented

against Nehemiah, who retorted: “Nothing like what you are saying is happening; you are just making it up (béd°’am) in your head (millibb°ka)” (NIV). In 1 Kgs 12:33, bd’ refers to Jeroboam’s religious innovations, in which he instituted (‘sh) a new festival and assigned it to a month he devised (bd’) in his heart (millibbé): a month of his own

choosing (NIV).

P-B

_1. The same basic meanings and variable spellings seen in BH occur in post-

biblical Heb.: bd’, pi. invent, fabricate, concoct, imagine, make up; itpa. show that something is false, convict someone of lying; bada’ it, nom. fabrication, fiction; b°da’i, fiction, fantasy; bdh, q. invent, fabricate, concoct; pi. invent, fabricate, concoct; charge

with lying, prove someone a liar; pu. be charged with lying, disproved, refuted; hitp. be proved wrong, false; b°da’d, fabrication, fiction, invention, liar, misrepresentation; b°diyyd, idle talk, empty talk; bada’ it, fabrication, fiction, b°da’i, fiction, fantasy.

2. The RL idiom “to invent (bdy) from the heart (mlb)” (Tg. YeruSalmi Num 16:28) describes a fabricated falsehood. This is identical to the idiom used in Neh 6:8. 3. The root occurs in Modern Hebrew with the same meanings as in BH and LH: bdh, vb. to invent (a story), to make up, fabricate; bad, nom. fabrication, made-up story; bada’iit, nom. falsehood, fabrication; bada’ and baday, nom. liar, fabricator

599

TS (# 969) (of stories); b°da’

and b*day, nom.

invention

fiction, fantasy; b°diit, nom.

(story),

fiction, fabrication; bidiyyd, nom. invention, story, fabrication; bid“yéni, adj. fictional. NT _ The vb. ba’ is translated in LXX by pseudomai and plassé, which appear in the NT to describe fabrications and lies (e.g., Matt 5:11; Acts 5:3-4; 1 Tim 4:2; 2 Peter 2:3; Rev 2:2; 21:8). The nom. bad is paralleled by eiké, idle notion (Col 2:18), and pseudos, lie John 8:44; Rom 1:25; Eph 4:25; 2 Tim 2:9, 11; 1 John 2:21, 27; Rev 21:27; 22:15). Chatter, careless speech, lie: > ba’ (invent, devise, lie, #968); > bt’/bth (chatter, babble, vow rashly, # 1051); > Abl (be futile, profitless, worthless, meaningless talk, #2038); > 1“ I (talk

wildly, speak rashly, # 4362) Mantic, divination: > ’axsap (conjurer, # 879); > bad V (diviner, #967); > hbr (engage in astrology, # 2042); > hartom (soothsayer priest, #3033); > yidd* ‘on? (soothsayer, #3362); ~ kaSdim (Chaldeans, astrologers, #4169);

> /h¥ (conjure, whisper, # 4317); > nhs I (practice

divination, #5727); > spp I (whisper, chirp, # 7627); > qsm (practice divination, # 7876) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TWAT 1:512-18; TWOT 1:91; S. Avisar, “Studi Etymologici sui temi pe-alef in Ebraico,” Miscellanea di studi in mem. di D. Disegni, ed. E. M. Artom, et al., 1969, 21-34; D. J. A. Clines, Job 1-20, 1989, 253-60; M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, “Berichtigungen und Nachtrage zu UF 1, 1969,” UF 2, 1970, 356; idem, “Die Wehklage iiber Keret in KTU 1. 16 I 2-23 (ll 35-50): Zur ugaritischen Lexikographie (XVID,” idem, CML?, 1978, 164; Friedrich G. G. Garbini, Le lingue semitische: Canaan, 31; J. M. Grintz, “73,” Les

UF 12, 1980, 189-91; G. R. Driver, WO 2, 1954, 19-20; and Rollig, Phdnizisch-punisch Grammatik, §63a n. 2; Studi di storia linguistica, 1972, 80; J. Gray, Legacy of 39, 1974, 13-15; E. Klein,

A Comprehensive Etymological

Dictionary of the Hebrew Language, 1987, 63-64, 311; N. Habel, The Book of Job, 1985, 201; J. E. Hartley, The Book of Job, 1989, 193-94; J. Huehnergard, Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Translation, HSS 32, 1987, 113; E. Lipifski, “Banquet en |’honneur de Baal: CTA 3 (V AB), A, 4-22,” UF 2, 1970, 86; O. Loretz, Psalmen, AOAT 297. 2, 1979, s. 424; E. R. Merrill, “Isaiah 40-55 as Anti-Babylonian Polemic,’ GTJ 8, 1987, 3-18; J. C. de Moor, “Studies in the New Alphabetic Texts from Ras Shamra II,” UF 1, 1969, 172; W. W. Miiller, “Altsiidarabische Beitrage zum hebraischen Lexikon,” ZAW 75, 1963, 307; M. Noth, Die Urspriinge des alten Israel, 1961, 34; A. L. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, 1968, 212; C. Rabin, “Hebrew baddim ‘Power,’” JSS 18, 1937, 57-58; H. W. F. Saggs, The Greatness That Was Babylon, 331-32; E. Ullendorff, “Ugaritic Marginalia II’ JSS 7, 1962, 347; M. Wagner, “Die lexikalischen und grammatikalischen Aramaismen im alttestamentlichen Hebriisch,” SVT 16, 1966, 365 =Die lexikalischen und grammatikalischen Aramdismen im alttestamentlichen Hebrdisch, BZAW 96, 1966, 33; R. R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel, 1980, 93-98. Gordon H. Johnston

969

—

“112 (bdd), q. (part.) alone, separate (# 969); 73 (bad 1), nom.

part, piece, limbs; solitude; adv.

alone; besides (# 963); 112 (badad), nom. solitude; adv. alone (# 970).

ANE

This root has cognates in Akk. and Arab. (HALAT 104-5) and possibly Ugar.

(TDOT 1:473).

OT 1. The vb. occurs only 3x (of a bird sitting by itself, Ps 102:7[8]; an army straggler, Isa 14:31; and of Ephraim going alone, like a wild donkey, to Assyria, Hos 8:9),

600

T13 (# 969) but its original meaning “to separate, to isolate” (TDOT 1:474) is determinative for understanding the derived nom., of which bad occurs by far the most frequently. 2. The nom. badd is used as an adv. acc. to indicate that a leper must live alone outside the camp (Lev 13:46, with ysb). Although he could live in communion with other lepers (cf. 2 Kgs 7:3-10; Luke 17:11-19), the leper, as one ceremonially unclean, had to be separate from God who lived in the camp (Num 5:1-4; cf. 31:19-24). The grief occasioned by such separation was evident by the torn clothes and unkempt hair (Lev 13:45). Jeremiah considered himself a social leper because of the Lord’s claim on

him as a prophet (Jer 15:17 with y5b; cf. W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1, Hermeneia, 1986, 460). 3. The term badad can also denote the isolation of Israel as a people. Positively, this separateness can mean far from foes and safe with God (Deut 33:28 with kn and betah, cf. of Assyria, Jer 49:31 with Skn, > # 8905) and indicate a special status (Num

23:9 with Skn). Negatively, badad can connote judgment, when there is separation from God, especially of Jerusalem (cf. Helberg), desolated and forsaken (Isa 27:10; Lam 1:1 with ysb [> #3782]; cf. 3:28 with ysb; of forsaken Jeremiah, Jer 15:17 with

ySb). The use of the term (with Skn) in Mic 7:14 has been interpreted both positively (KD) and negatively (H. W. Wolff, Micah:

A Commentary, 1982, 1990, 226).

4. Exclusive action by God is also designated by badad. He alone led Israel (Deut 32:12; cf. Labuschagne,

114-15) and he alone makes one dwell in safety (Ps

4:8[9]). 5. The nom. bad (I) can refer to parts related to a larger whole, as the limbs of a man (Job 18:13; cf. E. Dhorme, Job, 1967, 1984, 264-65), and the equal parts (bad

b°bad) of ingredients for mixing the holy incense (Exod 30:34). In the vast majority of instances, however, bad denotes “separation” in one form or another, usually prefixed

with 1°. 6. When used in reference to God, bad can give expression to God’s incomparability, often in the context of hymn and prayer. The Lord is separate from all other gods. He alone is God. There is no other god besides him (Deut 4:35, mil®badd6, cf. Ps 83:18[19]; 86:10). He alone (/°baddé) does wondrous things (Ps 72:18; 136:4; cf. 2 Kgs 19:15, 19 [par. Isa 37:16-20]) and, thus, he alone (/°badd6) is to be sacrificed to (Exod 22:20[19]), served (1 Sam 7:3), and worshiped (Ps 71:16, I°baddeka@). His name

alone (/°badd6) is exalted (148:13; cf. Isa 2:11, 17). 7. The nom. bad can refer to human beings physically by themselves, as Eglon when Ehud murdered him (Judg 3:20). The deepest sense of being alone occurs when one notices that God has left him. When God hides his face, life withers and a person experiences extreme loneliness, as an owl among ruins or as a bird alone (bdd q.) on the roof (Ps 102:3-7[4-8]). 8. Moses was asked to come near to the Lord alone (/*°baddé, Exod 24:2). When Jacob was alone (/°badd6), he wrestled with God (Gen 32:24[25], cf. vv. 28-30[29-31]).

Such special individual encounters with God are indicative of the special office and position of Moses as covenant mediator and Jacob as a patriarch of Israel. 9. After the creation of Adam, God observed that “it is not good for the man to be alone (/°baddé). I will make a helper suitable for him” (Gen 2:18). God presented the woman to the man and, thus, instituted the ordinance of marriage and defined an

601

5°13 (#974) important aspect of the place of the woman in such a union. (Also cf. L. Kohler, Hebrew Man, 1956, 89.)

10. The nom. bad can circumscribe limits and specify important foci. In coming to his conclusions, Qohelet states “This only [/°bad] have I found” (Eccl 7:29; cf. M. V. Fox, Qohelet and His Contradictions, JSOTSup 71, 1989, 243), and then mentions “God made mankind upright, but men have gone is search of many schemes” (v.

29, NIV). Israel’s dependency on the Lord is expressed by Isaiah, “but your name alone [/°bad-b°ka] do we honor’’ (Isa 26:13; cf. E. J. Young, Isaiah, 1969, 2:219). David confesses: “Against you, you only [/*badd°ka], have I sinned” (Ps 51:4[6]), indicating that sin against one’s neighbor is first of all sin against God. “Man does not live on bread alone [/*badd6], but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD”

(Deut 8:3), a strong warning against a materialistic approach to life. 11. Humans, animals, or things set apart by themselves are also indicated by forms of /°bad. The Lord instructed Gideon to set apart certain men to reduce considerably the size of his army (Judg 7:5), making it obvious that only the Lord could deliver Israel and grant victory (7:7, 14-15, 22). Jacob, fearful of meeting his wronged brother Esau (cf. Gen 25:29-34; 27:1-29), set herds by themselves as presents for Esau (Gen 32:16[17]). The protective curtains of goat hair over the tabernacle were to be arranged in groups of five and six by themselves (Exod 26:9; 36:16). P-B

The usage generally follows that in the OT. God is addressed as “You alone

(lbdkh) are a living God” (4Q504 5:9). The culprit is set “apart from the purity (min hthrh Ibd)” (CD 9:21), and certain burnt offerings are done separately (/bd) (11QTemple* 24:14-16). The phrase bd bbd (1QS 4:16, 25) can be trans. “in equal

measure” (as in Exod 30:34, but cf. proposal “apart” in P. Wernberg-Meller, The Manual of Discipline, 1957, 27, 84). Separation, breaking down, removal: ~ ’s/ (set apart, withdraw, shorten, #724); > bdl (separate 0.s., #976); > br’ I (create, separate, # 1343); > hgh II (separate, remove, # 2048); > mw II (depart, remove, take away, # 4631); > ns‘ (tear out, march out, #5825); > ntq (tear

away, #5998); > prq (pull away, #7293); > s‘n (pack up, #7585); > rhq (be far away, remove, # 8178) Abandonment: ~ bdd (be alone, #969); > yahid (only one, abandoned, #3495); > nty (abandon, forsake, # 5759); > ‘zb I (abandon, # 6440) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 1:473-79,; THAT 1:107; L. Helberg, “The Incomparable Sorrow of Zion in the Book of

Lamentations,” OTWSA 15 & 16, 1972, 27-36, esp. 28-30; C. J. Labuschagne, The Incomparability of Yahweh in the Old Testament, 1966. Cornelis Van Dam

970 (badad, solitude), > #969

I ANE

The nom. meaning tin appears to be a loanword from Sanskrit, possibly intro-

duced from India (HALAT 106).

602

SID (bedil), tin (#974); 5°13 (badil), dross (#975).

5723 (#976) OT

The nom. occurs 4x in the OT as part of a list of metals (Num 31:22; Ezek

22:18, 20; 27:12). It occurs as a poetic parallel to s?g (dross) in Isa 1:25; HALAT propose the theoretical form badil meaning slag, but this expedient may be unnecessary. Tin is one of the metal by-products involved in the smelting of lead ore to obtain silver (cf. Ezek 22:18, 20), and in poetic parallelism can readily serve as synecdoche for dross. The remaining and difficult text is Zech 4:10, where the tin stone must in some way be related to the “capstone” of Zech 4:7 and the rebuilding of the temple. It would appear that these verses are to be understood in terms of Mesopotamian influences and practices for the restoration of temples. Such ceremonies enhanced the sacredness and the worth of the new building. Temples were restored on previous sites, and ritual required that the /ibittu mahritu or premier brick had to be removed from the site before the reconsecration of the precinct and erection of a second temple (Lipinski, 30-33). Such a chief stone in the hand of Zerubbabel would indicate that the mound was readied to become a level plain before the leader (v. 7).

A second practice was that a precious metal was deposited in the foundation. Petersen refers to a building restoration from the time of Sargon II (late eighth century): “I wrote my name on tablets of gold, silver, copper, tin, lapis lazuli, and alabaster, and I deposited (them) in (several places) in the foundation” (170). It is known that

such ceremonies were revived in the Achaemenid period. Such an ’eben b®dil in the hand of Zerubbabel (v. 10) would be a cause for joy and a testimony to the temple being founded under his hand (v. 9). There is, in any case, no reason to emend Zech 4:10 to badil (HALAT 106) with the meaning of slag, as b°dil refers to the actual metal used in a ceremony that promised a greater and more worthy temple. P-B.

The nom. is unknown in later Heb. and Aram.

Metals: > ’¢ndk (lead, # 643); > b°dil (dross, #974); > barzel (iron, # 1366); > zahab (gold, # 2298); > hel’a I (rust, # 2689); > hasmal (glow?, electrum, glowing metal, # 3133); > kesep

(silver, money, # 4084); > masgér II (metal worker, #4994); > ma“beh (foundry, #5043); > n°hoset I (copper, bronze, #5733); > sig (lead oxide, #6092); > séper II (bronze, plate, # 6220);

> ‘dperet (lead, # 6769);

> pah II (thin sheet, # 7063);

> p*ladot (steel?, #7110);

> swr III (cast [metal], # 7445); > sa“su ‘im (things formed by metal coating, #7589); > sph II (arrange, overlay, plate, glaze, #7596); > srp (melt, smelt, refine, # 7671); > galal (polished metal, # 7838); > sht II (alloyed, # 8822) BIBLIOGRAPHY

B. Halpern, “The Ritual Background of Zechariah’s Temple Song,” CBQ 40, 1978, 170-73; E. Lipiriski, “Recherches sur le livre de Zacharie,” VT 20, 1970, 30-33; E. H. Merrill, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 1994; D. L. Petersen, “Jerusalem Temple Reconstruction,’ CBQ 36, 1974, 368-71. A. H. Konkel

975 (badil, tin), > #974 976

b-5

ais) (bdl), ni. separate 0.s.; go over to (+ el); be excluded from (+ min); be singled out; hi. sepaate; make a distinction; segregate (# 976); 5773 (b°dil), tin, plumb line (> # 974); “3 (badal), piece (> #977); TV?73%) (mibdalét), nom. singled out, selected (a

603

572 (#976) mixed form with the vowels of the ni. part. and the consonants of the hi. part.) (hapleg.; # 4426). ANE.

Cognates appear to be found in Ugar. and Arab. (TDOT 2:1; HALAT 106).

OT

1. The vb. in hi. is used 5x in the creation account in Gen 1 (vv. 4, 6, 7, 14, 18,

and the idea of separation is also found in vv. 9-10). Judging from the usage of bdl elsewhere (see below), its usage in Gen should probably be understood in terms of separating what does not belong together and separating for a specific task. This separating can, therefore, indicate a transition from a state of mixture to a more ordered state

of creation (cf. 1:2). More specifically, the separation of light from darkness (1:4) meant that each received its own place and time in which to function according to the Creator’s design (also cf. 1:14, 18; Job 26:10; 38:19-20). God made the firmament (> #8385) as a separator or divider (hi. part.) between the water below it and the

water above it (Gen 1:6-7). These waters did not belong together, and each had its specific identity and task (cf., e.g., 1:9-10; 7:11-12). As God’s work of separation in his work of creation provided order from desolation and waste (cf. 1:2), so did his work of

separation in the law (see below) provide concord with a view to his work of re-creation or renewal in anticipation of the coming Christ (cf. Col 1:13-17).

2. This vb. is used for the separation of the holy and the common, the clean and unclean. It was a key responsibility of the priests to distinguish between these (Lev 10:10, hi. inf. constr. to be understood as imper.; Milgrom, 615) and to teach the differ-

entiations to Israel (Lev 10:11; Ezek 22:26, hi.; 44:23 ) so that they could practice it (Lev 11:47, hi; cf. v.1). A key rationale for observing such distinctions is that God has set Israel apart from the nations as holy in order to belong to him (Lev 20:24, hi., 26 hi.; 1 Kgs 8:53 hi.; cf. Exod 19:6). This election of his people can also be described as choosing (bhr [> # 1047]; e.g., Deut 7:6). The foreigner who joined himself to the

Lord was, however, assured that the Lord would not separate him from his people (Isa 56:3, twice hi.).

The temple area in Ezekiel’s vision had a wall around it to separate the holy from the common (Ezek 42:20, hi.). In the tabernacle the curtain before the ark (above

which God was enthroned; cf. 1 Sam 4:4) separated the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place (Exod 26:33, hi.) and so demarcated different degrees of holiness. With Christ’s sacrifice, this separation was abolished for the children of God

(Matt 27:51; Heb

10:19-22). 3. The Lord set the Levites separate from the people for his holy service and to serve the people (Num 8:14, hi.; 16:9, hi.; Deut 10:8, hi.; of Aaron and his descendants, 1 Chron 23:13 ni.). This selection is elsewhere described as choosing (bhr [> # 1047]; €.2.. Weut 18:5; 21:5),

4. Israel’s sin separated them from their God (Isa 59:2, hi.), and according to the covenant curse, God could then single out (bdl) a wicked person for disaster (Deut 29:21[20], hi.). Because of sin, God asked Moses and Aaron to separate themselves from the people so that God could consume them in his wrath (Num 16:21, ni.). The

threat of lasting separation of God from his people was at this point overcome by the intercessory prayer of Moses and Aaron (Num 16:22-24). This action shows the need of the One who is greater than Moses and who as the perfect Intercessor has overcome all separation of sin by his atoning sacrifice (Heb 3; 9:11-10:18).

604

D713(#980) 5. To maintain their identity as people of the Lord Israel was called to be separate from the nations (cf. Deut 7:1-6; Ezra 6:21, ni.). This demand included not marry-

ing foreigners, and in Ezra’s time separating oneself also meant breaking marriages with foreigners (Ezra 9:1-2, ni.; 10:11, ni.; cf. 2 Cor 6:14). Those who did not want to cooperate with Ezra’s efforts to cleanse the nation were to be excluded (bdl) or excommunicated from the assembly of the exiles (Ezra 10:8, ni.; cf. Matt 18:17; 2 Thess 3:14-15). Also all who were of foreign descent were excluded (bdl) from Israel (Neh

£3:3;,bi.). 6. Because of the many religious connotations of bd, it has been suggested that some other uses need to be read in that light. Thus, the fact that warriors are described as separating themselves for or from battle (1 Chron

12:8, ni.; 25:10) has been seen

possibly to imply sacral dimensions to these activities. Similarly, the use of bdl for setting aside cities of refuge (Deut 4:41, hi.; 19:2, hi., 7, hi.) could suggest more religious content than superficially appears to be the case (cf. TDOT 2:1-2). P-B The usage is similar to that found in the OT. bd is used, e.g., of God’s making a separation between light and darkness (4Q380 7 2:3, hi.) and between the righteous and the ungodly (1QH 7:12, hi.); of God’s singling out someone for evil (1QS 2:16, hi.); of distinguishing between clean and unclean (CD 6:17, hi.); of separating oneself from sinners (1QS 5:1, ni.); of excluding someone from the community (1QS 7:1, hi.);

and making a separation between the temple and the city by means (11QTemple? 46:10, hi.).

of a fosse

Separation, breaking down, removal: ~ ’s/ (set apart, withdraw, shorten, #724); > bdl (separate o.s., #976); > br’ I (create, separate, # 1343); > hgh II (separate, remove, # 2048); > mws II (depart, remove, take away, # 4631); > ns‘ (tear out, march out, # 5825); > ntq (tear away, #5998); > prq (pull away, #7293); > s‘n (pack up, #7585); > rhq (be far away, remove, # 8178) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 2:1-3; P. Beauchamp, Création et séparation, 1969, esp. 235-39; J. G. Gammie, Holiness in Israel, OBT, 1989, 9-19; E. Jenni, Das hebrdische Pi‘el, 1968, 176-77; J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, AB, 1991; A. Wolters, “Reflections on Creation and Separation: A Proposed Link Between Bible and Theory,” in J. van der Meer, ed., Facets of Faith and Science, 1994, 347-52. Cornelis Van Dam

977 (badal, piece), > #265

978 (b°dolah, gum resin), > #7661

980

pi

15 (bdq), (1x), q. mend, repair (# 980); PIS (bedeq), damage (> #981).

ANE. The root bdq appears in Ugar. bdqt (II AB, VII 19), nom. opening, sluice lock; Syr. bedaga (Aistleitner, §503).

The vb. is an hapleg. in 2 Chron 34:10 and is used together with hzq, strengthen OT (> #2616), in a description of the restoration of the temple during the reforms of 605

ID (# 983) Josiah (>): “These men paid the workers who repaired (bdq) and restored (hzq) the

temple.” Building, repair: > bdq (mend, repair, # 980); > bnh (build, fortify, rebuild, work on, # 1215) David M. Fouts

981 (bedeq, chink, crack),

983

wa

> #5117

IND

(bona), nom.

void, waste

(#983);

ITM

(t6hi), nom. wasteland, nothingness (# 9332).

ANE. The nom. thw may be found in the Ugar. Baal cycle in the encounter with Mot, the god of death (KTU, 1.5 i 15). In describing the insatiable appetite of Mot the text uses the metaphor of /b’im thw (CTA, 5 1.15); Gibson interprets this as the “appetite of lions (in) the waste” (CML, 68). Translating thw as “in the desert” may be compared to Job 6:18, where the streams go up battohi, in the desert, or to Deut 32:10, where Yah-

weh finds Israel in the wilderness and b°tohd, in the desert, though the Ugar. lacks the preposition. Like Mot, the Heb. compares Sheol to a devouring lion (Isa 5:14; Hab 2:5), and similarly uses the metaphor of the insatiable appetite of the lion for flesh (Deut 33:20; Hos 13:8). DeMoor translates the metaphor as the lion “craving live prey,” a paraphrase that takes thw as relaicd to the Arab. hawiya, to desire, and analyzing it as a verbal form (cf. Aistleitner, WUS, 820). Deitrich, Loretz, and Sanmartin take thw as a scribal error for thwt (cf. KTU, 1.133) to be understood as the Heb. ta’“wd,

meaning greed or desire (536-37). Gordon does not provide a translation (UT, 19.2536). It may be that the word formation tu-a-bi[u(?)] (overthrow, ruin) has a correspondence to the Heb. tohii wabohii (Ugaritica V 243.23). Relevant also may be the Arab. tih, meaning a waterless wilderness in which one would perish. An attempt has been made to trace tohii and bohii to an Egyptian derivation (Gorg 429-38; Kilian 433-34); as in the Egyptian concept, Chaos would indicate the unending existence of the original divinities. The nom. bdhi may also be compared to the Phoen. goddess Baau or to the Babylonian mother goddess bau (HALAT 107). The derivation of both bohi and tohii is unknown. OT The nom. bohi occurs 3x, always in connection with tohi. The nom. tohit occurs 20x, in Isaiah 11x. Isaiah juxtaposes the two in the judgment against Edom (Isa 34:11) to describe the total depopulation and destruction of the land so it is a waste fit only for desert animals. The measuring line of toa will be stretched over Edom, and the stone of bohi. Unfortunately the text ofthe last line is corrupt, as it lacks a vb., and the last word (its nobles) in the MT is wrongly assigned to v. 12. As a result the second metaphor is not clear; the stone could be that used to cast lots or used as a level. The general sense of the metaphors is not in doubt. Stretching a measuring line over the land means that as an ownerless plot of ground, the land is to be resurveyed and reassigned; the threat of judgment against Jerusalem is that the measuring line of Samaria will be cast over it (2 Kgs 21:13), meaning that it will be taken over by foreigners. The same sense in variant wording is found in Mic 2:4; the inheritance of the people will be surveyed with a measuring line. However, in the case of Edom the force of the picture has been escalated. The land can no longer be redivided because of the

606

(73 (# 983) total destruction. The measuring line is one of t0hi, i.e., one useful only for absolute wasteland. The stone of bohii is probably that used to determine worth (cf. Lev 19:36; Prov 16:11; Mic 6:11), but is so light it is useful only to value complete wilderness. The other two occurrences of thi wabohi are a description of the precreation chaos (Gen 1:2; Jer 4:23). It is not certain that the same cosmic type of judgment is meant in the case of Edom. It is clear, though, that Jeremiah depicts an universal and cosmic

_ catastrophe. Jeremiah uses creation language to describe the judgment on the fruitful garden of creation as a reversal to precreation chaos. The term tohi may simply indicate a waterless impassable or pathless desert (Ps 107:40; Job 12:24). However, it often signifies nothingness, void, or emptiness. Job

testifies that God hangs the north (the traditional home of the gods and dangerous beings) upon /ohi and hangs the earth without anything (Job 26:7). He says that his friends are like the desert streams that evaporate, they vanish into nothing (Job 6:18; this v. does not speak of caravans, but of the paths of the streams). The latter is one of

the four occurrences of tohii with the article, all with the meaning “nothing”: Samuel exhorts the people not to turn after the nothings (1 Sam 12:21); the corrupt judges dismiss the case of the righteous for no reason, i.e., baseless counter arguments that free the guilty (Isa 29:21); God sets the rulers of the earth as if they were not (/°’Gyin), the

judges of the earth as nothing (40:23). The last reference is one of several that make tohii parallel with a word meaning “nothing.” The deeds of the gods are nothing (epes), their libations a wind and tohii (41:29); all the idols are tohii, they have no profit (44:9); in 59:4 those going to court trust in toh, their words are empty (Saw*’); the servant in 49:4 fears that he has spent his strength for nothing (thi) and in vain (hebel).

The term tohii is common in the vocabulary of creation. Its function is to indicate chaos in contrast to the order of creation. So Isaiah says that the world was not made a wasteland, God made it to be inhabited (Isa 45:18). The reversal of this creation

is announced in the opening of the “little apocalypse” (Isa 24-27), in which the “city of chaos” is described as shattered (24:10). The devastation of the earth is described in terms reminiscent of those of the prophet Hosea over Israel (cf. 24:4; Hos 4:3). It is only natural that the material originally used to describe the judgment of Israel should be transferred, with little alteration, to that of universal judgment. This same type of terminology is found in Jer 4:28, in a passage that is a self-conscious reversal of the original description of creation (Jer 4:23-28). Both of these passages state that creation will return to the state of precreation chaos. The expression tohi wabohii is used to describe the precreation chaos in Gen 1:2 and Jer 4:23. It is not clear, however, that the nom. fohi has its origin in creation terminology; it does not originate in mythical concepts, as is much more likely for bohié (Wildberger, 927). It seems more likely this was the term suitable to describe the original chaos. The language of the Genesis account of creation can be described as a demythologization of ancient creation accounts. Mythical terminology is still found in the references to creation in the Psalter (Ps 74:12-17; 89:10-12[11-13]) and Job (Job 3:8; 26:12). However, in Genesis the writer has excised the mythical elements radically; he

has written an explicit polemic against the creation myth. Polytheism is removed, and with it the theogony and the theomachy that are so vital in the Mesopotamian mythology (McKenzie, 277). In Genesis precreation chaos or void is not a sea monster but is a

607

173 (# 983) eee

desolation of waters; the expression tohi wabohii in Gen 1:2 is a hendiadys meaning an

unearthly or indescribable emptiness. This would seem to be a creative application of the concept of an uninhabitable empty wilderness to the disordered state before creation. Creation begins with the waters that are then conquered and divided, as in the traditional creation stories, but which in the Genesis account pose no threat and have

no independent powers. Tsumura,

on the basis of lexical and discourse analysis, concludes

that the

phrase tohi wabohi in Gen 1:2 describes a state of “unproductiveness and emptiness,” the initial state of barrenness that was not yet productive as it would come to be (41-43). He suggests that the phrase has nothing to do with chaos. He denies that there is any demythologization of a Canaanite dragon myth, since the terms of Gen 1:2 all have a derivation that is not mythological (20, 23, 65). He further argues that the terms “earth” and “the deep” are a word pair in a hyponymous relationship (77-79), meaning that the second term is to be taken as included in the first. The nature of the state of the earth is defined by tohi wabohi, that is without light and uninhabitable. This effort by Tsumura to distance the Genesis account from any relationship to ancient creation legends does not take account of the mythical terminology still present in other references to creation in the Bible. He has made a linguistic case for the terms of 1:2 not having a mythological derivation, but does not adequately account for the general form of 1:2 as a polemic against the common mythology, as seems to be indicated by the use of mythical terms in other references. Such a polemic does not mean the account in Genesis is derived as such from mythology, but it does mean that the terminology is written with reference to the common understanding of the battle against the waters to show they have no personal powers as in the myths. P-B The nom. twhw is conjectured in one of the psalms of exorcism of the DSS (Charlesworth, 517); in 11Q11 [11QPsAp*] 4.7 Beli[al] is addressed as one whose face is a face of twhw. Martinez provides the following translation: “Who are you, [accursed amongst] men and amongst the seed of the holy ones? Your face is a face of futility, and your horns are horns of a wre[tch]. You are darkness and not light ...” (377). In Sir 41:10 the ungodly are said to come out of nothing and to go to nothing. In the Talm. béhii always occurs with tohii; the latter carries the ideas of waste, desola-

tion, vanity, and idleness. Isa 29:13 is quoted in Mark 7:7 to say that the worship of the Pharisees was “in vain” (G matén) as their teachings were merely human commandment. The LXX apparently followed a variant text here, which said that the fear of God’s people was a tohii, but it does not provide better sense for Isaiah (Wildberger, 1118); this text puts the “learned human commandment” in apposition to the “fear of God” as a nothing. The MT says that their fear towards God is only a learned observance of human law. Desert, wilderness, wasteland: > bohii (waste, #983); > bqq I (lay waste, be #1327); > horbda (ruin, waste, # 2999); > y°Simdn (wilderness, waste, #3810); (wilderness, # 4497); > ‘“rabd III (steppe, # 6858); > s°hihd (scorched land, #7461); (desert, #7480); > 3’A I (lie waste, make s. th. into desolate, # 8615); > smm (be

deserted, lay waste, shudder, be horrified, # 9037); > Desert: Theology

608

agitated, midbar I > siyya desolate,

1173 (#984) BIBLIOGRAPHY

J. H. Charlesworth, Graphic Concordance to the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1991, 517; Dietrich, Loretz,

and Sanmartin, “Beitraége zur ugaritischen Textgeschichte (II): Textologische Probleme in RS 24.293 = UG.5,5.559, NR.4 und CTA 5 I 11-22,” UF 7, 1975, 536-37; J. C. deMoor, An Anthology of Religious Texts From Ugarit, 1987, 70; M. Gorg, “Tohii wabohi—ein Deutungsvorschlag,” ZAW 92, 1980, 431-34; R. Kilian, “Gen. I 2 und die Urgotter von Hermopolis,” VT 16, 1966, 420-38; F. G. Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, 1994, 377; L. McKenzie, “Myth and the Old Testament,” CBQ 21, 1959, 277; D. T. Tsumura, The Earth and the Waters in Genesis I and 2: A Linguistic Investigation,

JSOTSup 83, 1989, 13-83; H. Wildberger, Jesaja, BKAT

10, 920, 927, 1118, 1345-47. A. H. Konkel

984

yin2

IND

(b°hdn),

JID (bohen),

thumb,

big toe

(# 984, 991).

ANE The cognates for the Heb. terms are Akk. ubanu and Arab. which mean “finger, toe.”

’ibham, both of

OT With yad it means “thumb” and with regel “big toe.” So Moses daubed sacrificial blood on the thumb (w* ‘al-bahen yad6) of Aaron’s right hand and on the big toe (w*‘al bohen raglé) of his right foot (Lev 8:23-24; cf. Exod 29:20). And the same blood application is used for a person being purified (Lev 14:14). Apart from Judg 1:6-7 the term appears in cultic contexts only (Exod 29:20 [2x]; Lev 8:23 [2x]; 14:14 [2x]; 14:17 [2x]; 14:25 [2x]; 14:28 [2x]).

Why the blood is applied to the priestly consecrand’s extremities (ears, thumbs, big toe) is not clear. One explanation suggests that these three bodily parts stand for the whole person. Another explanation is the allegorical one, i.e., in order to hear God’s word, handle God’s work, and enter God’s presence the priest must be pure. A third suggestion, following the clue given in Lev 14:14 and Ezek 43:20, in which the purpose of blood-daubing on extremities of a person/altar is for purging, suggests the same interpretation in Lev 8. The blood-daubing of the priests is also purgative. (Offerings and Sacrifices: Theology.) Leg, loins, foot, thigh: > b°hdén (thumb, big toe, #984); > h“lasayim (loins, # 2743);

> yarek

(thigh, leg, #3751); > kesel I(loins, flank/side, #4072); > midrak (foot-print, # 4534); > mar-

g°lét (place of feet, #5274); > motnayim (loins, hips, #5516); > pahad II (thigh, #7066); > pa‘am (foot, step, time, #7193); > regel (foot, # 8079); > 56q (thigh, leg, # 8797)

> na‘al (sandal, #5837); > garsol (ankle, #7972);

BIBLIOGRAPHY J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, AB, 1991, 528-29. Victor P. Hamilton

985

OT

pas

ag (bahat), precious stone? (# 985), only Esth

This stone was one of several insets in the pavement mosaic of the Persian king

Xerxes. The NIV renders this unique word “porphyry,” agreeing with C. A. Moore

609

S73(# 987) (Esther, AB 7B, 1971, 1). For a theological introduction to the topic of gems in the OT,

see ’6dem (# 138). Precious Stones: > ’eben (stone, rock, #74); > ’ddem (precious stone, # 138); > ’ahlama (jasper, # 334); > ’eqdah (beryl, # 734); > bahat (precious stone, #985); > bareget (emerald, # 1403); > yah“lom (precious stone, #3402); > yax*péh (jasper, #3835); > kadkod (ruby?, # 3905); > lesem I (precious stone, # 4385); > ndpek (semi-precious stone, # 5876); > soheret (mineral stone, # 6090); > sappir (lapis lazulli, # 6209); > pitdd (chrysolite, #7077); > 5“b6 (precious stone, #8648);

> Sdham I (precious stone, # 8732);

# 9032); > Ses II (alabaster, # 9253);

Jewelry, ornaments: #3016); #5401);

— Samir II (emery, diamond?,

> tarsi¥ II (precious stone, # 9577)

~ h“/i I (ornament, jewel, #2717);

~ h*riizim (necklace of shells,

— tabba‘at (ring, #3192); > kiimaz (ornament, #3921); > misb©sét (settings, #5755); > ‘agil (ear-ring?, # 6316); #5690); > n°ti(i)pa (ear-ring, > nezem (ring,

~ ‘dh Il (adorn o.s., #6335);

> ‘ks (jingle, #6576);

> ‘ng (put on as a necklace, # 6735);

~ p*ninim (corals, pearls, #7165); > sawwar6én (necklace, #7454); — samid I (bracelet, #7543); — s°‘add (anklets, #7577); > rabid (necklace, #8054); > sah*ronim (crescents, # 8448): > Sabis (ornament, # 8667); > SérI (bracelet, #9217); > tér (pendant, # 9366) BIBLIOGRAPHY

IDB 2:898-905; ISBE 4:623-30; NIDNTT 3:395-98; J. S. Harris, “An Introduction to the Study of Personal Ornaments, of Precious, Semi-Precious and Imitation Stones Used Throughout Biblical

History,” ALUOS

41, 1962, 49-83; L. Koehler,

“Hebraische

Vokabeln

II,” ZAW

55, 1937,

161-74; H. Quiring, “Die Edelsteine im Amtsschild des jtidischen Hohenpriesters und die Herkunft ihrer Namen,” AGM 38, 1954, 193-213; W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 25-48, 1983, 82-84. Andrew E. Hill

986 (bahir, bright, brilliant, dusky?), > #994

oe

oR

5m (bhi), ni. be dismayed, disturbed, terrified,

hasty; pi. dismay, terrify, hasten, make haste; pu. (part. pl.) hastened, hurried; hi. dismay, terrify, hasten, hurry (# 987); mona (behala), nom. sudden terror (# 988).

ANE Possibly a cognate of the Arab. bahara VII, be breathless (TDOT 2:3); Aram. b©hal, be disturbed. OT

The vb. Dhl occurs 50x in the OT (ni. 24x, pi. 10x, pu. 2x, hi. 3x; 11x in the

Aram. portions [pael 7x, hithpeel 3x, hithpaal 1x]). The two basic meanings of the verbal form are (1) to be terrified or dismayed, and (2) to hurry or hasten. The nom. form

seems to combine both meanings and should be translated as “sudden terror.” 1. Thirty-seven of the fifty verbal occurrences depict terror, dismay, or fear in the sense of an emotional reaction by someone confronted by an unexpected threat or disaster (TDOT 1:92). Several synonyms have been identified: hrd, tremble (> #3006),

phd, be afraid

(> #7064),

yr’, fear (> #3707),

bés, be ashamed

(> #1017). This response can result from actions by humans (Gen 45:3), but typically it stems from other circumstances. (a) It is no surprise that Yahweh himself evokes such a response when he comes to exact justice in terms of punishment and judgment. The fear of death often lies behind the terror persons have of Yahweh, either as one forsaking them (Ps 30:[8];

610

Om (# 987) 90:7; 104:29) or as dealing in arbitrary fashion (Job 4:5; 21:6; 23:15: TDOT 2:5). Judgment, however, is the most frequent cause of terror from Yahweh. Individuals (Job 22:10; Ps 6:10[11]), Israel (Ezek 7:27), and the enemies of Israel (Exod 15:15; Ps 48:5[6]; Isa 13:8; Ezek 26:18) have at times suffered under this divine wrath. It should

also be mentioned that the concept of the “Day of the Lord” is at times associated with this judgment (Zeph 1:18). Similarly, the terror of any war or battle, especially a sudden or unexpected battle, is characteristically a source of dismay, “Then they called out in Hebrew to the people of Jerusalem who were on the wall, to terrify [yr’] them and make them afraid [bh/] in order to capture the city” (2 Chron 32:18).

(b) The terror or dismay of the numinous is also encompassed by DAI. Saul (1 Sam 28:21), Daniel (Dan 4:5[2], 19[16]; 7:15, 28), and King Belshazzer (5:6, 9, 10) responded in terror to either a dream or vision; “I, Daniel, was troubled in spirit, and the visions that passed through my mind disturbed me” (7:15). (c) The pains of childbirth are the source of dismay or terror (Isa 13:8; 21:3). This, however, does not necessarily describe the actual pain of labor but rather the dismay or terror most likely stemming from an untimely birth. 2. The remaining thirteen occurrences have been variously translated to hurry or hasten. This use of bhi, often with the idea of urgency, occurs only in later texts (Dan, Esther, and 2 Chron) and Wisdom literature (Prov and Eccl). The synonym dhp, to drive, hasten (BDB, 191) (> # 1894), occasionally occurs in this context (2 Chron 26:20; Esth 8:14). Money quickly gained (Prov 20:21; 28:22), hasty words (Eccl 5:2[1]), and a quick temper (Eccl 7:9) are all characteristically negative associations of the word. A more neutral, but on occasion slightly negative, use describes coming and going (2 Chron 26:20; Esth 6:14; 8:14; Eccl 8:3; Dan 2:25; 6:19[20]) and hasty or

urgent actions (2 Chron 35:21; Esth 2:9; Dan 3:24). 3. The nom. behalda occurs only 4x (Lev 26:16; Ps 78:33; Isa 65:23; Jer 15:8).

“Sudden terror,” combining both verbal meanings, is the best translation of this nom., “So he ended their days in futility and their years in [sudden] terror’ (Ps 78:33). The basic idea behind “sudden” is that of untimeliness, not unlike the premature labor of giving birth. In each instance “God is. . .the agent bringing this [sudden] terror on Israel” (TDOT 1:92). For Israel such untimely terror is depicted as the result of Israel’s disobedience. | Fear, dread, terror: ~ ’aydm (terrible, awesome, majestic, #398); > ’émda (terror, dread, # 399); > bhl (be dismayed, terrified, dismay, terrify, hasten, hurry, # 987); > b‘t (overtaken by sudden terror, stupefied, be terrified, assail, # 1286); > gwr III (be afraid of, dread, stand in awe, # 1593); > d’g (be anxious, concerned, fear, dread, # 1793); > zhi II (fear, be afraid, # 2324); > hrd (tremble, shudder, startle, # 3006); > htt (be shattered, dismayed, terrified, scare, terrify, #3169); > yer (fear, dread, terror, #3336); > yr’ I (fear, be afraid, held in honor, # 3707); > yrh (be afraid, terrified, paralyzed with fright, # 3724); > ‘rs (be alarmed, terrified, dreadful,

dreadful, be in terror, # 6907);

> phd I (tremble, be in dread, # 7064); > qws I (feel disgust,

frighten, cause dread, # 7762) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 2:3-5; TWOT 1:92. M. V. Van Pelt /W. C. Kaiser, Jr.

988 (behald, sudden terror), > # 987 611

TID # 989) 989

Mare

ANE It is attested in the Sem. bahamat, bahimat, biham.

Mm

(b°héma), quadrupeds (# 989).

languages:

Ugar. bhmt; Aram.

bhm/(y)th; Arab.

In the OT the nom. (188x) is used to refer to both domestic and wild animals, OT but mostly domestic. Its pl. form, b°hémét (# 990), appears with special nuance in Job 40:15; normally translated behemoth (NIV,

JPSV, NRSV), it has been variously identi-

fied as hippopotamus, crocodile, elephant, and whale. Generally, however, hippopotamus is favored by the majority of exegetes (see 4, below). 1. Animals were created by God on the sixth day of the creation and authority over them is given to humans. It appears that already before the Fall there was a dis-

tinction between “livestock” (b°hémd, more specifically b° ‘ir, livestock, # 1248) and “the beast of the field” (hayyat hassadeh, Gen 2:20; > #2651). Since humans were created in the image of God, it is generally surmised that animals do not possess this image. How humans differ from the animal depends largely on how the image of God is defined (cf. Ps 49:20[21]; 73:22). 2. Before the Fall, animals in general appear to be in an intimate relationship with humans. This is shown, among other things, by the fact that they are given names by humans, which indicates not just the human control of animals but intimacy as well (cf. Gen 2:23, where the man names his helper). At least, it is assumed that humans were in perfect harmony with the animals. Apparently this situation has changed after the Fall. Note the following circumstances: the sin of humans affected the animal world; animals are divided into two classes, clean and not clean (Gen 7:2; NIV unclean; cf. Lev 11); there is a distance between animals and humans (Gen 9:2); animals may be eaten by humans for food (9:3); carnivorous animals may attack human beings (9:5); and finally, as is discussed below, Isa 11:6-8 presents an image of the animal world in which carnivorous animals

undergo a metamorphosis in their nature, returning to their primordial situation (see below).

3. Gen 9:5 implies that the human life is more precious in God’s sight than that of animals. Therefore, the sin of humans can be atoned for by animal blood (Lev 17:11), an indication that human sins involve animal life. However, in the ritual realm

it is vital to remember that God need not be fed since all animals belong to him (Ps 50:10). 4. Although the animal world is affected by sin, the psalmists celebrate the creational order (Ps 8; 104). Particularly, Ps 104 praises God’s created world, in which all created things (including ritually unclean animals and birds, such as coneys [Sapan I, #9176] and the stork [h“sidd, #2884], vv. 17-18) benefit each other organically. In Job 38-41 God reminds Job of various animals (among others, b°hémét [# 990], the proud beast [Sahas # 8832, in the idiom b°né Sahas, 41:34(26)]) and birds, which he created to show him that wisdom and power are really his. By demonstrating that the human world is not the center of God’s universe, only the hem of it, God brings Job

into humiliation. This positioning of human beings in God’s created world is in stark contrast with the account in Gen 1, where humans are the pinnacle of the creation (M. Greenberg). Praise of God’s wisdom in creation may well have been in the mouth 612

IMD 989) of Solomon, when he talked about animals and birds, reptiles and fish (1 Kgs 4:33; 10:22), among which were apes (gdp, #7761), baboons (tukiyyim, #9415), and elephants (hab II, # 2036; cf. Senhabbim, # 9105; > Xén, ivory, # 9094). In the prophetic and the so-called Wisdom literature, characteristics of various

animals are cited to bring home prophetic messages (Isa 1:3; Jer 8:7) and to instruct the unwise, idle, and haughty-oriented (Prov 30:24-31). 5. In the description of the last day when, consequent upon the complete redemption of human beings, i.e., the knowledge of the Lord pervading all the earth

and entire peace prevailing on the earth (Isa 11:6-8), carnivorous wild animals such as the panther (namér, #5807, NIV

leopard), wolf (z°’éb I, #2269), and bear (dob,

# 1800) will lie down with gentle animals. Whether to take these words as a mere metaphor for the extinction of enmity in the human world or to take it literally is a moot point. However, E. J. Young points out that the account of the metamorphosis of the nature of the animals is too detailed to be taken simply as figurative (see also Isa 35:9; 65:25; Ezek 34:25, 28; Hos 2:18).

6. Over against the human-centered worldview, it needs to be stressed that the animals are conferred a position higher than might be expected in the OT; God makes covenant with the animals (Gen 9:10; Hos 2:18); he cares for the animals on the Sab-

bath (Exod 23:12); animals fear humans (Gen 9:2); animals in distress cry to God (Job 38:41; Ps 104:21) and receive food from him (Ps 147:9; 136:25); and animals receive God’s mercy alongside human beings (Gen 8:1; Jon 4:11; 3:8). Legal liability is inflicted on animals when they kill human beings (Gen 9:5). In view of the above, this worldview naturally leads to Paul’s assertion that the

redemption of the creation is eager for the appearance of the sons of God (Rom 8:18-21).

P-B___b*héma appears in DSS (e.g., CD 11:13; 11QTemple* 47:7). The term b°hémét in Job 40:15 merits special attention. While in LXX théria and Aram. Tg. b‘yry’ the term was apparently taken simply as the pl. of b°hémd, it gained along with Leviathan (> #4293) a mythical dimension both in the apocalyptic literature (e.g., 4 Esd 6:49-52) and RL, where they are to be offered as food for the righteous in the world to come (e.g., BTalm. Baha Batr9a 74b). Animals: ~ b°hémd (quadrupeds, #989); > zanab (tail, #2387); > h®zir (pig, #2614); ~ hayyd I (animal, #2651); > keleb (dog, #3978); > ‘akbar (mouse, #6572); > s“pardéa‘ (frog, #7630); > gippod (hedgehog/owl?, #7887); > rms (creep, swarm, #8253); > srs (swarm, teem, # 9237); > tan (jackal, # 9478); > Reptiles: Theology; see the Index for Birds; Camel; Deer; Donkey; Dove; Flock; Gazelle; Insects; Lion; Maggot; Snake, etc.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ABD 6:1109-67; NIDNTT 1:113-19; M. Greenberg, “Reflections on Job’s Theology,” in The Book of Job, 1980, xvii-xxiii; V. P. Hamilton, Genesis 1-17, 1990; J. E. Hartley, Leviticus, 1982, W. Houston, Purity and Monotheism: Clean and Unclean Animals in Biblical Law, 1993, G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 1987; J. Whitfield, “Do Monkeys Matter?” Third Way 17/4, 1994, 11-15; E. J. Young, Isaiah, 1964-72. N. Kiuchi

991 (bohen, thumb), > # 984 613

pra (#993) a

993

pra

Pia (bohag), harmless skin condition (# 993).

ANE. J. Milgrom postulates a relationship to Akk. epqu, scale disease (Leviticus 1-16, AB, 1991, 799-800).

The hapleg. nom. occurs once only in the MT (Lev 13:39) to describe a skin OT affliction of uncertain nature and provenance. Milgrom, following G. R. Driver ("Leprosy," in DB[H], 2d ed., 1963, 575), associates it with vitiligo or leukoderma (800). Disease—blister, boil, skin disease, scar, wound: > ’¢ba ‘bu ‘6t (blisters, # 81); > bohag (skin condition, # 993); > baheret (white patch on skin, # 994); > garab (festering eruption, # 1734); > zrr I (press out [wounds], #2452); > heres I (itch, #3063); > yabbelet (wart?, #3301);

~ yallepet (skin disease,

#3539);

#3918); > m’r (be sore, #4421); > mispahat (skin eruption, #5030); #5999);

> sappahat

(hair disease,

— y°ragraq

(discoloration,

#3768);

— k°wiyya

(scar,

> mazdr I (boil, #4649); > makka (blow, #4804); > mrh (rub, polish, #5302); > neteg (scalp infection, # 6204);

> ‘opel I (abscesses,

#6754);

> ‘aX II (pus,

# 6932); > sapd (pus?, #7597); > sarebet (scar, #7648); — sr‘ (suffer from skin disease, #7665); > S°’ét II (swelling, # 8421); > Str (break out [tumor], # 8609); > 5*hin (boil, # 8825). For related entries > hlh I (become weak, tired, ill, # 2703) BIBLIOGRAPHY

ISBE 1:532, 953-60; 3:103-6; G. J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT,

1979, 189-214. R. K. Harrison

994

asn2

eos'e

2

(baheret), brightness/white patch of skin

(#994); “MD

(bahir), adj. bright, brilliant,

dusky(?) (# 986).

ANE

The verb bhr does not occur in the OT, but is used in postbiblical Heb. in the hi.

with the meaning, be bright, shine. It is attested in Aram. b°har, Eth. (Tigre) barha, and Arab. bahara, be bright, shine. OT

1. The nom. baheret, brightness, is used 12x in the OT, always in Lev. It refers

to a bright spot in the skin, either clean or unclean (Lev 14:56). The spot could be due to the onset of leprosy (13:2, 4, 24, 25), to a burn (13:26, 28), to a boil (13:19, 23), or to

a harmless eruption (13:38, 39). 2. Friedrich Delitzsch regarded adj. bahir, bright, brilliant, to mean “dark, darkened,” based on Syr. bhyr’ dark, dusky. He is followed by Gray and Dhorme. But Rowley does not agree; he does not see how dark is “relevant to any moral Elihu is drawing.” The word occurs only once in the OT: Elihu counseled Job to consider the wonders of God’s creation: “No one can look at the sun, bright as it is in the skies” (Job 37221).

P-B_ The vb. bhr occurs in the pi. stem in Mishnaic and Talmudic Heb. meaning to make clear, and the hi. stem occurs in Medieval Heb. meaning to make bright, clear. Disease—blister, boil, skin disease, scar, wound: > ’“ba ‘bu ‘dt (blisters, #81); > bohag (skin condition, #993); > baheret (white patch on skin, #994); > garab (festering eruption, # 1734); > zrr I (press out [wounds], #2452); > heres I (itch, #3063); > yabbelet (wart?, #3301); > yallepet (skin disease, #3539); > y°ragraq (discoloration, #3768); > k°wiyya (scar,

614

N13(# 995) i A, # 3918); > m’r (be sore, #4421); > mazér I (boil, #4649); > makka (blow, #4804); ~ mispahat (skin eruption, # 5030); > mrh (rub, polish, #5302); > neteg (scalp infection, #5999); > sappahat (hair disease, #6204); > ‘dpel I (abscesses, #6754); > ‘ax II (pus, # 6932); > sapa (pus?, #7597); > sarebet (scar, #7648); > sr’ (suffer from skin disease, #7665); > s°’ér II (swelling, # 8421); > str (break out [tumor], # 8609); > ¥hin (boil, # 8825). For related entries > hlh I (become weak, tired, ill, # 2703) Light, radiance, brightness: > ’wr (be light, bright, shine, #239); > bahir (bright, brilliant, #986); > zrh I (rise [of sun], shine, # 2436); > yp‘ I (shine out, # 3649); > ngh (shine, cause to shine, #5585); > nhr II (be radiant, # 5642); > grn (send out rays, be radiant, # 7966) BIBLIOGRAPHY ISBE

1:532, 953-60; 3:103-6; TWOT 1:93; S. R. Driver and G. B. Gray, Job, ICC, 295-96; E. Dhorme, Commentary on the Book of Job, 1984, 571-72; R. K. Harrison, Leviticus, TOTC,

136-58, 241-47; H. H. Rowley, Job, NCB 239; G. J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT, 189-214. James D. Price

995

N12 (bw’), q. go, come, arrive, enter; hi. bring; ' ho. be brought (#995); nom. M82 (bi’4), entrance (hapleg., #929); Nf) (mabd’), entrance, sunset, west (#4427); N21 (méba’), entrance (# 4569); TNIDM (tba), produce, yield (> #9311).

ANE

S95

Among Northwest Sem. languages, this term is attested in Phoen., Ugar., and

Heb. Of only a handful of extrabiblical Heb. occurrences, the clearest is in a letter from Tell Arad written near the end of the monarchic period (cf. Gibson, TSS/, 1:53 [D, lines 1-2]). There are also cognates in Akk., ESA, and Eth.

OT 1. This vb. occurs over 2500x in the OT and is one of the most common Heb. terms for motion. Most of these occurrences express physical movement toward a specific goal (“go in,” “enter’’), though western conceptualization occasionally requires “come.” Noah enters the ark (Gen 6:18) and the spies enter the Promised Land (Num

13:27). Other examples in which physical motion is intended include the “entering” of the sun (idiomatic for sunset, Gen 15:17) and sexual relations of a man with a woman

(39:14). bw’ is an intransitive vb. of motion in q., so its more than 500 occurrences in the

causal stem have both a subject and an object (the so-called “two-place Hiphil,” Waltke-O’ Connor, JBHS 436-37). As discussed in the next section, this has important

theological ramifications when, for example, God brings the Israelites into the Promised Land (Deut 4:38). The hi. is also commonly used when humans bring an offering to God, as when Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock (Gen 4:4). The ho. functions as the passive of the hi. meaning 24x. 2. Numerous metaphorical meanings are possible. In what appears to be a fixed expression, bw’ is used with the prepositional phrase “in the days” to connote advanced age (Gen 24:1; Josh 13:1; 23:1-2; 1 Kgs 1:1). In Heb. one “enters into the days,” as in Eng. one is “advanced in years.” Those who “enter” the city gate are probably those who have a voice in the affairs of the community (Gen 23:10, see Speiser, 23). This vb. can also mean “happen, come about, occur” in certain contexts, as in Isaiah’s “the former things have taken place” (42:9). In a similar fashion the final

615

N13 (# 995) warnings of the covenant are introduced with “these blessings will come upon you” and “these curses will come upon you” (Deut 28:2 and 15).

3. In Conquest passages, bw’ becomes a technical term for land inheritance. The parenetic speeches of Moses in Deuteronomy often combine themes of “entering” and “possessing” (yrs). The exhortatory tone of the book is established early when in 1:8 God through Moses tells the people to “go in and take possession” of the patriarchal homeland. Faithfulness and obedience to the covenant stipulations are conditions for successful “entering” and “possessing” (4:1; 6:18; 8:1, etc.). This semantic pair is coupled again early in the Joshua narrative, which relates how the nation in fact entered and possessed the land (Josh 1:11). By their action of “entering” the land, the people demonstrated their faith in God and were given possession of the land. bw’ is frequently used in typical Semitic merism with its antonym ys’, go out, to denote all of one’s regular, daily activities (Ps 121:8). The covenant renewal ceremony in the plains of Moab contains important uses of this antonymic pair. The blessings of covenant loyalty extend to one’s going out and coming in (Deut 28:6, 19). The sphere of covenant blessing includes urban and rural segments of society (v. 3) and the needs for fertility (v. 4) and sustenance (v. 5), and it climaxes in the individual’s daily

activities. All the mundane exercises of life are touched by sacred relationship. On the other hand, the consequences of breaking covenant are just as extensive (28:16-19). 4. Both the q. and hi. are used in the interesting passage Deut 12:4-11. Once the Israelites are in the land, they are to bring (hi.) their offerings to God at the designated place (12:6, 11). But as of this point in time, they had not entered (q.) into “the resting place and the inheritance” of the Lord (obscured by NIV’s “have not yet reached,” 12:9). The rest of Canaan (described further in 12:10) prefigures that rest of faith given to God’s people (Heb 4:1-11). 5. This term is especially significant where it describes God’s entrance into space and time (his creation). Thus bw’ is used to narrate the important theophanies (> Theophany: Theology) of the OT when God comes near to his people (“the LORD came from Sinai,’ Deut 33:2, see Schnutenhaus, 15). Though the theological significance of the “coming” of God is sometimes not clearly stated (as it is in Rev 1:4), some scholars have been unduly cautious (Jenni, “‘Kommen’ im theologischen Sprachgebrauch,” 256, where the significance of bw’ is limited to hymnic material, and see H. D. Preuss, TDOT 2:46-49).

After the giving of the Decalogue (> Decalogue: Theology), Moses explains to the people that God’s arrival is gracious: “God has come to test you, so that the fear of God will be with you to keep you from sinning” (Exod 20:20). God’s arrival is frequently a gracious event, though sometimes judgment is in order. Thus, Isaiah sees God coming in judgment (Isa 3:14; 30:27), as does the psalmist (Ps 50:3-4; 98:9). It is in this context that one should interpret the prophetic emphasis on the coming of “the great and dreadful day of the LORD” (see the following passages where bw’ is used with the Day of Yahweh: Joel 2:31[3:4]; see also Isa 13:9; Zech 14:1, Mal 4:5[3:23]). The “two-place Hiphil” is used occasionally with Yahweh as subject when he brings evil upon people (1 Kgs 9:9), or when Jeremiah says Yahweh brings evil from the north (Jer 4:6). After the destruction of the temple, the exilic and postexilic prophets longed to see Yahweh’s presence return (see recurrence of bw’ in Mal 3:1-2). Sometimes it is specifically his “glory” (kabéd) that will arrive (Ezek 43:2 and 4). Isaiah

616

N13 (# 995) foresees the Redeemer entering Zion once again, to those in Jacob “who repent of their sins” (Isa 59:20). Presumably all of this would remind the worshiper of the great royal psalm: “Lift up your heads, O you gates...that the King of glory may come in” (Ps 24:7). 6. Not only does God come to humanity, there are occasions when bw’ is used

for people coming to God. The “two-place Hiphil” is used when humans bring offerings to God (Exod 35:21, 24, 29). In his rejection of external religion that affects no

change in the worshiper, Yahweh exhorts, “Stop bringing meaningless offerings” (Isa 4513). The q. has various implications when people come to God in worship (“come into his courts,” Ps 96:8; 100:2, 4). After the psalmist’s declaration that God does not

desire sacrifices and offerings, he concludes that no offering is appropriate short of one’s self: “Here I am / I have come” (40:7[8]). One’s supplication or cry for help may enter where God is (Exod 3:9), which is a frequent concern for the psalmist (Ps 18:6[7]; 88:2[3] etc.). 7. The nom. mabé’ occurs 25x, most of which refer to the place where one enters something, i.e., a doorway or entrance. It often designates one of the entrances to the temple (Jer 38:14 and frequently in Ezekiel). Athaliah was terrified when she saw the young king Joash standing near the temple entrance shortly after his enthronement (2 Chron 23:13). mabd’ can also refer to the entrance of a city (Judg 1:24; Prov 8:3), the palace (2 Kgs 11:16) or even to Tyre as the entrance or gateway to the Mediterranean Sea (Ezek 27:3). Like the antonymic word pair of the vbs., the noms. mabd’ and més’, entrance and exit, may be used metaphorically for all of one’s activities (2 Sam 3:25).

Sometimes mabd’ refers specifically to the entrance or setting of the sun (Mal 1:11). Hence, the moon marks off its season, and “the sun knows when to go down” (lit.: “knows its entrance,” Ps 104:19). As the location of the setting sun, m°bd’ hasSemes becomes directional (westward, Deut 11:30), so that the Mediterranean Sea

is the western border for Israel (Josh 1:4). The expression may also mean simply “the west” (Zech 8:7). 8. There are two other noms. from this root, used for designating an entryway: bi’a and mdba’ both refer to an entrance of the temple (Ezek 8:5; 43:11). The only other occurrence of these noms. is in 2 Sam 3:25, where mdba@’ seems to be an incor-

rect Q (it appears to have been influenced secondarily by the parallel mésa’“ka (exit, < ys’, go out > #3655). Coming, approaching, entering: > ’th (come, bring, #910); > bw’ (go, come, arrive, enter, #995);

> zrq Il (creep in, #2451);

> ng¥ (draw near, approach, offer, #5602);

> grb (draw

near, approach, offer, # 7928) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDNT 5:858-71; TDOT 2:20-49; THAT 1:264-69, 674-81; TWOT 1:93-95, H. Fleddermann, “John and the Coming One (Matt 3:11-12—Luke 3:16-17),” Society of Biblical Literature: Seminar Papers, 1984, 377-84; E. Jenni, “‘Kommen’ im theologischen Sprachgebrauch des AT,” Wort-Gebot-Glaube: W. Eichrodt zum 80. Geburtstag. ATANT 59, 1970, 251-61; F. Schnuten-

haus, “Das Kommen

und Erscheinen Gottes im AT,” ZAW 76, 1964, 1-21; E. A. Speiser,

617

MS (# 996) ““Coming’ and ‘Going’ at the City Gate,” BASOR 144, 1956, 20-23; G. von Rad, “The Origin of the Day of the Yahweh,” JSS 4, 1959, 97-108.

Bill T. Arnold

T2 (bwz), gq. show contempt for (#996); T13 i 996 (biz I), nom. contempt, laughingstock (# 997); MT2 (biaiza), nom. contempt (hapleg. in Neh 4:4[3:36]; #999).

OT 1. See bzh (> # 1022) for a discussion on the orthographic relationship of bzh and bwz. 2. The vb. root bwz (14x) depicts the attitude of fools toward wisdom (Prov 1:7; 23:9) and instruction (13:13), the sinfulness of a person’s derision of his neighbor (11:12; 14:21), a son’s scornful treatment of his mother (23:22; 30:17), and the skep-

tic’s pessimism about the viability of an immense project (Zech 4:10). The derision of one’s fellow human being manifests the absence of judgment (Prov 11:12) and strikes at the heart of God’s expectations of his children (Lev 19:18; Matt 22:39). Even a thief who steals for survival does not merit this treatment (Prov

6:30). 3. The lover in S of Songs longs for the situation when she need not experience the scorn of others for violating the cultural limitations on public intimacy (S of Songs 8:1) and affirms unequivocally that love is one of those riches that money cannot buy (8:7). Yahweh affirms that as Judah watches Sennacherib flee in defeat, they will despise the arrogant Assyrian king (2 Kgs 19:21 = Isa 37:22). 4. The nom. cognates of bwz (biz II, biiza) depict the derisive attitude of rich people toward the needy and unfortunate around them (Job 12:5). The wicked proclaim their contempt with arrogance (Ps 31:18[19]) and primarily direct it towards the righteous (Ps 119:22; 123:3-4; Neh 4:4[3:36]).

All people seek to avoid contemptuous treatment. Judah concluded his search for the prostitute to whom he had given a pledge lest he become a “laughingstock” to the inhabitants of that region (Gen 38:23). Job avoided contact with people because he feared their contemptuous treatment (Job 31:34). Nevertheless, contempt always comes to the wicked (Prov 18:3), and Yahweh pours it out upon arrogant leaders (Job 12:21; Ps 107:40). Contempt,

disdain,

disgust,

loathing:

> bwz

contemptible, think lightly of, despise, # 1022);

(show

contempt

for, #996);

— bzh

(be

> bhi (become tired of, disdain, # 1041); > g‘I

(abhor, be defiled, fail, # 1718); > zhm (make s.t. loathsome, #2299); > zwr III (be offensive, # 2320); — zll I (be frivolous, be despised, #2361); — znh II (feel a dislike for, #2389); > zara’ (sickness, nausea, #2426); > hnn II (be stinking, loathsome, #2859); > yg‘ (turn

aside, # 3697); > nq‘ (disengage, # 5936); > qwt (feel disgust, #7752); > gil (be slight, swift, appear trifling, treat with contempt, # 7837); > swt II (slight, despise, # 8764); > gs (make o.s. detestable, #9210);

> t°b (be detestable, be loathed, loathe, abhor, # 9493)

BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 2:60-65; TWOT 1:95-96. Michael A. Grisanti

618

13 (# 1003) 997 (biz I, contempt, laughing stock), > #996 999 (biizd, contempt), > #996

(# 4428). ANE

~

13

13 (bwk), ni. be agitated, wander in agitation

(# 1003); MDID2 (m’baka), nom. confusion

The Arab. vb. bwk means to be confused.

OT The vb. bwk appears 3x in the OT and the nom. m°biikd 2x. The vb. appears only in the ni. In Exod 14:3 Pharaoh thought that the Israelites were wandering in confusion in the desert. In Esth 3:15 it describes the state of confusion in the city on hearing the king’s command to kill the Jews. In Joel 1:18 the vb. describes the state of cattle milling around because they have no pasture. The nom. m*biikd is used in Isa 22:5 with m*himd to indicate the state of confusion on the day of the Lord (see also Mic 7:4). Confusion, agitation:

: > bwk (be agitated, wander in agitation, # 1003); > bil (confuse, mix,

# 1176); > bl‘ II (be confused, confused, # 1182); > hwm (throw into confusion, be in uproar, #2101); > kmr (agitated, # 4023); > ‘wh (disturb, distress, agitate, pervert, do wrong, # 6390);

> p'm (be disturbed, feel disturbed, #7192); > rhb (assail, press, pester, alarm, confuse, > r‘m II (be agitated, be confused, #8307); — tmh (be benumbed, be stunned,

# 8104);

shocked, gaze, # 9449)

Harry F. van Rooy

1005 (bil II, block of wood), > #6770

1008

oi

O13 (bws), q. tread down; pol. tread on, desecrate; ho. be trodden down; hitpol. kick out

(# 1008); NOIAr(m*biisa), subjugation (# 4431); ADIDH(t*bisd), down-treading, ruin (# 9313) OT

The main uses of the root are similar to those of rms (trample, # 8252).

1. It is used of aggressors who trample down others. Jer 12:10 speaks of those who ruin the Lord’s vineyard and trample down his field, and Isa 63:18 of those who trample down his sanctuary. In the land “along the rivers of Cush” there is said to be “an aggressive nation” (RV more literally, “a nation—that treadeth down,” Isa 18:1, 7). 2. God tramples down his enemies (Isa 63:6), and this is said specifically of Assyria in Isa 14:19, 25. Israel could rejoice in his trampling down their enemies (Ps 60:12[14]=108:13[14]), but in Israel itself a wicked king could be brought by the Lord to his downfall (t°biisd) (2 Chron 22:7). 3. Those who trust in the Lord can by his help trample on their enemies (Ps 44:5[6]; cf. Zech 10:5). 4. There is a particular use of the hitpol. of the vb. in Ezek 16:6 and 22, where

the lowly origin of Israel is referred to: “on the day you were born you were despised... I passed by and saw you kicking about (JB struggling) in your blood” (vv. 5-6).

619

13 (# 1014) Dene

ee

eee ee ee een

ee

Trampling, treading, subjugation:

ee

> bws (tread down, # 1008); > dbr I (turn/drive away,

#1818); — dw (trample, thresh, #1889); — hdk (tread down, # 2070); — kbs (make subservient, subdue, # 3899); > kp¥ (make cower, #4115); — lkd (catch, capture, # 4334); + ‘ss (tread down, # 6748); > rms (trample, #8252); > rps (trample, # 8346) Francis Foulkes

1009 (bis, fine linen), > # 7324 1011 (bagd, waste), > # 1327 1013 (bwr, examine), > #2011

= 1014 um (2,Sam 23:15-16, 20: Jer 2:13),

752 (bér), nom. cistern, well, grave (#1014). The

alternate

form

“S83

(b6’r)

also

occurs

ANE _ The term appears in the Mesha Inscription (“But there was no cistern inside the town at [garhd]; so I said to all the people, ‘Each of you make for yourselves a cistern in his house’” [11. 24-25]; cf. Gibson, TSS/, 1:77, 81). See b°’ér. The cognate in Akk. is biru B, pit, hole, well, pond, pool (CAD, 2:342-43).

OT

1. Out of some 64 occurrences in the OT, bér most frequently refers to literal

holes or pits in the ground dug for the purpose of storing water (Lev 11:36; 2 Kgs 18:31; Isa 36:16; Jer 2:13 [bd’r]), grain and other dry goods (1 Sam 19:22; Neh 9:25), and even prisoners (Gen 37:22; 41:14; Exod 12:29; Jer 37:16). A bér could be dug (hpr, Ps 7:15 [16]), but more frequently it was hewn out of the rock (hsb [> # 2933], Deut 6:11; Neh 9:25). Often the cisterns were filled by rain water that ran from roofs or open spaces. They were plastered to contain the water, and when broken, were of little use. Cisterns could be communal (2 Sam 23:15-16) or pri-

vate. To have one’s own cistern was a special privilege, “Then every one of you will eat from his own vine and fig tree and drink water from his own cistern” (2 Kgs 18:31). 2. A cistern was dangerous, as people or animals could fall into them. The Book of the Covenant assumes the owner’s responsibility for covering cisterns and prescribes damages in case animals fall and are injured (Exod 21:33-34). 3. A cistern was occasionally used as a prison. Joseph’s brothers threw him into an empty, waterless cistern (Gen 37:24). The expression bét bér (“house of cistern’’) is a technical term for prison in Exod 12:29, “the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon” (cf. Jer 37:16). Jeremiah’s enemies lowered him into a cistern with a mud floor (Jer 38:6). The cistern was a source of hope and life when water was in it but became a place of death and judgment when empty. 4. bdr is used figuratively in a few instances. Isaiah urged Israel to look to Abraham and Sarah, the “well” from which the nation was dug, i.e., the source of her

existence (Isa 51:1). Jeremiah contrasts the spring with the cistern, “My people have committed two sins: They have forsaken me, the spring (maq6r) of living water, and have dug (hsb) their own cisterns (b6’rét), broken cisterns (bd’rdt) that cannot hold water” (Jer 2:13).

5. The literal meaning easily yielded more metaphorical uses. bér may signify the place of the dead (Ps 28:1; 30:3[4]; 40:2[3]; 88:4[5]; 143:7; Prov 1:12; Ezek 26:2),

620

wi (#1017) especially when bér is found in juxtaposition or parallelism with terms such as 5°’61 (Ps 30:3[4]; Prov

1:12; Isa 14:15; 38:18; Ezek 31:16) and Sahat (Ps 7:15[16]; Isa

38:17-18), both of which refer to the grave and/or the netherworld. A unique metaphorical use appears in Prov 5:15, where one’s wife is called his “cistern,” an image with clearly erotic resonance.

Cistern, well, pool, reservoir: > b°’ér I (well, #931); > bér (cistern, well, grave, # 1014); ~ b©réka (pool, #1391); > géb I (cistern, # 1463); > mikal (reservoir, #4782); > miqweh (accumulation of water, #5224)

Death: > ’bd I (perish, #6); > ’“damd (ground, piece of land, soil, earth, realm of the dead, #141); > ’asdn (mortal accident, #656); > gw‘ (expire, die, # 1588); > Arg (kill, murder, # 2222); > zrm I (put an end to life, #2441); > hedel (realm of the dead, # 2535); > hat II (embalm, embalming, # 2846); > mwt (die, kill, execute, # 4637); > gtl (murder, slay, # 7779); > r°pa’im I (shades, departed spirits, # 8327); > 5°’61 (sheol, netherworld, #8619); > Sahat (pit, grave, # 8846) Digging: > hpr I (dig, seek out, #2916); > hsb (quarry, hew out, dig, #2933); > her (dig, break through, #3168); > krh I (dig, be dug, #4125); > ngr (pick out, hew out, dig out, #5941); > qwrI (dig, bubble, # 7769) Fountain, spring: ~ mabbak (spring, #4441); > ma‘yan (spring, #5078); > maqor (spring, #5227); > nb‘ (bubble, # 5580) BIBLIOGRAPHY

ISBE 1:702-4; 4:1055-56; TDOT 1:463-66; TWOT 1:87-88; A. Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and OT Parallels,

1949,

177; M.

Held,

“Pits and Pitfalls in Akkadian

and Biblical

Hebrew,”

JANESCU 5, 1973, 173-74; V. H. Matthews, “The Wells of Gerar,” BA 49, 1986, 119; F. H. Wight, Manners and Customs of Bible Lands, 1953, 280-86.

Bryan E. Beyer/Eugene H. Merrill

1017

vas

wia

(bws

JD, q. be ashamed,

put to shame,

behave shamefully; hi. to cause shame or dis-

grace, behave shamefully (# 1017); MW13 (ba34), nom. shame (# 1019); MIWA (bosnd), nom. shame (# 1423); NWA (bd¥er), nom. shame, shamefulness, disgrace (# 1425). ANE The cognate ba@’aSu (basu) occurs in Akk. with the meaning “to feel ashamed” (G-Stem) and “to put to shame” (D-Stem). Subjectively the vb. expresses the feeling of embarrassment (e.g., when financial obligations cannot be met—C7BT 2.1:33), and the feeling of rejection and abandonment by a friend or somebody in a superior position—even by a deity (e.g., CTBT 2.19:22). However, one must be cautious not to overstress the subjective feeling, for it is not necessarily implied when someone is brought to exposure (cf. Seebass, TDOT 2:51). In religious contexts it denotes the condition resulting from the rejection by the deity, and in this sense it also appears in personal names, e.g., O-(god) Sin-May-I-Not-Come-To-Shame (cf. CAD 2:6). The derived

nom. bastu does not correlate with the Heb bdSer and refers to a quality of personality (dignity) or to the pride of a person or city. It does not denote sexual organs (CAD 2:144). If one accepts bit as a cognate of bés, the Ugar. bt (nom. bit) denotes the feeling of rebuke when behavior exceeds the expected norms of conduct. Thus, Baal should be ashamed by his devastation of Yam (Text 68:28-31—cf. UT, 180). The vb. and its

621

w3 (# 1017) cognates do not occur in preexilic extra-BH and Aram. inscriptions. In Aram. the vb. occurs as bht (to feel ashamed) and the nom. as behta (shame)—cf. Beyer, 529.

1. The vb. bw. In the OT the vb. bw¥ frequently occurs in Psalms, Proverbs, OT and the Prophets (in particular Isaiah and Jeremiah), and very seldom in the historical books. An investigation into the semantic field of bws and its derivatives is complicated by two stereotyped distinctions. The first concerns the cultural anthropological classification of societies according to their perception of sin or unacceptable forms of conduct. Those societies in which guilt arises from the publicity of a wrong deed are described as “shame cultures.” In societies where the experience of guilt relates to inherent moral convictions, the classification “guilt culture” is applied. The biased ethnological assumption underlying this distinction, as well as its simplification of matters, make it unfeasible as a point of departure for describing shame in the OT. The second stereotyped distinction comprises the subjective and objective meaning of shame. The subjective meaning here implies an individual or personal experience of disgrace and rejection. It may also refer to a society’s subjective response to humiliation. The objective meaning of the word “shame” implies that an individual or a society is instrumental in bringing about a disgraceful or dehumanized condition that does not necessarily imply personal and affective involvement. However useful these distinctions may be, their rigid application does not do justice to the contextual usage of the mentioned lexemes. The categorization objective-subjective is maintained below, but not with absolute exclusion of subjective experience. Seebass

(TDOT 2:52) attempts to exclude the subjective act from an understanding of shame. According to him, “shame” is the condition arrived at when a human or nonhuman entity fails in an attempted risk and thereby loses its former position of honor. Shame, therefore, always has a passive connotation and is brought upon a person or nonhuman entity, e.g., a city. This absolute exclusion of the subjective act from shame as a human condition is not convincing. The metonymic use of nonhuman entities, such as a city for its inhabitants, in connection with shame also does not exclude the subjective connotation.

It seems as though the meaning of “shame” always has to do with a negative condition or experience as a result of a relationship in which perceived codes of conduct, honor, position, or expectations are not fully met or are violated. Bechtel (48) justifiably draws attention to the fact that shame should also be understood as a sanction of behavior within a society. It is in particular true for those societies with a strong group orientation, in which the exposure to public opinion serves as a control over indecent forms of behavior. The awareness of the repulsion with which society treats unacceptable forms of behavior has lead to the sanction of shaming actions. The intention is to bring disgrace and dishonor on an individual or a group, and in extreme cases even expulsion from the community. According to Bechtel (55-76) such shaming sanctions could be found in judicial, political, and social contexts in old Israel. The relevant remarks by Bechtel in view of these contexts will be incorporated in the discussion that follows.

In a religious sense, the experience of shame is internalized and may be understood as a precondition for repentance (Jer 3:3; Zeph 3:5; 1 Cor 4:14; 6:5).

622

wi(# 1017) The only occurrence of the verbal form (hitp.) that implies sexual shame is Gen 2:25. According to the narrator, the nakedness (‘“riimim) of Adam and Eve did not cause a sense of embarrassment in the idealized garden of Paradise—obviously viewed from the opposite conditions of the narrator’s own context. In a more general sense it may refer to the unfaithful behavior of a mother (Hos 2:5[7]). The stereotyped expression ‘ad-bw refers to the experience of embarrassment when one is harassed for a favor (2 Kgs 2:17) or when one’s action is in vain (Judg 3:25, the guards’ waiting outside Ehud’s “toilet”.

For the majority of usages one may follow the categorization below: (a) bws with a subjective sense. With a subjective sense bws may denote the fear of offense against decency or correct conduct. In this sense Ezra was “ashamed” to misuse his position for further requests for protection (Ezra 8:22). It may further refer to the feeling of disillusionment or disappointment with the behavior of close associates, e.g., friends (Job 6:20). The disappointment may also arise from the failure of harvested crops (Jer 14:4; Joel 1:11). In Jer 12:13 the “shame” associated with the failure of the crops is related to Yahweh’s anger. Successful harvest and abundance of crops are experienced with jubilation (Joel 1:12) and the absence of shame (2:26-27). In Hos 10:6 bw designates the experience of disappointment by Israel about her own acts to erect an idol in Beth-Aven (v. 5). The preference of idols above Yahweh would inevitably result in painful disgrace and loss of reputation (cf. Isa 1:29). The violation of the relationship of trust with God will end in the disgraceful experience of rejection and punishment (cf. also 42:17; 44:9-11). The violation of trust is also evident from Israel’s trust in Egypt as her ally in the struggle with Assyria. Such trust will only increase fear (htt) and disgrace, as Egypt would fail to deliver her (19:9; 20:5; 30:5). The feeling of shame may also arise from circumstances in which a person is discredited by his dishonest behavior. Hazael was therefore ashamed in the presence of Elisha by his dishonorable deliberations against Israel (2 Kgs 8:11). bw3 is closely related to the experience of failure. In Mic 3:7 it is said that the seers will be ashamed and the diviners disgraced (hpr), as God will not answer them (cf. also Zech 13:4). Jeremiah connects this sense of failure to the cultic center that failed to make the truth known (Jer 48:13). The pleonastic clustering of the vb. bwS with the nom. béSet, utterly ashamed, is used as an intensive form of the experience of shame (cf. Isa 42:17). The worship of

idols leads to such shocking disgrace. The painful experience of shame is visible on the face as paleness (Isa 29:22). Fear (htt) and distress often accompany the experience of shame (20:5). Jer 49:23-26

vividly depicts the panic and anguish of Damascus when Yahweh’s judgment brings shame upon her inhabitants. (b) bw¥ with an objective sense. In an objective sense the vb. may refer to any form of conduct or attitude that is morally disgraceful. According to Bechtel (70-71) shaming sanctions were not confined to official shaming techniques (e.g., in warfare),

but were also employed publicly and informally by ordinary people in the midst of everyday life. The conduct of the friends of Job may be an instance of such shaming actions. Instead of showing sympathy with the distressed (herpd, # 3075) situation of Job, his friends attacked him shamelessly (bwS plus neg. particle—Job 19:3-5) and

623

wd (# 1017) brought humiliation (kim, # 4007) on him (19:3). This behavior was inappropriate for pious people and was an attempt to advance one’s own esteem. This form of shaming can be seen as status manipulation. To act in contrast with the conventions of a social institution may also be regarded as an act of shaming the participants. David, therefore, acted dishonorably not to share in the victory of his troops after the defeat of Absalom, preferring instead to lament the death of his son (2 Sam 19:5[6]). Here the vb. bw (hi.) is again used in

close connection with the vb. kim, humiliate. In an objective sense bw¥ often denotes the disgrace and loss of reputation of the defeated enemy (2 Kings 19:26; Isa 19:9; 37:27; 41:11; Jer 46:24; 48:20; Ezek 32:30; Mic 7:16; Zech 10:5). The defeated enemy would not only experience shame,

but they would be an object of ridicule and horror (nom. hit) to others (cf. Jer 48:39). Scorn, mocking, and ridicule were common shaming techniques (Bechtel, 72) and were employed to depict the misery of the defeated enemy. The defeat is often viewed as part of the divine judgment (Isa 23:4; Jer 50:2). The shame of Babylon would be the worst among the nations, according to Jer 50:12; 51:47-58. Any hope of avoiding a total destruction would be in vain, and this imminent sense of failure would contribute to further disgrace (Zech 9:5). A source of shame for Israel would be her trust in a foreign country (Egypt) to rescue her. No clearer description occurs than that of Isa 30:3-5. In these verses the objective sense, expressed by the noms. bédSet, shame, herpda, disgrace (# 3075), and k°limmd, humiliation (# 4009), is linked with the subjective experience of disillusion-

ment (hi. bw) in the capability of Egypt to free Israel (cf. also Jer 2:36). The employment of shame here is probably linked with the sanction of shaming as a political act in the ANE. Defeated people and prisoners of war were treated in a dehumanizing manner and were stripped of their pride. It often entailed their publicly parading naked and being exposed to mocking (Bechtel, 63-65). Shame can also be brought about by the people who put their faith in idols and thus forsook God (Jer 2:26-27; 17:13). They are responsible for their own disgrace. (c) bws with a religious sense. In a religious sense bw refers to the painful experience of guilt because of sinful conduct. This experience of shame is often complemented with disgrace (k/m) in the OT. In Ezra 9:6 bws and kim are used together to denote such an experience of guilt (cf. also Jer 22:22; 31:19; Ezek 36:32). This experience may also be viewed as a positive step towards true repentence (cf. La Cocque for the relationship of shame and guilt in ancient cultures, in ER 13:325-31). In Ezek 16:52 Jerusalem is condemned to shame and to carry her own humiliation (k°*limmdé), because her sins were even more than those of Samaria (cf. also v. 63). The worship of idols

was considered to be the worst of sins, because it implies the violation of the relation of trust between Yahweh and his people (e.g., Ps 97:7; Isa 45:15-16; see also [b] above).

The prophets, in particular Isaiah, depict the condition of a nation under divine judgement as bwS (Isa 1:29; 19:9; Jer 17:18; 20:11). When judgment was set aside, it also implied cessation of the condition of shame (Isa 29:22; 45:17; Zeph 3:11). According to Seebass (TDOT 2:57) Isa 49:23 summarizes the unique expectation of Deutero-Isaiah: the restoration of Israel is looked at from a universal perspective to include other nations as well. For those who put their faith in the Lord there will be no shame. Israel’s calamity and disgrace of the past will be altered in the face of Israel’s 624

w3 (#1017) foes. The trustworthiness of Yahweh and his uniqueness will ensure a new outcome for Israel. In Isa 54:4 bw’ is clustered with the majority of its semantic-related lexemes in the negative to describe (almost superfluously) the alteration of Israel’s fate, now devoid of shame (bw5/béSet), humiliation (klm), disgrace (hrplherpa [> #3070)), shame (hpr II [ # 2917]), and fear (yr’ [# 3707]). Isaiah also makes mention of the fact

that the wicked are incapable of experiencing shame, even if they are aware of the threatening divine judgment (Isa 26:11).

In Psalms bw% is closely intertwined with the relationship of trust and belief between the pious and God. In the prayer the supplicant seeks a restored relationship with God. The condition and experience of being removed from or forgotten by God is qualified as bwS. In the petition he articulates his trust in God and pleads not to be “put to shame” (Ps 25:20; 31:1[2]; 71:1), for God has revealed to his ancestors that he would not disgrace those who trust in him (22:5[6]; 25:3; 31:17[18]; 109:28). These

affirmations of trust are part of a belief structure in terms of which the supplicant desires a restored relationship with God. Without such renewed relationships he experiences utter distress and anxiety, as well as being degraded by his adversaries. The adversaries are not necesarily enemies, but wicked people who use sanctions of shaming the believers in Yahweh and thereby arrogantly display their superiority (Bechtel, 71). It is thus understandable that the pious will beseech God to bring shame on his adversaries (e.g., 35:4[5]; 86:17; 70:2[3]; 71:13; 86:17; 119:78). From a relationship of trust with Yahweh the wicked are viewed as enemies and should be put to shame (31:17[18]; 40:15[16]; 129:5). Ps 35:26 displays the major comparable lexemes (hpr, boset, k*limmd) in order to depict the dishonorable and disgraceful fate of those who act as adversaries of the supplicant (cf. also 40:14[15]). The petition against the adversaries and the wicked is not necessarily revenge on the part of the supplicant, but a “logical” consequence of any conduct by which the relationship of trust with God is violated. The wicked are despicable to God and deserve to be put to shame (53:5[6]). They deserved to be the disgrace of the community. Contrary to this, the righteous observe with obedience the torah and Yahweh’s stipulations, and that will prevent them from being put to shame (119:6, 31, 46, 80).

Noteworthy is the meaning of shame associated with the experience of guilt in Ps 69:6-7[7-8]. The supplicant is intensely aware of his folly and guilt and endures scorn and humiliation (herpd and k°limm4) because of that. He is prepared to undergo this dishonorable experience for the sake of God. His adversaries, however, take advantage of his situation and see in it a source of ridicule (v. 12[13]). This in turn

makes him afraid that his compatriots who honestly seek God may be brought to shame because of him. The psalmist’s perception of shame, from the perspective of a relationship of trust with God, is continued in the NT. Christ will not put to shame those who believe in him, but the evildoers will be objects of his shame (Matt 10:33; Mark 8:38; Luke

12): (d) bws and hpr are metaphorically employed to describe the dim light of the sun and the moon in comparison with the brilliant light of the Lord’s glorious presence in Jerusalem after his final judgment (Isa 24:23). In the light of his majestic presence (see kabod, # 3883), the sun and moon will be “ashamed”—degraded in importance.

625

wid (#1017) (e) In Proverbs the hi. formation of bw¥ is used to typify the conduct of those people who are the opposite of the righteous and the wise. It is used to denote the actions of people who bring disgrace on their family (Prov 10:5; 14:35; 17:2; 19:26; 29:15). Shame in these contexts denotes the opposite of honoring the family as expected by the community (cf. Domeris, 283-97). The occurrence in Prov 12:4 does not have an exclusive sexual connotation, for the disgraceful wife falls in the category of the wicked (vv. 1-7), which implies more than unfaithfulness. 2. Derivatives of bw§. (a) The nom béset, shame, is the most common derivative

of bw¥ and occurs with the same distribution of meanings and often within the same verse (e.g., Ps 35:26;

109:28-29; Isa 30:3-5; 42:17; 54:4). boSet (disgrace) may be

brought upon oneself by one’s own conduct, as is evident from the accusation of Saul against Jonathan when the latter sided with David (1 Sam 20:30). It may also result from Israel’s sin (e.g., Ezra 9:7), as seen above in the case of the vb. bw. The disgrace of the defeated

enemy

is also denoted

with boSet (Job 8:22;

2 Chron 32:21). This disgrace is applicable to the adversaries of the pious supplicant (Ps 35:26; 40:15[16]) as well as to the enemies of the Davidic king (Ps 132:18). In Ps 35:26 and 132:18 the expression “to be clothed with shame” is used to describe the dishonorable fate of the defeated. The pious also experience their lives in the midst of adversaries as constant disgrace (boSer), insult (herpd), and humiliation (k“limmd) (cf. Ps 69:19[20]). The prophetic use of boSet also correlates with the use of the vb. bw%. Israel will be disillusioned in her trust in foreign nations and idols and will bring disgrace upon herself for rejecting Yahweh (Isa 30:3, 5; 42:17; Jer 2:26-27). The sins of Israel will

destine the same fate (Jer 3:24-25; 7:19). The evildoer knows no shame and thus prevents any restoration of the relationship with the Lord (Zeph 3:5). The future for the restored Israel will be a destiny devoid of the disgrace they suffered at the hand of the enemies (3:19).

The meaning of bdset in Mic 1:11 is difficult to construe from the context. It appears unlikely that it denotes nakedness of the private organs. Wolff (29-30) is of the opinion that it refers more generally to nakedness and being barefoot. Official sanctions of shaming in the context of war seem to be implied here. In the woe against self-assertion in Hab 2:10, boSet refers to the disgrace that will come on the house of the one who collects unjust gain by plotting the ruin of others (v. 11). bod¥et is also substituted as a name for Baal (Jer 3:24; 11:13). Idols are attributed

likewise (Hos 9:10). It is generally accepted by most scholars that tradition has trasmuted the names of the sons of Saul and Jonathan to Ishbosheth and Mephibosheth from Ishbaal and Meribbaal respectively (cf. 2 Sam 2:8 and 9:6 with 1 Chron 8:33-34). This was done because of a hesitancy to pronounce the name Baal (Corney, 746, and Daglish, 350). This assumption that boSet was used by the scribe to defame the pagan deity is strongly contested by Tsevat (71-87). He suggests that bd¥er is an epithet and that it is not related to a meaning of shame. East Sem. evidence points to the contrary. From personal names with the element bait or bust, Tsevat deduces a more positive sense of béSet, being dignity or pride (76-81). Consequently Tsevat has no other option than to maintain the bdset element in the personal names of 2 Sam as authentic. The implication then would be that these persons had two different names (85). Whether

626

wD(# 1018) this argument excludes the scribal interference with the names of the family of Saul remains an open question. (b) The meaning of bisa can hardly be distinguished from that of boset. The lament of Ps 89:45[46] makes it evident that the rejection of the Davidic king by Yahweh causes shame/disgrace for the king and is a source of mocking for his enemies (v. 51[52]). God’s wrath on Israel for their sins will cause so much disgrace to the people _ that they will cover their faces with shame—a fate usually reserved for Israel’s enemy (Obad 10; Mic 7:10). bisa is consequently used to attribute the state of a person or a nation under the judgment of God. (c) The derived nom. bosnd, shame, only occurs in Hos 10:6 and has the same

meaning as the vb. bwS: Disgrace awaits Israel if she puts her hope in idols. (d) The lexeme m“busim in the plural denotes the male pudenda (Deut 25:11).

P-B_ In RL the vb. bw also occurs with the meaning “to be ashamed.” The use of the pi. formation to express the causative is different from BH. The nom. bi#S4 and béSet, shame, chastity, occur, but not bosnd (cf. Jastrow, 151). The LXX usually translated it

with aischynd, put to shame, epaischynomai, be ashamed, and kataischynd, be disgraced. Shame, disgrace, humiliation, scorn: ~ bwz (show contempt for, #996); — bws I (be ashamed, put to shame, behave shamefully, # 1017); > hsdI (insult, reproach, # 2873); > hpr II (be dismayed, feel ashamed, # 2917); > hrp II (taunt, mock, insult, defy, #3070); > klm (be shamed, humiliated, hurt,

# 4007);

> /‘g (scorn, mock, #4352);

disrespectfully, #5540); — giqalon (disgrace, #7814); contempt, dishonor, detest, # 7829)

> n’s (reject, disdain, treat

> qlh II (be of low esteem, treat with

BIBLIOGRAPHY IDB 4:305-6; NIDNTT 3:562-64; TDNT 1:189-91; TDOT 2:50-60; THAT 1:269-70; TWOT 1:222-23, 311-12, 442-43; 2:799; L. M. Bechtel, “Shame as a Sanction of Social Control in Biblical Israel: Judicial, Political, and Social Shaming,’ JSOT 49, 1991, 47-76; K. Beyer, Die aramdischen Texte vom Toten Meer, 1984; R. W. Corney, “Ishbaal,” JDB 2, 746; E. R. Dalgish, “Mephibosheth,” JDB 3:350-51; D. Daube, “The Culture of Deuteronomy,” Orita 3, 1969, 27-52; W. R. Domeris, “Honour and Shame in the New Testament,” Neotestamentica 27/2, 1993, 283-97; A. LaCocque, “Sin and Guilt,” RE 13:325-31; M. Tsevat, “Ishbosheth and Congeners,” HUCA 46, 1975, 71-87; Th. C. Vriezen, “Siinde und Schuld im AT,” RGG 6, 478-82; H. Wildberger, Jesaja. Kapitel 1-12, BK, 1980; H. W. Wolff, Micha, BKAT

14/4, 1982.

Philip J. Nel

1018

7a

WD (bw I), q., pol. delay, hold back, be long (# 1018).

The only occurrences are the polel forms in Exod 32:1, where Moses was OT delayed in coming down from Mount Sinai, and Judg 5:28, where the term is in parallelism with ’hr (> #336). Delay: > ‘hr (tarry, detain s.o., #336); > msk (seize, drag off, delay, # 5432)

> bwS II (delay, #1018);

> mhh (delay, # 4538); Bill T. Arnold

627

NTS (# 1021) 1019 (basa, shame), > # 1017 1020 (baz, plunder, spoil), > # 1024

1021

ANE.

NT3

N12 (bz’), q. wash away (# 1021).

Arab. buzza, carry away forcefully.

Occurring twice (Isa 18:2, 7), both in connection with rivers, the term may OT mean “wash away (KBL) or “divide” (BDB; NIV: “whose land is divided by rivers’).

The term refers to the land (Assyria?) to which envoys will be sent alerting the earth’s people to God’s lordship.

Flood, deluge, torrent: > bz’ (wash away, #1021); > grp (wash away, #1759); > mabbil (heavenly ocean, deluge, #4429); > niggeret (torrent, #5600); > swp (flood, rise up, make float, #7429); — Sibbdlet II (torrent, undulation, # 8673); > s6r II ({[sudden] flood, # 8766); > tp (wash away, flood, overflow, #8851); > Sesep (flooding, # 9192) Elmer A. Martens

1022

=15

m2 (bzh), q. be contemptible, think lightly of, despise; ni. part. despised, contemptible; hi. inf.

cause to despise (# 1022); 71°13 (bizzayén), nom. # 1025). ANE

contempt

(hapleg., Esth

1:18,

Middle Heb., Jewish Aram. bzh; Syr., Mand. bs’, to despise; Arab baza’’, to

subjugate; Akk. buzzu’u/buzziim, to treat badly; Middle Heb., Jewish Aram. bizy6na’, contempt. OT 1. Apparently, bzh and bwz are derived from the same two strong consonants (bz), although neither is necessarily secondary to the other (Bergstrasser, 2:170, §31c). Although Palache (14) suggests that bzh and bwz are temporally distinguishable (allegedly found in earlier and later literature respectively), both verbal roots and their derivatives occur together throughout Wisdom/poetic literature in particular. Of the two roots, bzh is more common and serves in a wider variety of contexts. An acc. normally follows (it occurs only 2x with /° [2 Sam 6:16; 1 Chron 15:29]), while bwz normally occurs with /° (an acc. follows it 3x [Prov 1:7; 23:22; 27:7, where one should read tabiiz rather than tabiis]).

2. Vb. forms of bzh occur 43x in the OT and signify undervaluing someone or something, i.e., “to accord little worth” (TWOT 1:98). The contrast between bzh and kbd, honor (# 3877; 1 Sam 2:30), yr’, fear (# 3707; Yahweh, Prov 14:2), and smr, keep (# 9068; God’s commandments, Prov 19:16), helps demonstrate that one who despises

(bzh) someone or something treats with irreverence, rejects, or devalues the person/thing held in contempt. Although bzh denotes an inner attitude, it clearly impacts relationships. (a) Contempt for animals. When King Saul attacked the Amalekites, he ordered his soldiers to exterminate only the “despised” animals (those having some kind of imperfection [1 Sam 15:9]). Scholars have offered various alternatives for the

628

m2 (# 1022) problematic form n“mibzd. Driver (124) called it a “grammatical monstrum, originating evidently in the blunder of a scribe” (cf. BL, 422, §t’”; GKC, 213, §75y). Gesenius

(463) explains the form as a contraction of a nom. mibzeh and the part. nibzeh, while KD (152-53) regard it as a ni. part. formed from a nom. (mibzeh, contrary to all analogy). Bostrém (18, 34) contends that the problematic form resulted from the inten-

tional combination of the ni. part nibzd and the adj. mazeh, producing a translation “lean and poor.” The MT form does appear to be some kind of scribal error. (Cf. LXx8; pan ergon étimomenon = MT: kl ml’kh nbzh, all the property that was dispised.) (b) Contempt in various human relationships. In the context of human relationships, bzh describes contempt felt by a wife for her husband (Esth 1:17; cf. the derivative of bzh [hapleg.] in 1:18, bizzay6n) and a foolish son for his mother (Prov 15:20). Simply because of his lack of wealth, many reject a poor man’s wisdom (Eccl 9:16). Antiochus Epiphanes, who would defile the Jerusalem temple, is regarded as a man

worthy of contempt (Dan 11:21). (c) Contempt for people and institutions of Yahweh. Throughout biblical history people have sought to treat with contempt individuals or items valued by God. Esau treated his birthright, something of great worth, with flippancy by selling it to his brother, Jacob (Gen 25:24). Kings Saul (1 Sam 10:27) and David (17:42; 2 Sam 6:16 = 1 Chron 15:29), Mordecai (Esth 3:6), and Nehemiah and his coworkers (Neh 2:19) experienced the contempt of others (who themselves later experienced shame or death). The psalmist described the experience of scorn (Ps 22:6[7]; 119:141), and the prophet Isaiah predicted the abusive treatment that the Servant figure would endure (Isa 53:3). The vb. bzh occurs at the beginning and near the end of the verse to emphasize the contemptible treatment this Servant will receive. He will be treated with contempt and rejection as though he were a worthless object (see above examples). The juxtaposition of the rare pl. form ’iSim, men, and 7%, man, in 53:6 highlights the solitary nature of his suffering. The combination of nepes with a part. form of bzh in 49:7 depicts the Servant figure as deeply despised (the MT /ibzoh in 49:7 should be read as a q. pass. part. [libzity], a despised one, with 1QIsa*, Syr., Aq., Symm., and Th.). Various individuals arrogantly despised God himself, his revelation of truth, or other sanctified items. Every act of disobedience against God constituted contempt of God and his revelation (Num 15:31; 2 Sam 12:9; 2 Chron 36:16). Although one might expect this from a “devious” person (Prov 14:2), Eli the priest (1 Sam 2:30), King David (2 Sam 12:9-10), King Zedekiah (Ezek 16:59), and the priesthood in Malachi’s day (Mal 1:6, 7, 12) treated Yahweh with contempt. The leaders of Israel (Ezek 22:8) and the elect nation as a whole (2 Chron 36:16) despised Yahweh and his sanctified institutions (“holy things” in Ezek 22:8 likely refers to the temple sacrifices and temple vessels). King Zedekiah manifested his contempt for God by two acts of treachery (all four references to Zedekiah’s covenant treachery might refer only to the covenant he made with Nebuchadnezzar). By leading the elect nation in continued violation of the Mosaic covenant, he (and the nation) faced the curses of that covenant (Ezek 16:59; 17:19; cf. Deut 28:15-68). Zedekiah also broke his covenant with Nebuchadnezzar, an oath he had made in Yahweh’s name (Ezek 17:16, 18).

629

TT (# 1024)

Such abhorrent treatment of Yahweh did not remain unpunished. The contempt normally returned in some form upon the author of bzh. The human subjects of bzh were cut off from the covenant community (Num 15:31), were despised by others (1 Sam 2:30; Mal 2:9), faced God’s wrath (2 Chron 36:16), or experienced death (2 Sam 12:9-10; Prov 19:16).

(d) Yahweh and contempt. The psalmist depicts a righteous man as one who despises a vile person (Ps 15:4). God himself despises the wicked (73:20) and caused

Israel (Mal 2:9) and Edom (Jer 49:15; Obad 2) to experience the contempt of others. In contrast to this, Yahweh does not despise the suffering of the afflicted (Ps 22:24[25]; par. with gs [#9210]), the repentant heart (Ps 51:17[19]), his captive people (69:33[34]), or the destitute (102:17[18]). Those who might face the contempt of others can rest in Yahweh’s acceptance of them. Contempt,

disdain, disgust, loathing: > bwz (show contempt for, #996); ~ bzh (be contemptible, think lightly of, despise, # 1022); > bhl (become tired of, disdain, # 1041); > g‘l (abhor, be defiled, fail, #1718); > zhm (make s.t. loathsome, # 2299); > zwr III (be offensive, # 2320); > zll I (be frivolous, be despised, #2361); > znh II (feel a dislike for, # 2389); > zara’ (sickness, nausea, #2426); > hnn II (be stinking, loathsome, #2859); > yq‘ (turn aside, # 3697); > nq‘ (disengage, # 5936); > qwt (feel disgust, #7752); > qll (be slight, swift, appear trifling, treat with contempt, # 7837); > Swt II (slight, despise, # 8764); > Sgs (make o.s. detestable, # 9210); > t‘b (be detestable, be loathed, loathe, abhor, # 9493) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 2:60-65; TWOT Alternative Readings

1:98-99; G. Bergstrasser, Hebrdische in the Hebrew

of the Books of Samuel,

Grammatik,

1962; O. Bostrom,

1918; S. Driver, Notes on the

Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel, 2d ed., 1960; W. Gesenius, Ausfiihrliches grammatisch-kritisches Lehrgebdude der hebrdischen Sprache, 1817; J. Palache, Semantic Notes on the Hebrew Lexicon, 1959.

Michael A. Grisanti

1023 (bizzd, plunder), > # 1024

1024

—_

TT (bzz), q. plunder, spoil; ni. be plundered, pu. be taken as spoil (# 1024); TD (baz), nom. plun-

der, spoil (# 1020); M13 (bizza), nom. plunder, spoil (# 1023).

ANE Cognates with the same meaning include the Aram. baz (DISO, 30) and the Arab. bazza. OT 1. Incommon with the rest of the ANE, Israel practiced the taking of plunder in times of war (cf. Num 31:9-12; Deut 20:10-20). The plunder represented the wages of the soldiers (Ezek 29:19). In some cases the spoil was to be divided between the soldiers and civilians (Num 31:26-54; 1 Sam 30:24). Plunder might consist of women, children, cattle, clothing, material, and valuables like gold or silver (see Gen 34:27-29;

Judg 5:30; Ezek 26:12). However, in particular cases of holy war, the practice of the ban (hérem; > #3051) came into effect, and livestock was to be killed and all goods burned (Deut 13:16[17]).

2. The semantic field of plunder and stealing involved eight terms, each of which adds to our understanding of the whole. bzz (43x) and its different forms carries 630

172 (# 1024) the meaning of plunder or spoil, usually taken in war, and often in passages related to God as the divine warrior, where it underlines the severity of God’s judgment (e.g., Isa 24:3). To be the victim of spoil and plunder was to be both disgraced and humiliated. In the OT world, where shame and honor were pivotal values, such a state was the equivalent of death, since it involved the complete removal of one’s human dignity. gz/ (42x; > #1608 and cognates), used of robbery by force, may also include the idea of . plunder (Isa 3:14). The emphasis is on the violence of the action (cf. Ezek 18:10-12). paris Il (5x; > #7265) is used of robbers or bandits, who operate violently (Jer 7:11). gnb (59x; > #1704 and cognates) conveys the sense of stealing by stealth, and the stress here is on the dishonorable nature of such an action (e.g., Gen 31:30). S11 II (88x;

> #8964 and cognates), meaning “spoil” or “booty,” is often used in parallel with bzz and rendered in English as “plunder” and “spoil.” bzz can take either salal (e.g., Josh 8:2, 27) or baz (e.g., Num 31:32) as an object. The phrase dividing the spoil (hig salal) provides the sense of victory and enjoying its benefits (Exod 15:9), unless one is the victim. Ssh (11x; > #9115) is used with the sense of plunder or loot, and encapsulates the sense of violence and disgrace (2 Kgs 17:20). The term Sss (6x; > #9116) is used

of rifling tents or homes, taking away everything of value (1 Sam 17:53). The term malqéah (7x; # 4917) has the sense of live booty (mainly stock animals, but including people, Num 31:32). Finally ‘ad II (# 6331) is used, only in Gen 49:27, with the sense

of prey. 3. Theologically speaking, two ideas come to the fore. The first relates to the dehumanization, violence, and disgrace that accompanies the process of being plundered or spoiled. This acts as a warning to Israel, especially in the prophetic contexts, where the powerful in Israel have abused their position over against the weak and downtrodden. It also serves as a warning against the enemies of Israel, should they dare to lay a hand on the people against the will of God. The picture of Yahweh, the divine warrior (—), protector of the weak and powerless, comes to the fore (see Miller). The second idea relates to the morality of the process of taking from another and is epitomized in the eighth commandment (Exod 20:15). To steal from someone is to violate

the principles of human society and to destroy the ethos that enables people to live together in harmony and security. The sanction for such a person is shame, not guilt, which serves to exclude them from the community and so protect its standards (see L. Bechtel, “Shame as a Sanction”). God’s will for human community is that each should live in harmony with the other, respecting and affirming human dignity through the recognition of the imago dei resident in all. (> Decalogue: Theology; ~ Ethics: Theology) 4. In the Pent. bzz is used in accounts of battles. A graphic example may be found in Gen 34, where the brothers of Dinah wreak vengeance on the people of Shechem for her rape and the attendant shame that had fallen on the family. The city is looted (bzz), the flocks, herds, and donkeys are seized, the wealth is carried off along with women and children, and the houses are plundered (bzz). In Num 31, following the battle against Midian, details of the allocation of plunder (bzz is found in vv. 9, 32, 53) are given, with equal allocation to the soldiers and to the community of Israel (vv.

25-47). The account concludes with the prize possessions of gold jewelry being volun-

tarily given to God as an offering for atonement (vv. 48-54).

631

TT3 (# 1024) 5. In the historical books, bzz refers to the literal taking of spoil, as in the battle against Ai (Josh 8:2, 27) and Hazor (11:14). However, in 1 Sam 14:36 an extended

sense is present, as Saul speaks of plundering the Philistines until dawn, implying the whole process of attacking, warring, and looting. Another new element is found in 2 Kgs 7:16, where the lately besieged people of Samaria plunder the camp of the Arameans, making true the promise of God through Elisha (7:1) that food would again be sold freely. Here the element of salvation, which will become key in the prophets, makes its appearance. 6. Three contexts may be identified in the prophetic corpus, each adding an unique dimension to our understanding of bzz. (a) The first context concerns oppression. Isaiah (10:1-4) condemns those who make unjust laws and oppressive decrees (v.1), because by so doing they deprive the poor of their rights, the oppressed of justice, and make widows their prey (v. 2, baz, lit., spoil). This metaphorical use of baz along with related terms found in this verse (gz/, rob by force [# 1608], and S// II, spoil [# 8964]) allows the prophet to underscore the brutality of the lawmakers and their abuse of power. While they may not use physical violence, they create, by legislation, a society that is psychologically and structurally violent (see Wittenberg, 76-93). (b) The second context is that of judgment, either against the enemies of Israel or Israel itself. Isaiah prophesies against Assyria, once the rod of God’s anger (10:5), sent to plunder (v. 6), but who now earns God’s rebuke (v. 12). Ezekiel carries a similar warning against Ammon (25:7) and Nahum against Nineveh (2:9[10]). In each instance the motivation for God’s judgment is given, such as the malice of Ammon (Ezek 25:6) or the arrogance of Assyria (Isa 10:12). Of general interest is Ezek 29:19,

which describes the taking of plunder as payment for the army of Nebuchadnezzar. Oracles against Israel are frequent from the time of Amos onwards (Amos 3:11), and

ample reasons for God’s intention of plundering Israel are given. In anticipation of the Assyrians’ plundering of the Israelites, God instructed Isaiah to name his son Maher-shalal-hash-baz (>), meaning “Quick to the plunder, swift to the spoil” (Isa 8:3 and see ANEP,

372, 3 with the murals of the Assyrian conquest). Jeremiah accused

Israel of rejecting God (Jer 15:6) and warned that she would be plundered (bzz, or in theological language, “punished”) for her sins (v. 13). Plunder here carries a clear sense of humiliation and shame. To the ancient mindset, the shame of being pillaged was as great, as if not greater than, the actual physical loss and abuse. This is also clearly seen in the parable of Ezekiel (ch. 23) concerning the two promiscuous sisters, representing Israel and Judah, who pursue their foreign lovers (nations and their gods, v. 30). The sisters are punished as shameless women by a mob that rises to terrorize and plunder (bzz) them (v. 46). Shame, physical brutality, and even death are present here, as a graphic warning to Judah. (c) The third context is that of salvation for Israel, often linked with judgment upon her enemies. Zion will be saved from the Assyrians (Isa 33:20), and even the lame among the people will carry off plunder (v. 23). Isaiah shows how God, indeed, intervened to deliver the remnant of his people (Isa 37:36-37). Similarly, Damascus, who plundered (Ssh; #9115) and looted (bzz) Israel, will in turn be plundered by God (Isa 17:14; and see Jer 30:16). The prophet Jeremiah encourages God’s people with the promise of retribution in that enemies of Israel—Hazor, Kedar (Jer 49:32) and Babylon (50:37)—will be plundered (bzz), their treasuries taken from them, and their cities left

632

113 (# 1024) as the lonely habitations of jackals—a place where weeds spring up in the streets among ruined houses. Referring to the Messiah, Isa 11:14 speaks of him as leading an attack on the east and as plundering (bzz) the west, in preparation for the return of the exiles to the land. Here (as in 1 Sam 14:36) plunder serves as a poetic synonym for waging war. Important elements are brought together here in the prophetic writings of the Exile (battles, plunder, the Messiah), which will later feature strongly in Jewish and _ Christian eschatological hopes (e.g., the plunder of Gog in Ezek 39:10). 7. In the Writings the most important term is the nom. bizzdé, found only here, which has the sense of plunder or spoil. Ezra 9:7 speaks of the punishment of the Exile and significantly links together the actions of being pillaged (bizzd@) and being humiliated at the hands of foreign kings. Esther notes that the Jews refrained from pillaging their enemies (9:10, 15, 16), thus effecting punishment that stopped short of excessive humiliation, with its attendant danger of revenge. Finally, Daniel uses bizzd to refer to the wars of the Seleucids (Dan 11:24) and to the fortunes (perhaps of the Maccabees) in the midst of their initial defeats at the hands of the Seleucids (Dan 11:33).

8. The theological thrust of the term bzz may be summed up as a key idea within the theme of the judgment and salvation of God. On the one hand is the wrath of God and the dire threat of punishment and humiliation for those who break his laws (Jer 15:13; Ezek 7:21-22; Amos 3:11), and on the other hand, the glorious hope of God’s

salvation (Isa 11:14), when even the weak shall become strong and the lame will carry off plunder (Isa 33:23).

P-B. The LXX uses skyleud and skylon, among other terms, to render the ideas of plundering and spoils, which is in line with the classical G idea of “stripping the slain enemy of his arms.” In RL bzz I is used in the sense of “to distribute” or “to take spoil” and hence “to rob” (e.g., Gen Rabbah

1, relating to the issue of title over land, and

Num Rabbah 12, with a metaphorical sense regarding one who “robs” the youth of their noonday lesson). bzz II means to be shy, thus picking up on the sense of secrecy inherent in the root.

NT In response to the accusation of the teachers of the law from Jerusalem, that Jesus was possessed by and operated through Beelzebub, Jesus likens his work to one who enters the house of a strong man (Mark 3:27). No one can carry of diarpaz6, plunder, the house unless he first ties up the strong man. C. Myers (164-67) finds in this statement the description of the mission of Jesus (cf. 1 John 3:8). Plunder, spoil, robbing, stealing: > bzz (plunder, spoil, # 1024); > gai (steal, rob, # 1608); ~ gnb (steal, rob, #1704); > paris II (burglar, robber, #7265); > peregq (crossroad?, plunder, #7294); > SII II (take plunder, seize, # 8964); > Ssh (plunder, loot, # 9115) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 2:66-68; TWOT 1:99; L. M. Bechtel, “Shame as a Sanction of Social Control in Biblical Israel: Judicial, Political, and Social Shaming,” JSOT 49, 1991, 47-76; R. de Vaux, Anclsr 154-57; F. M. Cross, Jr., “The Divine Warrior in Israel’s Early Cult,” Biblical Motifs, 1966, 11-30; M. C. Lind, Yahweh Is a Warrior, 1980; T. Longman, III, “Psalm 98: A Divine Warrior Song,” JETS 27, 1984, 267-74; P. D. Miller, The Divine Warrior in Early Israel, 1973; C. Myers, Binding the Strong Man, 1988, 164-67; H. J. Stoebe, “Raub und Beute,” SVT 16, 1968, 340-54;

633

“WTS (# 1029) G. Wittenberg, “The Rule of Justice Versus the Rule of violence,” in Conflict and the Quest for Justice, K. Nuernberger (ed.), 1989, 76-93. William R. Domeris

1025 (bizzay6n, contempt), > # 1022 1027 (bazaq, sparks), > # 1397

1029

ae

“WA (bzr), q. scatter; pi. scatter (# 1029).

OT This vb. is found only twice. In Dan 11:24 the “contemptible person” (usually identified as Antiochus Epiphanes) will distribute (bzr, q.) booty to his supporters after securing the throne militarily. Ps 68 is a song of praise for the incomparable strength of the sovereign god manifested throughout the history of Israel. The prayer of v. 30[31] is that he again demonstrate this power by scattering (pi.) the warlike nations. Scattering, dispersion: > bzr (scatter, #1029); > zrh I (scatter, sprinkle, spread, #2430); > zr‘ (sow, scatter seed, #2445); > zrq I (sprinkle, scatter, # 2450); > ndh I (banish, be scattered, be cast out, seduce, #5615); > ndp (blow away, scatter, #5622); — nps II (spread out, scatter, be dispersed, #5880); > pws (scatter, disperse, be spread, #7046); — pzr (scatter, spread, # 7061)

M. Daniel Carroll R.

1031 (bahén, assayer), > # 1043

1032 (bahiin, watchtower), > # 4463

r D’INS

(b%hiirim),

situation

“VM (bahir I), young man (# 1033); nimina (b°hirét), situation of a young man (#1035); of a young

man

(#1036);


#1047). ANE

HALAT associates bahiir with *bahhir and finds a cognate in behrum, select

soldier, a term used frequently at Mari (see ARM

15, 193). Seebass (TDOT 2:74) in

contrast maintains that bahiir is etymologically related to the common Sem. root bhr, choose, claiming support from AHw 1, 117b and CAD (see Akk. behiru, choose, [B:186]; Akk. béru [B:211-12]). While the etymological debate may rage, it has little impact on our understanding of bahiir, the usage of which shows no military dimension. While the nom. is related to bhr, any aspect of “choice quality” is subordinated, if not entirely absent from the connotation in the OT.

OT 1. Most occurrences of bahiir come in prophetic contexts that speak of destruction of the various social classes of Israel: old/young, men/women, rich/poor, etc. From these passages it is difficult to gather much specific evidence other than that a bahitr is young and is used in parallel to b*téld, young girl. Saul is placed in this category (1 Sam 9:2), and Boaz commends Ruth for not pursuing this category of individual (Ruth 3:10). The reference to a mother weeping for her bahiir alongside widows mourning for their slain husbands (Jer 15:8) suggests that a bahiir may still be a member of his father’s household. The only passage presenting evidence contrary to that

634

Sm3(# 1041) identification is Ezek 23:6, 12, 23. Here it appears that the Assyrian governors and commanders are being identified as b°hirim. In the light of the metaphorical nature of Ezek 23, however, it is probable that the Assyrian government is characterized as being sought after by Israel and Judah for political profit. So the metaphor portrays Israel and Judah as b°tilét becoming wanton and the Assyrian leadership as b°hdrim being sought in marriage. Consequently, the marital status of individual governors or com_ manders is immaterial.

The pl. forms b°hirim (Num 11:28) and b°hirét (Eccl 11:9; 12:1) are nom. abstractions that refer to the time of life when one was a young man in the house of his father. 2. Theologically, the bahiir represents the most robust and energetic—the hope represented in the next generation. The prophetic proclamations against this class of individuals indicates that the future of the nation is being jeopardized. While it is true that parallel pairs such as young men/young women, elders/career aged men, or mothers/babies suggest that none will be exempt from the judgment (cf. Jer 6:11; Lam 1:18-19; 2:21-22), they also represent the fabric of society. Young women are those who are the childbearers. The young men represent the experience and wisdom of the present leadership. It is one thing to bring destruction to the present, but to engineer the decimation of the next generation has far more significant repercussions. Youth: > bahiir I (young man, # 1033); > b°tdld (young girl, #1435); > n°‘tdrim (youth, # 5830); > ‘“limim (youth, # 6596); > sa ‘ir I (little, small, young, trifling, #7582); > gaton (small, trifling, young, # 7785); > Sah*rat (dark hair, prime of youth, # 8841) BIBLIOGRAPHY

C. W. Gordon, “O°til Nouns in Classical

Hebrew,” AbrN 29, 1991, 83-86. John H. Walton

1035 (b°hirét, being a young man), > # 1033

1036 (b°hiirim, being a young man), > # 1033 1040 (bahir, chosen), > # 1047

Mae! ANE

an

ona (bhl), q. become tired of, disdain (hapleg.,

Zech 11:8, # 1041).

Aram. Dhl I, to be disordered, sick.

OT This hapleg. has no clear ANE cognates and consequently has an unclear meaning. LXX and Syr. reflect a translation for bhi, “their soul cried out.” Several scholars substitute the more common root g‘/ (see # 1718), which means “to consider someone

or something as dung or filth’ when followed by an object (TDOT 3:47; HAHAT!®, 136; Marti, 439; Nowack, 402; Horst, 244). Others have suggested b‘/ II (Néldeke, 187-88) or ’al (Otzen, 256). This hapleg. occurs in Zech 11:8 to describe Israel’s attitude toward God’s appointed leader. Serving as a type of the coming messianic Shepherd-King, Zechariah serves as a shepherd of Israel (11:7-8a). In spite of Zechariah’ s

diligent efforts, the people rejected (despised) his authority, causing him to renounce

his commission (vv. 8b-9; Chisholm, 266).

635

173 (# 1043) Contempt, disdain, disgust, loathing: > bwz (show contempt for, #996); > bzh (be contemptible, think lightly of, despise, # 1022); > bhi (become tired of, disdain, # 1041); > gil (abhor, be defiled, fail, # 1718); > zhm (make s.t. loathsome, # 2299); > zwr III (be offensive, # 2320); > zil I (be frivolous, be despised, #2361); > znh II (feel a dislike for, # 2389); + zara’ (sickness, nausea, #2426); > hnn II (be stinking, loathsome, #2859); > yq' (turn aside, # 3697); > nq‘ (disengage, # 5936); > qwt (feel disgust, #7752); > gil (be slight, swift, appear trifling, treat with contempt, #7837); > swt II (slight, despise, # 8764); > Sqs eke 0.S. detestable, #9210); > t‘b (be detestable, be loathed, loathe, abhor, # 9493) BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 3:45-48; TWOT 1:99; R. Chisholm, Interpreting the Minor Prophets, 1990; F. Horst, Die

Zwolf Kleinen Propheten: Nahum bis Malaechi, 1938; K. Marti, Das Dodekapropheten,

1904;

Th. Noldeke,

1903;

Ce)

ZAW

17, 1897,

187-88;

W.

Nowack,

Die Kleinen

Propheten,

B. Otzen, Studien iiber Deuterosacharja, 1964. Michael A. Grisanti

1043

n>

| (bahoén), assayer (# 1031); 2

ANE.

}N2 (bhn), q. test, put to the test; ni. be put to the test; pu. be tested (?) (#1043); (bohan II), tested (stone) (# 1046).

nom.

yina

The root bhn appears in Aram. and Arab. (mhn) with a range of meanings simi-

lar to that of bhn in Heb; i.e, “to try, test.”

OT _ bhn appears in its various forms about 32x in the OT. With only two occurrences in the Torah and none in the Former Prophets, bhn is far more at home in the

poetic materials of the Writings and the Latter Prophets, particularly Job, Ps, and Jer. That this is so fits well with two additional observations. First, bhn typically appears in passages that have distinctly theological overtones, overtones common in the highly reflective religious language of much of the Writings and Latter Prophets. Second, bhn generally denotes a rather nebulous or subjective type of testing; only rarely is the means of testing or the objective clearly specified. In this sense, the root is more poetic than concrete, more religious than worldly. 1. With respect to the occasional passages in which bhn lacks clear theological overtones (Gen 42:15-16; Job 12:11; 34:3; Ezek 21:13[18]), the key concern involves evaluating the dependability of something. In connection with Joseph’s reunion with

his brothers, the contrived scene—Joseph already knows their identity and therefore the truthfulness of what they say!—depicts him testing his brothers in order to discern the validity of their claims. Similarly, both Job and Elihu suggest the need to test or evaluate the reliability of the spoken word.In both instances, to test a claim or word involves determining its truthfulness. 2. More frequently, bhn denotes testing in the religious realm. The people of Israel occasionally test Yahweh, although doing so is normally denounced. The psalmist, for example, recalls a time when a former generation tested the Lord in the desert

(Ps 95:9). On that occasion, the people doubted Yahweh’s ability to provide for them,

even though they had seen his previous works on their behalf. To test God, then, is to

call into question his faithfulness, to defiantly dare him to do something. Elsewhere, the evil of testing Yahweh is underscored in a prophetic accusation (Mal 3:15). Rather than testing God themselves, the people have arrived at the

636

}M3(# 1043) conclusion that those who do, in fact, test him receive no punishment. According to

Malachi, this is a faulty theological conclusion. Testing Yahweh, apart from those rare instances when he invites such testing as a means of demonstrating his faithfulness to a disbelieving audience (Mal 3:10), has no place among the covenant community. In most instances when bin involves religious testing, however, it is Yahweh himself who does the testing. Here, two general categories can be discerned: (a) On several occasions, bin captures the process through which Yahweh evaluates the spiritual condition of his people. Again, precisely how he does this generally goes unspecified—no particular tests are established. Therefore, bhn involves a rather intuitive act of discerning. Similarly, the goals or objectives of the testing are themselves broad and somewhat imprecise. Generally, the Lord examines his people in order to determine what is in their hearts (1 Chron 29:17; Ps 7:9[10]; Prov 17:3) and minds (Jer 17:10). In a fashion analogous to evaluating a spoken word, Yahweh tests

his people so as to probe their character. Furthermore, the various parallel constructions involving bhn and srp suggest that this testing process is not simply evaluative, but also formative. Apparently, testing has the potential to purify and cleanse (Zech 13:9). At times, such testing is burdensome for those being tested (Job 7:18), and all

too often the resulting evaluation is unfortunately unfavorable (Jer 6:27). However, a completed test and lessons learned are, in retrospect, praiseworthy (Ps 66:10). (b) In selected passages, no actual testing takes place. Rather, an individual

either prayerfully invites Yahweh to test him as a way of verifying his own personal piety (Ps 17:3; 26:2) or affirms that Yahweh does, in fact, test people rightly (Jer 11:20; 12:3; 20:12). Of importance is the emphasis placed on the heart and the mind. Yahweh’s envisioned testing involves his examining the inner condition, the thoughts and motives, of his people. For the righteous, such testing is not so much a threat as it is an opportunity to demonstrate godliness. Even Job, who does experience what he considers to be God’s testing, confidently anticipates a favorable evaluation in the end (Job 23:10). 3. The nom. béhan occurs only in Isa 28:16, where it modifies the nom. ’eben, stone (> #74). Since bohan has generally been associated with bhn, the phrase is normally translated “tested stone.” Tsevat, however, relates bohan to a homonymous root

meaning “fortress,” translating the phrase “‘a stone used in building a fortress” (TDOT ZAi~)2). 4. The nom. bahén is attested only in Jer 6:27, where it means “a tester of metals.” The usage is of no theological significance. P-B InLXX, bhn most frequently appears as dokimazo (“to test, examine, determine by trial”). In the QL, the connection is with bahan, watchtower, as in Isa 32:14 (> # 1044). As a vb., it has the common meaning “try” or “test.” Test, trial, discipline: > bhn (test, # 1043); > nsh (test, train, exercise, #5814); > srp (smelt, refine, test, # 7671); > twh II (trouble, provoke, # 9345) BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 2:69-72; THAT 1:272-75; TWOT 1:100; C. Baldauf, “Lautern und Prufen im Alten Testa-

ment: Begriffsgeschichtliche Untersuching zu srp und bhn,” TLZ 103, 1978, 917-18; H. Gehman,

637

“MS(# 1047) “bhn, Examine, Try, Prove, Test,” VT 22, 1972, 197; B. Gerhardsson, “The Testing of God’s Son (Matt. 4:1-11 & Par.),” ConBNT 2, 1966, 1. Terry L. Brensinger

1046 (bohan II, tested stone), > # 1043

L047

woe

“M2 (bhr IL) q. choose, elect, test; ni. tested,

purified, be preferred (# 1047); “PMD (bahir),

nom. chosen (# 1040); “MAM(mibhdr), best (# 4435); WWAfa(mibhar I), choicest, best (# 4436); note also the proper names 113” (yibhar) and S37 (mibhar). It is a matter of debate whether the words 1'M3 (bahiir I, warrior, young man; > # 1033) and minima OAM A(b°hiirdt/b°hirim, youth; > # 1035/6) belong to a different root (bhr I, HALAT 114-15) or to the present root (BDB, 104; TDOT 2:74; HAHAT'® 136)Lhe studies of Z. Weisman and J. Guillén favor the second possibility. ANE The root is attested in Amorite personal names of Mari (18th century BC). Akk. béru, select, examine (AHw 1:122; CAD 2:212). In Neo-Babylonian (9th-7th century BC), the root appears as behéru (CAD 2:186), closer to the Heb. form. Von Soden sup-

poses an Aram. influence (AHw 1:117), but the root is not known in Imperial or Biblical Aram.; in Jewish Aramaic bhr means “choose, examine,” and in Syr., examine. Actually, it is in BH that the root and its meaning are better attested (ca. 200x).

We find ANE parallels to the OT’s idea of the divine choice of the king in the royal titles in Egypt from the eighteenth dynasty on. The vb. used there is stp (TDOT 2:73). The Akk. expressions for “choose” are the vb. (w)atié and the idiom “the one to whom the eyes of the gods have been directed” (TDOT 2:73-74). OT

In the OT the concept of divine election (of Israel, of individuals within the

people) is closely connected to the use of the vb. bhr, choose. It must, however, be borne in mind that such an important and encompassing theme cannot be understood in terms of a single Heb. word. The very fact of divine election is embedded in Israel’s history from the patriarchs onwards, and the idea is conveyed by other words or expressions, such as the roots yd‘ I, know (> # 3359; Gen 18:19; Amos 3:2), bdl, separate (hi.,; > #976; 1 Kgs 8:53), lgh, take (> # 4374; 2 Sam 7:8), kwn, establish (pol.; > # 3922; 2 Sam 7:24), and gr’, call (> #7924; Hos 11:1), and it underlies concepts

such as “the people of the LORD” (Judg 5:11), “treasured possession” (Exod 19:5), “holy nation” (Exod 19:6), and “covenant” (Deut 5:2).

It must first of all be noticed that there is no intrinsic difference between secular and theological uses of the word. In both cases the vb. denotes the selection of something or someone from a number of other possibilities. 1. In secular uses of the vb. bhr the object of the choice can be as varied as wives (Gen 6:2), land (13:11), town for residence (Deut 23:16[17]), stones for a sling (1 Sam 17:40), a bull for sacrifice (1 Kgs 18:23, 25), wood for making an idol (Isa 40:20), or words (Job 9:14).

(a) Among this variety of uses, bhr denotes frequently the selection of soldiers (Exod 17:9; Josh 8:3; 1 Sam 13:2; 2 Sam 10:9; 17:1; 2 Chron 13:3, 17; 25:5). The pass.

part. bahiir (selected warrior, NIV “chosen men’) is frequently used by itself or in constructions: ’i¥ bahiir, chosen man (Judg 20:15-16, 34; 1 Sam 24:2), bahiir b°yisra’él,

638

“M2(# 1047) chosen man in Israel (2 Sam 6:1; 1 Chron 19:10), b°hiré yisra’ él,chosen men of Israel (1 Sam 26:2; 2 Sam 10:9). This military sense of bahiir can be related to the selection of warriors by lot (Judg 20:9-10) or-by some other means (7:2-6), cf. Z. Weisman,

444-47, (b) The ni. part. nibhar (6x, only in Prov) and the noms. mibhar [12x], mibhér

[2x]) express the outstanding quality of the object they qualify and may be translated _ by “fine” (Jer 22:7), “finest” (48:15), “the best” (Exod 15:4), or “choice” (Prov 10:20). 2. When the object of the vb. bhr is a choice regarding one’s way of life—the

way (derek) of the godly or of the wicked (Ps 25:12; 119:30; Prov 3:31), right or wrong (Isa 7:15-16), life or death (Deut 30:19)—we move to the religious use of the vb.,

which is the most frequent in the OT (more than 70 percent of all instances). (a) In some cases (about 12 percent) humanity is the subj. of the vb. In this case, God is never the direct object. The OT has other forms of expression to express commitment to the Lord: “serve the LORD” (Josh 24:22), “fear of the LORD” (Prov 1:29),

choose God’s precepts (Ps 119:173), choose what pleases him (Isa 56:4), “‘choose life” (Deut 30:19), or choose “the way of truth” (Ps 119:30). For example, in his farewell

speech Joshua summons the people to make a commitment to the Lord in this manner: “But if serving (“bd) the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose (bhr) for yourselves this day whom you will serve (‘bd), whether the gods your forefathers served (‘bd; > # 6268) beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve (‘bd) the LORD” (Josh 24:15; cf.

v. 22; Isa 41:24). This reticence does not reduce in any way human responsibility, but safeguards the transcendence of God, who cannot be the simple object of human, often poor, choices.

(b) The ni. part. nibhar may express the advantage of a good choice: “to choose (qnh; > #7864) understanding is better (nibhar) than silver” (Prov 16:16), “A good name is more desirable (nibha@r) than great riches” (22:1). 3. Almost 100x in the OT (about 60 percent), God is the subj. of the vb. bhr. These uses are concentrated in Deut (29x), Sam (7x), Kgs (12x), Chron (18x), Ps (9x),

Isa (11x). They apply to the choice of the place of worship for all Israel (44x), of David and his descendants as kings over Israel (ca. 18x), of Israel as the people of God (ca. 17x), and of the priests or Levites (9x). We shall now turn to these four theological themes: (1) the place of worship; (2) David; (3) priesthood, and (4) Israel as the people

of God. (a) The choice of the place of worship plays an important part in Deut. The frequent repetition of the expression “the place the LORD your god will choose” (21x) 1s due to the place’s anonymity in that book. The phrase appears either in basic form (“the place the Lord your god will choose,” 12:18, cf. 26; 14:25; 15:20; 16 F7A1L6si7est 10; 18:6; 31:11), or with a further descriptive phrase, such as “in one of your tribes” (12:14; cf. vv. 5, 11, 21; 14:23-24; 16:2, 6, 11; 26:2). The first mention of the formula

is the most detailed: “But you are to seek the place the LORD your god will choose from among all your tribes to put his Name there for his dwelling” (12:5), because it includes nearly all the descriptive additions to the basic form. (+ Deuteronomy/ Deuteronomistic: Theology) The very notion of a choice by the deity of the place where he should be worshiped is in no way unusual (von Rad, OTT 1:102). What is unusual is the fact that this

639

“IWS(# 1047) choice will be limited to only one place of worship for all of Israel. The command to worship at one place is certainly a function of Deuteronomy’s insistence on Yahweh's uniqueness, in contrast to other gods, and his claim upon Israel’s total allegiance (Deut 6:4-5; 7:1-5). Several passages elsewhere in the OT (esp. Kgs and 2 Chron) echo the deuteronomic formula. (b) Yahweh’s election of David, which is closely related to the choice of Jerusalem (Ps 2:6), follows upon the story of his own resistance to kingship as found in the deuteronomic literature (1 Sam 8; cf. Deut 17:15). The resistance yields to permission, then to active choice, so that the king is incorporated within the covenant (1 Sam 12; 2 Sam 7) (David, > # 1858). Saul, the first king of Israel, is introduced by Samuel as “the man the LORD has

chosen” (1 Sam 10:24). In 2 Sam 21:6 he is called b°hir yhwh (‘the Lord’s chosen one’’); the word b°hir is sometimes considered to be a scribal mistake (BHK; HALAT), but, as D. Barthélemy has shown, the ectio difficilior is to be preferred; (Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, OBO 50/1, 1982, 300-301). In the account of Samuel’s

anointing of David, the vb. bhr is used 3x negatively of the brothers of David (1 Sam 16:8-10). We find it later on the lips of David in his reply to the reproofs of his wife Michal (2 Sam 6:21). The divine election of David is recalled at the time of the dedication of Solomon’s temple, where it is linked with the choice of Jerusalem (see above), and finds an echo in Psalm 78 (vv. 67-68, 70). The Chronicler emphasizes the choice of Solomon (1 Chron 28:5-6, 10; 29:1). Of course, the theme of the choice of David extends far beyond the root bhr.

Other expressions are: “seek” —God “has sought out (bq) a man after his own heart and appointed (swh) him leader of his people” (1 Sam 13:14); “find”—God has “found (ms’) David” his servant (Ps 89:20), and “the LORD’s anointed” (m°Siah yhwh 1 Sam 24:6, 10, etc.); note the close connection between choice and anointing (1 Sam 10:1;

16:13; > msh, anoint, # 5417). (c) The choice of the priesthood is the subject of the debate with Korah in the desert (Num 16:5,7; 17:5 [20]; > Korah: Theology). Deuteronomic laws recall that the priests have been chosen “to stand and minister in the LORD’s name always” (Deut 18:5), “to pronounce blessings ... and to decide all cases of dispute and assault” (Deut 21:5). The aim of the choice is also in mind in the reproaches addressed by God to Eli’s family (1 Sam 2:28) and the choice of a new, faithful priest in their stead (v. 35), in the reflections of David (1 Chron 15:2), and in the exhortations of King Hezekiah (2 Chron 29: 1b). (d) Several psalms develop the election of Zion (> Theology). Zion is the focal point of God’s election as it brings together all the various strands (place of worship, David, priesthood, and people). For example, “The LORD had chosen Zion” (Ps 132:13; he “loved” her (78:68); it is the place where he dwells (74:2; cf. 9:11[12]; 72:2[3]) and from where he bestows his blessing (128:5; 134:3) and salvation (14:7; 53:6[7]). It is a complex motif (cf. von Rad, OTT 1:46-48). (e) The cardinal theme of /srael’s election is present throughout the OT, even

when no specific vocabulary is used, is developed in different ways in the Deuteronomic parenesis and in Isaiah’s songs of the servant. In Deuteronomy, Moses invites the people to see in the deliverance from Egypt the result of divine love and election: “because he loved your forefathers and chose their descendants after them, he brought 640

“M23(# 1047) you out of Egypt” (Deut 4:37). The reason for this choice must not be sought in Israel’s importance as a people, but in the unmerited love of God and in his fidelity to the promises (7:6-7). Yet, this choice does not limit God’s rule on earth to this small people, but comes within the framework of God’s plan for the whole world (10:14-15) and

is the basis of the obedience and holiness required of Israel (10:15-16; 14:1-2). Israel’s choice is for the purpose of mission (note also Gen 12:1-3; Exod 19:5-6). In Isaiah the vb. bhr or the subst. bahir are often parallel with “servant’’: “my servant, my chosen one (or ‘whom I have chosen’)” (Isa 41:8-9; 42:1; 43:10; 44:1-2; 45:4). The “chosen” people—‘“my people, my chosen” (Isa 43:20)—are called to wit-

ness to God’s power, salvation, and kingship, and, if need be, to suffer for him. The nominal form bahir, like saddiq, righteous, emphasizes God’s care for all who are committed to him and to hismission for the world. It is a synonym for “the people of

God.” (> Isaiah: Theology) Instead of defining the nature and reason of divine election, Isaiah encourages the people to fulfill their mission, challenges them to look at God’s work in history, exhorts them to conform to God’s expectations, and speaks of the glory awaiting them: “my chosen people will inherit them [mountains or the Promised Land], and there will my servants live” (Isa 65:9; cf. 42:1; 43:20; 45:4).

Jeremiah raises the issue of divine election and abandonment. The exile was a time of abandonment, as the people complained: “The LORD has rejected the two kingdoms he chose” (Jer 33:24). Yet the Lord confirms through Jeremiah that he is committed to his people and to the covenant (vv. 25-26). (> Jeremiah: Theology) P-B

In intertestamental literature, the nom. (chosen one, elect) tends to supplant the

vb. At Qumran it is used as a common designation for the members of the sect (1QS 11:16; 1QpHab 5:4; 10:13; 1QM

12:4; etc.). In the Book of Enoch, the word “elect”

(pl.) is a synonym for the just or the saints (1 En 1:8; 38:2; etc.). In the Book of the Parables (1 En 37-71), the word “elect” appears as a title of the Messiah alongside “Son of Man” (1 En 39:6; 40:5; etc.). The expression “elect race” is found in the Book of Bibli-

cal Antiquities (19:8) Choice, #4435; # 3359: madda‘,

election, best: > bhr II (choose, elect, test, # 1047; bahir, chosen, # 1040; mibhér, best, mibhar I, choicest, best, #4436); — yd‘ I (observe, care about, choose, announce; déa‘, wisdom, # 1976; dé‘d, knowledge, # 1978; da‘at I, knowledge, ability, # 1981; knowledge, # 4529)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

NIDNTT 1:533-43; TDOT 2:73-87,; THAT 1:275-300; J. Coppens, “L’élu et les élus dans les saintes écritures et les écrits de Qumran,” ETL 57, 1981, 120-24; J. Cott, “The Biblical Problem of Election,” JES 21, 1984, 199-228; J. Guillén, “Medio ambiante de ‘elegir: bhr’,” EstBib 40,

1982, 1-18; J. G. McConville, Law and Theology in Deuteronomy, 1984, 21-38, V. Peterca, “Die Wendung des Verbs bhr fiir Salomo in den Biichern der Chronik,” BZ 29, 1985, 94-96; R. Rendtorff, “Die Erwahlung Israels als Thema der deuteronomistischen Theologie,” in FS H. W. Wolff, 1981, 75-86; H. H. Rowley, The Biblical Doctrine of Election, 1950; J. Scharbert, “Erwahlung im AT im Licht von Gen 12, 1-3,” in Dynamik im Wort, 1983, 13-33; G. von Rad, OTT 1, 306-24; H. Weippert, “Der Ort, den Yahwe erwahlen wird, um dort seinen Namen wohnen zu lassen,” BZ 24, 1980, 76-94; Z. Weisman, “The Nature and Background of

641

SO3/7VI(# 1051) VT 31, 1981, 441-50; Theologie, 1972, 35-39.

bahtr in the OT,’

W.

Zimmerli,

Grundriss

der alttestamentlichen Emile Nicole

NOI/AWD

(br’/bth),

gq. to

speak,

utter

Mes kO2/ND2 (words); chatter, babble; say what is inconsiderate, thoughtless, reckless; pi. to speak rashly, imprudently; vow thoughtlessly, rashly (# 1051); NOAM (mibta’), nom. utterance, expression; rash promise, careless vow (hapleg., > # 4439).

ANE.

This IIJ-weak root is not widely attested; it exhibits variable spellings: Ugar.

bty, speak rashly (Pardee, 341; 216-17) or btw, speak; chatter, babble (WUS §507); Arab. bata’a, speak what is false, fictitious, spurious, unfounded; vain, futile, useless, worthless, unprofitable, ineffectual; unsound, devoid of virtue; null, void; Arab. bata’u, vain speech; false assertion or allegation; lie, falsehood (often used to refer to

enchanters and to the false belief in multiple gods). OT 1. As in other Sem. languages (see ANE), this weak vb. exhibits variable spellings in BH: bth (q.) bt’ (pi.). This carries over into LH as well (see P-B). While the

nuances of chatter, babble might have been extant during this period, as in Ugar. and Arab., as well as in LH, the actual usage of this vb. in BH is limited to denoting reckless speech and rash utterances or vows. It describes rash, reckless words spoken inconsiderately in disregard of their harmful effect (Prov 12:18), rash vows uttered without proper forethought or careful consideration (Lev 5:4; Num 30:6-8[7-9]), and harsh words and extreme overstatements spoken rashly in an unrestrained burst of anger (Ps 106:33).

2. The part. béteh describes the damaging affects of rash, reckless speech by comparing it to the thrusts of a sword (Prov 12:18). The meaning of béteh has been viewed in three ways: mindless chatter, idle babble (BDB, 104); rash, thoughtless speech (HALAT 118; Toy, 253); or rash vows (K6nig, 37). While idle babble does not have this kind of damaging effect, rash vows or reckless inconsiderate words certainly do. A person who makes rash vows to which he/she is obligated, harms him/herself; likewise, just as the thrusts of a sword are damaging to the flesh, so reckless, inconsiderate words are damaging to the spirit. 3. The pi. vb. occurs in case laws regulating oaths (Lev 5:4; Num 30:6-8[7-9]). It draws attention to a person’s propensity rashly and thoughtlessly to make oral commitments before carefully considering whether or not he/she will be able to fulfill the obligation. 4. The vb. occurs in Lev 5:4 in the sik of case laws dealing with sins that an Israelite might commit unwittingly and only later become aware of (Lev 5:1-4). The repetition of w°ne ‘lam mimmend (“it is hidden from him” = he/she is unaware of it) and w*hii’-yada‘ (“and he later realizes it”) indicates that these are sins of ignorance, as in Lev 4:13 (Ahuvia, 107-10; Wenham, 92-93, 98-99). Verse 4 addresses the Israelite who utters an oath (5b‘) carelessly or rashly (/*batté’) without fully understanding the

implications of what he/she was vowing (w°ne ‘lam mimmenni). Even though he/she was not fully aware of what he/she had committed him/herself to, when he/she later 642

NOO/NVA# 1051) realizes it (w°hi’ yada‘), he/she is held accountable for failure to fulfill his/her vow.

God’s people must be faithful to fulfill their promises even when they unwittingly overcommit themselves or do not understand the full implications of their vows. 5. A series of case laws regulating vows (néder) and binding oaths (’issar) is found in Num (30:1-16). The nom. mibta’ is used in vv. 6-8[7-9] in reference to a care-

less vow made by a married woman. Because she made the vow unadvisedly without first consulting her husband, he is given an opportunity to nullify her rash promise when he learns about it. The collocated expression mibta’ §“patéhda (“thoughtless utterance of her lips”) emphasizes that this was a verbal vow uttered without much thought. 6. The use of bf’ in Ps 106:33 explains the enigmatic sin of Moses (Num 20:1-13). The parallelism of himrii ’et riiah (“they rebelled against the Spirit of God”) and way*batté’ bis°patayw (“rash words came from Moses’ lips”) suggests that Moses lost control of his emotions and erupted in the rash, angry words recorded in Num 20:10.

P-B 1. As in BH, the variable spellings bt’ and bth both appear in LH. The semantic range of meaning spreads from neutral to pejorative connotations: to talk, utter words; chatter, babble; speak inconsiderately, thoughtlessly, ill-advisedly; speak recklessly, rashly; make hasty vows, vow thoughtlessly or carelessly about something important (Dalman, 52; Levy, 211; Jastrow, 156; Grossman-Segal, 36). The nom. bittiiy means utterance, pronunciation (Klein, 69).

2. Rabbinic exegesis took every use of bt’ and bth in BH as a rash vow. While this is clearly the case in Lev 5:4 and Num 30:7-9 (Lev Rabbah 5:4; Num Rabbah 30:7-9), the idea of a rash vow in Ps 106:33 is questionable (Braude, 4:192-93). Prov 12:18 is also understood as a rash vow (Levy, 211; Jastrow, 156): “Whoever utters a

hasty vow gets what he deserves; he pierces himself with a sword!” (‘Erubin 64b in reference to Prov 12:18). 3. The polysemantic range of the vb. encompasses legitimate speech making, as well as mindless chatter and reckless speech. For example, Sirach emphasizes that the tongue can be a double-edged sword in the mouth of a person who talks endlessly or mindlessly: “Both honor and dishonor can come through much talking (b67é’). A person’s tongue can be his downfall!” (Sir 5:13). This adage is similar to the later formulation of Jas 3:9-12. 4. The nom. bt’ appears once in Qumran, where it is used in parallelism with hbl, vanity, and sw’, emptiness, in an accusatory description of the seductive words of the wayward woman: “The harlot utters empty vanities (hb/) and falsehoods (bt’); she

is always sharpening her words, she mockingly flatters with emptiness (Sw’)” (4Q184 1:1:1). This recalls the persuasive words of the harlot in Prov 7:10-21. 5. The root continued to develop in Mish. Heb.: bt’, pi. utter, articulate, express, pronounce; pu. be articulated, be uttered, be pronounced, be expressed; biti’, utterance, pronunciation; mibta’, pronunciation.

In Modern Heb. several new forms and nuances appear: bt’, q. express, pronounce; ni. be uttered, be expressed; pi. speak rashly; hitp. express oneself; be articulated, pronounced, expressed; bitta’6n nom. organ, journal, newspaper; iti’, ait,being uttered, being pronounced, expression, phrase, idiom; mibta’, idiom, hitbatt®’ being expressed, expressing oneself, self-expression; biffiiy, expression, phrase, idiom; act of pronouncing.

643

Pit)(# 1053) Parallel words in the NT include anathemnatizo, bind with an oath; euché, vow; NT horkos, oath; and orkémosia, oath. While the NT does not forbid taking oaths or vows, it does warn that it is better not to make a vow at all than to utter a false vow or an

empty promise that a person cannot keep (Matt 5:33-37; 2 Cor 1:15-20; Jas 3:13-17). Chatter, careless speech, lie: > bd’ (invent, devise, lie, # 968); > bt’/bth (chatter, babble, vow rashly, # 1051); — hbl (be futile, profitless, worthless, meaningless talk, # 2038); > /* I (talk wildly, speak rashly, # 4362) BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Ahuvia, “Whatever a Man Shall Utter . . . With an Oath,” BethM 28, 1982, 107-10, 208; J. M. Allegro, “The Wiles of the Wicked Woman,” PEQ 96, 1964, 53-55; idem, “4Q184,” in DJD 5:82-84; W. G. Braude, Midrash on the Psalms, 1959, 4:192-93; M. Dahood, Psalms III, AB, 1970, 19; G. H. Dalman Aramdisch-neuhebrdisches Hand worterbuch zu Targum, Talmud und Midrasch, 1922, 52; R.A. Grossman, Compendious Hebrew-English Dictionary, 1938, rev.

2nd ed. M. H. Segal, 1965, 36; E. Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language, 1987, 69; J. Levy, Neuhebrdisches und chalddisches Wérterbuch iiber die Talmudim und Midraschim, 4 vols., 1876-89, repr. 1924; D. G. Pardee, “The Preposition in Ugaritic,”

UF 7, 1975, 341; idem, “The Preposition in Ugaritic

[continued],” UF 8, 1976,

216-17; M. H. Pope, “A Divine Banquet at Ugarit,” in The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays: Studies in Honor of William Franklin Stinespring, 1972, 174; C. H. Toy, Proverbs, ICC, 1977, 253; G. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT, 1979, 93-99. Gordon H. Johnston

1052 (batiiah, confident), > # 1053

1053

=

FS (bth I), q. trust; hi. put one’s trust in (# 1053); be full of confidence, feel safe; M103 (batiiah), confident (# 1052); MQ (betah I), safety (# 1055); MMM (bitha), trust (# 1057); MNOS (battuha), security (# 1058); yInws (bittah6n), trust (# 1059); nai (mibtah), trust, confidence (# 4440).

OT _ 1. Trust is a concept of central theological importance in the OT. It expresses that which is, or at least should be, central in people’s relationship with God. The greatest concentration of its occurrences

comes

in the Psalms, which celebrate and

explore the relationship between God and his people, and there is also a significant number of uses in that prophetic book whose content stands closest to the Psalms, that is, Isaiah. The Heb. words are as follows. Most used is the vb. bth. The corresponding

nom. for trust is mibtah, and there are various related forms of no independent significance (nom. bittahdén, bithd; adj. batiah). The former (i.e., bth, mibtah) will be the primary focus of this article. There is also the nom. betah (and battuhot), meaning

“security,” but the word is of limited theological interest as it is predominantly used adverbially with “live.” Its main theological significance is that living securely can be a result of the favor and blessing of Yahweh. So, for example, it is said of Benjamin that “the beloved of the LORD rest secure in him” (Deut 33:12), and when Israel is obe-

dient to Yahweh, the same is true of them (Lev 25:18, 19; cf. 1 Sam 12:11; 1 Kgs 4:25[5:5]). There is also a nom. kesel (> # 4073), which predominantly occurs in the

644

MQ (# 1053) Wisdom literature with the meaning of “stupidity,” but which can occasionally mean “confidence,” as in Job 8:14; 31:24, where it is parallel to mibtah. It has no indepen-

dent significance.

2. In order to introduce the theological significance of trust in the OT, it will be appropriate to give four sample texts, two from Psalms and two from Isaiah, which emphasize the centrality of trust. First is a general statement, apparently addressed to Israel as a whole: “Trust in him [God] at all times, O people” (Ps 62:8[9]). This verse could well stand as another answer to the famous question to Israel: What does the Lord require of you? (Mic 6:8). Second, there is a passage that calls on different groups of worshipers alike to respond to God in the same way: “O house of Israel, trust in the LORD—he

is their help and shield. O house of Aaron, trust in the LORD—he

is their

help and shield. You who fear him, trust in the LORD—he is their help and shield” (Ps 115:9-11). God is to be trusted because his characteristics—help and shield—show that he is intrinsically trustworthy. Third, there is a similar appeal in a song in Isaiah, addressed to the people of Judah as a whole, stressing, like the psalm, the dependability of God as an object of trust: “You will keep in perfect peace him whose mind is steadfast, because he trusts in you. Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD, the LORD, is the Rock eternal” (Isa

26:3-4). Fourth, there is a passage, perhaps originally from the context of Isaiah’s message to Hezekiah in the context of the threat to Jerusalem from Assyria, that expresses a message central to the theology of Isaiah: “This is what the Sovereign LORD, the Holy One of Israel says: “In repentance and rest is your salvation, in quietness and trust is your strength, but you would have none of it’” (Isa 30:15). Three points about this may be noted. First, the introduction is emphatic, underlining the importance of what follows. Second, the language is reminiscent of another famous passage, Isa 7:4-9, where Ahaz is urged to “believe” in Yahweh in time of crisis; belief and trust belong together. Third, the overall point of the divine message is the inversion of usual values—true strength, especially in time of war, is not to be found where it might most naturally be expected, in military preparations, but only in a genuine (and implicitly demanding) trust in God. Whether or not this trust is viewed as a context for, or an alternative to, military action is unclear (> ’mn, support, believe, put trust in, # 586).

3. The range of meaning of bth and mibtah in Heb. is similar to that of “trust” in Eng. That is, trust can be placed in a large number of different people or things and can often be misplaced. God is the supreme object of trust, and some of the things in which people put their trust are substitutes for God, however naturally worthy of trust they may appear to be in themselves. Thus, people can often put their trust in riches (Job 31:24; Ps 49:6[7]; 62:10[11]; Prov 11:28), in powerful people (Ps 146:3), in strongly fortified cities (Deut 28:52; Jer 5:17), or in their own cleverness (Prov 3:5; 28:26)—all in contexts where the writer views these as negative things, alternatives to trusting in

God. The logic of biblical monotheism requires that all these things be used in the service of God and not set up as alternatives to him. Similarly, Jeremiah constantly refers to the people of Judah as trusting in “falsehood” (Seger, Jer 7:8; 13:25 [NIV false gods]; 28:15; 29:31), even when this includes their appealing to Jerusalem as the place of the temple of Yahweh (Jer 7:4), something in itself perfectly true, but rendered meaningless (or else threatening) when the lives of the people contradict all that God

645

M3 (# 1053) has said to them (7:3-11). The contrast between misguided trust in human ways and expedients and true trust in God is well encapsulated in a poem elsewhere in Jeremiah: “Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who depends on flesh for his strength and whose heart turns away from the LORD. He will be like a bush in the wastelands; he will not

see prosperity confidence is It does trust. As long

when it comes.... But blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD, whose in him. He will be like a tree planted by the water ...” (Jer 17:5-8). not follow, however, that God is the only legitimate repository of human as trust in people is not a substitute for trust in God, then trust may legit-

imately be put in a wife (Prov 31:11) or, by implication, in a brother (Jer 9:4[3]) or a friend (Mic 7:5), and no doubt other people too. 4. As already noted, it is especially in the Psalms that the language of trust is

used. It is striking that the language of trust is frequently joined with language of confidence in God’s vindication or deliverance: “In you our fathers put their trust; they trusted, and you delivered them. They cried to you and were saved; in you they trusted and were not disappointed” (Ps 22:4[5]-5[6]). “To you, O LorD, I lift up my soul; in you I trust, O my God. Do not let me be put to shame, nor let my enemies triumph over me” (25:1-2). “The LORD is my strength and my shield; my heart trusts in him, and I am helped” (28:7). “But I trust in you, O LORD; I say, ‘You are my God.’ My times are in your hands; deliver me from my enemies” (31:14-15[15-16]). “Guard my life, for I am devoted to you. You are my God; save your servant who trusts in you” (86:2). This connection between human trust and divine deliverance is important. The Psalms do not specify the form in which the deliverance should take place. Indeed, they are probably nonspecific precisely so that the deliverance can in fact take a variety of different forms, depending on the situation and needs of the worshiper. But they are all clear about the intimate theological connection between trust and deliverance. 5. It is no surprise, therefore, when one turns to the narrative portions of the OT, that one finds the same connection between trust and deliverance, with a specific form of deliverance being given that is appropriate to the needs of the situation. For example, in the time of turmoil and threat represented by the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians, Jeremiah gives a message to Ebed-Melech, who had been willing to take the risk

of helping Jeremiah, that “I [the LORD] will save you; you will not fall by the sword but will escape with your life, because you trust me, declares the LORD” (Jer 39:18). The most notable narrative development of the link between human trust and divine deliverance is in the story of Hezekiah and the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem. This is a story whose importance is suggested by its unique verbatim repetition in 2 Kgs 18-19 and Isa 36-37 (not to mention its further retelling in 2 Chron 32). It is also that section of the OT in which the language of trust occurs more frequently than anywhere else. At the outset of the account of Hezekiah’s reign, in the narrator’s summary comments about Hezekiah, it is said that “Hezekiah trusted in the LORD, the God of Israel.

There was none like him among all the kings of Judah, either before him or after him” (2 Kgs 18:5). It is then in the account of the Assyrian envoy’s speech outside the walls of Jerusalem that the theological issue of trust is developed. The envoy’s opening words (2 Kgs 18:19-22) are:

On what are you basing this confidence of yours? [observe the repeated use of the bth root: mah habbittahén hazzeh “Ser batahta] You say you have strategy and military strength—but you speak only empty words.

646

FQ (# 1053) On whom are you depending (batahta), that you rebel against me? Look now, you are depending (batahta) on Egypt, that splintered reed of a staff, which pierces a man’s hand and wounds him if he leans on it! Such is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all who depend on (habbot°him) him. And if you say to me, “We are depending on (batahnii) the LORD our God” [this object is placed first in the Heb., for emphasis, i.e., “If it is in the

LORD your God you trust”]—isn’t he the one whose high places and altars Hezekiah

removed,

saying to Judah and Jerusalem,

“You must

worship before this altar in Jerusalem?” The envoy makes a further reference to trusting in Egypt in v. 24 and then plays his trump card, drawing the implication from what he has just said about Hezekiah’s suppression of shrines: “Furthermore, have I come to attack and destroy this place without word from the LORD? The LorD himself told me to march against this country and destroy it” (18:25). Three points should be noted. First, the whole opening address appropriately focuses on the issue of where Hezekiah can put his trust in the situation of his conflict with Assyria, for this is the key issue: what are his resources? Second,

both human and divine objects of trust are recognized but are dismissed by the envoy; Egypt is inherently worthless, while the Lord has reason of his own to be angry with Hezekiah and so to send the Assyrians against him. Third, there is a high degree of irony in the envoy’s appeal to the Lord. He is portrayed as a pagan, as one who thinks that a multiplicity of shrines must be pleasing to the deity, not realizing that exclusive worship in Jerusalem is precisely what the Lord in fact requires (cf. Deut 12). This means that the theologically discerning reader can realize that the apparently threatening Assyrian theological argument in fact rebounds. Hezekiah’s actions have given him reason to trust in the Lord, and the Lord reason to deliver him. When the envoy later says to the Israelites, “Do not let Hezekiah persuade you to trust (yabtah) in the LORD when he says, ‘The LORD will surely deliver us; this city will not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria’” (18:30), the discerning reader should appreciate the irony and see that Hezekiah’s policy is in fact entirely right and his expectation entirely justified (even though not to be take for granted). In addition to the concentration on the notion of trust in the envoy’s speech, there is a similar concentration on the notion of deliverance. When he speaks a second time (18:28-35), the theme of deliverance is the Leitmotif of his words, occurring 7x in the seven verses that constitute the words of the king of Assyria. The key word is the Heb. vb. hissil (> nsl), generally rendered by NIV as “deliver.” The message is appropriately summed up in its final words: “Who of all the gods of these countries has been able to save his land from me? How then can the LORD deliver Jerusalem from my hand?” (18:35). In the light of the connection we have seen between trust and deliverance, the envoy’s linkage of the two is entirely to be expected. And the irony of this complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of Yahweh’s relationship with Israel is to be savored and appreciated. It is no surprise when, in the following narrative, Yahweh delivers Jerusalem

from the Assyrians. But before leaving the story, one final emphasis in it should be noted; the Assyrian defiance or reproach of Yahweh. For a key repeated word in 2 Kgs

19 is hrp, rendered by NIV as ridicule and insult, and it always has Yahweh as

its object (19:4, 16, 22, 23; > #3070). This is a vb. that recurs in the Psalms, with its

647

Pit(# 1053)

subject always an enemy and its object either the faithful suffering worshiper or Yahweh himself (Ps 42:10[11]; 44:16[17]; 55:12[13]; 89:50-51[51-52]; 102:8[9], worshipers; 74:10, 18; 79:12, Yahweh). Defiance or taunting is seen as the paradigmatic attitude of those who oppose Yahweh and his people (a theme taken up also in the NT, e.g., Matt 5:11; 1 Pet 4:14). The taunting Assyrian attitude to Hezekiah’s trust in Yahweh is a classic example of the paradigm, and it underlines all the more the appropriateness of the theological connection between human trust in God and divine deliverance of those who trust. 6. It has already been noted that the language of trust occurs most prominently in the Psalms, and that the greatest narrative concentration is in the story of Hezekiah. It is worth noting that there are major tracts of the OT in which the word does not appear at all. In particular, apart from a couple of insignificant uses of betah (security, Gen 34:25; 1 Sam 12:11), there are no uses of the term in Genesis, Exodus, Numbers,

or Samuel. This means that there is no use of it in the stories of the three major men of God in the OT: Abraham, Moses, and David. This instantly shows that it would be

foolish solely to focus attention on specific occurrences of a certain Heb. root (valuable though that can be), and that one must consider the concept of a certain type of relationship with God that is represented by the specific word. For there is no doubt that the narratives portray Abraham, Moses, and David as trusting in God, even though they do not use that specific word. Either other terms are used, such as “fear,” “obey,” “believe,” or no specific term is used at all, and the concept is simply made clear by the narrative portrayal. In particular, there are certain narratives that are intended to be paradigmatic of a right relationship with God and are to be regarded as exemplifying trust, despite the absence of the specific terminology. We will therefore conclude by noting two examples of such narratives. First, David and Goliath (1 Sam 17). This is, in essence, a story of David trusting God and of God delivering David. An outline analysis is simple. Goliath is portrayed as one who defies Israel and Yahweh; this is the one narrative, other than 2 Kgs

19, in which there is repeated use of Arp to portray the attitude of the adversary (1 Sam 17:10, 25, 26, 36, 45). The general attitude of Israel is fear (17:11, 24). But David trusts God and knows that God delivers (ns/ [> #5911], ys’ [> #3828])—a key concept, which occurs at the climax of David’s two crucial speeches, to Saul and to Goliath (17:37, 47). Moreover, David knows that God does not deliver by conventional military means, but rather overturns conventional expectations (17:38-40, 47). The key verse for the story, at the critical dramatic moment, is the conclusion of David’s speech to Goliath (v. 47), as this clearly shows David’s trust in God’s power to deliver in sur-

prising ways: “All those gathered here will know that it is not by sword or spear that the LORD saves; for the battle is the LORD’s, and he will give all of you into our hands.” David is portrayed as a model of what trust in Yahweh entails. Second, the story of the burning fiery furnace (Dan 3). As in 1 Sam 17, that which is crucial to the meaning of the story is conveyed in the speech of the main characters at the dramatically critical moment. When Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are threatened with death by Nebuchadnezzar, they show their trust in God clearly by their response (the only words they utter): “O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to defend ourselves before you in this matter. If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to save us from it, and he will rescue us from your hand, O

648

mv # 1054) king. But even if he does not, we want you to know, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up” (Dan 3:16-18) (> Daniel: Theology). Two points should be noted here. First, the men’s trust in God is related, as usual,

to the expectation that God will deliver, as indeed he does. Second, and perhaps most important, are the words, “But even if he does not.” These are crucial, for they recognize that although it is in the character of God to deliver those who trust in him, yet he may not do so (for reasons not given and so known only to himself). For the believer this should make no difference. Indeed, it is the logic of trust (and loyalty) that if it is genuine, then it should be shown when things go badly as well as when they go well. God may not deliver his people, but still they should trust him. The story stands as a paradigm for the people of God in times of persecution and suffering. It shows the meaning of trust with unusual clarity, even though it does not use the word. Faith, fidelity: > ’mn I (support, be faithful, believe, put trust in, #586); > hsd II (show o.s. kind, # 2874) Trust: > bth I (trust, put one’s trust in, # 1053);

> §‘n (lean, depend on, # 9128)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDNT 2:521-23; 6:191-92; TDOT 2:88-94; B. S. Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis, 1967 (ch. 3); W. Eichrodt, TOT 2:301-15; H.-J. Kraus, Theologie der Psalmen, BKAT xv/3, 1979,

193-204; C. Seitz, Zion’s Final Destiny: The Development of the Book of Isaiah—A Reassessment of Isaiah, 1991 (esp. ch. 3); K. A. D. Smelik, “Distortion of Old Testament Prophecy: The Purpose of Isaiah xxxvi and xxxvii,” OTS 24, 1986, 70-93.

R. W. L. Moberly

1054

ngs

MitQS (bth ID), q. fall to the ground (# 1054).

OT Two passages have been suggested as illustrating this root, but both fail to confirm it with certainty. In Jer 12:5 it makes good sense to translate the verb bth as “fall” or “stumble”: “If you stumble in safe country, how will you manage in the thickets by the Jordan?” However, it is also possible to take bdétéah here in the sense of “feeling secure,” as in Judg 18:10, Isa 32:9-11, and Amos 6:1. Similarly in Prov 14:16 bétéah probably means that the fool is self-assured rather than that he is reckless and falls (cf. W. McKane, Proverbs:

NT

A New Approach, OTL, 1970, 465).

~ NIDNTT 1:606-11; 2:705-10.

Falling, tottering, stumbling: — bth II (fall to ground, # 1054); > hwh I (fall, #2092); > ksl (stumble, totter, be brought to ruin, # 4173); > nss I (falter, #5823); > npl (fall, lie prostrate, # 5877); > ntr I (fall, # 6000); > Smt (release, remit, drop, throw down, fall, stumble, # 9023) Allan M. Harman

1055 (betah I, safety), > # 1053

1057 (bithd, trust), > # 1053 1058 (battuhd, security),

> # 1053

1059 (bittahén, trust), > # 1053

649

513(# 1060) 1060

bn

pp}ap (btl), q. cease working (# 1060); Aram. peal, stop work; pael, cease (# 10098).

ANE. The vb. is well attested: Akk. batdlu, cease; Eth. bat(a)la, cease; Arab. batala, inactive, indolent.

1. The single usage of the Heb. occurs with a general, nontheological sense: at OT the close of life “the grinders (teeth) cease (btl) because they are few” (Eccl 12:3). The mention of old age follows the exhortation to remember one’s creator in the days of outh. ‘ 2. In the Aram. portion of Ezra the vb. occurs in both peal and pael forms. The work on the temple came to a standstill because of opposition and a royal dictum that the work of rebuilding cease (Ezra 4:23-24). But after an interval, despite renewed opposition, a second royal decree was politically and financially supportive of rebuilding (6:3-12). That the work, once it was resumed, was not stopped was attributed to “the eye of their god” watching over the Jews (5:5).

P-B

The root is widely attested in RH.

End, cessation, outcome: > ’ah®rit (end, outcome, #344); > ’ps (cease, come to an end, # 699); > btl (cease working, # 1060); > gmr (be at an end, cease, fail, # 1698); > hdl I (end, stop, # 2532); > swp (come to an end, # 6066); > sara I (stopping, # 6239); > gés (end, limit,

boundary, # 7891); > qsh I (bring about the end, shorten, # 7894) John Arthur Thompson/Elmer A. Martens

1061 OT

183

yo3 (beten I), belly, stomach, womb, rounded

Moiccnon (7 10s),

1. The basic meaning of the term seems to be “inside” (a body or object) (Mur-

tonen, 38; TDOT, 2:94; HAHAT'®), beten occurs in the OT with four basic meanings: (a) the abdomen or belly; (b) digestive organs; (c) the organs of procreation; and

(d) rounded projection. (a) The abdomen. A full stomach was a sign of God’s blessing on the godly: “The righteous eat to their hearts’ content, but the stomach (beten) of the wicked goes hungry” (Prov 13:25; cf. Ps 17:14). As the godly longed for God’s blessing as a sign of approbation, they also expected to see the evidences of God’s displeasure on the wicked in their want of food and, if not, in their distaste for food. Zophar gives expression to this sentiment, “Yet his food will turn sour in his stomach (mé‘eh); it will become the venom of serpents within him. He will spit out the riches he swallowed; God will make his stomach (beten) vomit them up” (Job 20:14-15). (b) The digestive organs. In the story of Ehud’s surprise attack.on Eglon, a very fat man (Judg 3:17), Eglon’s greed was visible in his corpulence. It was his fat that covered up the evidence: “Ehud did not pull the sword out, and the fat closed in over it? @va22): (c) The organs of procreation. (i) The womb. The word occurs in parallelism with rehem, womb, in Job 3:11; 10:18-19; 31:15; Ps 22:10[11]; 58:3[4]; Isa 46:3; Jer 1:5 (see Y. Avischur, Stylistic

650

702 (# 1061) Studies of Word-Pairs in Biblical and Ancient Semitic Literatures, 1984, 70). Yahweh forms the human being in the “womb” and cares for the unborn (Ps 139:13; Eccl LDs5)):

When God called Jeremiah to be a prophet, he says, “Before I formed you in the womb

(beten) I knew you” (Jer 1:5; see also Job 31:15). (For a brief discussion of the ancient view of the formation of life in the womb, see Dhorme, Job, 149-50). God even knows the future of the individual child before birth (Gen 25:23; see Isa 49:1, 5; Rom 9:11-13). The beginning of one’s life on the earth is sometimes viewed as “when he comes out of his mother’s womb” (TDOT 1:97; cf. Job 3:11; 10:18, see Dhorme, Job, 32, 154), and the Lord is the one who attends when the child is taken out of the

mother’s womb (Ps 22:10[11]). Isaiah employs the figure of a child being formed in the womb as a tender way of assuring Israel of Yahweh’s commitment (Isa 44:2; cf. v. 24; 46:3; 49:15). Human sinfulness.is seen in the psalmist’s description of the “godless,” when he says, “from the womb they are wayward and speak lies” (Ps 58:3[4]; cf. Ps 51:5[7]; Rom 3:10-18). The phrase “fruit of the womb” is used to designate “children,” who are considered to be “a reward” from the Lord (Ps 127:3). God is the one who gives or withholds children (Gen 30:2), and as the covenant god he says that he will bless the “fruit of the womb,” that is, he would grant children, if his people obey (Deut 7:13; 28:4, 11, 18; 30:9). However, if the nation is disobedient, he will curse the “fruit of the womb,” that

is, there will be no children (Deut 28:18). The promise for keeping the Law is not eternal life, but a fruitful life in the land that God has given Israel.

(ii) The male procreative organs. In such cases the idea is that the man has produced children from his body who are then from him (Job 19:17; Mic 6:7). Ps 132:11 says, “The LORD swore an oath to David, a sure oath that he will not revoke: ‘One of your descendants (from the fruit of your beten) I will place on your throne.’” (d) A rounded projection used in building. In 1 Kgs 7:20 the word occurs in

connection with the pillars of Solomon’s temple. 2. The metaphorical sense. The word can refer to the “inner being” of a person where thoughts are treasured up, and then expressed (see TDOT 2:96-97; BDB 105). According to Prov 22:18 it is pleasant to guard the words of the wise ones in “your stomach”; that is, in the “inner man” or “the seat of the intellect” (BDB,

105). The

word occurs in the phrase “the dark rooms of the body” or “the deep recesses of the inner being” (cf. hadré- beten; HALAT, 281; Shupak, 295-97, 338-39, 407 n.45). In Prov 18:8 (see also 26:22) it is said that the words of a slanderer are like juicy morsels that go down to the inner chambers of the “stomach.” 3. Symbolic. Although the word befen is not found in Jer 15:16-18, the thought of Ezek 2:8-3:15 is present. In both cases the prophets are to “eat” the word of God. This may have been a symbolic act, or possibly it is to be taken literally (Brownlee, 32). The act of eating suggests the complete obedience to God’s will (Brownlee, 32; McKane, 1:352). As it turns out, the word is both sweet and bitter, indicating, as McK-

ane comments, “There is joy which even a prophet of doom finds when he stands in the path of duty and says what he must” (McKane, 1:353). Abdomen, belly: — ‘ii (belly, body, #214); > beten I (belly, #1061); > gahdn (belly [of a reptile], # 1623); > homes II (belly, #2824); > karés (belly [of an animal], #4160); > mé‘eh (body, bowels, #5055); > gébd (belly, maw, # 7687); > Sor (navel, umbilical cord, # 9219)

651

172 (# 1067) i

BIBLIOGRAPHY

TWAT 1:616-20; TWOT 1:102-13; W. H. Brownlee, Ezekiel 1-19, WBC, 1986, 32; E. Dhorme, Job, 1967; L’emploi métaphorique des noms de parties du corps en hébreu et en akkadien, 1963, 107, 133-34; H. Holma, Die Namen der Korperteile im Assyrisch-babylonischen, 1911, 94; W. McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, ICC, 1986, 1:352; A. Mur-

tonen, Hebrew in Its West Semitic Setting. Part one: A Comparative Lexicon Section Ba: Root System: Hebrew Material, 1988; N. Shupak, Where Can Wisdom Be Found? The Sage’s Language in the Bible and in Ancient Egyptian Literature, OBO 130, 1993; H. W. Wolff, Anthropologie des Alten Testaments, 1974, 102-3.

Cleon L. Rogers, Jr.

1067

5

1’= (byn), q. understand, perceive, consider; ni.

I be perceptive; pol. take care of; hi. discern, have (gain) insight, comprehend, be acquainted with, bring to insight; hitpol. behave perceptively, consider closely (# 1067); nom. 1°32 (bind), insight (# 1069); NII3M (1%bund), intelligence, aptitude, skill (# 9312).

ANE Cognates of byn exist in other Sem. languages (e.g., Arab., Ugar.), with a range of meanings comparable to Heb. In the QL, its use remains essentially continuous with that of the OT. OT 1. The vb. byn occurs 169x, esp. in q. (63x) and hi. (61x). It appears 48x in Job and Proverbs, elsewhere most commonly in Psalms (26x), Daniel (22x), and the Chronicler (19x). The nom. bind occurs 37x, 22x in Job and Proverbs. The nom. f@biind occurs 42x, 23x in Job and Proverbs.

2. General usage. The vb. is far less common than yd‘, know (> #3359), with a somewhat narrower range of meaning and theological usage; the word seems to be less relational. It can be synonymous with yd‘ (> #3359) in both q. and hi. (Prov 24:12; Mic 4:12), but is used more to refer to the insight that comes from knowing. The vb. means to perceive through the senses (Job 23:5). In the q., David perceived that his child was dead (2 Sam 12:19), and Nehemiah perceived the wrong that Eliashib had

done (Neh 13:7). The words then come to refer to the insight and understanding that is achieved through such observation (Job 13:1; Ps 119:104). Special skills are also so

designated (1 Chron 15:22; 2 Chron 34:12). The ni. part. means “intelligent” (Deut 1:13). The hitpol. has the sense of consider closely (1 Kgs 3:21). 3. Religious usage. (a) God as subject. While some say that God does not perceive the deeds of the wicked (Ps 94:7), God does perceive every human thought (1 Chron 28:9; Ps 139:1[2]; Prov 24:12) and deed (Ps 33:15) and needs to consult no one (Isa 40:14). God has regard for Israel (Deut 32:10) and is expected to give heed to the lamenting psalmist (Ps 5:1[2]). Though Job is given to wonder about that (Job 30:20), Zophar has no

doubts (Job 11:11). God is asked to give understanding to the psalmist (Ps 119:27, 34), as God has to others (Exod 36:1; 1 Kgs 3:11; Job 38:36). The nom. forms make clear that God’s understanding is unsearchable (Ps 147:5; Isa 40:28; cf. Job 12:13), and this is evident in God’s word (Prov 2:6) and creative acts (Job 26:12; Ps 136:5; Prov 3:19; Isa 51:15).

652

m$°3(# 1070) (b) Consideration and understanding of God and God’s activity. Israel is asked to consider God’s deeds (Deut 32:7; Ps 107:43; Jer 2:10), which some neglect (Ps 28:5) or do not understand (Isa 1:3). Israel is expected to have such an understanding of God (Ps 94:8); those who are wise will do so (Hos 14:9[10]). A people without such understanding will experience God’s judgment (Isa 27:11; Hos 4:14); indeed, God may

have to intensify Israel’s lack of understanding in order to move into the future (Isa 6:9-10). Job, however, claims not to be able to perceive God’s activity (9:11; 23:8),

while the psalmist is finally enabled to do so (73:17), and the prophet envisages such clarity in the “latter days” (Jer 23:20). The kings of the earth will be able to contemplate God’s work in the suffering servant (Isa 52:15). (c) The common

use in wisdom

literature.

Proverbs

centers

its concern

in

“understanding words of insight” (/°habin ’imré bind, 1:2), more particularly in “proverbs and parables, the saying and riddles of the wise” (1:6), and is most basically “understand[ing] the fear of the LORD” (2:5). There are limits to understanding (Job 36:29; 38:4, 18, 20; Prov 20:24), but genuine insight (often parallel to hkm [> # 2681], Prov 4:5-7) and discernment are available to one who fears God. “Knowledge of the Holy One is understanding” (9:10). Insight includes “what is right and just and fair—every good path” (2:9; cf. 28:5; 29:7), “wisdom” (10:23), patience (14:29), keeping the law (28:7), and shunning evil (Job 28:28). Other nations will say of faithful

Israel that they are “a wise and understanding people” (Deut 4:6). (d) The hi. carries the sense of teaching, e.g., the word of God, esp. in the Chronicler (1 Chron 25:8; 2 Chron 35:3; Neh 8:7, 9), the goal of which is understanding (Neh 8:2-3, 12). (e) In the vision accounts in Daniel, byn becomes a technical word for under-

standing visions (Dan 1:17; 9:22-23; 10:1). Knowledge, discernment, shrewd, wisdom: — byn (understand, discern, #1067); > hkm (become wise, act wisely, #2681); > t‘m (taste, test, sense, discern, # 3247); > yd‘ I (observe, care about, # 3359); > nkr (pretend, be recognized, #5795); — ‘rm II (be cunning, be crafty, make crafty, # 6891); > skl 1 (have success, understand, make wise, act with insight, # 8505) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 2:99-107; THAT 1:305-8. Terence E. Fretheim

1069 (bind, insight), > # 1067.

1070 ANE.

m373

1873 (bésa), egg (# 1070).

Sem. cognates: Akk. bésu, Aram. Syr. bi““ta’, Arab. baidat.

OT _ It appears 6x in OT and only in pl., yet the egg is implied as the object of dgr, hatch (> # 1842), in Jer 17:11. That bésd is more than an egg is clear from Isa 10:14, according to which the Lord reached for the wealth of the nations like a person who robs the nest of its eggs: “I gathered all the countries; not one flapped a wing, or opened its mouth to chirp.” The reference to the flapping and the chirping clarifies that the word “eggs” may denote the egg (cf. Job 39:14) of the young animal.

653

m3 # 1072) 1. In this light, we may consider the law in Deut 22:6-7, which rules that when a human happens to find eggs (2x) or young birds (’eproah, #711; NIV the young) with their mother, he shall not take both, but take the young one and let the mother go. The proposed logic that here humanitarian concern for the parental relationship in the animal world is endorsed is unconvincing, since the relationship is broken anyway. Recent exegetes appear unanimous in acknowledging that here protection/conservation of nature is at issue (Craigie, Miller). 2. In Isa 59:5 (2x) the vicious circle of human sinfulness is given as the reason

why God does not answer the prayer of the Israelites, by likening them to a poisonous snake; just as the poisonous snake hatches a poisonous egg and whosoever eats it will die, humanity’s sins are not just an obstacle to God, but lethal to one’s own existence. P-B___As a transferred meaning, bésd means germ or root, and coupled with the vb. ga’ qa’, it idiomatically means exterminate (PTalm Ab. Zar.; LevR 26:8; SongsR 3:6, CiCa)s Birds, flying creatures:

~ ’br (fly, #87); > bésd (egg, # 1070); > barbur (species of fowl,

# 1350); > gdzal (young bird, # 1578); — dgr (hatch eggs, # 1842); > h*sidd (stork, # 2884);

> yond I (dove, #3433); > ya“nd (ostrich, eagle-owl?, # 3613); > kanap (wing, skirt, outermost edge, # 4053); > neer/n°sar (vulture [eagle], #5979); > ‘dp (flying creatures, # 6416); > ‘ayit (birds of prey [collective], #6514); > ‘oréb I (raven, #6854); > sippdr I (birds, # 7606); > goré’ I (partridge, #7926); > s*law (quails, # 8513) BIBLIOGRAPHY

P. Craigie, Deuteronomy, 1976; P. D. Miller, Deuteronomy, 1990.

N. Kiuchi

1072 ANE

nv

113 (bird), nom. citadel, acropolis (# 1072).

bird is likely a loanword from Akk. birtu (pl. biran@tu), citadel, fortified town;

cf. Aram./Syr. bir*ta’, palace, castle (Ezra 6:2). OT The nom. bird appears only in postexilic books: Neh (3x), Esth (10x), Dan (1x), and twice in each book of 1-2 Chron. In 2 Chron it appears in an augmented pl. (biraniyyét), suggesting an Akk. origin. Most references are to Susa, the Persian capital, or to the royal citadel-palace within it. The Chronicler uses the word in reference to fortresses built by both Jehoshaphat and Jotham (2 Chron 17:12; 27:4). 1 Chron 29:1, 19, however, refer to the Jerusalem temple, as does Neh 2:8. In a very restricted sense, then, bird bears the theological connotations of the house of the Lord.

P-B The use of bird to denote the complex of the temple of the Lord increased in Rabbinic Judaism long after the destruction of the second temple in AD 70 (cf. Jastrow 1:165). The rabbis envisioned the Lord, the King of kings, dwelling in a fortified residence similar to the fortress-palaces of earthly kings, but appropriately one that is more grandiose. Fortification, citadel, siege-mound, stronghold: > ’armdn (citadel, #810); > bird (citadel, acropolis, # 1072); > bsr III (be inaccessible, # 1307); > dayég (siege-mound, # 1911); > hél (rampart, #2658); > milld’ (terrace, #4864); > misgeret (stronghold, dungeon, rim, table, #4995); > m°sad (stronghold, #5171); > masér II (fortification, fortified city, #5190);

654

m7 (# 1074) > soherd (rampart, # 6089); > sokék (mantelet, #6116); > s®riah (cellar, vault, pit, stronghold, # 7663); > Sgb (be high, fortified, protect, # 8435); > Fortification: Theology BIBLIOGRAPHY

E. Klein,

:

A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of

English, 1987, 72; A. Lemaire and H. Lozachmeur, “Birah/birta’ en araméen,” Syr. 64, 1987, 261-66; J. M. Myers, 7 Chronicles, AB, 1965; idem, 2 Chronicles, AB, 1973; idem, Ezra-Nehemiah, AB, 1965; E. Will, “Qu’est-ce qu’une baris?” Syr. 64, 1987, 253-59. Keith N. Schoville

1074

— =

12 (bayit 1), house, dwelling, building, family, dynasty (# 1074).

ANE The nom. is commonly employed, being known in Aram. bayit; Assyr. bitu; Ugar. bt, all with a similar range of meaning. OT 1. The nom. is primarily used in the sense of “house,” designating the private dwelling of an individual or family. More than other related terms (ma‘6n [dwelling, den, ~ #5061]; miskan [tabernacle, > #5438], mésab [dwelling; > # 4632], naweh

[pasturage, > #5659]), bayit indicates a fixed building rather than a place or region. Houses are said to be “built” (bnh; > #1215) using wood, stone, ivory, and other materials (Deut 20:15, 22:8; 1 Kgs 2:36; 22:39; Ps 127:1), and have a supported roof upon which one could walk (Josh 2:6-8; 2 Sam 11:2).

2. In the sense of dwelling place, the nom. bayit describes the abode of undomesticated animals (wild donkey, Job 39:6; hyrax, Prov 30:6; spider’s web, Job 8:14).

3. Among humans bayit also describes the dwelling of a king (bét hammelek = “palace’’), where it becomes the equivalent of the loanword hékal (from Sum. é-gal, big house). In Mesopotamia, the é-gal gradually became the center of social and political power, replacing the temple where power had resided for some centuries previous. In like manner the king (Sum. /u-gal, big man) displaced the earlier en who had largely

priestly functions. This shift of power is often traced in Mesopotamia to the Sargonic dynasty of Akkad (2500-2150 BC) and was accompanied by the development of archives (bit tuppi, house of tablets) in the palace precincts, where state and economic records (in distinction from temple records) were kept. Previously such records had been housed in temple archives. Clearly Israel experienced a similar shift in authority from priest/prophet and shrine/temple to king and palace (1 Sam 8-10). The bét hammelek, house of the king, like its Mesopotamian counterpart, is more than an enlarged domicile for the royal family. It served also as the administrative center for the kingdom, where audiences were held, decisions made, and records kept.

4. The nom. bayit could also designate the temple of God or foreign gods (bét ba‘al, 1 Kgs 16:32; bét yhwh, 2 Sam 7:5, 13; Zech 1:16). Because the “house of Yah-

weh’” was both Yahweh’s palace and Israel’s cultic center, there was some confusion in Israel whether the temple represented the dwelling of God or only the place of meeting (as the ’Ohel md ‘éd, tent of meeting, in the Exodus experience). There was recognition that Yahweh did not require a place of residence (cf. 2 Sam 7:1-7), nor could he be confined to such a limited structure; even heaven and earth could not contain him (Isa 66:1). Yahweh causes his name to dwell in the temple (or at least at the place or among

655

13 (# 1074) the people where the bét yhwh stands); it is the “place where his name is called.” As bét yhwh, the temple represents a more fixed and permanent abode than the tabernacle. That this is not always viewed as a welcome change is suggested by the prayer of the temple builder Solomon himself: “Will God really dwell (y5b) on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built! ... May your eyes be open toward this temple night and day, this place of which you said, ‘My Name shall be there,’ so that you will hear the prayer your servant prays toward this place.... Hear from heaven, your dwelling place, and when you hear, forgive” (1 Kgs 8:27-30). Rather than the fixed abode of God, the bét yhwh, like the “tent of meeting” before it, was the agreed upon place of meeting between God and humans. It represented in a continuing, visible way the divine presence in Israel. Here those seeking Yahweh could approach him to pay their vows, present their offerings, and engage in acts of sporadic or ongoing worship (> hékal, #2121). An intimate connection between the temple and the presence of Yahweh among his people did develop in Israel, leading to misconceptions critiqued by the prophets. The temple was no guarantee of safety for a people who practiced correct ritual in the absence of spiritual commitment, social justice, and compassion (Isa 1:10-17; Jer 7:1-15, 26:4-6; Amos 5: 21-27). Elsewhere in the ANE, gods are said to

depart their shrines as a sign of displeasure towards their worshipers. Perhaps the best known example is the deparature of Inanna from her temple the ul-mash in Akkad, described in the Curse of Agade. The goddess leaves in anger for an uncertain offense and returns as warrior against her former subjects. Similarly, Ezekiel’s picture of the kabéd (“glory”) of Yahweh departing from the Jerusalem temple graphicically challenges Israel’s false association of their god with the temple (Ezek 10:1-22, 11:22-23). Yahweh freely chooses to associate with Israel. His presence is a gracious gift that both blesses and calls into question those who experience it. Failure to respond to Yahweh’s holiness with personal and communal holiness leads ultimately to the loss of the blessing of his presence and even to the destruction of the temple itself.

5. The nom. can also refer to familial relationships, such as immediate family (Deut 25:9) or the extended clan/tribe (2 Sam 3:6). The term can also designate the descendants of a person whether near or far removed in time (“house of Isaac,” Amos 7:16, “house of Eli,” 1 Sam 3:14). In the royal household, dynastic relations were also described in terms of the house of the King (“house of David,” 2 Kgs 17:21; Isa 7:2).

Dynastic use of bét is known outside Israel, as found in the Assyrian royal inscriptions where the northern kingdom is repeatedly called “the land of the house of Omri” long after the death of this influential king, who is largely ignored in the biblical narratives (1 Kgs 16:15-28).

God’s promise to “build a house” (bayit) for David is clearly attached to the development of the Davidic dynasty (bayit; 2 Sam 7:11-16). The ultimate failure of the Davidic kings to realize the expectations for an “eternal kingdom” led, following the Exile, to a shift to a future descendant of David who would rule justly forever. As a result of this promise and the growing eschatological interpretation of its fulfillment, Davidic lineage became an important element of messianic thinking and theology. This explains the conscious attempts in the NT to connect Jesus with the “house of David” by tracing his genealogy through his earthly father Joseph (Matt 1:1-17, 20; Luke 2:3-4, 3:23-38). (> Messiah)

656

MDD

1136)

6. §’ol (> #8619), the colorless resting place of the dead, is known as bét

mé‘éd I°kol-hay, “the house appointed for all living” (Job 30:23), and the “eternal home” to which all humans go at death (Eccl 12:5, unless the tomb is intended).

7. Derived meanings for bayit include receptacle, container, holder such as batim I°baddim, holder for poles (Exod 25:27); batté hannepes, perfume bottle (Isa 3:20); and batim labb*rihim, holders for the [door] bars (Exod 26:29). Similar use is known from Mesopotamia, where examples such as bit niri, lamp holder, and bit gémi,

flour sack, are preserved. 8. Individual rooms or divisions of a larger, multiroom building like a temple or palace are called batim, houses (2 Kgs 23:7; 1 Chron 28:11). Dwelling: ~ bayit I (house, dwelling, building, family, dynasty, #1074); — yb (dwell, # 3782); > ma‘6n II (den, dwelling, #5061); - maqém (place, town, site, dwelling place, holy place, # 5226) BIBLIOGRAPHY ABD 3:308-18; TDOT 2:107-16; THAT 1:308-13; A. C. Bouquet, Everyday Life in New Testament Times, 1954, ch. 3; E. W. Heaton, Every Day Life in Old Testament Times, 1956, 71-77; J. Callaway, “A Visit With Ahilud...,” BARev, 9, 1983, 43-53; A. Ben-Tov, “Tell Qiri: A Look at Village Life,” BA 42, 1979, 105-13. Gerald H. Wilson

1078 (bét-’él, Bethel), > Bethel 1107 (bét-lehem, Bethlehem), ~ Bethlehem

1126 (bét-5°’ Gn, Beth Shan), > Beth Sham 1134 (bkh, weep, bewail), > Lament

1136

Pin

ny3

MYDS / NND2 (bikkira/bakkiira), early fig

(# 1136); < 755. (bkn), pi. bear early fruit, treat

as firstborn; pu. be made a firstborn; hi. bear first child (> # 1144).

OT Jer 24:2 links bikkiira/bakkira, “early fig,” into a phrase with t°’énd. These first ripened figs were particularly juicy and were considered a special delicacy. Fig: ~ bikkird (early fig, # 1136); > bls (scratch open, # 1179); > Sigma (sycamore-[fig-] tree, # 9204); > t°’énd (fig, # 9300) Edwin C. Hostetter

21D A(bikkiirim), only pl. nom. to denote early 1137 p22 harvest or firstfruits (# 1137); < V3 (bkr), pi. bear firstfruits (Ezek 47:12; > # 1144); denom. vb. < b°kdr (firstborn, > # 1147).

ANE Cognates appear in Ugar. bkr, and Akk. bukru, with the meaning firstborn, be early. The nom. is used for various firstfruits in the OT: grapes (Num 13:20), seed OT (Exod 23:16), wheat (34:22), and figs (Nah 3:12). Part of the firstfruits were given as a

657

“D3 (# 1144)

thank offering and as support of the priesthood (Lev 2:10, 14; Num 18:12-13). The day of the firstfruits was part of the Feast of Weeks (Num 28:26). For a further treatment of this nom., see Sabu’6t (Feast of Weeks,

> # 8651a).

Feasts & festivals: > bikkiirim (early or firstfruits, # 1137); > hag (procession, round dance, festival, feast, #2504); — h“nukkd (dedication, Feast of Dedication, #2853); — md‘éd (appointed time, #4595); > massét (Feast of the Unleavened Bread, #5174a); > marzéah (cultic feast, funeral meal, # 5301); > sukk6t (Feast of Tabernacles, # 6109a); > “4sara (festive assembly, #6809); > pidrim (festival of Purim, #7052a); > pesah (Feast or sacrifice of Passover, # 7175 [> Passover: Theology]); > r0’s hddes (festival of the new Moon, # 803 1a); > ro’ haxsand (beginning of the year, #8031b); — Sabu’ét (feast of Weeks, # 8651a); > Sabbat (sabbath, # 8701 [> Sabbath: Theology]) BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABD 2:796-97; IDB 270; IDBSup 336-37; ISBE 2:307-8; TDOT 2:121-27; TWOT 1:109. Hendrik L. Bosman

1142 (b*kird, first-born woman), > # 1144

1143 (b°kit, bewailing),

1144

> Lament

=55

D3

(bkr), pi. bear early fruit, treat as firstborn;

pu. be made a firstborn; hi. bear first child (# 1144); MD5 (bikkiirda), first ripe fig (> # 1136); D°VD3 (bikkiirim), firstfruits (> #1137); 17932 (b%kira), firstborn woman (#1142); I33 (béker), young male camel (> #1145); T1D3 (b°kdr), nom. firstborn (# 1147); 7753 (b°kdra), right of firstborn (# 1148); N33 (bikra), young female camel (> # 1149).

ANE Most of the Sem. languages have monosyllabic nom. from this root meaning “firstborn,” paralleling what is probably the original meaning for Heb. b°kér. Akk. bukru, son, refers to deities and rarely to humans, and must be modified by résti, first, in order to mean “firstborn” (CAD, B, 310). Preferential status for the firstborn son

probably had its raison d’étre in the early seminomadic, agricultural societies of Mesopotamia (Mendelsohn, 40). Then, in the later urban cultures of Sumer and Babylonia

the role of the firstborn was reduced (he was equal in status to his younger brothers in Hammurabi’s law code). But in the less industrialized societies in Assyria, Nuzi, Ugarit, Alalakh, and Israel, the firstborn son maintained a privileged status. The OT

gives import to the order of succession and sequence. This is true of one’s personal position in the tribe and family unit, but also of agricultural produce. OT 1. The prevalence of the nom. b°kdr (122x), coupled with the rarity of the verbal forms (4x, and all in derived stems), suggests the original meaning “firstborn” for this root. Paternally, the firstborn was “the first” (ré’ Sit) of the father’s ‘(procreative)

strength” (Gen 49:3; Deut 21:17); and maternally, that “which first opens (peter) the womb,” whether man or beast (Exod 13:2; 34:20; Num 3:12). The general position of honor accorded the firstborn son may be seen in Joseph’s seating arrangements for his brothers (Gen 43:33) or heard in Jacob’s words of blessing to Reuben (Gen 49:3, see also Ps 89:27[28]). The details of OT primogeniture are found in Deut 21:15-17. The “right” (b°kord) of the firstborn to receive a double portion of inheritance (see Beitzel)

658

"D3 (# 1144) is attested in Middle Assyrian law (ANET° 185, B, 1). In royal families, this right includes dynastic succession (2 Chron 21:3). The Jacob and Esau episode demonstrates the transferability of the birthright (Gen 25:31-34) and illustrates the common OT pattern of the younger son displacing the firstborn (Gen 25:23; 1 Chron 5:1-2; and see the stories of Joseph [Judah] and Reuben, Ephraim and Manasseh, Moses and Aaron, David and his brothers, Solomon and Adonijah). So Israel as Yahweh’s firstborn

received a position of honor and privilege, though she was youngest and least among the nations (Exod 4:22; Jer 31:9). God’s grace and sovereign rule over people and nations was demonstrated by his freedom to choose those who were not the firstborn by nature and treat them as firstborn. 2. “It is not only the best that belongs to God, but also the first” (TDOT 2:126). Firstfruits of man, animal, and plant were devoted to Yahweh before being offered for human consumption (Exod 13:2; Lev 2:14; Deut 15:19). The theological foundation

for God’s ownership of Israel’s firstborn is the climactic tenth plague against Egypt, in which all the firstborn sons of the land were killed (Exod 11:5; 12:12). The firstborn sons of Israel were exempt (Exod 12:23), but Yahweh’s claim on them was not relin-

quished. Since all firstborns properly belonged to Yahweh, they must be offered in the sanctuary. They could be used for secular purposes after substitutionary redemption by offering a lamb (Exod 13:13, 15; 34:20; Num 3:11-13; and especially Num 8:14-17,

where the Levitical priesthood redeems the firstborn Israelites). Abraham’s substitution of a ram for his firstborn son Isaac (Gen 22:13-14) provides an early patriarchal example of these same principles. 3. The firstfruits of the land were to be given to God in the sanctuary (Exod 23:34) and appear to be part of the provision for the priests (Deut 18:4; Neh 10:38). They were given to God because he owned the land (Lev 25:23) and he blessed the land to cause it to produce fruit (Deut 8:10-18; 28:4-12). In acknowledgment of his power over fertility and in thankfulness for his gracious provisions, the firstfruits, or “the best of the firstfruits’” (Exod 23:19; 34:26), were given back to God.

4. In a few places the firstborn refers opaquely to an extreme act of devotion, the ultimate act of sacrificing a firstborn child (Mic 6:7). 2 Kgs 3:27 may reflect the Moabite version of the devotion of firstborn sons to a deity. But God’s abhorrence of this practice is made clear early in the OT in dramatic fashion (Gen 22:12-14; see Lev 20:2-5). Firstborn, firstfruits: > bkr (bear early fruit, treat as first-born, # 1144); > peter (first-born, # 7081) Beginning: ~ hnk (train, inaugurate, #2852); — ro’s I (head, chief, beginning, #8031); > fhilld (beginning, # 9378) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 2:121-27; B. J. Beitzel, “The Right of the Firstborn (p? Snayim) in the Old Testament (Deut 21:15-17),” FS Archer, 179-90; O. Eissfeldt, Erstlinge und Zehnten im AT, BWANT 22, 1917; I. Mendelsohn, “On the Preferential Status of the Eldest Son,” BASOR 156, 1959, 38-40; A. Reichart, “Israel, the Firstborn of God: A Topic of Early Deuteronomic Theology,” in Proceedings of the 6th Congress of Jewish Studies, ed. A. Shinan, 1977, 341-49; P. Watson, “A Note on the ‘Double Portion’ of Deuteronomy 21:17 and II Kings 2:9,” ResQ 8, 1965, 71. Bill T. Arnold

659

352 (# 1158) SSS

1145 (béker, young camel), > # 1695

1147 (b°kor, firstborn), > # 1144 1148 (b°k6rd, right of firstborn), > # 1144 1149 (bikra, young female camel), ~ # 1695 1153 (bal, no, not), > Particles

1158

353

5

(big), hi. let something flare up, be cheerful,

be happy (# 1158).

ANE

Arab. balaga, to break [dawn]; baliga, to be cheerful, happy.

OT

1. The vb. big occurs in the hi. 4x (Job 9:27; 10:20; Ps 39:13[14]; Amos 5:9).

The vb. appears as a first sing. cohortative following another volitional form in Job and Ps, producing the translation pattern: “x ... so that I may blg.” 2. As Job wrestles with his circumstances, he describes his resolve (though

short-lived) to drop his complaint against God and to manifest a cheerful disposition (Job 9:27). In the following chapter Job loathes his life and begs God to leave him alone so that he can enjoy a little comfort before dying (10:20). At the conclusion of an individual lament, the psalmist (Ps 39:13[14]) prays, like Job (Job 10:20), that the Lord

will give him a brief respite from his adversity so he may renew his rejoicing once again before departing from this life. 3. Although most writers derive blg from the Arab. roots cited above (which carry the nuance of cheerfulness), such unanimity is absent in the discussion of the meaning of b/g in Amos 5:9. Because of the difficulty of the MT at this point, scholars have proposed numerous alternative readings (see Paul, 169, for the primary alternatives). Rabin (21; cf. Dahood, 340, n. 2) suggests that blg belongs to a complex of Sem. roots (blg, blq, plq, and some uses of plg) that are phonetic variants of one and the same root. As Paul (169) notes with regard to Amos 5:9, “a completely satisfactory solution has yet to be found.” However, if this instance of big stands as is and if the vb. root is correctly derived from the Arab. roots cited above, to brighten the face, be

cheerful, Amos could have used the “flash” nuance to emphasize the swiftness of Yahweh’s judgment. Because of Israel’s covenant treachery (religious formalism and idolatry), Yahweh promises to demonstrate his ability to destroy the fortifications on which his people had been depending for their security, no matter their strength. Amos may have chosen a root that normally signified cheerfulness to allude to Yahweh’s awesome derision and laughter directed toward the rebellious nations (Ps 2:4; cf. Story, 23s Happiness, joy, rejoicing: ~ ’sr II (be fortunate, #887); > big (be cheerful, happy, # 1158); > gad II (luck, fortune, # 1513); > gyl (exult, # 1635); > hdh (gladden, rejoice, make happy, # 2525); > ‘Iz (exult, #6600); > ‘Is (enjoy, appear glad, #6632); > ‘Is (rejoice, # 6636); > $Sw8 (rejoice, # 8464); > smh (rejoice, make glad, # 8523)

660

m3 (# 1162) EE

EL

LL

ITEC

PL

BIBLIOGRAPHY

M. Dahood, “Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography IX,” Bib 52, 1971, 337-56; S. Paul, Amos, 1991; C. Rabin, “Strength or Cheerfulness?” Oriental Studies Presented to B. S. J. Isserlin, 1980, 11-23; C. Story, “Amos—Prophet of Praise,” VT 30, 1980, 67-80. Michael A. Grisanti

1161 (bildad, Bildad), > Bildad

sae

m2

aie (blh), gq. wear out, become

away

(#1162);

old; ni. waste

MOD (baleh), nom /adj.

worn-out, old (# 1165); "175 (b%/éy) rags (# 1170); 2 (b°li), destruction, negation, cessation, without (# 1172); (# 1175).

ANE

?Y953 (b‘liyya ‘al), worthlessness, nothingness, worthless

The root blh, wear out, has cognates with similar meanings in other NE lan-

guages: Later Aram. b°/d; Arab. baliya; OSA blwt, Eth. balya, to be worn-out; Akk. balu, to extinguish, obliterate.” b°/?, destruction or without, has several NE cognates: Ugar. bl, without; Nab.; Palm.; Akk. balu, without; related forms in Syr. [mem]blay;

postbiblical Heb. b®/i; and the Sam. Pent.: bali—all carrying the meaning “without.” OT 1. baleh, old, worn, or worn-out, is used four out of its 5x in the book of Joshua (9:4 [2x], 5 [2x]) to refer to the worn-out clothes and cargo that the Gibeonites used to

fool the Israelites. Additional modifiers are used for both the wineskins and the sandals to highlight their need of repair. The word is used more figuratively in Ezek 23:43 to picture Judah as an experienced adulteress “worn-out” by her continual adulteries (G. R. Driver, “Ezekiel,” 155). This word and the following word are probably related

since the rags used to cushion Jeremiah were probably worn-out materials that could be torn and used to protect Jeremiah from injury. Unlike the synonym zqn, old or full of years (> #2416), baleh brings out the connotation of being worn-out or old because of use. 2. All three occurrences of b°léy, rags, describe the materials used to cushion

Jeremiah from the pressure of the ropes as he is being lifted out of the cistern (38:11 [2x]; 38:12). These cushions were most likely clothes or some type of material that had been “torn” (m“lah) and “worn thin” (s“haba) from usage. 3. The relatively common word b°/? (ca. 60x) is often used as an adv. or particle of negation (21x) (Gen 31:20; Exod 14:11; 2 Kgs 1:3, 6, 16) as well as a meaning “without” (24x) (Deut 4:42; Josh 20:3, 5; Isa 5:14; Jer 2:15). However, it is used once as a subst. in the phrase miXSahat b°li, “from the pit of destruction,” referring to Sheol

(Isa 38:17). b°l? is commonly used with prepositions, the most common one being min (24x), with the meanings “from want / lack of” (Job 4:11; 24:7; Isa 5:13; Hos 4:6; etc.) or “because not” (Deut 9:28; Jer 9:11; Ezek 14:15, etc.); but it is also used with b° (4x) translated as “without” (Josh 20:3, 5; Job 35:16; 36:12), with /° as “in the state of’ (Job 41:25) or “without” (Isa 5:14; Job 38:41), with ‘al as “by not” (Gen 31:20), and with ‘ad as “until” (Ps 72:7; Mal 3:10). 4. Cross and Freedman think that b°liyya‘al, worthlessness, derives from bal(i) ya‘l(é), meaning “(a place from which) none arises,” and is thus a euphemism for Sheol (JBL 72, 1953, 22, n. 6), but D. W. Thomas believes that it comes from Dl’ “to

661

m52(# 1162) swallow” and thus should be understood as “the swallower”

ya

in the Old

Testament,” Biblical Patristic Studies, ed. J. N. Birdsall and R. W. Thomson,

1963,

11-19). This word occurs 27x in the OT and generally refers to a person who has become so wicked and corrupt that he/she is a detriment to society. Prov 6:12 equates ‘adam b‘liyya‘al, a worthless man, with the phrase ’i¥ ’dwen man of wickedness. In other passages it is used in parallel structure with “death” (mawet) as the outcome of a corrupt, wicked person (2 Sam 22:5; Ps 18:4[5]), whose activities include those that » would quickly destroy the moral fiber of a society, such as attempting to turn people away from God (Deut 13:14[14]), engaging in acts of corrupt sexual deviation (Judg 19:22; 20:13; 1 Sam 2:12), treating their brothers harshly (Deut 15:9; 1 Sam. 30:22),

rebelling against authority (2 Sam 20:1; 2 Chron 13:7), and destroying others by false testimony (1 Kgs 21:10; Prov 19:28). P-B

In the LXX of the book of Joshua, baleh, used up, is consistently translated as

palaios, old, but is left untranslated in Ezek 23:24. The LXX consistently translates b°léy, rags, by palaios, old. The LXX most commonly (17x) uses the word mé, not to translate b°/?, (Gen 31:20; Exod 14:11; Num 14:16; etc.) but others are also used: ou, not (Job 4:20; 31:19; Hos 4:6; 8:7; 9:16; etc.); aneu, without (Job 6:6; 8:11; 24:7, 8; 31:39; etc.); ouden, nothing (Deut 28:55; Job 41:17[18], 24[25]). The LXX translates

b‘liyya‘al, worthlessness, as paranomos, lawless, evildoer (Deut 13:14; Judg 19:22; 20:13; 2' Sam: 16:7; -20:1;:23:631 Kgs-21210, 13;.2:Chron 13:73 Ps'4179; 110123) 25x as loimos, evil, troublesome (1 Sam 1:16; 10:27; 12:12; 25:17, 25; cf. also 1 Sam 30:22,

where ra‘ ab‘liyya‘al is translated as loimoskai ponéros, troublesome and evil), 3x as aphron, foolish, ignorant (Prov 6:12; 16:27; 19:28), 2x as anomia, lawless (2 Sam 22:5 = Ps 18:5), and 1x each for anoméma, lawless action (Deut 15:9) and enantios, opposite, against, contrary (Nah 1:11).

Belial (or Beliar) is used as a proper name for the prince of evil, Satan, in the pseudepigraphical material (Jub. 1:20; T. Levi 18:12; T. Dan 5:10-11; T. Reub. 4:11), in the Damascus Document (CD 4:13), in the Manual of Discipline (IQS 4:6-8, 11-13), and in the War Scroll (IQM 12:1-7). See also 2 Cor 6:15 and 2 Thess 2:3. It is easy to see the development that occurs in this word. A worthless person is so wicked and corrupt that he/she is of no positive value to society, but instead furthers corruption wherever he/she goes. Satan, who is the worthless person par excellence, is not only the one behind every corrupt person, but also is the epitome of worthlessness (or corruption). Rags: ~ b*léy (rags, # 1170); > melah I (worn out clothes, #4874); > s°habét (rags, # 6080) Tired, worn out: ~ blh (wear out, become old, #1162); > grs (waste away, make grind, # 1756); > qsr II (be short, be/become discouraged, worn out, # 7918

BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 2:128-36; TWOT 1:110-11; F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman, “A Royal Song of Thanksgiving: 2 Samuel 22 = Psalm 18,” JBL 72, 1953, 15-34; G. R. Driver, “Ezekiel: Linguistic and Textual Problems,” Bib 35, 1954, 145-59, 299-312; J. E. Hogg, “Belial in the Old Testament,” AJSL 44, 1937, 56-58. Paul D. Wegner

1165 (baleh, be used up, worn-out, waste away), > #1162

662

5°53(# 1173) 1170 (b°léy, rags), > #1162 1172 (b°l?, without, no, not), > Particles

ee

ee

55 (b¢lil), mixed fodder (# 1173); < bil, q.

ore

give fodder, feed (Judg

19:21), mix, moisten;

hitpo. be shaken down (> # 1176). ANE Cognates occur in Aram./Syr. b°/ila@’, mixed fodder; cf. Akk. ballu, (mixed) fodder.

OT The nom. occurs only in Job 6:5 and Isa 30:24. Its apparent attestation in Job 24:6, “They gather fodder in the fields,” should, according to Dhorme (Job, 78), be viewed as a mispointing (b°/ild, its fodder, for b°/i 16, not his). Job makes the observation that his cause for lament is real in proverb language, because no ox would low “within sight of his fodder” (here parallel to ds’, grass,

> #2012). That is, were all well with him, Job would not complain. W. Holladay suggests that the expression b°/il hamis (Isa 30:24) is “fodder of sorrel prepared by soaking” (CHALOT, 108). Mixed fodder includes straw and some grain-like barley (1 Kgs 4:28 [5:8]). O. Borowski contends that hamis (cf. Arab. hummus, hummus) is chickpea and that Isa 30:24 refers to chickpea fodder (Agriculture in Iron Age Israel, 96). This

would have been rich food for animals. Well-fed domestic animals benefit their owners. Animals also have value themselves and benefit from God’s blessing (cf. Jon 4:11; Rom 8:19-23).

P-B- A Talm. use of the denominative vb. “mix fodder” occurs in BTalm Zebahim 14:3. Fodder, chaff, straw:

— b‘/il (mixed fodder, #1173); > hamis (fodder, #2796); > mispéd’ > mds (chaff, #5161); > gas (chaff, #7990); > teben (chopped

(fodder for animals, #5028); stalks, straw, # 9320) BIBLIOGRAPHY

O. Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel, 1987; E. Dhorme, Job, 1984.

A Commentary on the Book of

Stephen A. Reed/Eugene H. Merrill

1175 (b‘liyya‘al, worthlessness), > # 1162

ELz6

272

(abb¢lal), snail (> #8671);

bape (bil), q. confuse, mix, hi. hitpol. (# 1176);

be53 (bei), fodder (> #1173); D993

P2M (tebel), contamination (# 9316); 273M (1*ballul),

spot in the eye (> #9319). ANE. Arab. balla, moisten; Akk. balatu, mix, knead, confuse, pollute, moisten (CAD 2:39). OT

1. The vb. bil (except in Gen 11:7, 9; Ps 92:10[11]; Hos 7:8) always appears in

one of the following q. pass. part. forms: balal, b°1ald, or b°lalit, and always indicates

663

653 (# 1176) a mixing of flour (or unleavened cakes) and oil that is presented as a grain offering. Since Lev 7:10 indicates that there are grain offerings that do not require a mixture with oil, it is to be assumed that the mixture of the substances does not render holiness. Rather it simply changes the flour into a form that makes it easier to present (Exod 29:2: Lev 2:5; 7:10, 12(2x); 9:4; 14:10, 21; 23:13;.Num 7:13, 19,25, 31,37, 43,.49,.55, 61, 67, 79; 15:4, 6, 9; 28:5, 9, 12, 13, 20, 28). Lev 23:13 indicates that this offering

yields a soothing odor for Yahweh. 2. Another sense of the vb. bil is found in Gen 11:7, 9 in the Babel narrative.

The people want to build a city and a tower so that they can make a name for themselves and not be scattered over the face of the earth. Using a simple q. pf. and impf., there is a divine call for the mixing (“confuse” and “confused,” NIV) of the lan-

guages, which results in the scattering of humankind, the desired outcome. 3. bil appears in a rare hitpol. form in Hos 7:8 (yitbélal). This oracle against Ephraim castigates them for mixing among the nations and compares them to a cake unturned (one that has baked unevenly). H. Ewald believed blh, “become old or worn-out,” to be the root of the word used here (BDB, 117). Hence, JPSV “he is rotting

away,” but bil is more likely since baking imagery is heavily used in this pericope and the second bicolon of this pair has the word “cake.”

4. The meaning of the vb. bil as used in Ps 92:10[11], a song of victory over the enemy, is uncertain. ballot? may mean “with fresh oil.” Tate translates “rubbed with fresh oil” (M. E. Tate, Psalms 51-100, 462-63]). It may be taking on the meaning of moisten as in its Arab. cognate. The NIV translates, “fine oils have been poured upon me.” The vb. usually appears in the passive form, though not here (Tate, 462). 5. nbl (hi.) in Isa 64:6[5] does not fit its context. BHS suggests an emendation in the pointing to yield a root nbl, meaning to wither, droop, or fade (> #5570). This alternative reading, reflected in the NIV, is likely correct. 1QIsa* emends to nbwlh. 6. The nom., tebel, a derivative of bil, is found in Lev

18:23 and 20:12. It

appears in a clause explaining why it is prohibited for an Israelite to engage in sexual relations with an animal (Lev 18:23) or an Israelite man to have sex with his daughter-in-law (Lev 20:12). Such a mix is tebel. The NIV translates “perversion” each time. In the former case, because of a violation of the order of nature (see Douglas, Purity and Danger, 53-54), the culprit is cut off from the people; in the latter, because of a

violation of the social order, death is the result. Such acts were practiced by the people in Canaan prior to the arrival of the Israelites and were connected to paganism (see Lev 18:24-30). Mixing, mingling, mixture: ~ bil (confuse, mix, #1176); > kil’ayim (two kinds, #3977); > msk (mix, # 5007); > ‘rb II (associate with, mingle with, be intermixed with, # 6843); > rbk (stirred, mixed, # 8057); > rgh (blend, mix, # 8379) BIBLIOGRAPHY

F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Hosea, AB, 1980, 465-66; R. E. Clements, “Leviticus,”

BBC,

vol.2,

1970; M. Douglas, Purity and Danger,

1980; A. Noordtzij, Leviticus,

N. H. Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers, 1967; M. E. Tate, Psalms 51-100, WBC

1982;

1990.

Wilma A. Bailey

664

°

053 (# 1178)

1178 ANE

n>>

od3

(blm), (#1178).

q. restrain,

check,

curb,

control

Arab. balama IV, be baffled; Mand., tie up s.o.’s mouth.

OT The single reference (Ps 32:9) relates to the act of bringing an animal under control or redirecting it with the use of harness fittings (> resen) or bridle and bit (> meteg). Restraint, muzzle, bridle, mouth piece: > bim (restrain, # 1178); > hsm (muzzle, #2888); > meteg (bridle, # 5496); > resen I (mouth piece, # 8270)

BIBLIOGRAPHY F. E. Greenspahn, Hapax Legomena in Biblical Hebrew, 1984, 105. Elmer A. Martens

1179 OT

oo.

055 (bls), (#1179),

scratch

(sycamore

fruit)

open

The vb. bls employed by Amos denotes to “scratch [sycamore fruit] open”

(7:14). Giles (691) believes that the seer identifies himself with Israel’s growers and laborers, “I was a shepherd, and I also took care of sycamore-fig trees (Sigmd,

> #9204).” As opposed to the professionals, officials, and merchants, “I was neither a prophet nor a prophet’s son.” If so, Amos’ location among the helpless oppressed (over against the powerful oppressors) makes him an especially “legitimate spokesperson for the economic and political concerns expressed within the book” (Giles, 692). However, Amos may have been an agribusiness specialist. ( Amos: Theology) Fig: > bikkiird (early fig, # 1136); > bls (scratch open, # 1179); > Sigma (sycamore-[fig-] tree, #9204); > £°’énd (fig, # 9300)

BIBLIOGRAPHY T. Giles, “A Note on the Vocation of Amos in Amos 7:14,” JBL III, 1992, 690-92. Edwin C. Hostetter

:

180

pos

pos (bI‘ I), g. swallow; ni. be swallowed; pi.

swallow up (#1180); DOD (bela‘ 1), what is

swallowed (# 1183).

ANE.

The root is attested in Arab. bali‘a and Aram./Syr. b®la‘, swallow.

OT 1. The most prominent term in the HB that expresses the concept swallow up, gulp down, and swallow up (in the sense of devouring) is bl‘ I. (a) In the q. verbal form b/‘ has the straightforward literal meaning to swallow, to gulp down, the subjects of these actions being persons (e.g., in Ps 124:3; Prov 1:12 [like Sheol]; Isa 28:4), fish (Jon 1:17[2:1]), a serpent (Jer 51:34), foreigners (Hos 8:7, in a figurative sense), and the earth (e.g., Exod 15:12; Num 16:30, 32; Deut 11:6); and some of the objects of this vb. being, e.g., ears (of grain) (Gen 41:7), a rod (staff) (of Aaron, Exod 7:12), rich food (Job 20:15), products of hard toil (20:18, employed here

665

p52 (#1181) in a figurative sense: enjoying, using), and Israel’s being swallowed up by foreign nations (Hos 8:8). Once, in Job 7:19, it is used in an idiomatic phrase expressing a brief moment (swallowing one’s spittle). (b) In the pi. verbal formation bi‘ expresses swallowing in the figurative sense of engulfing/consuming/devouring, with as objects of this vb. land (2 Sam 20:19-20) or people (Ps 35:25; Eccl 10:12; Isa 49:19; Lam 2:16; Hab 1:13). bl‘ expresses the much

stronger sense of wiping out/destroying in Job 2:3; 8:18; 10:8; Ps 21:9[10]; Prov 21:20; Isa 25:7-8. It is clear that b/‘ in all of these occurrences in the pi. verbal formation functions in a context of threat or divine judgment whereas in the q. it has a wider, more diversified usage. 2. The nom. bela‘ I has several meanings. First, swallowing = destruction, as in Ps 52:6, devouring (bela‘) words (!! mirmd [deceit]). Second, a thing swallowed as in Jer 51:44: I will “make him spew out what he has swallowed.” Third, it also occurs as a proper nom.: (a) Bela, e.g., in (Gen 36:32 = 1 Chron 1:43; Gen 36:33 = 1 Chron 1:44), the name of a king of Edom; (b) Bela, first son of Benjamin (Gen 46:21; Num 26:38, 40; 1 Chron 7:6, 7; 8:1, 3); and (c) Bela, a Reubenite (1 Chron 5:8); (d) as the name of a city Bela = Zoar (Gen 14:2, 8); and (e) as an adj., “the Belaite clan” (Num

26:38). Swallowing: # 1686)

> bi‘ I (swallow, gulp down, swallow up, #1180);

> gm’ (swallow, drink,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 2:136-39; TWOT 1:112; R. Eisenman, “Playing on and Transmuting Words—Interpreting Abeit-Galuto in the Habakkuk Pesher,’ Papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Offered in Memory of Jean Carmignac,

1991-1993, Vols. 1 & 2, 177-96; L. Schokel, “Hebreo & Espafiol. Notas de

semantica comparada II,” Sefarad 49, 1989, 11-19.

Pes

1181

pos

SSELS

pyo2 (b/‘ Il), uncertain etymology and meaning: pi. make conveyed, reported(?); reached, conveyed, reported(?); reached, informed(?); smitten(?)

informed(?); smitten(?); pu. be (3x[?]; # 1181; HALAT 129b); pos (bela‘ If?), cj. report, slander(?) (# 1184).

Scholars have not yet reached any consensus as to whether OT uses of b/‘ represent only one Heb. lemma (q. swallow, consume, ni. be swallowed, pi. make swallowed, devoured, [fig.] destroyed, so BDB 118a-b; J. Schiipphaus, TWAT 1:659; ET:

TDOT 2:136-37; # 1180), two Heb. lemmata (Barth adding one lemma meaning confuse, confound [comparing Heb. bil, confuse; so W. C. Kaiser, TWOT 1:112a-b]; Driver [JTS 33, 1932, 40-41; idem, ZAW 52, 1934, 52] and Guillaume substituting an

alternative lemma meaning either convey, report, slander or reach, touch [by slander, a blow, love, poison, or wine] and, derivatively, make struck, afflicted; injured, injuriously affected [by wine]; so HALAT 1:153b-54a), three Heb. lemmata (KB; HALAT),

or perhaps even four (so DCH 2:179b-8 1a).

ANE

Heb. bl‘ I, swallow, finds cognates with similar meaning in Arab. bala‘a or

bali‘a, swallow, Eth. bal‘a eat, Tigre bal‘a (TigrWb, 272), and Nabataean. A viable

cognate for the Heb. lemma bi‘ II, pi. make conveyed, reported; reached, informed;

666

p53 (#1181) smitten, appears in Arab. balaga, reach, attain, affect, take effect on (of wine) (so E. W. Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon, 8 vols., 1863-93, 250c); afflict, work havoc on; II, make conveyed, reported; reached, informed (cf. Wehr, 73a-b), and this attestation

to a possible WestSem. root *b/g offered Driver, Guillaume, KB and HALAT reason for distinguishing Heb. b/‘ II pi. from bi‘ I pi. (Arab. bala‘a or bali‘a). A third proposed Heb. lemma, bl‘ III, ni. be confused, pi. make confused, was regarded by Barth, KB and HALAT as a byform of Heb. bil, confuse, confound. Alternatively, HALAT

regarded it as another possible cognate of Arab. balaga in the sense afflict, torment. Both b/‘ I and bi‘ II find support from cognate languages and offer viable lexical meanings for uses of bl‘ in the OT; however, bi‘ III should probably not be regarded as a distinct lemma in OT Heb. (so HALAT 1:153b-54a; contra DCH 2:180a).

It is not a likely byform of bil, confuse, and lacks any ANE cognates that stand apart from the cognates cited for either b/‘ I, swallow, or bl‘ II, convey, reach, and the cited

passages for b/‘ III, where a sense of confound might seem appropriate, require neither this meaning nor the proposal of a new lemma since suitable senses are derivable by synecdoche or metonymy from either bl‘ I or bi‘ IL.

OT 1. All scholars agree that the OT attests a Heb. lemma b/‘ I, meaning swallow, consume. For the lemma b/‘ II, Driver and Guillaume alleged several OT uses either with the sense convey, report, slander or reach, affect, assault, injure, though it should

be admitted that the passages cited do not always require either meaning (cf. b/‘ in 2 Sam 17:16; Job 2:3; 10:8; 37:20; Ps 35:25; 55:9[10]; 107:27; Prov 19:28; Eccl 10:12; Isa 3:12; 9:16[15]; 19:3; 28:7). HALAT allows the use of b/‘ II, only in 2 Sam 17:16,

Job 37:20, and Prov 19:28, and only in the sense communicate, propagate (comparing Arab. big II, make conveyed, reported). Yet, following the long-standing, though etymologically dubious proposal of J. Barth (re Ps 55:9[10]; 107:27; Isa 3:12; 9:16[15]; 19:3; 28:7), HALAT also recognizes a Heb. lemma b/‘ II, meaning confuse, confound,

in the same passages that Barth cited, adding only Eccl 10:12. 2. Many ancient and some modern authorities recognize no lemma besides that of Heb. bi‘ I, swallow, devour. Regarding the three OT passages where HALAT alleges the use of b/‘ II, namely, 2 Sam 17:16; Job 37:20; and Prov 19:28, there is elsewhere

no general agreement. If, in Prov 19:28, the pi. impf. B-word y*balla‘ parallels synonymously the A-word ydlis, scoffs at, scorns, this paronomastic proverb may be translated: “A worthless witness (‘éd b®liya‘al) scorns justice, and the mouth of the wicked conveys evil (api r°Sa‘im y*balla‘-’a@wen)” (so Jacob; HALAT;

DCH 2:180b). How-

ever, instead of y°balla‘, other authorities restore an idiom (hypocatastasis) for speaking, *y°bba‘, flow, pour, gush (so Frankenberg, 114-15; Toy, 381; HALAT 154a; cf. Ps 59:7[8]; 78:2; Prov 1:23; 15:2b, api k°silim yabbia‘ ’iwwelet, but the mouth of

fools gushes folly), even though the emendation is neither textually nor philologically essential. A pu. impf., y“bulla‘, may occur in synonymous parallelism to y“suppar, be told, in Job 37:20, where Elihu says: “Is it [ever] told to him [i.e., God] when I wish to

speak? Did a man [ever] say when it should be reported/communicated?” (cf. Jacob; HALAT 154a) or “Can it be told to him that I wish to speak, or a [mere] man say when he should be made informed?” (cf. REB). Alternatively, the B-colon also makes sense if y°bulla‘ here derives from bi‘ I, swallow: Did a man [ever] ask to be swallowed up? (cf. NIV, NRSV, NAB: be destroyed).

667

52(# 1182) Another seemingly ambiguous use of the pu. impf., y“bulla‘, occurs in 2 Sam 17:16b, where David is issued a warning not to spend the night at the fords, “lest the king and all the people with him be reported/smitten” (so REB; cf. HALAT,; DCH 2:180b, 181a). Alternatively, it may be translated: “lest the king and all the people with him be swallowed up/destroyed” (so NAB; NIV; NRSV; HALAT 154a). 3. Comparable nom. derivatives are: (a) Heb. bela‘ II, report; slander(?) (perhaps Ps 52:4[6][?] [so Driver, JTS 33, 1932, 41; though HALAT 1:154a here prefers, destruction, < bela‘ I] and/or Ps 55:9[10][?] [conj. by HALAT; so DCH 2:18 1a); cf. the:

Arab. nom. forms balag, communication, report, and ballagun, slanderer [a nomen opificii]), and (b) Heb. bela‘ IV, a proper nom. (cf. Arab. balig, eloquent) for: (i) a king of Edom (Gen 36:32-33 = 1 Chron 1:43-44); (ii) a Reubenite (1 Chron 5:8); and (iii) the firstborn son of Benjamin (Gen 46:21; Num 26:38, 40; 1 Chron 7:6-7; 8:1, 3), whence

the gentilic adj. bal‘? (Num 26:38). P-B Heb. bi‘ IJ, swallow, devour, finds cognates in postbiblical Heb. bl‘, swallow, absorb (Jastrow, 174b), Jewish Aram. b°la‘, swallow, absorb (Jastrow, 14b-75a), Syr. b®la‘, swallow, devour (J. Payne Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, 1903, 47a-b), and Mand. BLA, (MdD 65a). Postbiblical cognates for b/‘ I, pi. make conveyed, reported; make reached, informed, smitten, may include lexical equivalents in Jewish Aram., be struck, receive blows (Jastrow, 175a) and Syr., be struck, smitten

(Payne Smith, 47a-b), though HALAT cites these as though in support of b/‘ III, ni. be confused, pi. make confused. Speech: ~ ’/m I (be bound, speechless, grow silent, #519); > ’mr I (say, speak, mention, # 606); > b/‘ II (make conveyed, reported, #1181); > dbr II (speak, threaten, promise, command, # 1819); > hwh I (make declared, explained, # 2555); > lsn (slander, # 4387); > mill IIL (speak, say, declare, # 4910); > ngd (make known, disclose, declare, # 5583); > rakil (peddler, huckster, deceiver, slanderer, # 8215); > Snn II (make repeated, recounted, # 9112) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 2:136-39; TWAT 1:658-61; TWOT 1:112a-b; J. Barr, CPTOT, 1968, 323 no. 56; J. Barth, Beitrdge zur Erkldrung des Jesaja, 1885, 4-5; G. R. Driver, “Studies in the Vocabulary of the Old Testament. IV,” JTS 33, 1932, (38-47) 40-41; idem, “Hebrew Notes,” ZAW 52, 1934, (51-56) 52; idem, “‘Another Little Drink’—Isaiah 28:1-22,” in Words and Meanings, FS

D. W. Thomas, 1968, (47-67) 52; W. Frankenberg, Die Spriiche tibersetzt und erkldrt, HKAT II/3.1, 1898, 114-15; A. Guillaume, “A Note on the Eyes? JTS NS 13, 1962, 320-22; B. Jacob, “Erklarung einiger Hiob-Stellen,” ZAW 32, 1912, (278-87) 287; C. H. Toy, Proverbs, ICC, 1899, 381. Robert H. O’Connell

1182

confusion (# 1184).

pos

pon (DI‘ IIT), ni. be confused; pi. confuse; pu.,

hitp. be confused (# 1182); y55 (bela‘ III), nom.

.

OT _ The vb. bi‘ appears 6x in the OT, 1x in the ni., 3x pi., and 1x each in the pu. and hitp. In Isa 28:7 it indicates a state caused by the abuse of alcohol (to be befuddled). In 3:12 a road is the object of the action and it is par. to the hi. of t‘h, wander off, go astray (# 9494). “Confuse” does not fit the context; it must have a meaning such as “to

668

p93 (#1191) turn you from the path” (NIV). In 19:3 it refers to the confusion of plans. In Ps 55:9[10] it refers to the confusion of the speech of the wicked. In Isa 9:16[15] the vb. is

passive and again in parallelism to the hi. of ¢‘h. In Ps 107:27 the hitp. is used. It is also related to drunkenness and refers to people whose wisdom is confused through the use

of alcohol. The nom. bela‘ is used in 52:4[6] as genitive to “words” and refers to destructive, harmful, or confusing words. Confusion, # 1176); > #2101); > > p‘m (be # 8104); >

agitation: > bwk (be agitated, wander in agitation, # 1003); — bil (confuse, mix, bl‘ Ill (be confused, confused, # 1182); > hwm (throw into confusion, be in uproar, kmr (agitated, # 4023); > ‘wh (disturb, distress, agitate, pervert, do wrong, # 6390); disturbed, feel disturbed, #7192); > rhb (assail, press, pester, alarm, confuse, r‘m II (be agitated, be confused, # 8307); — tmh (be benumbed, be stunned, shocked, gaze, # 9449)

Harry F. van Rooy

1183 (bela‘ I, what is swallowed), > #1180 1184 (bela‘ Ill, confusion), > # 1182

1189 (bil‘am, Balaam), > Balaam

1191

Poa (blq), q. devastate (the earth by Yahweh in judgment, Isa 24:1); pu. (part.) made devastated (of Nineveh in God’s judgment, Nah 2:10[11]) (#1191). Cf. the proper name p22 (devastator), king of Moab (Num 22-24, etc.). ANE

=55 |

Arab. balaga, break open.

OT In both Isa 24:1 and Nah 2:10[11], blg occurs within the context of divine judgment on the earth and on Nineveh, respectively. In both passages, big is used together with bqq, lay waste, to produce powerful assonance and alliteration that underline the theme of Yahweh’s judgment and destruction. See further E. J. Young, /saiah, 3 vols., NICOT, 1969, 2:148; and R. D. Patterson, Nahum, Habbakuk, Zephaniah, WEC, 1991,

72. Destruction, annihilation, devastation, disfigurement, ruin: > ’bd I (perish, #6); > ’éd (disaster, # 369); — biq (devastate, #1191); > dmh III (ruin, #1950); > dmm III (perish, # 1959); > hrs (demolish, # 2238); > hbi III (treat badly, # 2472); > hlq III (destroy, # 2746); > ht’ (be destroyed, # 3148); > klh (be complete, perish, destroy, # 3983); > krt (cut, cut off, exterminate, cut a covenant, circumcise, # 4162); > mhh I (wipe off, wipe out destroy, # 4681); > nsh II (fall in ruins, # 5898); > nts (break up, # 5995); > nts (tear down, #5997); > nts (root up, pull down, destroy, #6004); > p’h (dash to pieces, #6990); > pid (ruin, misfortune, #7085); — prr (break, invalidate, nullify, frustrate, foil, thwart, #7296); > sdh II (be devastated, #7400); > rzh (destroy, waste away, #8135); > Sdd (devastate, #8720); > Sht (become corrupt, ruin, spoil, # 8845); > smd (be exterminated, destroyed, #9012); > tablit (annihilation, # 9318) BIBLIOGRAPHY

NIDNTT 1:462-71. Cornelis Van Dam

669

MDD(# 1195) 1195

M3

M2 (bamda), nom. back, hill, height, ridge, cul-

tic high place (# 1195).

ANE. The term is widely found in Sem. languages, including hbmt in the Mesha inscription, Ugar. bmt back, Akk. bamtu, bantu midst, (mountain-)slope, ridge, Arab. buhmat boulder. OT 1. bamd is used several times in the phrase “to tread/ride on the heights of” to . express God’s absolute supremacy over land and sea (Job 9:8; Amos 4:13) and the confidence with which God’s people may enjoy his blessings (Deut 32:13; Isa 58:14; Hab 3:19). 2. Primarily, however, bamd refers to a place of worship. Though it was often

located on a hill, it could in fact be anywhere, such as by the gate of a city (2 Kgs 23:8) or in a valley (Jer 7:31). The essential feature of a bamd was, therefore, not its location or height, though it usually consisted of at least a man-made platform, sometimes with

an associated building or buildings (2 Kgs 17:29; 23:19), but its function as a site for religious purposes. Until Josiah closed down the provincial bamét and centralized all religious activity at the Jerusalem temple, the local sites were apparently tolerated as long as Yahweh was genuinely worshiped. Some, like those in Samuel’s home town and at Gibeon, played a significant role in Yahwism

(1 Sam 9:16-24;

1 Kgs 3:4-5;

2 Chron 1:3-7). Since the majority of the local “high places,” however, were devoted either to other deities or to syncretistic worship, they were subject to the severest censure by the prophets, who objected particularly to their sacred poles (Asherahs), sacred pillars (massébét), and stone images. The view of Albright that they played a major role in funerary practices is unlikely, however, since it is based on marginal interpretations of a small number of passages (Isa 6:13; 53:9; Ezek 43:7). Josiah’s purification of the Jerusalem temple proved a decisive blow so that bamét were not again used. Localized Judaism developed after the exile through the growth of synagogues.

NT _ bamé passed into NT Greek in the form béma. It occurs primarily in legal contexts, referring either to the seat from which a Roman ruler or magistrate gave judgment (Matt 27:19; John 19:13) or to the court over which such officials presided (Acts 18:12; 25:6, etc.). The theological use is confined to the judgment seat of God or of Christ, before which all people must appear (Rom 14:10; 2 Cor 5:10). Mountain, hill, high place: > bamd (cultic high place, # 1195); > gib‘dI (hill, # 1496); > har (mountain, hill, #2215); > y°rékd (thigh, rear portion of mountain, #3752); > nép (height, # 5679); > m®sdd (stronghold, #5711); > ‘wz (take refuge, # 6395); > ‘Ih, go up, ascend, bring up, #6590); > sir I (rock, boulder, #7446); > sapén I (north, #7600); exalted, proud, # 8123); > sgb (be high, fortified, protect, # 8435)

> rwm

(be high,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABD 3:196-200; TDOT 2:139-45; W. F. Albright, “The High Place in Ancient Palestine,” SVT 4, 1957, 242-58; W. B. Barrick, “The Funerary Character of “high-places” in Palestine: A Reas-

sessment,” VT 25, 1975, 565-95; R. Brinker, The Influence of Sanctuaries in Early Israel, 1946; P. H. Vaughan, The Meaning of “bamd” in the Old Testament, 1974; J. T. Whitney, “‘Bamoth’ in the Old Testament,” TynBul 30, 1979, 125-47. Martin J. Selman

670

]2 (# 1201)

ge

.

he

12 (bén), son, grandson,

(# 1201).

member

of a group

ANE _ 1. Ugar. bn; Akk. binu, Aram. bar. The nom. bén (pl. banim), son, seems to be a

primitive form of bar, involving a shift from /n/ to /r/. The attempts to derive bén from bnh, build (Gen 16:2), and bar from br’, create, are doubtful.

2. Many of the OT uses of bén have equivalents in the ancient Orient and Greece. In Egypt the “son” (several terms are used) is generally the heir and has to perform certain cultic rites for his dead father. In Sumer the inheritance of a sonless father passed on to his daughter. Later, inheritances were divided equally among sons (only), though occasionally the eldest son received a bigger share. Since only the son carried on the family name, the lack of a son was considered especially unfortunate. In Mesopotamia a distinction is drawn between natural sons and daughters and adopted ones. Besides binu Akk. uses also aplu, oldest son, son (originally “heir”), which could include adopted sons, and maru, son, lord.

The Akk. term maru (like Heb. bén) can express membership in a group, as e.g., mar awilim = “citizen,” mar biti = “house-slave.” A man’s relationship to his god may be expressed by his being called “the son of” the particular deity. The king is especially the son of the deity, not so much as being physically begotten by the god, but as being under the god’s protection (see, e.g., Seux, 42, 159 esp. n. 28, 392). In Ugar. the importance of a son is underscored in the Keret Epic (KTU 1. 14. iv. 48-9; 1.15. ii. 24-25; see de Moor, 206; ANET,

father (e.g., to protect, sustain text (KTU 1. 17. i. 27-35; see TROT, 225-26). In heroic Greece hyios human parents, but also of the

144-46), while the son’s duties towards his

him and repair his house) are spelled out in the Aghat de Moor, 228-29; ANET, 150; DOTT, 124-26; NERis used (alongside pais) not only of the offspring of offspring of a god with a goddess (e.g., Apollo, son of

Zeus and Leto, Homer, liad I, 9, 21), of the son of a god with a woman (e.g., Dionysus, son of Zeus and Semele, Hesiod, Theogony, 940-43), and of the son of a

man with a goddess (e.g., Nausinotis, son of Odysseus and Calypso, Theogony, 1017-18). Though not always (cf. Homer, Iliad, 2:727), hyios is normally the legitimate descendant who inherits and carries on the family name 4:399-400; Odyssey, 1:88 [cf. 11:184-87]; 20:218; Herodotus, 1:109).

(Homer,

Iliad,

In G literature hyios has a wide variety of uses, the following of which recall Heb. equivalents. Like Heb., the pl. of hyios can denote the members of a people, e.g., “sons of (the) Achaeans” (Iliad, 2:722), “sons of (the) Trojans” (Iliad, 23:175; cf. “sons [children] of Israel” [Gen 32:32]). In abstract constructions it may express characteristics, quality, etc., as (e.g.) “son of the wine pot” (on account of his drinking habits, Aristophanes, Ranae, 22; cf. “sons of Belial,” or “wicked men” [Deut 13:13]); or relationship, as between pupil and teacher (Papyrus Strassburg 1:2, 1 [AD 217]; Papyrus Giessen. 3:68, 2 [II AD]; Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 9:1219, 3 [III AD]; cf. “sons of the prophets,” i.e., disciples of the prophets [2 Kgs 2:3]). Finally, “son of Greece” occurs as an honorary title (Dittenberger, Sylloge? 2:854, 3-4)—a use absent from the OT (see further TDNT 8:335-40).

671

73 # 1201) OT

1. bén occurs no less than 4850x in the OT, while Aram. bar occurs 19x in the

Aram. and 4x in the Heb. parts of the OT. Other first-class relationship terms occur:

bat, daughter (585x); ab, father (1190x); ’@m, mother (220x); ’ah, brother (630x) and ’ahot, sister (114x). The term has many different senses. 2. Son. By far the most usual meaning of bén in the OT is “son” begotten by a father (e.g., Gen 4:1, 25; 21:2), though the designation “son” could be extended to

male children other than a man’s own sons. This occurred either through adoption

(whose existence in Israel is, however, often questioned, but cf. Esth 2:7, 15; Ps 2:7):or:

legitimation (often claimed to underlie the custom of giving birth on the mistress’s knees [Gen 30:3; cf. 16:2; Ruth 4:16-17]). The latter is based on the older assumed custom of the wife’s giving birth on the husband’s knees (see Gen 50:23 and cf. 48:12; see Viberg, 166-75). To have many sons was regarded as a special blessing from Yahweh (Deut 28:4-11;

1 Chron 28:5; Ps 127:3-5); a wise son causes his parents to rejoice

(Prov 23:24-25), while daughters, who leave the parental house, involve the problem of the transfer of the inheritance (Num 27:1-3; 36:2-9). Childlessness is unfortunate

(Gen 30:1-2) and may be the result, among other things, of punishment (Gen 20:18; 2 Sam 6:23) or of a special prophetic call involving celibacy (Jer 16:2). The right of the firstborn included particular seating (Gen 43:33) as well as two-thirds of the inheritance (Deut 21:17), though through offence such privileges could be lost (Gen 35:22; 49:4;

1 Chron

5:2-3). Though

illegal, occasionally

the

youngest son was preferred (e.g., Isaac, Jacob). Initial instruction seems to have been given by the mother (Prov 1:8; cf. Lev 19:3), after which the father took over (Deut 6:7-9; 11:19-20; cf. R. Riesner, Jesus als

Lehrer, 1988°, 102-10).

Sons have moral duties towards their parents (Prov 1:8; 4:1) and are probably responsible for their father’s debts (2 Kgs 4:1), and they also share in punishment for the sins of their fathers (Josh 7:24-25; 2 Sam 21:1-9). The earliest protest against this is registered in Deut 24:16-17 (see Jer 32:18; Ezek 18:2) and develops into the doctrine that every man will be responsible for his own sins (Ezek 18:1-20). 3. Various family relationships. It is natural that bén can be used together with

other relationship terms to denote various family relationships: thus, bén bén, son’s son (Gen 45:10) means “grandson”; occasionally the simple bén bears that sense, as in Gen 31:28, 55 (Leah’s and Rachel’s children);

2 Sam

19:25 (Mephiboseth, Saul’s grand-

son); 2 Kgs 9:20 (Jehu, Nimshi’s grandson, cf. 2 Kgs 9:14); Neh 12:23 (Johanan, Eliashib’s grandson, cf. Neh 12:10-11). bén can also mean “descendant” (Ezra 7:23). The ability of bén to express these relations (son, grandson, descendant) made it suitable for genealogical use not only in relation to physical sons (e.g., 1 Chron 1) but also of descendants (e.g., 1 Chron 9:4 [Bani or Benjamin (MT), a descendant of Perez son

of Judah, cf. 1 Chron 2:4-5]; see also 1 Chron 1:5, 6-10, 17, 20, and cf. NIV). In Dan 5:2 bén describes Belshazzar (who was the actual son of Nabunaid) either as a grandson of Nebuchadnezzar (see R. P. Dougherty, Nabonidus and Belshazzar, 1929, 59-63)

or as a descendant-successor of Nebuchadnezzar on the throne. The expression b°né ’abika, your father’s sons (Gen 49:8 or, to underline common motherhood, ben ’immé, son of his [own] mother [Gen 43:29; Judg 8:19]), may

denote the relationship of brothers; ben ’ahiw, his brother’s son (Gen 12:5), is nephew; 672

}2 (# 1201) ben dodé, uncle’s son (Lev 25:49), is cousin, and n°xé banéka, the wives of your sons

(Gen 6:18), denotes the relationship of daughter-in-law. 4. Denoting people, nation, inhabitants. bén is often used together with the ancestor’s name or the name of a place to denote the people, the tribe, the nation, or the inhabitants of a place: thus, b°né yisra’él, sons (children) of Israel, frequently has the

sense of “Israelites”; b°né Sib°té b°né yisra’ él, the sons of the tribes of the sons of Israel (Num 36:3), means the “tribes of Israel”; b°né ‘ammon, children of Ammon (Gen 19:38), “Ammonites”; b®né babel, children of Babylon (Ezek 23:15), “Babylonians”; b©né y°réhé (Ezra 2:34), inhabitants of Jericho. 5. Animals. bén is sometimes used of animals to denote offspring or a category or species. (a) Offspring of animals. The pl. banim is used of the offspring of cows (1 Sam 6:7), camels (Gen 32:16), birds (Deut 22:6), and an ass (Gen 49:11). Similarly, ben baqar (Lev 4:3, 14; Num 7:15, 21; Ezek 43:19) does not refer merely to individual

cattle, but in parallelism with par it most probably means “young bullock(s)” (cf. 1 Sam 14:32: bagar ib®né bagar, cattle and sons of cattle, i.e., “cattle and young bullocks”). Similarly, Zech 9:9 specifies the he-ass as ‘“‘on a colt, the foal of a donkey”); b®né labi, sons of the lioness (Job 4:11), is “cubs of the lioness”; occasionally bén may indicate the individual animal, as probably Gen 18:7. (b) Category or species of animals. Sometimes bén expresses the category rather than the individual offspring of animals. This is the case with b°né ‘izzim, sons of goats (2 Chron 35:7), which, as the parallel k°basim, lambs, indicates, does not refer

to the offspring of goats, but to the category of kids, possibly to the species of goats. This is probably the sense in Ps 114:4, 6 (“lambs”), 147:9 (‘young ravens’’), and Prov 30:17 (“vultures”). 6. Trees. Occasionally a tree or its branch can be described as bén. Thus, in Ps

80:15[16] bén refers to a vine planted by God, while in Gen 49:22 Joseph is described metaphorically as a ben porat, son of fruitbearing, i.e., “a fruitful (branch).” 7. Special uses. bén (and to a large extent bar) is used in a variety of ways, often with attributive significance. (a) Connecting an individual with a place, duties, etc. bén béti, son of my house (cf. Gen 15:3), is “a servant born in the house” in distinction from other types of slaves (Ecel 2:7). (b) Membership of a profession. bén with a term for a profession or the name of

the man connected with (the origin or practice of) a profession indicates a professional group. Thus, the priests (normally [hak]kohnim, e.g., Lev 6:22; 16:33; Josh 3:6; Judg 18:30; Jer 2:26; Mic 3:11; Zech 7:3) are occasionally described as b°né hakkoh*nim, sons of the priests (1 Chron 9:30; Ezra 2:61; Neh 12:35) and more frequently by the name of their founder or ancestor, as b°né ’ah®ron, sons of Aaron (Lev 1:7; 2:2; 3:2; Num 3:32; Josh 21:19; Neh 10:39), sometimes as b°né léwi, sons of Levi (Deut 21:5; 31:9; Ezek 40:46; Mal 3:3), and even as b°né sadok, sons of Zadok (Ezek 40:46; 44:15,

48:11). Similarly, b°né hamm‘s6r°rim, sons of the singers (Neh 12:28), like the more usual hamm®sor°rim (1 Chron 9:33; 2 Chron 5:13; Ezra 2:41; Neh 7:1, 44, 73), means

simply “singers.” So does b°né gorah, sons of Korah (Ps 42:1; 44:1, etc.), and bné ‘asap, sons of Asaph (2 Chron 35:15; Ezra 2:40; Neh 7:44; 11:22), in either case the

name of their ancestor or well-known leader being used. b°né hasX6 “rim, sons of the aad

673

13 # 1201) keepers (Ezra 2:42), is “keepers,” ben h*kamim, son of the wise (Isa 19:11), is “wise one”; ben hérim, son of nobles (Eccl 10:17), is “noble one” and b®né hann‘bi’im, sons

of the prophets (1 Kgs 20:35; 2 Kgs 2:3, 5, 7, 15; 4:1, 38), is “prophets” or, more probably, “disciples of (the) prophets,” based on the ancient (esp. Semitic) idea that the teacher-pupil relationship was conceived of as a father-son relationship (see Isa 19:11: ben malké gedem = “disciple of the kings of old”). (c) Denoting membership of social class. The expression “son of ...” is used with various terms in order to denote the social class to which the individual belongs, or the circumstances to which one is reduced: b°né hatt6sabim, sons of sojourners (Lev 25:45), means “sojourners”; ben nékar, son of foreign lands (Gen 17:12, 27; Exod 12:43; Lev 22:25; 2 Sam 22:45; Neh 9:2; Isa 56:6; Ezek 44:7, 9), indicates “foreign-

ers”; b°né ’eby6n, sons of the poor (Ps 72:4), is “poor ones”; b®né ‘dni, sons of affliction (Prov 31:5), “afflicted ones’; b°né ha‘am, sons of the people (2 Kgs 23:6; 2 Chron 35:5, 7, 12, 13; Jer 17:19 (Q); 26:23), signals “common people”; b®*né ‘ammi, sons of

my people” (Gen 23:11; Judg 14:16), “my people,” and b°né ‘ammeka, sons of your people (Ezek 3:11; 33:2, 12, 17, 30; Dan 12:1), means “‘your people.” To the same effect b°né haggéld, sons of exile (Ezra 4:1; 6:19, 20; 8:35; 10:7, 16), means simply “exiles”; b©né hatta“rubdt, sons of pledges (2 Kgs 14:14; 2 Chron 25:24), “hostages”;

b®né hagedid, sons of troops (2 Chron 25:13), “troops,” and b°né parisé ‘amm*ka, sons of robbers of your people (Dan 11:14), means “robbers among your people.” (d) Figurative expressions. The term “son of ...” is used in a number of figurative or metaphorical expressions, often with a poetic touch. Thus, ben gorni, son of my threshing-floor (Isa 21:10), refers to Israel’s people under the metaphor of threshed corn. Similarly, the fertility of a hillside is expressed by the place’s being described as ben Samen, son of oil/fatness (Isa 5:1); the entity addressed in Isa 14:12 is portrayed as ben Sahar, son of the morning; arrows are described both as ben qgeSet, son of the bow (Job 41:20), and as b©né ’aspatd, sons of the quiver (Lam 3:13), and sparks are called

b£né resep, sons of fire/flame (Job 5:7). (e) Statements of age. bén and bar are often used to express age. Thus, ben §l6Sim, a son of thirty years (Gen 41:46), is “thirty years old” (see further Lev 27:5; 2 Kgs 8:26; Jer 52:1; Dan 6:1); Jonah’s plant is bin layla, a son of the night, i.e., “one night old” (cf. Jon 4:10). (f) Connecting a person with his/her fate. A number of times “son of ...” is used with a word denoting the destiny to which an individual is doomed or may be subject. Thus, bin hakkét, son of beating (Deut 25:2), concerns a person who has been found

guilty and deserves beating; ben mawet, son of death (1 Sam 20:31), and b°né mawet, sons of death (1 Sam 26:16), denote persons who are doomed to death or are deserving of death. Here belongs also Isa 21:10, ben gorni, son of my threshing-floor, i.e., Israel

as subject to harsh punishment. (g) With an attributive (abstract) nom. as a characterization. bén occurs a num-

ber of times in a characteristically Sem. construction together with an (often abstract) nom., in which the individual thus denoted is presented as being characterized or determined by the quality predicated by the nom. The quality may be positive as in ben hayil/b©né hayil, son(s) of valor (Judg 18:2; 1 Sam 14:52; 1 Kgs 1:52; 2 Kgs 2:16; 1 Chron 26:7; 2 Chron 26:17), i.e., “a valiant man”; ben maXkil, a son acting prudently (Prov 10:5), i.e., “a prudent son”; ben mébin, a discerning son (Prov 28:7), i.e., “a wise

674

}3 (# 1201) son”; b*né ta“niigayik, sons of your delight (Mic 1:16), means “the sons/children in which you take delight” or “your dainty sons” (HALAT), or negative as in ben/b°né b‘liyya‘al , son(s) of wickedness (Deut 13:14; Judg 19:22; 20:13; 1 Sam 2:12; 10:27; 1 Kgs 21:10; 2 Chron 13:7) meaning “a wicked fellow”; ben/b°né ‘awld, son(s) of wickedness (Ps 89:23; 1 Chron 17:9), ice., “ungodly man/men”; b®né ‘alwd, sons of disobedience (Hos 10:9), i.e., “disobedient” (see Eph 2:2; 5:6; Col 3:6), and ben mébis, a son causing shame (Prov 10:5). The uproarious Israelites sympathizing with Korah, Dathan, and Abiram are described as b°né meri, sons of rebellion (Num 17:10[25}), while the Moabites who are about to be punished are called b®né 5a’ 6n, sons of tumult

(Jer 48:45). The construction occurs also with animals: thus, in Job 28:8 lions are referred to

as b°né-Sahas, sons of pride, on account of their majestic or stately stride. (h) ben/b£né (ha)’ adam, ben ’i¥, ben ’ ends, and bar ’ ena¥. The expression “sons of man” represents four Sem. forms: ben/b©né (ha)’adam (154x), ben ’i¥ (3x), ben “ends (1x), and bar ’ ends (3x), in all 161 occurrences (see the analytical conspectus in Caragounis, 49). The term “son of man” deviates from other expressions of “son(s) of

...” in that whereas in those expressions the individual referred tentially different from that which is expressed by the word struction “son” and “man” (generic sense) refer to the same man” is essentially “man” or “human being” (i.e., an exemplar

to as “son of ...” is exisin the gen., in this conentity. Hence, “son of of the species “man’’).

The pl. b°né ’adam, sons of man, occurs just once, in Ezekiel (31:14), while the

sg. ben ’adam (which occurs 93x) constitutes God’s address to the prophet as representative, intercessor, and substitute for “the Israelites, to a rebellious nation” (Ezek 2:3).

Of the remaining 66 instances (excepting Dan 7:13) two occur in positive contexts (Ps 80:17 and Isa 56:2), the rest being divided equally between what could be described as negative contexts, according to which the “son of man” is fickle (Num 23:19), a “fool” (Ps 14:1ff.; 53:1ff.), ungodly and deceitful (Ps 12:1f.), “fully set to do evil” (Eccl 8:11), in fact “full of evil’ (Eccl 9:3), and neutral contexts, presenting the “son of man” as insignificant (i.e., “a worm,” Job 25:6), ephemeral (Ps 89:48; 90:3),

powerless (Ps 146:3), etc. qualities that, though not implying active resistance to God, are nevertheless associated with Adam’s fall. In this connection it should be noticed that the first occurrence of “son of man” in point of order is Gen 11:5 (the Babel tower story). This first use probably gives the theological significance of “son of man” in his alienation from God, which is the characteristic sense of the expression in the OT.

The theological difference between “man” and “son of man” seems to be that whereas the former was the product of God’s hands, being created in his likeness (Gen 5:1), the latter is the product of fallen man, produced in human likeness (Gen 5:3) and

epitomizing humanity’s fall. As such the “son of man” becomes not only the object of God’s wrath and punishment, but also of his grace and redemption (ciaPs Si 31:20;

80:17-19; 144:1-3; 145:8-12). The occurrence of kbar ’ena¥ in Dan 7:13 is unique in the OT, because it does not signify a human individual but a heavenly entity, which, in line with the symbolism of that ch., was “dike a human being.” OT scholarship has identified this figure with the pious Jews (the usual view), with angels (Noth, Coppens-Dequeker), with Michael (Collins), and with others. There are insuperable difficulties with each one of these

interpretations. Internal evidence about the structure and concerns of the chapter point

675

}3 # 1201) to an identification with ‘elydnin of 7:18, 22, 25, 27, which is to be differentiated from

‘ely6n as applied to God (Caragounis, 61-81). (i) Son(s) of God. The idea of “sons of God” was widespread in NE polytheism, as well as in Greece. However, Israel’s strict monotheism constituted no fertile soil for the proliferation of such views. Hence, b°né ha’*lohim, etc., seems never to be used of

gods in a pantheon, but more restrictedly of such heavenly beings as are assumed to constitute the divine council and be under the direct suzerainty of ’“/ohim or yhwh. In Gen 6:2 b°né ha’*lohim, sons of God (LXX hyioi theou) have been understood variously as divine beings (by Haag, TDOT 2:157f., who sees Ugar. parallels), as heroes (Dexinger, 37, appealing also to Ugar. parallels), as descendants of Seth (Scharbert), and as gods (Schliesske, 20-32). Later Jewish tradition saw (fallen) angels, which may be a different matter from the original motif (1 En 6:1ff.; Philo, Gigantibus 6; Jub 4:15; 5:1f.; T. Reub 5:6; Josephus, Ant. 1:73). This appears to be the sense in Job 1:6; 2:1 (where also hassatan, the adversary [later named Satan], appears among the “sons of God”) and 38:7, in all of which the LXX has hyioi theou. In Ps 29:1 and 89:7 b©né ’élim, sons of the gods (LXX hyioi theou), may be remnants of polytheistic conceptions (> # 446b). It is striking that though b°né ‘elydn, sons of the Most High, occurs (Ps 82:6), “sons of ...” never occurs with Yahweh. The context of Dan 3:25 implies the polytheistic character of Nebuchadnezzar’s words /°bar ’“lahin, like a son of the gods. (j) Israel as God’s son. The demand that Moses made to Pharaoh to let Israel go was based on Yahweh’s recognition of Israel as b°n? bekori, my firstborn son (Exod 4:22). This relation (which left it implied that the other nations, too, were God’s sons [cf. Deut 32:8]) is also expressed by God’s being presented as Israel’s father (Deut 32:6; Jer 3:4; 31:9). It is this father-son relationship that explains Yahweh’s complaint against Israel for acting corruptly, being “foolish and unwise,” “perverse,” and “unfaithful” (Deut 32:6, 20); “they have rebelled” against him and are “a sinful nation,” “a brood of evildoers, children given to corruption” (Isa 1:2-4). Yet as a father

has compassion on his erring children, so Yahweh affirms his relation to Israel again and again on account of the covenant: “because I am Israel’s father, and Ephraim is my firstborn son” (Jer 31:9); “when Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son” (Hos 11:1). In the allegory of Hosea’s children God finally reaffirms his love: “where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ they will be called ‘sons of the living God’” (Hos 1:10). (k) The king as God’s son. The idea of the Israelite king’s being God’s son is connected with Yahweh’s kingship over Israel (> milk, rule, #4887). The origins of Israelite kingship are undoubtedly more complex than the narrative of 1 Sam 8-10 indicates. Nevertheless, the king was understood to reign as Yahweh’s visible representative. The coregency of God and his king becomes clear from Ps 2:1-3, according to which the rage of the heathen is directed against both Yahweh and his Anointed One (i.e., the king). Hence (and in view of Israel’s son-relationship to Yahweh), the Israelite king had no need of being adopted (an institution that was probably unknown in Israel) or being thought of as a physical son of God (as in Egypt and Mesopotamia, since there is no evidence of sacral kingship in Israel) in order to exercise his kingly rights. God was in a special sense the father of the Davidic king (2 Sam 7:14), especially in view of his covenant (Ps 89:3-4, 35-36), as he was in a more general sense the

676

a3 (# 1215)

father of Israel (his covenant with patriarchs). The descriptions of the “Child ... Son” in the oracle of Isa 9:2-7, as pele’ y6 ‘és ’él gibbér ’abi‘ad Sar-Salém (“Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace”), explodes all bounds of legitimate reference to an ordinary Davidic Messiah, underscoring the bankruptcy of Davidic kingship and the necessity, indeed hope, for an ideal king, the true maSiah (cf. 4QpsDan A*: “[But your son] shall be great upon the earth, make [peace], and all shall serve [him. He shall be called the and by his name shall he be named. He shall be hailed (as) él), and they shall call him the Son of the Most High

[O King! All (men) shall] son of] the [G]reat [God], the Son of God (b°rah di (bar ‘ely6n)” (Fitzmyer,

1973-74, 391-92). Son, daughter: — bén I (son, grandson, member granddaughter, # 1426)

of a group, #1201);

> bat I (daughter,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDNT 8:340-54; TDOT 2:145-65; 332-38; H. J. Boecker, “Anmerkungen zur Adoption im Alten Testament,” ZAW 86, 1974, 86-89; C. C. Caragounis, The Son of Man: Vision and Interpretation, WUNT

38, 1986; J. J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel, 1977; idem, “The

Son of Man and the Saints of the Most High in the Book of Daniel,” JBL 93, 1974, 50-66; G. Cooke, “The Israelite King as Son of God,’ ZAW 73, 1961, 202-25; idem, “The Sons of (the) God(s),” ZAW 76, 1964, 22-47; J. Coppens and L. Dequeker, Le fils de l'homme et les saints du tres-haut en Dan VII, dans les apocryphes et dans le Nouveau Testament, 1961; F. Dexinger,

Sturz der Géttersohne oder Engel vor der Sintflut? 1966; W. Dittenberger, Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum a Guilelmo Dittenbergero condita et aucta, 4 vols. in 5, 3d ed., 1915-24 H. Donner,

“Adoption oder Legitimation?” OrAnt 8, 1969, 87-119; O. Eissfeldt, “Sohnespflichten im Alten Orient,” Syr. 43, 1966, 39-47; J. A. Fitzmyer, “The Contributionof Qumran Aramaic to the Study of the New Testament,” NTS 20, 1973-74, 382-407; J. C. de Moor, An Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit (Religious Texts Translation Series, NISABA 16), 1987; M. Noth, “The Holy Ones of the Most High,” in The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies, tr. D. R. Ap Thomas, 1966; A. Phillips, “The Interpretation of 2 Samuel xii. 5-6,” VT 16, 1966, 242-44; J. Scharbert, “Traditions- und Redaktionsgeschichte von Gn 6, 1-4,” BZ NS 11, 1967, 66-78; W. Schliesske, Gottesséhne und Gottessohn im AT: Phasen der Entmythisierung im AT, BWANT, Sth series, vol. 17, 1973; W. A. VanGemeren, “The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4,” WTJ 43, 1981, 320-48;

A. Viberg, Symbols of Law: A Contextual Analysis of Legal Symbolic Acts in the Old Testament, ConBOT 34, 1992; P. D. Wegner, “A Re-examination of Isaiah IX 1-6,” VT 42, 1992, 103-12; J.

G. Williams, “The Prophetic ‘Father’: A Brief Explanation of the Term ‘Sons of the Prophets’,” JBL 85, 1966, 344-48. Chrys C. Caragounis

ed

rs

1J2 (bnh), q. build, fortify, rebuild, work on; ni.

be built, rebuilt, established (#1215); ]723

(binyan), nom. building (# 1230); MIA? (mibneh), nom. building, structure (hapleg.; # 4445); 1) 3i3(mabnit), nom. structure (conj. # 4447).

ANE.

The vb. bnh (337x in OT) is common in Sem.: Ugar. bny, build, create; Assyr.

bani, build, create; Aram. b®nah and b®na’, build; Moab. bnh (Mesha, lines 9 and 18),

677

rida(# 1215) fortify; Arab. bn’, build; Phoen. bn, build. Derivative noms. are less common, with binyan only in Heb. (7x in OT) and Aram. and mibneh in Heb. (1x in OT) and Phoen.

OT _ 1. With man/woman as builder. (a) Cities. The first recorded efforts of human building activity came after the Fall, when Cain constructed a city (Gen 4:17). As such, Cain’s building a city may foreshadow the events of the Tower of Babel (Gen 11:4). The family of Israel built cities while enslaved in Egypt (Exod 1:11). Cities were at times rebuilt, as in the case of Gezer (1 Kgs 9:17), Jericho (1 Kgs 16:34), and the cities of Benjamin (Judg 21:23). The building, rebuilding, and fortification of Jerusalem is a recurring topic. At times other militarily strategic cities were fortified (1 Kgs 15:17, pe) (b) Houses. Houses for individuals were built (cf. Deut 8:12; 22:8), but not as

much prominence is given to them as to the palaces of kings (Solomon in | Kgs 7:1; Ahab in 1 Kgs 22:39; Qoheleth in Eccl 2:4) and more so to the dwelling place of the Lord. Because the tabernacle of Yahweh was to be portable, it was not to be built (bnh), but rather made (‘sh: Exod 25:8). This may suggest that things built are meant to remain. David desired a more permanent structure for his Lord, making preparation for the temple’s construction (1 Chron 22:2-5; 28:2), but was not able to build it because he was a man of bloodshed (22:6-8). Solomon, on the other hand, being a man of peace

as his name suggests, (1 Chron 22:9-10). It 1:2, 5; Hag 1:2-4, 8). capital of the northern

would be qualified to build the temple to Yahweh in Jerusalem became essential after the Exile that the temple be rebuilt (Ezra Wicked Ahab had constructed a temple for Baal in Samaria, the kingdom (1 Kgs 16:32).

(c) Altars and high places. Noah was the first to build an altar to Yahweh (Gen 8:20), an event that would become for Abraham and other believers a sign of fellowship with God (Gen 12:7, Moses in Exod 17:15; Joshua in Josh 8:30; Gideon in Judg

6:24; Samuel in | Sam 7:17; Elijah in 1 Kgs 18:32) but a sign of feigned obedience for some (Saul in 1 Sam 14:35). In sharp contrast, numerous high places (bam6ét) were constructed (NIV, set up) to offer sacrifices to false gods (Asherah: 1 Kgs 14:23; Baal:

1 Kgs 16:32). Even after such practices had led to the exile of Israel, Judah continued to build high places to Baal and altars to the starry hosts (2 Kgs 21:1-9; Jer 19:5; cf. 2 Kgs 17:7-17). (d) Walls and gates. Individual walls and gates are said to have been built or rebuilt. Jotham rebuilt (bnh) the Upper Gate of the temple (2 Kgs 15:35). Manasseh rebuilt the outer wall of the City of David (2 Chron 33:14). Hezekiah built an extra wall for defensive purposes (2 Chron 32:5). Nehemiah was dedicated to rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem (Neh 2:17). (e) Homes and families. The vb. is used with reference to building or establishing people into homes and families. Thus, the law of levirate marriage was established to build up the family of a deceased man (Deut 25:9). Women are especially significant in this role of building families. Sarah desired to build (bnh) a family through Hagar (Gen 16:3). Ruth is compared to Rachel and Leah, the matriarchs who built (bnh) the

nation of Israel (Ruth 4:11). More than just physical progeny, nourishing and cultivating is involved in Prov 14:1: it is the wise woman who builds up (bnh) her home, in contrast to the foolish one who tears it down. It is important to note several points about the building projects of humans. People build seemingly permanent structures in which to live and worship, yet that

678

m3 (# 1215) which humanity can build, God can easily destroy (Mal 1:4; cf. Amos 3:15; Zech 9:3-4). This is especially true when cities, houses, and places of worship are built unjustly or in direct violation of God’s commands (Jer 22:13; Amos 5:11; Hab 2:12). Even homes cannot be built successfully without the Lord’s involvement and blessing (Ps 127:1). Moreover, building for the glory of God often entails opposition from God’s enemies (Ezra 4:6-16; 5:1-5). Men and women must, therefore, be careful of the

motivational purpose of building as well as the timing (Eccl 3:3). Not exercising care in these matters led Israel astray of the purposes of God, for “the stone the builders rejected has become the capstone” (Ps 118:22) was applied by Jesus to himself (Matt 21:42). 2. With God as builder. (a) Woman.

God built (bnh) Eve from the rib taken

from Adam (Gen 2:22). The process involves a purposeful master craftsman constructing a helper suitable for the man he had carefully formed (ysr), using material from that man. Uehlinger recently called Eve a living work of art (Uehlinger, 90). Because the root bnh can also mean create in Ugar. bny (TDOT 2:166), perhaps it should be so translated in this creation context. (b) Homes and families. God is conaiye dul in the building (bnh) of homes and families (Ps 127:1). Indeed, without his involvement there is no success (Miller, 120). (c) Posterity. God is involved in the establishing of dynasties (Zadok: | Sam 2:35; David: 2 Sam 7:5-16). David had desired to build (bnh) a physical house (temple) for God. Instead, God declared that he would establish (bnh) a house (dynastic lineage)

for David. It has been correctly noted that “the former requires building materials (a dwelling); the second requires people (a dynasty)” (Craig, 172). Indeed, in every classification where God is builder, he is more concerned with people than with buildings. This dynasty would find its greatest King in the person of Messiah. Jeroboam I also could have had a dynasty established for him by God, predicated upon his obedience (1 Kgs 11:37-39). (d) Nations. God is involved in the building and rebuilding of nations, particularly Israel and Judah (Jer 31:4; 33:7; 42:10). The synonym often seen in Jeremiah is nt‘, plant (> #5749; Jer 24:6), which also suggests nourishing and cultivating. (e) Other. God is involved in the establishing (bnh) of love (hesed [# 2876], Ps 89:2), a term associated with the covenants that God makes with his people. In Ps 51:18 God is requested to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, perhaps a metaphor for the reestablishing of David’s credibility as kingly protector after his sin with Bathsheba. 3. Ezekiel’s temple (Ezek 40-43). The only occurrences of the nom. binyan appear in Ezekiel’s depiction of the future temple in chs. 40-43, though the Aram. occurs in Ezra 5:4 with reference to the building of Zerubbabel’s temple. A number of related architectural words appear exclusively in the same depiction of Ezekiel’s temple, such as mibneh, building; ’attiq, gallery (#916); sahip, unexplained meaning (# 8470). Still other related architectural terms are associated almost exclusively with temples and palaces, such as ’iilam III, porch (# 221); geb Il, beam ? (# 1464); loyd, wreaths (# 4324); ‘ab I, canopy (# 6264); §dérd, unexplained meaning (# 8444).

4. Vocabulary for building materials or structures. The following words are rare and are often difficult to identify precisely: poIN(’ alam IID), nom. porch (34x) (# 221). There has been a recent suggestion that ‘alam refers to a portico in the temple (Patrich, 20).

679

rd(# 1215)

PMN (attiq), nom. gallery (5x) (#916). Perhaps an open, elevated platform similar to a balcony. Could it be that this is the origin of the Latin word “atticus,” from which is derived the English “attic”? 23 (géb Il), unexplained meaning (NIV: beams; | Kgs 6:9) (# 1464). MMQ (tapha I), (1x) unexplained; NIV: eaves (# 3258). Gorg has suggested that tapha (1 Kgs 7:9) is a plural form of the Egyptian singular tp-ht, roof (Gorg,

336-39).

m5 (laya), nom. wreaths (3x) (# 4324).

JINTAO (misd’rén), (1x), nom. porch?, privy? (NIV: porch) (# 4997). Halpern reads misdarén in Judg 3:23, ostensibly due to a pretonic reduction in the presence of the directive -ah and suggests the meaning of latrine, or the small room beneath the toilet from which refuse was removed (Halpern, 37). 10 (sippun), (2x) nom. ceiling (# 6212). = (‘ab I), nom. canopy (NIV: overhang; 3x) (# 6264). woe (geres), (51x) nom. board (> #7983). The nom. geres appears in Ugar. grs, nom. teed (I AB, I 7). In most cases associated with the boards of the tabernacle construction, it apparently was found often in concert with other tabernacles of the ANE, especially those of Egypt (Kitchen). TI Tw §°dérd), unexplained (NIV: beams, ranks; 4x) (# 8444).

F)PW (s¢qap), (2x) nom. window (# 9209). LXX_ The word that most commonly translates bnh in the LXX is oikodomed, though the same word translates kwn once (Isa 54:14) and ‘sh twice (2 Sam 7:11; 2 Chron 32:29).

NT

Inthe NT oikodomed is expanded somewhat to include figurative usages. Thus,

the wise man builds his house on the rock, the foolish on the sand (Matt 7:24-26). The

temple of Christ’s body could be rebuilt after three days (Mark 14:58). Christ would build his church (Matt 16:18), a spiritual house comprised of living stones (1 Peter 2:5), which has as its cornerstone the Lord Jesus (1 Peter 2:6-7), the stone rejected by

the Jews (Ps 118:22). This church can build itself up (edify itself) by the proper functioning of its individual members (Eph 4:12); indeed, all things are to be done to build up the church (1 Thess 5:11). Beam, rafter, frame, board: > krutét (beam, #4164); > m°qareh (timberwork, roof, # 5248); > qrh II (lay the beams,

#7936);

> geres (board, frame, #7983);

> rahit (beam,

rafter,

# 8112) Door, gate, threshold: ~ ’ayil (doorpost, #382); ~ ’dmnda (pillar?, doorpost?, #595); > b®riah (bar, # 1378); > delet (door, # 1946); > lal (trapdoor, # 4294); > m°ziizd (doorpost,

#4647); > miptan (threshold, #5159); > masqép (lintel, #5485); # 6214); > strI(door pivot, # 7494); > Sa‘arI (gate, # 9133)

> spp (lie at threshold,

Fortification, citadel, siege-mound, stronghold: > ’armén (citadel, # 810); — bird (citadel, acropolis, # 1072); > bsr III (be inaccessible, # 1307); > dayég (siege-mound, # 1911); > hél (rampart, #2658); > milld’ (terrace, #4864); > misgeret (stronghold, dungeon, rim, table, #4995); > m®sad (stronghold, #5171); > masér II (fortification, fortified city, #5190); > sohérd (rampart, # 6089); > sdkék (mantelet, # 6116); > s*riah (cellar, vault, pit, stronghold, # 7663); > Sgb (be high, fortified, protect, # 8435); > Fortification: Theology

680

DY3 (# 1246) House, dwelling, tabernacle: ~ bayit I (house, dwelling, building, family, dynasty, # 1074); > ySb (dwell, #3782); > ma‘én II (den, dwelling, #5061); > nwh I (rest, #5657); > Skn (settle, # 8905) Palace, temple: ~ ’armon (citadel, #810); ~ bird (citadel, acropolis, #1072); > bayit I (house, dwelling, building, family, dynasty, # 1074); > hékal (palace, temple, # 2121) Window: > hallén (window, # 2707)

BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 2:166-81; K. M. Craig, Jr., “The Characterization of God in 2 Samuel 7:1-17,” Semeia 63, 1993, 159-76; M. Gorg, “Ein weiteres Beispiel hebraisierte Nominalbildung,” Henoch 3, 1981, 336-39; B. Halpern, “The Assassination of Eglon: The First Locked Room Murder Mystery,” BibRev 4/6, 1988, 32-41; K. A. Kitchen, “The Tabernacle—A Bronze Age Artifact,” Erlsr 24 1993, 119*-29* (ed. S. Ahitur and B. A. Levine); P. D. Miller Jr., “Psalm 127—The House That Yahweh Builds,” JSOT 22, 1982, 119-32; A. Moenikes, “Messianismus im Alten Testament,” ZRGG 40, 1988, 289-306; J. Patrich, “Reconstructing the Magnificent Temple Herod Built,” BibRev 4, 5, 1988, 16-29; C. Uehlinger, “Eva als ‘lebendiges Kunstwerk’,” BN 43, 1988, 90-99.

David M. Fouts

1230 (binyan, building), > # 1215 1240 (b‘h II, bring to a boil, protrude), > Baking 1243 (bi ‘Gt, horrors, terrors, alarms),

1246

yo

> # 1286

OY (b‘t), q. kick, disdain (# 1246).

ANE A cognate vb. exists in Syr. b° ‘at, kick. OT _ This term is used twice, in the context of rejecting God (Deut 32:15) and of scorning his sacrifice (1 Sam 2:29). Beating, crushing, grinding: > b‘t (kick, # 1246); > dwk (pound, # 1870); > dk’ (crush, be crushed, # 1917); > dkh (be crushed, # 1920); — dqq (crush, #1990); > him (beat, #2150); > hbt (beat from, # 2468); > thn (grind, mill, # 3221); > kt¥ (grind down, # 4197); > ktt (beat fine, pound up, disperse, # 4198); > mhs (beat to pieces, #4731); > m‘k (press, squeeze, crush, # 5080); > ngp (strike, # 5597); > nk’ (be whipped out, flogged out, #5777); > nkh (be hit, be battered, ruined, destroyed, #5782); > srr I (bind, tie up, # 7674); > r‘s (beat down, # 8320);

> rss (crush, mash, break, # 8368);

> Swp I (crush, # 8789); > Shq (grind down, # 8835)

Rejection, refusal, disgrace, shame: ~ gdp (revile, blaspheme, # 1552); > znh II (reject, # 2396); > m’n (refuse, # 4412); > m’s I (reject, refuse, #4415); > n’s (reject, disdain, treat disrespectfully, #5540); > n’r (abandon, renounce, # 5545); > slh I (despise, reject, # 6136) Cornelis Van Dam

1248 (b° “Zr, cattle, beasts), > #989

Sys (b‘1 I), q. marry, rule over (# 1249); ni. be 1249 722 married; Syd (ba‘al 1), nom. husband, lord, owner (# 1251); 2Y3(ba‘al), nom. name of title of God, Baal, master (> Baal: Theology); 11 223 (ba “1a I) female possessor (# 1266).

681

Sya(# 1249) ANE.

The Sem. root (cf. Akk. bé/, Ugar., Phoen., Aram. b‘/) has the common mean-

ing “lord.” When used in conjunction with the genitive, it designates possession in the sense of “owner of.” Both the masc. and fem. noms. are also widely attested in other ancient Sem. languages. The various Sem. languages show a similar development of the title “lord” as an epithet that eventually serves as a proper name for the deity. In Ugarit, both of the gods Yammu (KTU 1.2:1.17f.) and Haddu are called b‘/, with the latter popularly becoming known as Baal. The goddess ‘Anatu is referred to with the epithet b ‘It (KTU 1.41:5). In Babylonia, Marduk gained the popular designation of bél. OT 1. The vb. b‘/ is employed 16x. Two main uses are recognizable; with respect to a man taking a woman in a marriage relationship, as in Gen 20:3; Deut 21:13; 22:22; 24:1; Prov 30:23, there can be little doubt that in the context and customs of the OT the

husband was considered to be the “lord” and “owner” of his wife. Analogously, with various theological nuances, the same vb. is used to describe the relationship between God and his people. This marriage metaphor is found in Isa 54:1, 5; 62:4-5; Jer 3:14; 31:32. The imagery not only implies the ownership and authority that God has over his people, but God in his perfection exemplifies those characteristics of love, fidelity, and goodness that ideally ought to be evident from every husband. Accordingly, b‘/, marry, in Jer 3:14; 31:32 must not be mistaken to convey a sense of harshness (b‘l, rule,

mastery over). The OT imagery anticipates the NT fulfillment, where Christ is revealed as the loving, sacrificial Lord of his bride, the church (Eph 5:25-27). 2. Isa 26:13 and Mal 2:11 represent variations of the theme of a “marriage” between deity and people. Israel is “ruled” or “married” by other lords, and Judah “marries” the daughter of a foreign god. Such situations describe the religious infidelity of God’s people. Jeremiah and Hosea strongly condemned the people’s infatuation with Ba‘al because Yahweh was, spiritually speaking, her husband. 3. The enigmatic reference to the activity of Joash and Saraph in Moab, as recorded in a genealogy of Judah (1 Chron 4:22), would seem to indicate that these men lived as “lords” in foreign territory for a period of time. 4. The nom. ba‘al (masc.) has a primary meaning associated with its verbal counterpart, i.e., one who owns or has possession of something is the “lord” or “master” of that which is possessed, hence expressions such as “the owner of the ox” (Exod 21:28) or “the master of a house” (22:8[7]). The “husband,” the ba‘al, was one who “possessed” a wife. Though such terminology and practices may seem objectionable today, this idea realistically reflects life in Israel and in surrounding nations, where men acquired wives. At times a purchase price was paid to the family of the bride; in other circumstances a slave girl could be bought to be one’s wife. A girl or woman captured in war could also be taken as a wife, or she could be purchased from the captor by another man to become his wife. The word b‘/ is frequently used in the OT in an idiomatic sense to designate participation, affiliation, or partnership in a certain association or group, e.g., confederates in a covenant (Gen 14:13), citizens of a particular place (Josh 24:11; Judg 9:2; 20:5, to list but a few examples). By extension, the idiom could be used of the archers, as ones who have arrows (Gen 49:23); and the bird, as one who has wings (Eccl 10:20); one who has sworn an oath is referred to as he has an oath (Neh 6:18). From

these idioms it is evident that the linguistic progression of the word b‘/ is such that here

682

WY3(# 1277) and in similar expressions the aspect of “possession” or “ownership,” though etymologically important, is of minimal significance. 5. Whereas the nom. b‘/ occurs 84x in the OT, the fem. counterpart ba‘““Id is only attested in three verses. In 1 Kgs 17:17 it refers to a woman who owns a house. This reference is comparable to b‘] when it designates an owner or master of a house. More idiomatic are the other references in 1 Sam 28:7 and Nah 3:4 regarding a mistress of necromancy or witchcraft. P-B_ The root is used in QL; for late Heb. and a similar range of meanings see Jastrow 1:182. Property, possession: > ““huzzd (property, #299); > b‘l I (marry, rule over, own, # 1249); > migneh (livestock, property, # 5238); > rk¥ (acquire property, # 8223) Male: ~ ’adam (Adam, people, # 132); > ’? I (man, husband, # 408); > ’*nd¥ I (men, single man, # 632); > ’as?¥ (man, #861); > geber I (young man, # 1505); > zakar (male, # 2351); > m*tim I (men, people, # 5493); > na ‘ar (boy, #5853)

Female:

~ ’isSd (woman,

> na“ra I (girl, (lady, # 8721)

#851);

> g“bird/g°beret (lady, queen, mistress, # 1485/1509);

#5855); > n°qéba (female, #5922);

> pilegex (concubine, #7108);

> sidda

BIBLIOGRAPHY CAD 2:194; TDOT 2:181-92; THAT 1:327-30; TWOT 1:119-21; M. C. A. Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds, 1990, 274-75, 300-304; I. Mendelsohn, “The Family in the Ancient Near East,” BA 11, 24-40. William T. Koopmans

1251 (ba‘al I, husband, lord), > # 1249

1266 (ba “ld I, female possessor), > # 1249

“YS

(b‘r I), g. burn,

catch

or take fire, be

a ies ignited, blaze up, scorch, singe, kindle, inflame; pi. light, kindle, ignite, keep a fire burning, burn down; pu. be burning; hi. kindle, burn up, set on fire, reduce to ashes (# 1277); 173(b° ra), nom. fire, conflagration (hapleg.; # 1282).

ANE The vb. occurs in Ugar. br, burn; Arab. bgr, have an unquenchable thirst; wagi/ara, be hot, angry. OT 1. This vb. occurs frequently in a variety of conjugations, but in different contexts and with different shades of meaning. It is often used to describe straightforward burning, such as in Jer 36:22, where it refers to a fire burning in the brazier before

which Jehoiakim was sitting in his winter house while Jeremiah’s scroll was being read to him. The vb. is also used in Ezek 5:2, part of a problematic passage in which the prophet is instructed to perform a symbolic action: He is told to burn a third part of his hair in the middle of the city at the conclusion of his mimic siege, an action that symbolizes the death of the entrapped inhabitants through famine and pestilence during the forthcoming Babylonian siege (v. 12a). According to Exod 22:6[5], part of the Covenant Code (20:22-23:33), when a fire gets out of control so that it destroys another’s

683

3

(# 1277)

crops, then the culpable person “who started the fire” (NIV), hammab ‘ir ’et-habb* érda, is obliged to make restitution. In Judg 15:5, Samson is said the have “lit” (NIV [wayyab‘er]) torches attached to the tails of 300 foxes (jackals?) and, by letting the animals loose in the fields of the Philistines, “he burned up” [wayyab‘ér] the enemy’s crops, vineyards, and olive groves (some, e.g., Moore, 341, Bruce, 271, see a parallel here with the annual Roman feast of

the corn-goddess Ceres, at which foxes with burning torches tied to their tails were hunted in the circus, but, as Myers [787] and Cundall [168] rightly point out, the connection between the Samson story and the later Roman festival is purely circumstantial). Judg 15:14 describes how, after the spirit of Yahweh had come upon Samson, the two new ropes attached to his arms by Judahites prior to handing the fugitive over to the Philistines “became as flax that has caught fire” (RSV) so that his bonds melted from his hands.

In Exod 35:3, part of the Sabbath law (vv. 1-3), it is forbidden even to “light” a

fire on the Sabbath, a prohibition not promulgated elsewhere in the OT, although it is implied in 16:23. The vb. is used of burning in a cultic context: in Lev 6:12[5] and Neh 10:34[35], where the reference is to the wood for the altar fire; in 2 Chron 4:20; 13:11,

which speak of the gold lamps burning before the inner sanctuary; and in Jer 7:18, which describes how fire was kindled by apostate Judahites to bake cake offerings to the queen of heaven (precise identity unknown, but thought by many to be the Babylonian-Assyrian goddess Ishtar, goddess of the star Venus [cf. the Canaanite Astarte, Greek Aphrodite, Roman Venus], although other suggestions have been made [see, e.g., Clements, 1988, 47, who thinks the reference is probably to the goddess Anat, the

consort of Baal]). According to Isa 40:16, the whole of Lebanon, famed for its magnificent forests, would not suffice for altar fires worthy of the Creator, while in Ezek 39:9-10, the magnitude of Yahweh’s victory over Gog’s huge armies is emphasized by the vast

quantity of the enemy’s discarded military equipment, which will provide Israel with enough fuel to make fires for seven years. In Isa 44:15, part of a brilliant satire against idolatry, the absurd inconsistency of the idolator is highlighted by describing how the same tree used for carving a god serves as a source of fuel for warmth and baking. Isa 50:11 seems to be a warning to those who walk by the light of the fire of their own kindling—persecutors (Wardle, 466; Westermann, 235), the apostate (Smart, 174), those sceptical of the prophetic word (McKenzie, 116), or the self-reliant, who trust in their own strength rather than depending totally on God (Kidner 1972, 617)—that they will become the victims of their own fire. 2. In 2 Chron 28:3, b‘r Tis used in the context of human sacrifice. Ahaz, king of

Judah, who is severely condemned for his failure to do what was right in the sight of God, is accused of having revived the barbarous custom of human sacrifice: In accordance with the abominable practices of some neighboring countries, Ahaz “burnt his sons in the fire’ (NEB; REB). Some emend MT wayyab‘ér, and he burned, to wayya “bér, and he made to pass through, which is the same vb. used in the parallel text in 2 Kgs 16:3 (see, e.g., BHS). Some commentators (e.g., R. North, 380) think the

reference may be to some kind of ritual ordeal or branding rather than burning to death. Coggins (258) argues that the Chronicler deliberately transposed the first and second root letters of the vb. in order to turn Ahaz’s crime into one of human sacrifice, but

684

“WW(# 1277) others (e.g., Dillard, 218) think that the change in vb. was caused by simple metathesis rather than by tendential modification. At any rate, it would appear that the rite of child sacrifice, which was practiced by surrounding peoples (2 Kgs 3:27; 17:31), was not only resorted to in Israel in times of extreme adversity (see, e.g., Judg 11:34-40; cf.,

Gen 22), but became a not uncommon feature of religious worship in the latter period of the kingdom of Judah (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 17:17; 21:6; 23:10; Jer 7:31; Ezek 16:20-21;

Mic 6:7). In the Holiness Code, Israelites are forbidden to engage in the pagan rite of child sacrifice to Molech (Lev 18:21; 20:1-5). While the existence of a god Molech has

been questioned by Eissfeldt and others, the two independent studies by Heider and Day have concluded that there was an underworld god Molech whose cultus included the immolation of children. 3. b‘r Lis also used figuratively of a burning inner compulsion to speak out. In Jer 20:9, the prophet, bordering on blasphemy, complains that God exerts irresistible pressure on him so that he cannot refrain from proclaiming the divine message, even when to do so earns him contempt and scorn. In Ps 39:3[4], as a result of the burning agony caused by brooding over his unbearable distress, an individual who had previously refrained from speaking of his afflictions for fear of encouraging those who

impugned or ridiculed Yahweh’s concern for justice and goodness, is compelled to be disloyal to his resolution and pours out his complaint to God (Weiser, 328). 4. b‘r Lis applied to enemies in Ps 118:12, where the speaker—probably a king who went to the temple to offer thanks for a military victory—describes how the opposing forces swarmed around him like bees and “blazed like a fire of thorns” (RSV; NRSV; cf. JB). This translation is obtained by emending MT, dé “ki, they were extinguished (which is retained by NIV), to bari, they blazed. In Isa 9:18[17], the vb. is used of wickedness that “burns like a fire” (NIV; RSV; JB; TEV), while in Isa 62:1, it

is applied to the salvation of Zion which is to go forth “like a blazing torch” (NIV; NEB; REB). 5. b‘r Lis used to convey the heat of human emotions. In Hos 7:4, it refers to the burning compulsion of those inflamed with lust for power, success, and autonomy; the heat of treachery and idolatrous passions drives Ephraim’s leaders to rely on selfsufficiency and political maneuverings instead of depending completely on Yahweh and remaining obedient to his covenant (Stuart, 119). Hos 7:6 describes how hearts burning with intrigue fuel a passion or emotional frenzy that, like a superheated oven, smolders at night and, in the morning, “blazes like a flaming fire” (NIV; RSV; NRSV).

In Esth 1:12, Queen Vashti’s refusal to obey the royal command enraged King Xerxess and “his anger burned within him” (RSV; NRSV). 6. Quite often b‘r I is used in descriptions of theophany, which is scarcely surprising since fire was commonly conceived to be the form of the divine appearance (see, e.g., Gen 15:17; Exod 13:21; 19:16, 18; 20:18; 24:17; Judg 6:21; Ps 104:4 [cf. 2 Thess 1:7; 1 Tim 6:16]; Ezek 1:27). As Rylaarsdam (871) points out, the halo of the saints is a remnant of the flame, indicating God’s bodily manifestation. Exod 3:2-3, part of the account of the call and commission of Moses, describes how the angel of the Lord (almost certainly, as seems clear from wv. 4, 6, a reverential synonym for God’s own presence rather than a reference to a heavenly being subordinate to God; cf. Gen 16:7, 13; 21:17; Judg 6:11, 14, 16) appeared to Moses at Horeb in a flame of fire emanating from a bush that, while it was “blazing” (JB; NRSV), was not consumed. Fire is

685

“U3 (# 1277) an ideal symbol for the manifestation of God for one or more of a variety of reasons: It is an emblem of purity (cf. Jones, 123; Cole, 64); it has a destructive property which is threatening and dangerous

(Cole, 64; cf., Davies, 272; Manley

and Harrison, 213;

Miller, 1990, 59); it has a numinous quality (Blenkinsopp, 97); its radiance suggests the glory (Miller, 1990, 59) or awesome power (Snaith, 226) of God; it symbolizes the elemental forces under the control of the majestic God (Manley and Harrison, 212);

and the height of the flames can be thought to make a link between earth and heaven (Stalker, 212).

Fire played a significant role in the mythology of the ANE (Hillers; Miller, 1965). The motif of the gods using fire against their enemies was widespread. Fire is closely associated with the divine beings who attended the great gods and seems to have been used as some sort of weapon (Miller, 1965, 259). Lightning is called “the fire of God” (Job 1:16), “the fire of/from the LORD” (Num 11:1; 16:35; 1 Kgs 18:38), “fire from heaven” (2 Kgs 1:10, 12, 14), or fire “from the LORD out of heaven” (Gen 19:24). In Deut 4:11; 5:23; and 9:15, the vb. is used of Sinai-Horeb burning with fire

during the revelation of the mysterious, transcendent, ineffable, and wholly other Yahweh, who, in keeping with the aniconic nature of much of Hebraic theology, was “invisible as to. form, but luminous in spoken revelation” (Davies, 272). The juxtaposition of bright burning fire and thick black darkness highlights the paradoxical nature of the divine presence: Yahweh is both present and hidden, accessible and mysterious, immanent and transcendent (Miller, 1990, 59; on this paradox, see, especially, Clements [1965] and Terrien). As Craigie (1983a, 133) points out, the memory of this

theophany, which inspired such terror in the people as they beheld the awesome sight of the phenomena surrounding the divine presence, became a common feature of many hymns and poetic passages (Deut 33:2; Judg 5:5; Hab 3:3; Ps 68:8[9]). Ezek

1:4-28a records a vision of God’s effortlessly mobile throne chariot, in

which the prophet, using symbolic and highly figurative language for spiritual realities made real to him through the physical senses (Brownlee, 10), recreates his experience of the divine glory, the awesome and overwhelming radiance surrounding Yahweh. In 1:13 is a description of four celestial creatures who supported the platform bearing Yahweh’s throne and whose appearance “was like burning coals of fire” (NIV; cf. NEB; REB; according to RSV, NRSV, and JB, the flaming brands were in the midst of

the four creatures). The vision of the celestial palanquin coming to rest in the distant place of exile was a necessary theological corrective of the popular one-sided doctrine of immanence, which, with its false confidence in the static location of the divine throne in Jerusalem and misplaced trust in the protection that this was thought to guarantee, not only obscured the reality of Yahweh’s freedom to act towards his people in judgment as well as in mercy, but also led to the belief that the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC constituted a denial of Yahweh’s presence in Israel’s midst (Clements, 1965, 100-101).

7. b‘r L occurs most commonly in descriptions of the divine anger. The wrath and destruction of the divine warrior Yahweh is frequently conveyed by the image of the devouring fire (see, esp., Miller, 1965; 1975, 31-32, who demonstrates the significant role played by fire in the mythology of Canaan and Israel). In Ps 18, which incorporates many features of the account of the theophany on Sinai, a beleaguered worshiper, probably a king, gives thanks that, when he cried out in his extremity for

686

“2 (# 1277) divine assistance, God intervened dramatically to deliver him from mortal danger.

God’s reaction to the assaults of death and disorder on his servant was so violent (Craigie, 1983b, 174) that it caused terrifying upheavals of nature (vv. 7-15[8-16] and par. 2 Sam 22:8-16). The awesomeness of this manifestation of divine wrath is vividly expressed in terms strikingly similar to the description of leviathan (Job 41:18-21[10-13]): As infuriated Yahweh descended to the earth, smoke flared from his nostrils, devouring fire flashed from his mouth (cf. ANET, 62, 1. 96, where it is said of

Marduk, principal god of the Babylonian pantheon, that fire blazed forth when he moved his lips), and the dazzling brilliance radiated by his presence resembled glowing coals that flamed forth (Ps 18:8[9] and par. 2 Sam 22:9). As Stuhlmueller (442) points out, the symbols used in Ps 18:7-8[8-9] and par. 2 Sam 22:8-9 conveys a mysterious divine presence that could not be rationalized. Like fire, the divine wrath is quickly kindled against arrogant rebels, who mali-

ciously defy or thwart his will (see, e.g., Ps 2:12, where those who conspire against Yahweh’s anointed ruler are exhorted to submit to God by doing obeisance to his king rather than face certain destruction when the divine fury is unleashed against them). Many modern Christians need to be reminded of the reality of the divine fury that is kindled by the need to punish those who have gravely and habitually offended God (Cody, 104; cf., Zimmerli, 425). Neither capricious nor vindictive, the divine judgment

is necessary to shield those who trust in God from the attacks of powerful, ruthless adversaries and to ensure the security and happiness of all who take refuge in him (Ps 2:12c; see Kidner, 1979, 53; Rogerson and McKay, 22). Yahweh’s wrath is a devouring fire, a flame that sets ablaze (Ps 83:14[15]). He is not only the light of Israel, illu-

minating the way along which his people should walk (Isa 2:5), but also an unquenchable conflagration that ravages Israel’s enemies as a raging fire consumes a forest. In Isa 10:17; 30:27, 33; and Nah 2:13[14], Assyria is the victim; in Isa 34:9, the

object of the divine displeasure is Moab, here standing as the classic example of the enemy of God and his people (so also Edom, cf. Isa 63:1-6; Jer 49:7-22; Ezek 25:12-14; Obad; Ps 137:7; Lam 4:21-22; on ‘damn-Edom’ theology, see, esp., Cresson), whose everlasting desolation illustrates the fate of all of God’s enemies.

However, in the majority of texts, Israel is the target threatened with destruction. Divine election cannot be relied on for deliverance when the people of Israel act in such a way as to forfeit their right to Yahweh’s protection. According to Num 11:1-3—part of a series of narratives describing the disaffection, grumbling, and inconstancy of the rebellious people during the wilderness wanderings—the place Taberah (“burning’’) derived its name from an incident when the fire of Yahweh’s anger, kindled by the ingratitude and self-pity of the faithless Israelites who made complaints against him, burned at the extremities of the camp (vv. 1, 3), abating only after Moses had successfully interceded (v. 2). In Ps 106, a review of Israel’s history in which Israel’s inexplicable guilt is contrasted with Yahweh’s inexhaustible mercy (Stuhlmueller, 481), v. 18 recalls the rebellion instigated by Dathan and Abiram in the wilderness (Num 16:1-35), testifying how this led not only to the death of these men but also to the destruction through fire and flame of their followers (v. 18). Ps 106 reminds the religious community that despite the unremitting perversity, obtuseness, and forgetfulness of the people throughout history (vv. 7, 13-14, 19-21, 24-25, 28-29, 32,

687

WS (# 1277) 34-39, 43), Yahweh has constantly demonstrated his loyal love, forgiving their disobedience and showing them mercy (vv. 8, 15, 23, 30, 44-46).

In Isa 1:27-31, which has probably been influenced by the conception of Yahweh’s fire of judgment (Kaiser, 22), rebels, sinners, and all who forsake Yahweh are

warned that they will become as inflammable as the parched terebinths and gardens associated with their illicit pagan practices and that their idolatrous deeds will provide the spark that will set them ablaze (v. 31; not all commentators are convinced that the reference here is to the fertility cult: some, e.g., Jensen, 232, think that the reference is

to the property coveted by the rich, while Kidner [1972, 592] maintains that the oaks and gardens stand for human strength and organization). In Isa 6:9-13, the prophet is informed that God intends to destroy his people completely, so that if a tenth of the population should survive the first onslaught, these survivors would be burned again (as Gray, 111 maintains, the translation “it will be a pasture,” accepted by, e.g., Kaiser, 72, 85, is not convincing; on this, see, esp., Watts, 69, and the literature cited there), in

the same way as the stump of a felled tree is burned to remove it completely from the landscape (v. 13).

The symbol of fire occurs in several texts dealing with the Babylonian invasion of Judah. In some passages, Judah is issued a solemn warning to repent in order to avert the coming destruction (Jer 4:4; 7:20; 21:12; Ezek 20:48[21:4]). In Jer 4:1-4, the

people are informed that divine forgiveness is contingent on their response to the exhortation to repent, to purge and purify themselves, to remove pagan shrines, and to . recognize Yahweh’s exclusive claim by swearing in his name in truth, justice, and uprightness. Should the people ignore this warning, God’s anger will blaze up as an inextinguishable fire (v. 4). Some commentators (e.g., Carroll, 159 and Clements, 1988, 39-43) think that the community addressed here consists of the survivors of the

destruction of Jerusalem, who are being warned by the Deuteronomist(s) that a failure to be receptive to Yahweh will result in the outpouring of the divine anger. In Jer 21:12; 22:1-5, the royal house, which had become the object of a false faith and the basis for an illusory complacency, is warned that destruction will be averted and the Davidic dynasty preserved only if the royal duties of upholding justice and delivering the oppressed are fulfilled. Failure to administer justice will result in the divine wrath flashing forth like fire with none to quench it (21:12). In 7:16-20 the people’s apostasy has reached such a magnitude that Jeremiah is both informed that the unquenchable divine wrath will be poured out (v. 20) and forbidden to engage in intercession (7:16; cf. 11:14; 14:11). As is the case with Jer 4, some commentators (e.g., Clements, 1988, 49) maintain that Jer 7 was intended by the deut. editor(s) to confront those who had

survived the Babylonian onslaught with the reality that the grim tragedies that had befallen them were a direct and inevitable result of their endless perversions of the essential truths of the faith and misrepresentations of the nature and demands of God. The failure to respond to these warnings with sincere penitence resulted in the fire of Yahweh’s wrath being poured out on his incorrigible people (Isa 42:25; Jer 44:6; Lam 23); Ezek 20:45-49[21:1-5], an oracle against the south (i.e., Judah), contains a men-

acing warning

of an irresistibly

destructive

conflagration,

kindled

by Yahweh

(20:48[21:4]; cf., 20:47[21:3], where, however, a different vb. is used), the blazing

flame of which will spread mercilessly from south to north, devouring the entire

688

“YS (# 1277)

population, both the righteous and the wicked (the green tree and the dry, 20:47[21:3], is a merism, a Hebrew idiom denoting an entire range, from one extreme to the other).

The metaphor of fire is frequently used in the book of Ezekiel of God’s inexorable

judgment (see, e.g., 5:4; 10:2, 6-7; 15:4-7; 16:41; 19:12, 14; 21:31-32[36-37]; 23:25,

47; 24:10, 12; 30:8, 14, 16; 39:6). Occasionally, Israelites who are experiencing the heat of the divine anger ask God how much longer his anger will burn. Ps 79, which probably addresses the theological crisis posed by the tragedy of Jerusalem’s destruction by the Babylonians, gives honest expression to several, sometimes contradictory, reactions (vv. 5-12). The question about the duration of Yahweh’s anger, which burns like fire (v. 5), is followed by

a cry for vengeance (vv. 6-7), a plea for divine compassion and forgiveness (vv. 8-9), and an appeal to the divine zealousness (vv. 10, 12). The city and temple have been destroyed, the Davidic dynasty has come to an end, family and friends have perished, and, at least in the eyes of some, events suggest that Yahweh has either abandoned his people or been defeated in battle. Amidst the death, confusion, and isolation, the psalmist asks why God’s anger continues to burn and appeals to him to show himself to be the God the people has always known (Tate, 302). In 79:5 the impassioned question “How long, O LORD?” characteristic of many laments (see, e.g., 6:3[4]; 13:1[2]; 74:10; 80:4[5]; 89:46[47]; 90:13; 94:3; cf. 44:23-24[24-25]), introduces the transition from a

lament to a supplication. In 89:46[47] the same question is the connecting link between a lamentation and a prayer for deliverance. Ps 89, which consists of three sections cobbled together by the key words of covenant, steadfast love, and fidelity, ends with a long lament that seems to reproach Yahweh for having reneged on his promises concerning the Davidic dynasty by permitting a humiliating military defeat (vv. 38-45[39-46]). In 89:46[47], as in 79:5, Yahweh

is asked how long his wrath will

“burn like fire.” The symbol of fire occurs in descriptions of the judgment to be meted out in the day of Yahweh (cf. Isa 29:6; 34:8-10; Amos 7:4). Mal 4:1[3:19] describes the coming day of Yahweh, which will burn like an oven; at its advent, all the arrogant and all evil-

doers will be burned up like stubble and left with neither root nor branch, in contrast to the righteous, who will be protected, healed, and vindicated (Mal 4:2-3[3:20-21)]). 8. Isa 43:2, which is a remarkable contrast to 42:25, where God set Israel on fire in the heat of his anger, shows that judgment and mercy are the obverse and reverse of the same coin. Here the exiles are assured that, having chastised his people, God will now protect them from all dangers and hostile elements, including the threat posed by fire. P-B___ The vb. is well attested, occurring in both Heb. (b‘r, [clear]; burn; be empty; eat up; pi. clear, remove; clear, eat up; start a fire, enkindle; hi. start/entertain a fire; clear a field; ho. be rekindled, burn again) and in Aram. (b° ‘ar, b°‘ér, burn; remove; dispose of; pa. and af. enkindle, ignite). The nom. b° érd, fire, conflagration, is also found (Jastrow 1:182-83).

Burning, blazing, glowing, scorching, singeing: ~ b‘r I (burn, blaze up, be consumed, # 1277); > gahelet (burning charcoal, # 1625); ~ dig (set on fire, burn, hotly pursue, # 1944); + hmr III (be in ferment, be heated, be red, glow, blaze, # 2813); > hrr I (glow, blaze, # 3081); + yst (light, kindle, ignite, burn, scorch, # 3675); > yqd (burn, kindle, # 3678); > kwh (burn, blaze, singe, #3917);

> /ht I (burn, glow, blaze, #4265);

> nsq (catch fire, be kindled, burn,

689

“3 (# 1279) #5956); > swt (light, kindle, ignite, set in flames, #7455); > gdh (kindle, light, ignite, set ablaze, catch or take fire, # 7706); > srp (burn, scorch, cauterize, # 8596) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDNT 3:642-44; TDOT 2:201-5; J. Blenkinsopp,

“Deuteronomy,”

in NJBC,

1990, 94-109;

J. Bright, “Isaiah—I,” in Peake, 1964, 489-515; W. H. Brownlee, Ezekiel 1-19, 1986; F. F. Bruce, “Judges,” in NBC, 1972, 252-76; R. P. Carroll, Jeremiah: A Commentary, OTL, 1986; R. E. Clements, God and Temple, 1965; idem, Jeremiah, 1988; A. Cody, Ezekiel, with an

Excursus on Old Testament Priesthood, 1984; R. J. Coggins, The First and Second Books of the Chronicles, 1976; A. Cole, Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC, 1973; P. C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, 1983 (1983a); idem, Psalms 1-50, 1983 (1983b); B. C. Cresson, “The Condemnation of Edom in Postexilic Judaism,” in J. M. Efird ed., The Use

of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays: Studies in Honor of William Franklin Stinespring, 1972, 125-48; A. E. Cundall, “Judges: An Introduction and Commentary,” in A. E. Cundall and L. Morris, Judges; Ruth, 1973, 7-215; G. H. Davies, “Deuteronomy,” in Peake, 269-84;

J. Day, Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament, 1989; R. B. Dillard, 2 Chronicles, WBC, 1987; G. B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah, 1975; G. C. Heider, The Cult of Molek: A Reassessment, 1985; D. R. Hillers, “Amos 7,4 and

Ancient Parallels,” CBO 26, 1964, 221-25; J. Jensen (and W. H. Irwin), “Isaiah 1-39,” in NJBC, 229-48; H. R. Jones, “Exodus,” in NBC, 1972, 115-39; O. Kaiser, Isaiah 1-12, 1977; D. Kidner, “Isaiah,” in NBC,

1972, 588-625; idem, Psalms I-72, 1979; E. J. Kissane, The Book of Isaiah

Translated from a Critically Revised Hebrew Text with Commentary, 1960; G. A. F. Knight, Servant Theology: A Commentary on the Book of Isaiah 40-55, 1984; J. L.McKenzie, Second Isaiah: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, 1968; G. T. Manley and R. K. Harrison,

“Deuteronomy,” in NBC, 1972, 201-29; P. D. Miller, “Fire in the Mythology of Canaan and Israel,” CBQ 27, 1965, 256-61; idem, The Divine Warrior in Early Israel, 1975; idem, Deuteronomy,

1990; G. F. Moore, A Critical and Exegetical

Commentary

on Judges, 2d ed., 1918;

J. M. Myers, “The Book of Judges: Introduction and Exegesis,” JB, 1952, 2:675-826; C. R. North, The Second Isaiah: Introduction, Translation and Commentary to Chapters XL-LV, 1967; idem, Isaiah 40-55, 1971; R. North, “The Chronicler: 1-2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah,” in NJBC, 1990, 362-98; J. N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah Chapters 1-39, NICOT, 1986; J. W. Rog-

erson and J. W. McKay, Psalms 1-50, 1977; J. C. Rylaarsdam, “The Book of Exodus: Introduction and Exegesis,” in JB, 1952, 2:831-1099; J. D. Smart, History and Theology in Second Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 35, 40-66, 1967; N. H. Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers, 1967; D. M. G. Stalker, “Exodus,” in Peake, 1964, 208-40; D. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 1987; C. Stuhlmueller, “Psalms,” in HBC, 1988, 433-94; M. E. Tate, Psalms 51-100, 1990; S. Terrien, The Elusive Presence: Toward a New Biblical Theology, 1978; W. L. Wardle, “Isaiah XL-LXVI,” in Peake, 1920, 460-73; J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1-33, 1985; A. Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary, 1965; C. Westermann, Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary, 1969; O. C. Whitehouse, Isaiah I-XXXIX,

1905; W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 1-24, 1979. Robin Wakely

1278 (b‘r IL, graze, ruin, sweep away), > # 8286

1279

sp5

WA (b‘r IV) ba ‘ar,q. be stupid; ni. prove stupid (# 1279);

690

WY (ba‘ar), stupid (# 1280).

WI (# 1279) ANE The root b‘r IV is derived from b° ?r, “beast, cattle.” It is attested by Arab. ba‘ir, “camel,” Syr. b° ‘ira, “Camel,” OSA b‘r, “beast,” Eth. bé‘ér, “beast, ox,” (Ringgren, TDOT 2:201; Saebg, THAT 1:837; HALAT 1:140).

OT

The word ba‘ar refers to a stupid man who does not have the rationality that

differentiates men from animals (Ps 73:22). This word occurs only 5x in the OT, and it

is found in Proverbs and the Wisdom texts in Psalms. Three times it is used as a nom. (Ps 49:11; 73:22; Prov 12:1), twice as an adj. (Ps 92:7; Prov 30:2). In most cases NEB has the translation of “brutish” or “brute.” Its meaning is synonymous with k‘sil (“fool”) and opposite to hakam, wise (> #2681); however, all of them must die (Ps 49:10[11]; 92:6[7]). Agur says that he is ba‘ar, does not have binat ’adam (“human intelligence”; NJPSV), has not learned hokmd (“wisdom’’), and lacks da‘at q°dosim (“the knowledge of the holy one” [McKane, 646]; Prov 30:2-3; cf. Ps 92:6[7]). The

ba‘ar is the opposite of one who loves discipline and knowledge; he hates reproof (Prov 12:1). The vb. b‘r occurs 7x in the OT, and it is always found in the Prophets except once (Ps 94:8). When the vb. b‘r is used, it connotes deficiency in moral and religious, rather than intellectual, aspects. It refers to those who do not fear the Lord and do not desire his wisdom. pharaoh’s counselors are “wilim (“foolish”), they give stupid (b‘r ni. part. fem.) advice (Isa 19:11). The vb. b‘r is used together with ks/ to describe idol worshipers who are “stupid and foolish” (Jer 10:8). Every goldsmith “becomes stupid” (b‘r) and ignorant (midda‘at), and is humiliated (hobis; NEB “discredited’”’) by his foolish enterprise (Jer 10:14[=51:17]). The rulers of Israel never consult the Lord and

“become stupid” (b‘r; Jer 10:21). In Ps 94, bo “rim (q. part. pl.; v. 8) are wicked men (v. 3), evildoers (vv. 4, 16); they are the arrogant oppressors, who do not acknowledge the omniscience of the Lord (vv. 4-7). Folly, fool, madness, shameless: > ’“wil I (foolish, fool, #211); > b‘r IV (be stupid, # 1279); > hil Ill (be confused, foolish, behave like mad, #2147); > ksl I (be foolish, #4071); > [hh (behave like a madman, # 4263); > nbi II (act disdainfully, #5571); > skl (behave foolishly, make foolish, frustrate, # 6118); > pth I (be inexperienced, be naive, deceive, persuade, # 7331); > g‘ (raving, crazy, # 8713); > tpl I (talk nonsense, # 9520) Knowledge, discernment, shrewd, wisdom: ~ byn (understand, discern, # 1067); > hkm (become wise, act wisely, # 2681); — fm (taste, test, sense, discern, #3247); > yd‘ I (observe, care about, # 3359); > nkr (pretend, be recognized, #5795); > ‘rm II (be cunning, be crafty, make crafty, # 6891); > ski (have success, understand, make wise, act with insight, # 8505) BIBLIOGRAPHY

IDB 2:303-4; ISBE 2:331; TDOT 2:201, 203-4; THAT 1:837; 2:825; T. Donald, “The Semantic Field of ‘Folly’ in Proverbs, Job, Psalms, and Ecclesiastes,” VT 13, 1963, 285-92; W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 332, 335-36, 342-43; H-J. Kraus, Psalms 60-150, 1989, 240-41;

S. A. Mandry, There Is No God! (A Study of the Fool in the OT, Particularly in Proverbs and Qoheleth), 1972; W. McKane, Proverbs, 1970, 441; W. O. E. Oesterley, The Book of Proverbs, 1929, 90-91, 269; M. E. Tate, Psalms 51-100, 1990, 483, n. 8.a.

Chou-Wee Pan 1280 (ba‘ar, stupid), > #1279 1282 (b° ‘érd, fire), > #1277 691

Ya (# 1286)

nya 1286 assail, terrify (# 1286); MYD

MY (b‘t), ni. be overtaken by sudden terror, be stupefied, be terrified; pi. fall upon, overwhelm, pl. horrors, terrors, alarms (# 1243); NnYsA nom. (bi‘at),

(b° ‘atd), nom. terror, dismay (# 1287). ANE

Aram. b° ‘at, be terrified.

OT _b‘t occurs 16x in the OT (8x in Job). The nom. b° ‘até appears 2x (Jer 8:15; 14:19); bit also occurs 2x (Job 6:4; Ps 88:16[17]). Both htt (> #3169) and phd (> #7064) are understood as common synonyms (cf. Job 7:14; 13:11). The idea of

terror expressed by b‘t is also closely associated with fear (cf. 33:7). 1. A predominant function of this word is to express the terror of a lesser individual who stands in the presence of a greater individual—often times a human being before a numinous being. Saul experiences this terror when tormented by the evil spirit sent from Yahweh (1 Sam 16:14-15). The presence of an angel also evokes such a response from both David and Daniel (1 Chron 21:30; Dan 8:17). “Haman was terrified before the king and queen” (Esth 7:6). In a related manner, both dreams and visions terrified Job and Daniel (Job 7:14; Dan 8:17). Such terror does not always stem from the threat of judgment and, hence, from fear, but may be on the order of fright, astonishment, or even wonder.

2. The fear of judgment, however, is appropriately depicted by terror or horror. This is especially the case with regard to the judgment of Yahweh: “My mind reels, horror overwhelms me” (Isa 21:4, NASB). The potential for death or a life-threatening situation can also evoke terror or horror (2 Sam 22:5; Ps 18:4[5]). Job used this term on five occasions to describe his seemingly hopeless situation (Job 3:5; 9:34; 13:21; 15:24; 18:11). Therefore, along with the astonishing, b‘t can be used to describe the

horrible realities of judgment or unwelcome death. These two uses are related in the fact that they both express a response to something not fully understood and overwhelmingly powerful. Both of the nom. forms—b° ‘@td in Jer 8:15; 14:19 and bi‘ait in Ps 88:16[17]; Job 6:4—depict a response to, or condition of, judgment. The nom. forms, therefore, fit

nicely into the second category of meaning above. Fear, dread, terror: > ’aydm (terrible, awesome, majestic, #398); > ’émda (terror, dread, # 399); > bhi (be dismayed, terrified, dismay, terrify, hasten, hurry, # 987); > b‘t (overtaken by sudden terror, stupefied, be terrified, assail, # 1286); > gwr III (be afraid of, dread, stand in awe, # 1593); > d’g (be anxious, concerned, fear, dread, # 1793); > zhl II (fear, be afraid, # 2324); > hrd (tremble, shudder, startle, # 3006); > htt (be shattered, dismayed, terrified, scare, terrify, # 3169); > ygr (fear, dread, terror, # 3336); > yr’ I (fear, be afraid, held in honor, #3707);

> yrh (be afraid, terrified, paralyzed with fright, #3724); > ‘rs (be alarmed, terrified, dreadful, dreadful, be in terror, #6907); frighten, cause dread, # 7762)

> phd I (tremble, be in dread, # 7064); > qws I (feel disgust, Miles V. Van Pelt/Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.

1287 (b° ‘Gta, terror, dismay), > # 1286

1288 692

ya

3 (dds); ABD (bissa), swamp (# 1288, 1289).

DSI (# 1298) ANE. These two words occur 4x in the OT and are cognate to the Akk. common term basu, bassu sand; cf. Arab. baddat, marshy place. OT 1. It was formerly a common view that ancient Palestine, though diverse in terrain, was devoid of swamps with the exception of the Sodom salt swamps south of the Dead Sea. These were fed not only by the sea itself but by wadis and tributaries from the neighboring mountains so that the swamps had a different appearance in ancient times versus modern. Referents of Heb. terms such as bissd were accordingly sought in the expansive reed marshes of Egypt or southern Iraq. In recent decades, however, a wider variety of terrain has been suggested for ancient Palestine, including the existence of many areas of swampland along the coastal plain and in parts of the Jezreel Valley near the Kishon River as well as parts of the Rift Valley along some of the confluences of tributaries to the Jordan. (Note: there are far fewer swamps now owing to drainage by modern settlers and the water management from several national water projects.) 2. The only occurrence of bds in the OT is in Jér 38:22, where the royal harem of Zedekiah is envisioned as mocking him with what are likely three traditional sayings. The second saying is about being deserted as one sinks in the mud. “Mud” is perhaps too weak a term, however, since the desertion of the friends appears to seal a calamity-in-process. Perhaps a deeper, potentially life-threatening mire is envisioned, such as could be found on the soft floor of a swamp. 3. The fem. form bissd occurs 3x, but is never presented as a natural danger to humans. Job 8:11 and 40:21 provide concrete collocations for bissd, since in Job 8:11 the gome’, papyrus, is said to grow tall in the bissd, and in 40:21 bissd is listed as the refuge of the b°hémét (40:15)along with se’“lim, lotuses, and ganeh, reed (> #7866). Ezek 47:11 similarly has simply “swamps.” Isa 35:7 may provide a fourth occurrence of the fem. form, if rbsh should be read as whbsh (HALAT). If so, here again this is sim-

ply a body of water, a “swamp.” Mud, mire, swamp: ~ bds/bissd (swamp, # 1288/1289); > dlh (trouble [water], # 1931); — fit (mud, mire, clay, #3226); > yawén (mud, # 3431); > rps (trample, # 8346) Ronald L. Giese, Jr.

1289 (bissad, swamp), > # 1288 1290 (basiir, inaccessible), > # 1307

1292 (basir I, vintage, grape harvest), > # 1305 1293 (basir II, inaccessible), > # 1307

D383 (bs‘), gq. cut away; get gain; cut off, break ee use up; pi. cut away; bring an end; fulfill complete; harm (# 1298); D323 (besa‘), unjust gain (> # 1299). ANE

Ugar bs‘, cut up, cut open; Arab. bada‘a, cut; OSA bd", kill.

The vb. is used 17x in the OT. In the q. it indicates the time of judgment for OT Babylon (Jer 51:13), the pursuit of gain through greed (cf. the cognate acc. bs‘ besa’;

693

DY (# 1299) Prov 1:19; 15:27; Jer 6:13; 8:10), and the cutting off/destruction of the godless man because of greed (Job 27:8).

In the pi. the word is used to describe the cutting off of one’s life (Hezekiah, Isa 38:12; Job 6:9) and the completing/cutting off the Lord’s work against Assyria (Isa 10:12) and through the hands of Zerubbabel, governor of Jerusalem (Zech 4:9). In Lam

2:17 it refers to the Lord’s fulfillment of his prophetic word against Jerusalem. It indicates getting unjust/greedy gain from others (Ezek 22:12). Evidently, the getting of greedy/unjust gain is an extension of the root meaning, cut off/away. Its use is generally metaphorical rather than literal. The bribe is a moral offense. Cutting, destruction, extermination, shearing, trimming: > bs‘ (cut away, get gain, cut off, break up, #1298); > br’ III (clear out trees, cut, destroy, # 1345); > btr (cut into pieces, # 1439); > gd‘ (cut short, # 1548); > gzh (bring forth, # 1602); > gzz (cut, shear, # 1605); > gzrI (cut, take away, # 1615); > grz (be cut off, # 1746); > gr‘ I (cut out, reduce, # 1757); > hip Il (cut through, pierce, # 2737); > ksh (cut, cut down, # 4065); > krsm (make cropped, trimmed off, #4155);

— krt (cut, cut off, exterminate,

cut a covenant,

> melqahayim (snuffers for trimming/cleaning of lights/lamps, down, destroy, #5937); > nth (cut in pieces, #5983); (hew into pieces, #9119); > tzz (cut away, # 9372)

# 4920);

circumcise, #4162);

> ngp I (cut/chop

> qsb (cut off, shear, # 7892);

> Ssp

Eugene E. Carpenter

1299

vs2

YS (besa‘), piece of s.t., cut of s.t., gain, bribe

(1299); < WSS bs‘, cut off, break off, make a

profit (> # 1298).

OT 1. Most OT references to bribes are in prophetic literature in conjunction with the perversion of justice. The two most frequent words associated with the concept of bribery are besa‘ and Sohad. That the two words are nearly synonymous is indicated by their occurrence in parallelism in 1 Sam 8:3 and Isa 33:15. 2. The law, the prophets, and the sages of Israel condemn any perversion of justice. The Book of the Covenant made explicit mention of forms by which injustice may be carried out, including bribery (Exod 23:1-3, 6-8). The “bribe” was a gift that put the

giver in an advantageous position with the receiver and often led to discrimination against others. The surrounding nations also had a sense of justice by banning bribery as a perversion of justice (Fensham). In the Hymn to Shamash, we read: The receiver of a bribe who perverts (justice) thou dost make to bear punishment. He who does not accept a bribe (but) intercedes for the weak,

Is well-pleasing to Shamash

(and) enriches (his) life. (ANET® 388)

3. besa‘ means essentially gain, profit, or advantage, in the idiom md besa‘ (what is the profit): “What did we gain by carrying out his requirements and going about like mourners before the LoRD Almighty?” (Mal 3:14; see Gen 37:26; Ps 30:9[10]; similarly Job 22:3) (> bs‘). William L. Holladay stays close to the verbal meaning of bs‘, cut, in explaining besa‘ as “taking a cut,” “This is the word for

694

P83(# 1301) baksheesh

and, worse,

palms greased, expenses

padded”

(Jeremiah

1, Hermeneia,

1986, 216). The “gain” is to be understood as unjust (Prov 28:16; Hab 2:9), selfish (Ps 119:36; Prov 15:27; Jer 6:13), or even “sinful” (Isa 57:17).

God hates greed. Even before the arrival of the people at Sinai, Jethro advises Moses to create a system to administer justice, so that God’s priorities and instructions might be maintained among and by God’s people. Judges were to fear God, be trustworthy, and “hate dishonest gain” (Exod 18:21). Samuel’s sons are unworthy of carrying on the role of judge, because they “turned aside after dishonest gain (besa‘) and accepted bribes ('6had) and perverted justice” (1 Sam 8:3). “Turning aside after dishonest gain” is an expression for autonomy. It is the opposite of walking in the way of righteousness, according to the will of Yahweh (see Ps 119:36; Isa 33:15; 56:11; 57:17; Jer 8:10). Instead, the person who is greedy walks willfully in his own way, having little regard for God or his fellow humans. Hence, other immoral acts—bloodshed, oppression, and violence—are often associated with besa‘ (Isa 33:15; Jer 6:13, 22:17; Ezek 22:13, 27; Hab 2:9). For exam-

ple, Jeremiah decries the one “who builds his palace by unrighteousness,” whose eyes and heart are “set only on dishonest gain (besa‘), on shedding innocent blood and on oppression and extortion” (22:13, 17). Similarly, for Ezekiel, to “make unjust gain (besa‘ ) ... by extortion” and to “accept bribes (S6had) to shed blood” are clear signs of having forgotten the Lord (22:12). In contrast, the godly person hates a greedy and selfish way of life and longs for communion with God (Isa 33:14-16). His is the promise of a meaningful and full life: “he who hates ill-gotten gain will enjoy a long life” (Prov 28:16). Bribe, gift: > besa‘ (piece of s.t., gain, bribe, # 1299); > koper IV (bribe, #4111);

(bargain, # Affliction, (oppress, # #5189); >

> skr Il 6128); > Shd (give a gift, # 8815); > Salmonim (gift, # 8988) oppression: ~ dhq (oppress, #1895); > hms I (do violence, #2803); > hms II 2807); > ynh (oppress, #3561); > lhs (press, #4315); > masdrI (affliction, siege, mrr I (be bitter, distraught, afflict, #5352); > nega‘ (plague, affliction, #5596);

> ngs (exact, #5601); > ‘nh II (afflict, humble, afflict one’s soul, fast, oppress, submit, # 6700); > ‘wq I (crush?, #6421); > ‘mr II (deal tyrannically with, #6683); > ‘Sg I (wrong, # 6943); > swq I (constrain, press in/upon, harass, vex, #7439); > swr II (deal tyrannically with, #7444); > rhb (assail, press, pester, alarm, confuse, # 8104); > rss (crush, # 8368);

> télal (oppressor, # 9354); > tok (oppression, # 9412)

BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 2:205-8; F. C. Fensham, “Jurisprudence, Abuse of,” JSBE 2:1166. J. Clinton McCann, Jr.

1301

pes

P33 (bsq), q. swell (# 1301); P33 (baséq), nom.

dough (# 1302).

1. The vb. describes the swelling of feet from a long journey (Deut 8:4). AmazOT ingly during the many years of the Israelite’s sojourn in the wilderness God kept their feet from swelling. 2. The nom. stands for bread that has raised by leaven. In Exod 12:34, 38 it refers to the dough without leaven, because the Israelites had to leave Egypt in haste. This kind of bread was prepared as an offering for the Queen of Heaven (Jer 7:18).

695

})2P8I¢# 1303) Leaven, unleavened, dough: ~ bsq (swell, #1301); > hms I (be sour, leavened, # 2806); +> massG I (unleavened bread, # 5174); > ‘risa (dough, course meal, # 6881)

BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 4:487-93. John E. Hartley

1302 (baséq, dough), > # 1301 1303

yopRa

})9P82(bisqal6n) conj. fresh stalks (# 1303).

OT The precise meaning of this word in 2 Kgs 4:42 is uncertain, but KB has suggested translating it as “fresh stalks,” based upon the Ugar. word bq/ meaning “fresh grain.” The LXX does not appear to translate this word, though the Pesh. and Vg. translate it as “garment.” If this word is related to the Ugar. word, then it more than likely refers to some type of grain or stalks of grain, since in the Ugar. texts it is used in conjunction with but distinct from bit, ears of grain, and is placed in a granary (CTA 19:2:61-74). However, the context of 2 Kgs 4:42 does not seem to favor a distinct type of grain, since there is no waw on the word, and thus it appears to be used with the word karmel. Therefore the possible options appear to be either “fresh grain (on) its stalks” or “fresh grain in his pack/sack(?) (at least something belonging to the man).” Grain, barley, millet, rice, etc.: > Gbib (ears of grain, # 26); > bisqalén (fresh stalks [cj.], # 1303); > bar II (grain, corn, # 1339); > gadis I (stack of grain, # 1538); > geres (grits, # 1762); > dagan (grain, # 1841); > dohan (sorghum, millet, # 1893); > hittd (wheat, # 2636);

> kussemet (emmer-wheat, #4081); > karmel IV (grain, fresh, newly ripened grain, # 4152); > mlild (grain, grains, #4884); > minnit (rice, #4976); > mds (chaff, #5161); > sdlet (wheat flour, # 6159); - pannag (parched? grain, meal or flour, # 7154); > sebet (grain, bundle of grain, #7395); — sanum (hard, barren [ears of grain], #7568); > gali (parched grain, #7833); > qamé (crops, grain, standing grain, #7850); — Ssdrd (millet, #8463); > S° ‘ora (barley, # 8555); > SibbéletI (ear of grain, # 8672); > Seber II (grain, # 8692) BIBLIOGRAPHY

H. R. Cohen, Biblical Hapax Legomena in the Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic, 1978, 112-13; J. Gray, 1 & 2 Kings, 1963, 449-50; 2d ed., 1970, 501-2 J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 1991, 144-45. Paul D. Wegner

1305

—35

“S23 (bsr 1), q. gather grapes; tread down; dress vines; pi. (?) (# 1305); VS (basir 1), nom. vintage, grape harvest, grape picker (# 1292). ANE The root is attested in Akk. basaru and bassuru (cf. Aram./Syr. b°sar [in pael], take away).

OT 1. The vb. is found 7x in the q. in the OT, 4 of which mean to gather or tread down grapes. In Lev 25:5, 11 the word directs the Israelites not to harvest (bsr) their untended grapes during the Sabbath year or the Year of Jubilee. A more general directive instructs the Israelites in the time of any harvest not to go back over the vines after they have made one pass in harvesting (bsr; Deut 24:21). The part. is used to indicate

696

“S33 (# 1307) the vine picker/gatherer himself. According to Jer 6:9 the enemies of Israel will glean even the remnant of Israel as a grape gatherer (k°bdsér) returns his hand over the branches to glean the vine. A similar thing will happen to Edom (Jer 49:9 |! Obad 5). Isa 63:1 mentions Bozrah in Edom, from where the Lord himself comes after

treading the winepress (v. 3) of the nations. Bozrah indicates the place of harvesting/ judging by the Lord. Compare this to Christ’s robe after the judgment (Rev 19:13). 2. A successful grape harvest was a sure sign that Yahweh was blessing Israel (Lev 26:5). The grape harvests failed when Israel was unfaithful to the Torah. This phenomenon became a metaphor of the devastation after judgment when God’s people were likened to a vineyard after it had been picked—only gleanings were left (Isa 24:13; Mic 7:1). Similarly, Moab’s devastation was described by the plundering of her vintage. The success of a grape harvest is used figuratively by Gideon to illustrate the prosperity of Ephraim: “What have I accomplished compared to you? Aren’t the gleanings of Ephraim’s grapes better than the full grape harvest of Abiezer?’” (Judg 8:2).

P-B The LXX employs trygad, to gather vintage, trygétés, harvesters. In = boser. (The conjecture of a pi. part. in Sir 33:17. It is found often in Mish.

gather vintage or harvest, ektrygad, to harvest, Isa 63:1, however, the LXX transliterates, bosor in Jer 6:27 is not convincing.) The word is used Heb. with the meaning “cut” or “be cut off.”

NT Inthe NT Jesus mentions the time of grape harvest in the parable of the tenants (Matt 21:33-41; Mark 12:1-9), when the Lord of the vineyard expects to gather grapes from his harvest. Grapes—viticulture: > bsrI (gather grapes, tread down, vine-dresser, # 1305); > gepen (vine, grapevine, #1728); > kerem I (vineyard, #4142); > qss (strip away, pick, #7878); > Sarig (branch, tendril, climber, # 8585); > s6réq II (choice vine, # 8603); > §°réqd (vine with the best

grapes, # 8605) BIBLIOGRAPHY

HBD 1112-13; IDB 4:784-86; ISBE 4:1068-72. Eugene E. Carpenter

S83 (bsr IL), ni, be inaccessible; pi. make inac1307 33 cessible (# 1307); nom. 1132 (basi), inaccessible (#1290); "$3 (basir ID), inaccessible (hapleg. in Zech 11:2; # 1293); rae (bissar6n), fortress (hapleg. in Zech 9:12; > #1315); TSA!) (mibsar I), fortified [place] (# 4448).

ANE Cognates occur in Arab. (bazira) and Aram., including Tgs. and Talm. (b°sar). mibsar occurs in 1QpHab 4:6, 4QH 3:7, 6:35, and 2QapDavid(?) = 2Q22 1:3. OT — 1. Three homophonous roots are posited for bsr: bsr I (# 1305) is used in seven

texts related to harvesting grapes; bsr II (# 1306) is problematic, occurring only in Ps 76:12[13] and is variously translated; bsr III (# 1307) and derived terms appear frequently in relation to fortifying or fortifications. Common to these words is the concept of “cutting off.”

697

732 (# 1307) 2. The vb. bsr in pi. occurs in Isa 22:10 and Jer 51:53 for fortify, make inacces-

sible; and the pi. of hzg is used frequently in later texts for strengthening, fortifying (e.g., 2 Chron 11:11; Ps 147:13); the hi. is used in Neh 3:4 for the repair of Jerusalem’s walls. The Israelites under Moses were awed by Canaanite walled cities (Num 13:28). By the Late Bronze Age, the period usually associated with the emergence of Israel in Canaan, some of the fortified cities had already stood for over a millennium. Many had been destroyed and rebuilt numerous times, building up the hills of debris called tells. The defensive walls must have appeared as if they reached to heaven in the eyes of the desert wanderers who spied them out. Only men of vision, Caleb and Joshua, could

imagine the conquest of such fortresses. In the face of seemingly overwhelming odds, only those two would listen to and trust that the Lord God could make the impossible happen (Deut 1:28). Therefore Moses admonished them not to take personal credit for what the Lord God would accomplish when he would dispossess the inhabitants of the land (Deut 9:1-3). In time the Israelites occupied the land and reconstructed fortresses on the same sites. Defensive systems were warranted in the face of external threats to security; Ezekiel foresees the refortification of cities in the time of restoration (Ezek 36:35). The problem with visible defensive systems is the human tendency to trust in them rather than to trust in the Invisible One, who alone provides ultimate security. Even in the blessings and curses attributed to Moses, lackluster service to the Lord God is interwo-

ven with excessive trust in high and fortified walls, a misplaced trust that ultimately ends in the destruction of those fortified places of refuge (Deut 28:7-52). Fortifications can become an expression of the height of human hubris, the antithesis of God’s will for his people. This will hasten the great day of the Lord, in which fortified cities and lofty battlements will be devastated and ruined (Zeph 1:14-16). A striking view of God’s way with nations and peoples involves the Assyrian monarch, Sennacherib (>), and King Hezekiah (>). Sennacherib invaded Judah and captured all the fortified cities; Assyrian documents indicate that there were forty-six of them. Then he laid siege to Jerusalem. Hezekiah went up to the temple and prayed that the Lord God would save the city and its people from the Assyrian who mocked the living god. The answer to his prayer was a word of the Lord spoken through the prophet Isaiah. In that word the soverignty of God over the Assyrian king is expressed, for the Lord had planned from days of old that Sennacherib would make fortified cities crash into heaps of ruins. But the arrogance of the invader warranted his defeat and ultimately his death by the sword in his own land (2 Kgs 19:1-2). God defended Jerusalem for his own sake and for the sake of his servant David (2 Kgs 19:34). The best defense is to be on the Lord’s side.

Israelite kings fortified their cities to their spiritual hurt (Hos 8:14). They trusted in fortified cities (Jer 5:17) rather than in the Lord. City walls were constructed of mud brick when constructed in valleys and plains and of stone in the hills and moun-

tains. Both types were vulnerable to persistent and practical attack. Once a portion of the lower wall was weakened or undermined, the upper levels would give way, making access easier. In striking contrast, the Lord strengthened the dejected Jeremiah by assuring him that the Lord would make him a fortified wall of bronze (Jer 15:20). Such a wall would be impenetrable, without seams between stones or brick into which pry

698

783 # 1309) bars could be inserted. The imagery is a graphic picture of how the Lord can sustain a faithful servant in the midst of adversity. Fortification, citadel, siege-mound, stronghold: > ’armén (citadel, #810); > bird (citadel, acropolis, # 1072); > bsr III (be inaccessible, # 1307); > dayéq (siege-mound, #1911); > hél (rampart, #2658); > milld’ (terrace, #4864); > misgeret (stronghold, dungeon, rim, table, #4995); > m°sad (stronghold, #5171); > mdasér II (fortification, fortified city, #5190); > sohéra (rampart, # 6089); > sokék (mantelet, #6116); > s°riah (cellar, vault, pit, stronghold, # 7663); > Sgb (be high, fortified, protect, # 8435); > Fortification: Theology BIBLIOGRAPHY

NIDBA, 471-72; E. Klein,

A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language

for Readers of English, 1987, 80; K. N. Schoville, “Fortification,” JSBE 2:346-54; Y. Yadin, The

Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands, 1963. Keith N. Schoville

S32 Age 139 ing, Kedar-Kopfstein (TDOT 4:34), the root is nugget of gold). Dhorme (339), however, basara, see, examine, and that the nom.

(beser I), nom., gold ore (# 1309). Followe.g., Driver and Gray (156) and probably 132 (bsr), cut off (a fragment or thinks that the root corresponds to Arab. means the gold as it leaves the crucible.

According to HALAT, the hapleg. S57) (mibsar) in Jer 6:27 is probably a pi. part. “SAl) (m“bassér), gold assayer, from “733 (bsr IV). However, NIVEC (1507) retains the pointing of MT in Jer 6:27 and takes the word as a nom. (mibsdr 3), ore (# 4450).

ANE

The nom. basrat, lump containing precious metal, occurs in Arab., as does the

vb. basara, look, glance, see, examine, shine.

OT

1. There is some debate about whether beser is actually a word for gold

(Kedar-Kopfstein, TDOT 4:34). NEB

and REB translate “precious metal.” However,

most translators prefer to identify the word with gold. The word occurs twice in Job 22:24-25; it may also occur in Ps 68:30[31]. Eliphaz, in his third discourse (Job 22:1-30), distinguishes between material and spiritual values (22:24-25). If the slight emendation of MT suggested by, among others, Dhorme (338), be accepted, v. 24 portrays Eliphaz arrogantly adjuring Job to treat gold (beser) as dust and gold of Ophir (épir, the name of the place here standing for the gold it was renowned for supplying) as the stones in a river bed. Job is enjoined to make the Almighty his gold (pl. of beser, with suff. of 2d p. masc. sing.) and his precious silver (v. 25). Dhorme

(339), who

thinks beser refers to the gold as it leaves the crucible, translates b°sdreyka as “your ingots.” Driver and Gray (156, 198) suggest that the primary meaning is “nuggets,” standing for gold ore. JB reads “bars of gold.” Isolated from its context (Eliphaz’s indictment of Job for lack of integrity and strident demand that Job recant), this section

has a high theological value: by advocating that divine treasure be elevated to a position where it eclipses all else (Heavenor, 434), it calls for what Nietzsche has termed a

transvaluation of values. Many commentators (Addis, 384; Durham, 305, 309; Dahood, 133; Kraus, 47; Rogerson and McKay, 82-83; Kselman and Barré, 537; cf. Tate, 170-71) maintain that

Ps 68 is the most confused and difficult of all the compositions in the Psalter. Not a few

699

733 (# 1309) consider v. 30[31] to be hopelessly corrupt (see Addis, 385), with the last two lines being not only difficult but incomprehensible (Bratcher and Reyburn, 590). Knight (315) regards vv. 28-31[29-32] as probably the most notorious in the entire Bible for poor text preservation. Attempts to translate Ps 68 are more diverse than those of any other composition in the Psalter (Weiser, 481). There is almost universal disagreement about the translation of the words b‘rassé-kasep in v. 30[31] (C. A. and E. G. Briggs, 104; cf. 111-12). The v. is a prayer imploring Yahweh to rebuke and humble wilfully aggressive peoples bent on conquest, make them pay tribute, and then scatter them (see Durham, 309). Some retain MT (b°)rassé-kasep, pieces of silver (taking rassé as pl. const. of ras, piece, bar, from vb. rss, crush). Thus, Tate (161) has “pieces of silver’; Delitzsch (243) translates “ingots of silver’; NIV and REB have “bars of silver”; and NEB reads “precious stones and silver.” However, emendations are rife (Davison, 336;

Tate, 169). Some emend MT D°rassé-kasep to b°rosé-kasep, “those who lust after [or delight in; from vb. rsh, be pleased/delighted with] tribute [lit., silver]” (so RSV; NRSV; Anderson, 497; Kraus, 45, 47). Others (Buttenwieser, 258, 270; Kissane, 291;

292, 298; JB), following the reconstruction suggested by Nestle in 1891, prefer to

emend b*rassé-kasep to beser wakasep [or beser w°kesep], gold and silver. 2. The work of the prophet is compared to that of a metallurgist (Jer 6:27-30). Yahweh informs Jeremiah that he must fulfil the role of assayer by testing the faithfulness (silver) of the people. However, despite thoroughgoing testing and assaying, only base alloys are found; there is not the slightest residue of pure metal. In v. 27, the word mibsar, which occurs in parallelism with bahén [usually translated “tester/assayer’’],

means fortress, from vb. bsr, cut off, enclose, make inaccessible (especially by fortifying; cf. Jer 1:18, where Yahweh promises to make Jeremiah a fortified city, ‘ir mibsbar, to enable him to withstand the assaults of the people). Some (Dummelow, 462) accept the reading “fortress.” Several commentators and translators omit the word on the ground that it is probably a scribal gloss inserted to explain the word bahén, confused with bahan (Isa 32:14; cf. 23:13), watchtower (see Driver, 38; Peake, 145; Robinson, 479; Bright, 49; Hyatt, 867; McKane, 153-55; Carroll, 204; BHS; JB; NEB).

Others have attempted to salvage the word through slight emendation. According to HALAT, the pointing should be changed to that of a pi. part., m°bassér, gold assayer, a reading that is in line with RSV and REB, “tester,” and NRSV, “refiner.” NIV, how-

ever, takes mibsar as a nom. meaning “ore.” Gold:

> ’dpir (gold of Ophir, # 234); > beser I (gold ore, # 1309); > zahab (gold, # 2298); > haris I (gold, # 3021); > ketem (gold, #4188); > sagdr (pure gold, # 6034); > paz (pure

gold, #7058); > srp (melt, smelt, refine, # 7671)

Metals: > ’“ndk (lead, # 643); > b°dil (dross, # 974); > barzel (iron, # 1366);

> zahab (gold,

# 2298); > hel’a I (rust, # 2689); > hasmal (glow?, electrum, glowing metal, # 3133); > kesep (silver, money, #4084); > masgér II (metal worker, #4994); > ma“beh (foundry, # 5043); ~ n°hodset I (copper, bronze, #5733); > sig (lead oxide, # 6092); > séper II (bronze, plate,

# 6220); > ‘dperet (lead, #6769); > pah II (thin sheet, # 7063); > p®ladot (steel?, #7110); > swr III (cast [metal], #7445); > sa“su ‘tm (things formed by metal coating, #7589); > sph II (arrange, overlay, plate, glaze, #7596); > srp (melt, smelt, refine, #7671); > qalal (polished metal, #7838); > Sht II (alloyed, # 8822)

700

M33 # 1314) BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 4:32-40; W. E. Addis, “The Psalms,” in Peake, 1920, 366-96; A. A. Anderson, The Book Volume 1: Introduction and Psalms 1-72, NCBC, 1972; R. G. Bratcher and

of Psalms.

W. D. Reyburn, A Translator’s Handbook on the Book of Psalms, 1991; C. A. and E. G. Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms. Vol. II, ICC, 1960; J. Bright, Jeremiah: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 1965; M. Buttenwieser, The Psalms Chrono-

logically Treated with a New Translation, 1969; R. P. Carroll, Jeremiah:

A Commentary, 1986;

M. Dahood, Psalms II: 51-100. Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 1973; W. T. Davison, The Psalms. Vol. I: I-LXXII, ca. 1904; F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Psalms, 2, KD,

2d ed., 1889; E. Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job, 1967; S. R. Driver, The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah: A Revised Translation with Introductions and Short Explanations, 1906; S. R. Driver and G. B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job Together with a New Translation, ICC, 1964; J. R. Dummelow,

ed., A Commentary on the Holy Bible, 1909; J. I. Durham, “Psalms,” in BBC, 1972, 4:153-464; E. S. P. Heavenor, “Job,” NBC, 421-45; J. P. Hyatt, “The Book of Jeremiah: Introduction and Exegesis,’ JB, 1956, 5:775-1142; E. J. Kissane, The Book of Psalms Translated from a Critically Revised Hebrew Text with a Commentary,

1964; G. A. F. Knight, The Psalms. Vol. 1, 1982; H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 60-150: A

Commentary, 1989; J. S. Kselman and M. L. Barré, “Psalms,” in NJBC, 1990, 523-52; W. McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah. Volume 1: An Introduction and Commentary on Jeremiah I-XXV, ICC, 1986; A. S. Peake, Jeremiah. Vol. I: Jeremiah I-XXIV, 1910; H. W. Robinson, “Jeremiah,” in Peake, 1920, 474-95; J. W. Rogerson and J. W. McKay, Psalms 51-100, 1977; M. E. Tate, Psalms 51—100, WBC, 1990; A. Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary,

OTL, 1965. Robin Wakely

ae | (bassara), (#1314); MISS < 183 (bsr ID, reduce, humble (# 1306).

1314 (# 1316); OT

mas

nom. dearth, destitution (bassoret), nom. drought

1. The word bassara occurs in Ps 9:9[10] and 10:1, both of which are com-

monly translated “trouble” or “distress.” The pl. in Jer 14:1 (lit. “droughts”) may be a pl. of intensity (W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah, 2 vols., Hermeneia, 1986, 1989, 1:429).

2. bassoret is used only once in the description of a man who trusts in the Lord and “has no worries in a year of drought (bassoret)” (Jer 17:8). Dry, withering, parched: ~ ’b/ II (dry up, #62); > bassara (dearth, destitution, # 1314); > zrb (cease, dry up, #2427); > hrb I (be dry or desolate, ruined, #2990); > hrr I (be

parched, # 3081a); > yb¥ (be dry, dried up, withered, dry up, # 3312); > mil I (wither, be dry, #4908); — nit (dry, parched, #5980); > gml (wither, become moldy, musty, infected w. insects, # 7857)

Roy E. Hayden

i315

isle

lies

ae)

(bissarén),

nom.

fortress,

stronghold;

conj. ]S728* (*sibbarén), multitudes(?) (only

Zech 9:12) (# 1315); < 183 (dsr II), be inaccessible (> # 1307).

701

YP> #1324) OT

The NIV and NRSV telate this unique word to the root bsr (to be inaccessible)

and translate “fortress” or “stronghold” respectively. BHS proposes the emendation “and they will return to you, daughter of Zion.” (so JB). HALAT transposes the consonants and reads 72333 in multitudes, from sbr, heap up or pile up.

Andrew E. Hill 1316 (bassoret, drought), > # 1314

1318 (baqbua, flask), > # 3998 1323 (bagia‘, breach), > # 1324

ypa (bq‘),q. split, break open, hatch out; ni. ee ete split pi. split, force, breach, break forth, rip open, pull to pieces; pu. be stormed, burst open; hi. take posession; ho. be stormed; hitp. be split (#1324); ¥°P3 (baqia‘), breach (# 1323); YP= (beqa‘), half-shekel (> # 1325); NY P35 (big‘a), valley (> # 1326). ANE In addition to the presence of the word mbq‘ in the Moabite Mesha inscription, bq‘ occurs twice in the Ugar. texts: once (CTA 6:2:30-32) in the phrase tihd bn ilm mt bhrb tbq‘nn, “she [Anat] seized Mot, son of El, with a sword she split him.” In CTA

19:116 Danel, in search of his son’s remains, rips open the livers, ybg‘ kbdthm, of eagles. Akk. does not have a vb. cognate with bq‘. Cf. also Syr. and Mand. pq‘, Arab. faga’a (byforms faga‘a, bagi‘a), cut oneself, and Eth. baq‘a, be sharp, strong. OT The vb. occurs in the q. 16x, in the ni. 15x, in the pi. 12x, in the pu. 3x (Josh 9:4; Ezek 26:10; Hos 13:16[14:1]), in the hi. 2x (2 Kgs 3:26; Isa 7:6), in the ho.

1x (Jer 39:2), and in the hitp. 2x (Josh 9:13; Mic 1:4). There do not appear to be major differences in meaning among the various stems. For example, the barbaric practice in war of “ripping open” pregnant women may be expressed by the q. (Amos 1:13), by the pi. (2 Kgs 8:12; 15:16), and by the pu. (Hos 13:16[14:1]). 1. The use of the root in Ugar. with reference to the sword as the means of cleaving is similar to the reference in Amos

1:13, where, in the Ammonites’

border

warfare with Gilead, the former are accused by the prophet of ripping apart pregnant women. Presumably the sword was the weapon of violence. In all other references to the same war atrocity (2 Kgs 8:12; 15:16; Hos 13:16[14:1]), the vb. bq‘ is used. A Middle Assyrian hymn praising the triumphs of Tiglath-Pileser I (1114-1076 BC) reads in part uSerriti libbi arati unappil lakiti Sa danniti¥unu unakkis kixadati, “he slit the wombs of the pregnant women, he gouged out the eyes of the infants, he cut the throats of/beheaded their strongmen/adults” (Ebeling; Cogan; CAD, L, 46). 2. The perpetration of an act of violence by bg‘ may also be committed by animals who are strong and powerful enough to rend apart human beings (2 Kgs 2:24, bears who “mauled” [NIV] the forty-two youths who jeered at Elisha; Hos 13:8, where God’s anger against Israel is compared to that of a wild animal who will tear them apart).

3. This nuance of violence conveyed by bg‘ continues into the instances where the vb. refers to the breaching and conquering of a besieged town: 2 Sam 23:16 (q.); 1 Chron 11:18 (q.); 2 Chron 21:17 (q.); (q.); Isa 7:6 (hi.); Ezek 26:10 (pu.); 30:16 (ni.).

702

YP>(#1324) The NIV renders the vb. in these references as “break/broken through” (2 Sam 23:16; 1 Chron 11:18; Ezek 26:10); “invaded” (2 Chron 21:17); tear apart (Isa 7:6); take by storm (Ezek 30:16). Cf. also 2 Kgs 3:26; 25:4 (=Jer 52:7); Jer 39:2. 4. There are, however, numerous references where bq‘ appears, but violence is not present. For example, the vb. may be used for splitting wood (Gen 22:3 [pi.]; Eccl 10:9 [q.]), for ploughing or furrowing the earth (Ps 141:7), or for hewing out channels in the rocks (Job 28:10). 5. The vb. is used 15x with water. Ten times the vb. refers to a splitting action that produces liquid (e.g., wineskins bursting open [Josh 9:13; Job 32:19]; water gushing forth in a wilderness [Isa 35:6]). In some instances it is God who does the cleaving (Judg 15:19; Ps 74:15; Prov 3:20; Isa 48:21; Hab 3:9). The waters are under Yahweh’s

sovereign control. He can restrain them or release them. 6. Five times the vb. is used in reference to the splitting of the sea after Israel left Egypt (Exod 14:16, 21; Neh 9:11; Ps 78:13; Isa 63:12). 7. Especially interesting are two references where both bq‘ and t°hém, (deep; > #9333) are used: (1) Prov 3:20, “by his knowledge the deeps were divided” (t°hdmét nibqa‘ti); (2) Gen 7:11, “all the springs of the great deep burst forth” (nibq® ‘a

kol-ma ‘y°not t®hém rabbdé). In the light of the reference in the Babylonian Enuma Elish to Marduk splitting the body of Tiamat (and where the vbs. for split are zazu and hepit), some have suggested (Wakeman) that Hebrew tradition also embraced the concept of the dragon myth in which the monster is split into two and overcome by Yahweh, and that the vb. bq‘ has mythic roots, especially if its basic meaning is “rip open a body.” (> Leviathan, # 4293) Note, however, that in other passages that refer to God’s victory over the monster (e.g., Isa 51:9-10), any reference to bg‘ with yam, sea (> #3542), is conspicu-

ously absent. Also there is a distinct absence of any overt mythical allusions in any of the uses of bq‘ in reference to the splitting of the sea (see par. 6). In fact, Gen 7:11 is the direct opposite of the Enuma Elish. In the latter the body of a goddess is split in order to bring chaotic waters under control. In Gen 7:11, ¢°hém is split in order to unleash chaos onto a corrupt earth, and the waters are Yahweh’s instrument. He is glorified by his actions on them. The same point is made in verses like Ps 74:15 and Hab 3:9, which also use bq‘ with springs/streams/rivers. The few places where the OT uses bq‘ with an allusion to myth can be considered “examples of conscious appropriation of literary figures not native to Israel” (Oswalt, 172). 8. The nom. forms derived from bq‘ are: bagia‘, breach or ruins (only in Isa 22:9 and Amos 6:11), bega‘, half-shekel, and big ‘G, valley, plain. P-B

See Jastrow 1:186-87.

Split, breach, slice: > bq‘ (split, break open, # 1324); > hrm II (split, # 3050);

> htr (break

through, # 3168); > mispah (breach of law, # 5384); > plh (cut into slices, split open, #7114);

~ psm (split open, # 7204); > prs I (break through, burst out, be broken down, # 7287); > r“ II (break in pieces, # 8318); smash, shatter, # 8689)

— rss (crush, mash, break, #8368);

— Sbr I (break, break down,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

G. Brunet, “La prise de Jerusalem sous Sedecias: les seus militaires de l’hébreu baqa‘,” RHR 167, 1965, 157-76; M. Cogan, “Ripping Open Pregnant Women in Light of an Assyrian

703

DPS(#1325) ee)

Analogue,” JAOS 103, 1983, 755-57; E. Ebeling, “Ein Heldenlied auf Tiglathpileser I. und der Anfang einer neuen Version von ‘Istar Héllenfahrt’ nach einer Schiilertafel aus Assur,” Or 18, 1949, 30-39, esp. 35, 37; J. N. Oswalt, “The Myth of the Dragon and Old Testament Faith,” EvQ 49, 1977, 163-72; M. K. Wakeman, God’s Battle with the Monster, 1973. Victor P. Hamilton

1325

vps

YP3 (beqa‘), nom. half-shekel (# 1325).

The word occurs only in Gen 24:22 and Exod 38:26. For a discussion on weights > Sql, weigh, weigh out, pay, # 9202. Jerry E. Shepherd

1326 OT

myp.

MVPS (biq‘a), # 1326).

valley(s)

(11x),

plain

(9x;

Although it is often suggested that biq‘d is derived from the Heb. root bq‘,

cleave, divide, break open (> #1324), and thus that a biq‘d is to be described as a

“river valley cut through mountains,” the actual usage of biq‘d does not support such an interpretation. In 9x biq‘d is found in the construct state with a nom., and together they serve as the names of specific valleys. Examples of such are: the valley of Megiddo (2 Chron 35:22; Zech 12:11), Jericho (Deut 34:3), Ono (Neh 6:2), Dura (Dan 3:1), and Lebanon (Josh 11:17; 12:7)—also called the valley of Mizpeh (Josh 11:8) and/or Aven (Amos 1:5; all references to the Lebanese Beqa). In addition, the southern

portion of the area surrounding the Euphrates and Tigris rivers is called a big‘d, plain/valley (Gen 11:2; Ezek 3:22; 8:4; 37:1; Dan 3:1; contra Smith, 438). Thus, in an

overwhelming number of instances biq‘d is used to refer to broad plains/valleys that were not located in the mountains, except in the case of the very broad valley of Lebanon (Mizpeh/Aven).

In addition, it is to be noted that in all of the above, these valleys/plains were located outside of the portions of the land of Canaan inhabited by the Israelites. The broad character of a biq‘d is highlighted by the fact that it appears in parallel with miX6r, level ground, straightness (NIV level [> #4793]; Isa 40:4) and also by the fact

that the biq‘d of Jericho was large enough to have included a kikkar (NIV region [> #3971]; Deut 34:3). All of the above would indicate that a biq‘@ was both broad and smooth. Isaiah 40:4 confirms this notion when it says that “the rugged places [will become] a plain [biq‘a].” In addition, a big‘a is a place of ease, where cattle can graze (63:14), in comparison to difficult places and experiences that Moses led the Israelites through (63:11-14). In two places biq‘@ is used to describe the land of Canaan and is set in opposition to hills (> har; Deut 8:7; 11:11). In one instance it is prophesied that a biq‘d will contain springs of water (Isa 41:18), in contrast to the fact that springs (ma‘yan; > #5078; see especially Ps 104:10) were normally associated with valleys located in the mountains. Valley: > biq‘d (valley, # 1326); > gay’ (valley, # 1628); > nahal I (stream-bed, wadi, stream, tunnel, #5707); > ‘émeq (valley, # 6677)

704

PPa# 1327) BIBLIOGRAPHY G. Brunet, “La prise de Jerusalem sous sedecias: les sens militaires de l’hébreu baqa‘,’ RHR 167, 1965, 157-76. Carl Rasmussen

ee 1327

ee

ac biiga), nom. eee a eS

ANE

(bqq 1), q. lay waste, be agitated (# 1327); 12 (biiga), nom. waste (#1011); MP iaie

(# 4133).

The Arab. baga(w) means to mistreat or abuse; the Syr. b°gig means rotten, the

Mand. vb. means rot. The vb. bewwag in Maltese means to hollow out, wear away, or

erode (Aquilina, 65); Maltese is a distinct language resulting from the fusion of North African Arab. and a Sicilian form of Italian, the only Sem. language that is officially written in a Latin script. OT The vb. bgq is found 4x in the q. (Hos 10:1 should be regarded as a separate root, HALAT 144), 3x in the ni. as a pass., and once in the pi. It appears with various vbs. that express the destructive use of force (THAT 2:893) and have nuances such as ruin, lay waste, trample, overthrow, exterminate, etc. It occurs only in the Prophets,

who use it to describe the desolation of a country. The pi. is found in Jer 51:2, where the prophet says the winnowers will make Babylon a wasteland as they attack from every side. In Nah 2:2[3] the q. part. occurs as the subject of the vb. to say that the plunderers have laid the land waste. The related noms. bigd and m°biigé are found in 2:10[11] along with a third nom., m°bullaqd, to describe the destruction, ruin, and desolation of Nineveh. The meaning of all of these is obscure. Driver relates bqq and biq to the root

bq, which in Arab. yields the onomatopoeic baqbaqa, much like bubble or babble (41-42). The Arab. balaga means to break open or to kick down. The traditional meaning for bgq (Ibn Ezra, Gesenius) is empty or pour out, derivative of the natural sound of a liquid pouring. All this may indicate the vbs. are used as an alliterated metaphor to describe the desolation of a land and deportation of its inhabitants as an emptying (cf. Wildberger, 913). The same words used in Nah 2:2[3], 10[11] are found in Isa 24:1, 3, in the intro-

duction to what is often described as “the little apocalypse.” Chs. 24-27 appear to be universal in their description of the destruction of the nations, though many proposals of political context have been made. Isaiah opens this section by saying Yahweh is laying waste the earth, twisting its surface, scattering its inhabitants, and plundering it. The idea of emptying the earth as a metaphor for its utter desolation is certainly possible. In the judgment against Egypt the prophet speaks about the spirit of the Egyptians being destroyed within them (19:3). The ni. form found here (nab“qd) is attested elsewhere for this type of vb. (GKC 67t; 72 dd), so emendation is scarcely warranted. The

meaning of emptying the Egyptians which Yahweh brings to nothing regarded as a separate root meaning metaphor when he says that Yahweh

of spirit could form a parallel with the next line in their plans; however, this latter vb. is usually “confuse” (HALAT 129). Jeremiah uses a similar will ruin the counsel (plans) of Judah and Jerusa-

lem (Jer 19:7).

705

Ppa (# 1328) The nom. bwgh is found in a confession of the Rule of the Community (1QS P-B 10.15) with the nom. srh to speak of “distress and grief.” Wasteland: waste,

> bohii (waste, #983);

#2999);

— y°simén

> bqq I (lay waste, be agitated, # 1327);

(wilderness,

waste,

#3810);

—~ midbar

> horba (ruin,

I (wilderness,

#4497);

> “raba III (steppe, #6858); > s°hihd (scorched land, #7461); — siyyd (desert, #7480); + §’h I (lie waste, make s. th. into desolate, # 8615); > 5mm (be desolate, deserted, lay waste, shudder, be horrified, # 9037); > Desert: Theology BIBLIOGRAPHY

THAT 2:893; J. Aquilina, “Maltese a Mixed Language,” JSS 3, 1958, 65; G. R. Driver, JTS 38,

1937, 41-42; H. Wildberger, Jesaja, BKAT 10/2, 1978, 913. A. H. Konkel

1328 ANE

ppa

Pr= (bqq ID, gq. grow # 1328).

luxuriantly

(hapleg.;

Arab. baqqa, be profuse, abundant.

OT At Hos 10:1, bégéq has been traditionally recognized as a q. part. and adjectival to the nom. gepen, vine. The resulting image is that of Israel as a spreading, wildly growing vine, whose self-dependence leads to judgment. F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman have suggested that since gepen is normally fem., b6géq might rather be a polel pf. with God as the subject. Hos 10:1 would then read, “As a vine, he made Israel productive, he has made it produce fruit for himself.” Growth, greatness, luxuriance, ripening, sprouting: > bqq II (grow luxuriantly, # 1328); > gdl I (grow up, become great, make great, boast, # 1540); > nwb (grow, prosper, flourish, # 5649); > sahis (what grows on its own accord, # 6084); > sapiah I (what grows on its own accord, #6206); > smh (sprout, spring up, grow, prosper, make grow, #7541); > r‘n (be luxuriant, green, # 8315); > Sg’/sgh (grow great, increase, exalt, # 8434/8436) BIBLIOGRAPHY

F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Hosea, AB, 1980, 549-50.

Martin G. Abegg, Jr.

“ps (bar I), pi. examine, inspect (a sacrifice), 1329 Ries care ~for (#1329); “pa (bagar), cattle (> # 1330); P2 (boger I), a cultic technical term: scrutinize omen sacrifice (hapleg. in Ps 5:3[4]; # 1331); p35 (boger I), morning (> # 1332); MP3 (baggara), care (for cattle) (# 1333); np. (igaaren), nom. inquiry, reprimand (# 1334),

ANE Arab. bagara, split (HALAT 144); Ugar. bqr, frequent (WUS, 570); OT Aram b‘qar, scrutinize (sacrifice); Nab. mbqr, priest (Cantineau, Nab 2,73); Syr. and Mand.

bagar, examine; Eth. bagala, punish. OT 1. The vb. bqr, search, is used in a legal sense to secure an already established condition. In three instances further investigation is prohibited: vows (Prov 20:25); 706

“P32# 1330) leprosy (Lev 13:36); tithe (27:33). The vb. Aram. bgr in Ezra pertains to searching documents so as to correct any neglect or abuses of decrees (Ezra 4:15, 19; 5:17; 6:1). In 2 Kgs 16:15 bqr (used without an object) means “inquire (of a deity).” Ahaz installed an altar to “inquire by.” Gehman (461) specifies “omen sacrifices.” Mowinckel concurs here and argues the same for bkr, inquire, frequent, in Ps 27:4 (1:146),

but there is no mention of sacrifice in Ps 27. “To dwell in his house” points to reflective communion, not oracle-seeking (cf. Kraus, 334; Gerstenberger, 126; cf. Fohrer’s

“take delight,” HAD, 39; “take pleasure in, frequent,” HALAT). 2. The nom. baggard, care, is a hapleg. in Ezek 34:12 (HAD, 39) shepherd’s care for his flock. 3. The sense of the nom. biqqdret, examination, a hapleg. in uncertain. It could mean reparation (HAD, 39) or investigation (Jastrow, 200), or it could be associated with punishment or inquisition (BDB, compensation for damage (Lev 19:21; Noth, 143).

and refers to a Lev 19:20, is 165; Harrison, 134), or even

P-B_ The Tg. has bgr, examine, clear, abandon (Jastrow, 187); QL uses bgr sim. and m‘baqger as a leader’s title (Priest, 58-60). The LXX uses episkopeo, attend to, for bgr.

NT The NT use applies the word esp. to leaders (Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:7). For an extended discussion on mantic practices, see gsm, practice divination (# 7876). Examination, inquiry, inspection: ~ bhn (test, # 1043); > bgr I (examine, inspect, care for, # 1329); — bq (seek, find, look for, require, desire, # 1335); > dr (care about, inquire, seek,

# 2011) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 1:219; THAT 1:274, 333; E. Gerstenberger, Psalms, Part I, with an Introduction to Cultic Poetry,

FOTL

14, 1988,

126; R. K. Harrison, Leviticus,

Psalm 1-59: A Commentary,

1988, 334;

TOTC,

1980, 200; H.-J.

Kraus,

J. Montgomery and H. Gehman, Kings, ICC, 1951,

461; J. Morgenstern, “The Chanukkah Festival and the Calendar,’ HUCA 21, 1948, 423-27; S. Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien, 1966, 1:146; M. Noth, Leviticus, OTL, 1977, 143; J. Priest, “Mebaqger, Pagid, and the Messiah,” JBL 81, 1962, 55-61.

David Denninger

. 1330

ANE

~ |3 TPs

(bagar), nom. cattle, ox, bull, herds, oxen,

cows, calves (# 1330).

1. baqd@r does not appear as a common Sem. root. The term is found in the Mari

letters, in Phoen., in Aram., and in Arab. A Mari letter reports that “the soldiers and the cattle (buqdaru) are in good condition” (ARM, II, No. 131, 39; AHw 139a; CAD, I, 323, bugaru; but cf. blum, AHw 137, and énum). Phoen. bgr occurs in the Kilamuwa

Inscription (ca. 825 BC) listing sheep and cattle as wealth and possessions. The etymology of bagar cannot be determined (cf. HALAT 1:144; TDOT 2:209; contra TWOT 1:124). 1. As a generic term, bagar refers to domestic cattle, including bulls, cows, and OT calves. It includes at least the following subcategories: (1) S6r, ox (> # 8802), the male working ox used in plowing; (2) par, bull (> # 7228); (3) para, cow (> #7239); (4) ‘égel, calf (> #6319); and (5) ‘egld, heifer, young cow (> # 6320).

707

“IPD# 1330) 2. With a collective sense, bagar is never used in a pl. form (cf. BDB 133). It is doubtful whether bagar has a pl. form at all. The pl. form (b°garim) occurs only 3x (out of 183x) in the Heb., and all with some textual difficulties (2 Chron 4:3; Neh

10:37; Amos 6:12). We may establish that bagar as a nom. is incapable of pluralization (IBD 254). bagar refers to a herd of unspecified domestic animals. However, herds of cattle are sometimes referred to by ‘éder, flock, herd (# 6373). Since ‘éder is mostly used of sheep and goats, the reference to cattle often has to be made explicit from.the immediate context (Gen 32:16, 19), by modifiers (Joel 1:18), or by inference from context (Zeph 2:14; NIV flocks and herds). 3. bagar as wealth. For the Israelites and the peoples of the ANE, cattle were an important criteria of measuring a person’s wealth (Gen 12:16; 26:14; 30:43; 46:32;

Deut 3:19; Job 1:3). Cattle were common possessions for the seminomadic patriarchs. Abraham was rich in cattle (Gen 13:2-7); even more so was Isaac, so that the Philistines envied him (Gen 26:12-14). To own cattle was a common phenomenon; Nathan

spoke in a parable of a rich man who had many bagar (2 Sam 12:2). The ancient Hebrews valued large cattle (bagar) more than small sheep (6’n). Cattle were to be restored fivefold when stolen, while a stolen sheep was restored fourfold (Exod 22:1). Cattle are mentioned together with silver and gold (Gen 24:35; cf. 13:5). Cattle were also valuable booty in war (Num 31:33; 1 Sam 27:9). Cattle are listed for their value alongside servants (Gen 12:16; 20:14; 26:14; 30:43; 32:5). Pharaoh indicates the value

placed on cattle when he agreed to let the Israelites go provided they left their cattle and sheep behind (Exod 10:24).

Cattle, together with sheep, are so important that the word pair “sheep and cattle” (s6’n tibagar) often represents a person’s entire possession of domestic animals. A reverse order of “cattle and sheep” also exists (e.g., 2 Sam 12:2). This word-pair expression occurs 50x. Sometimes, other animals such as donkeys, camels, and goats are mentioned along with the word pair (Gen 32:5; 47:17). The OT is clear that the increase of cattle is due to the Lord’s blessing (Gen 24:35; 30:30; Job 42:12).

4. bagar for sacrifice. bagar has an important place as a sacrificial animal in the OT. As a sacrifical animal it is most often mentioned first in the list (e.g., Lev 1:2). God designated bagar as a primary sacrificial animal on the basis of a universal principle—the life of the flesh is in the blood (Lev 17:11; cf. Gen 9:4). The sheer value of

cattle also made it a principal item of sacrifice. Moreover, bag@r for sacrifice should be without blemish (bagar tamim). The concept of wholeness is carefully defined (Lev PPLOBD p bagar is mainly used in the following types of sacrifice: (1) In the burnt offering (> ‘dla, #6592) to propitiate for sin in general. Only male animals could be used in burnt offering. The entire ox was burned (e.g., Lev 1:3; 23:18; Num 15:3, 8, 24; 28:11, 19, 27; 29:2, 8, 13; Ps 66:15; 1 Chron 21:23). (2) In sin offering (> hatta’t, # 2633) to

atone for specific transgressions, but only male animals were acceptable. The fatty portions were burned; all the remainder was given to the priests to eat within the court (Lev 4:3, 14; 9:2; 16:3; Num 8:8; 15:24; Ezek 45:18). (3) In the peace (fellowship) offering (> S*lamim, #8968) to fellowship with God, animals of both sexes were acceptable. This was a communal meal that was divided between Yahweh, the priests, and the offerer. The fatty portions had to be burnt. For the wave offering, the breast 708

“P35(# 1330) was given to the priest; for the heave offering, the right foreleg. The remainder belonged to the offerer to be eaten within the court (e. es Lev sit22725:

Sani 15:15;

1 Kgs 8:63; 2 Chron 7:5). 5. bagar for work. bagar was an important draught animal in the ancient society. For the Palestinian scratch plow, a two-ox team would be sufficient. Though an exceptionally twelve yoke of oxen are recorded (1 Kgs 19:19), a yoke of two oxen was a standard team. The term yoke (semed) is then used as a measure of land area that a team could plow within a day (1 Sam 14:14; Isa 5:10). Cows have been thought to work better than bulls in the ANE

(cf. 1 Sam

6:7-12; 1 Chron 13:9), although bulls that were not used for sacrifice, meat, or breed-

ing were widely used as draught animals. They were often castrated for more tractability and fat build-up. Methods of castration included cutting, crushing, or cauterizing of testicles (ABD 6:1129), but such bulls were disallowed for sacrificial use (Lev 22:24).

6. bagar for food. Like today, cattle were valued for meat and milk, although their usefulness in the ANE lay more in sacrifice and work than in food. Cattle provided important nutrients. Apart from sacrificial rituals, bagar was allowed in pure food consumption (Deut 14:4). Milk, curds, and cheese production, though not signifi-

cant in arid Palestine, appeared to be a substantial provision (Gen 18:8; Deut 32:14; 2 Sam 17:29). The cattle were kept in the pastures (Joel 1:18) as well as in stalls (Hab

3:47). The royal house was always the first to enjoy the choice food. At least in Solomon’s time, cattle were a usual feature in the daily royal meal. His kitchen prepared ten fat oxen, twenty pasture-fed cattle, along with many other animals every day (1 Kgs 4:23[5:3]). Special occasions should not go without beef. The inauguration of David as king of Israel celebrated a feast of baqgar along with many other foods (1 Chron 12:40[41]). Adonijah prepared oxen, sheep, and fat oxen (1 Kgs 1:9). The common people were also allowed to eat beef (Deut 14:4; cf. Joel 1:18). P-B

1. The equivalent term of baqar in the LXX is moschos, which also translates

other Heb. terms (e.g., ‘@gel, par, 5dr). As in the OT, there is a distinction in the G language between large and small domestic animals. In the LXX, the phrase probata kai moschoi, sheep and cattle, is a Heb. equivalent of s6’n dbaqar, sheep and cattle. Other terms include boukolion, herd; bous, ox, cow; damalis, heifer, young cow; kténos and moscharion, little calf.

NT

1. moschos is again a principal term for herds in the NT. Two more specific

terms are tauros, bull, and bous, ox, cow.

2. Cattle were also valuable animals in this period. They were still used as draught animals (Luke 14:19; cf. 1 Tim 5:18), for beef (Luke 15:23, 27, 30), and for milk (1 Cor 9:9). Jesus openly rebuked the Pharasees for their putting more value in their ox (bous) fallen into a well than a human being who needed healing on a Sabbath (Luke 14:5). Herd: ~ baqar (cows, cattle, # 1330); > §6rI (bull, ox, steer, # 8802)

> ‘égel ([bull-Jcalf, #6319);

> par (bull, #7228);

709

“IPD (# 1332) BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABD 5:870-86; 6:1129-30; IBD 1:254-55; IDB 1:543-44, 724; 3:614; ISBE 1:623-25, 798; 3:624;

NIDNTT 1:113-19; 2:410-14; TDNT 2:760-62; TDOT 2:6-20 (esp. 13-17), 209-16; TWOT 1:121, 124-25, 524: F. S. Bodenheimer, Animal and Man in Bible Lands, 1960; E. Fascher, “Jesus und die Tiere,” TLZ 90, 1965, 561-70; J. Feliks, Animal World of the Bible, 1962; W. Kornfeld, “Reine und unreine Tiere im Alten Testament,” Kairos 7, 1965, 134-47; J. Milgrom, “The Paradox of the Red Cow (Num 19),” VT 31(1), 1981, 62-72; R. Pinney, Animals of the Bible, 1964; S. Wefing,

“Beobachtungen

zum

Ritual mit der roten

Kuh

(Num

19:1-10a),” ZAW

93, 1981,

341-64.

Jeffrey S. Lu

1331 (béger I, technical term), > # 1329

eee

‘Rs

“P2 (bdger Il), morning, daybreak (# 1332);

nox (layla), night (#4326); 37 (‘rb V),

become evening (# 6845); D7Y (‘ereb I), evening (# 6847); Q°IM3 (soh°rayim), noon, midday (# 7416); IMW (Sahar), dawn (# 8840).

ANE. 1. The nom. bqr appears to be found in Lachish Ostraca iv (KAI 194.9) to speak of the course of the morning (btsbt hbqr), but the meaning of the line is obscure as the ostracon is broken; earlier interpreters took bgr as a vb. meaning examine (D/SO, 41),

but subsequent reconstruction of the text has led to an adoption of morning as the correct reading (May, 22-25; Cross, 24-26). The vb. bq‘ is found in the Mesha Inscription

(line 15) with the meaning of daybreak (mbq‘ hShrt; cf. Isa 58:8). The word is found in Arab. (bukrat) and Egyp. (bk’). 2. The nom. layla is common in all eras of Sem. The form // is found several times in Ugar. (UT 19.1397), though in the Baal epic the reference is probably to a god (KTU 1.2 i 14, 20), as the context is the assembly of the gods on “night mountain” (gr.ll), which may be translated “Lelu’s mountain” (de Moor, 31). It is found in old Aram. in the Panammu I inscription from Zinjirli (KAJ 214.24), and in stele I of Sefire, where day and night with other gods and elements witness the covenant (KAI

222A.12). Itis found in a Phoen. inscription where peace is described as there being no night (dl; cf. Ugar.) in the land (KAJ 26A II 17); the orthography J/h is found in the Mesha Inscription, which describes a night journey (KAJ 181.15). In Akk. we find /iliatum, lilatu (AHw, 552), in Arab. Jail, in Eth. Jélit, and in Tigre Jali.

3. The Ugar. ‘rb means enter (UT 19.1915), but is used in a variety of ways, including the setting of the sun; in Aqhat weeping women enter (‘rb) the palace (KTU 1.19 iv 10), and the goddes Pughatu is said to arrive at the setting (‘rb) of the sun (KTU 1.19 iv 48). The Akk. erébu is the common word for enter, but is also the word used for sunset (AHw, 234); similarly, the Arab. grb can mean sunset, the Eth. ‘arba means to go down. The nom. ‘rb is found once in the Lachish letters (DISO, 221); the Akk. erbu means the time of sunset (AHw, 233).

4. The nom. soh®rayim is rare; the Arab. zahr, zuhr, or zahirat have the mean-

ing of midday. The Moabite Inscription refers to the battle from daybreak until midday (KAI 181.15), providing an occurrence of both shrm and Shrh (dawn). The nom. Shr is found in Ugar. myth that accompanied the New Year festival (UT 19.2399; KTU 1.23 710

Pa(# 1332) 52, 53); the text refers to the birth of twin gods, Shaharu (the deified dawn) and Shalimu (the deified dusk) (de Moor, 125; cf. KTU 1.12 i 7, 8 where Shalimu is also called Qadmu, the East). The Akk. 5é/irtu(m) (AHw, 1218) and séru (AHw, 1219) both mean dawn or morning; the Arab. sahar means the time just before daybreak.

OT 1. The nom. béger occurs 214x, usually indicating the beginning of the day. Several indicators suggest that it carried the sense of the arrival of daylight. Abimelech was advised to lay an ambush at night and in the morning (babbdger), as the sun arose, he should rise early (Skm) and charge the city (Judg 9:33). After the concubine of the

Levite rising broke found

was abused all night until the morning (‘ad habbdger), they sent her away at the of the dawn (Sahar). The woman arrived at the door of the house as the morning (lipndét habboger) and lay there until it was light; then in the morning her master her dead body as he opened the doors to go on the way (Judg 19:25-27).

When God challenges Job about the day (Job 38:12), he asks if Job can command the morning (bdger), or whether he knows the place of the dawn (Sahar). God speaks of the time when the stars of the morning sang together (38:7), an allusion to the wish of Job that the stars of the dawn (neSep, # 5974; cf. 7:4) be dark (3:9), that the day he was born never see the eyelids (‘ap ‘appayim; > #6757) of the dawn (Sahar). Gor-

dis (268-69) proposes another parallel of morning and daybreak at 24:17; every morning (bdger) is like darkness to the evildoer, and daybreak (ki-yakkir) as the terrors of deepest gloom. The expression ki-yakkir (lit., for he recognizes) may be a contraction of expressions as in Ruth 3:14, where Ruth lay at the feet of Boaz until morning (‘ad boger) and rose before one could recognize (yakkir ’is) his neighbor. Another idiom for morning is mskym, rising time, when the mists and dew dis-

appear (Hos 6:4; 13:3). The hi. 5km is an idiom for doing something early or zealously; 31x it is combined with babbéger to speak of that which is done at rising time. In 2 Kgs 3:22 the Moabite army rises early in the morning just as the sun comes up and shines upon the water so it appears blood red; in 1 Sam 29:10 David and his army are sent away from Achish early in the morning, as soon as they have light (’6r). A number of texts connect bdger to the time of the arrival of ’or (Gen 44:3; Judg 16:2; 1 Sam 14:36; 25:34, 36; 2 Sam 17:22).

Various phrases with béger serve to indicate particular functions of time. Each morning is expressed by the phrase babboger babboger (morning by morning); this describes the gathering of the manna (Exod 16:21), the haggard face of Amnon (2 Sam 13:4), the scourge that will pass through Jerusalem (Isa 28:19), and the justice of the Lord (Zeph 3:5). This phrase occurs 13x, often in reference to the regular activities associated with the cult (Exod 30:7; Lev 6:12[5]; Ezek 46:13, 14, 15). Every morning

is expressed by the plural (labb°qarim); so Job complains that God constantly turns his attention to humans, checking on them every morning and testing them every moment (Job 7:18); it is the complaint of Ps 73:14 that the wicked prosper and the righteous are chastened every morning. On the other hand, even in trouble the mercies of the Lord are new every morning (Lam 3:23), and every morning the righteous would silence the wicked of the land (Ps 101:8). In the morning (babboger) occurs frequently (Gen 24:54; 40:6; Exod 16:8, 12; Ps 90:6, 14; etc.); the expression ‘ad habboger usually means until morning (Exod 16:19, 23, 24; 29:34; Lev 6:9[2]; 1 Sam 3:15; Prov 7:18; etc.), though it can also mean

by morning (Judg 6:31). A specified time can be expressed as from the morning 711

“Pa(# 1332) (min habboger); it may be daylight, from morning until evening (Exod 18:13), half of a day until noon (1 Kgs 18:26), or part of a day (2 Sam 24:15), or it may indicate the time after which an activity may take place (2 Sam 2:27). More difficult is the expression labboger, which can have a number of senses. It may simply indicate the morning as a point of time in which something is done (Exod 34:2: 1 Chron 16:40; Ezra 3:3; Ps 30:5[6]; 59:16[17]). However, other instances may

be interpreted as distributive; i.e., every morning; the taunt of Amos 4:4 may mean that the offering is to be brought in the morning after arriving at the sanctuary, or it may be intensified as “every morning” (Paul, 140); this function of the preposition may also be seen in Jer 21:12 (exercise justice every morning), so the emendation to the plural (BHS) is not necessary. It is proposed that the same sense is expressed by the repetition of the sing. in 1 Chron 9:27 (labboger labboger); the phrase would then mean the gatekeepers were responsible to open the house of God each morning (NIV). Another possibility is that it means from morning to morning; i.e., around the clock, in keeping

with the Ugar. use of the preposition (UT 10.11). Gordon thinks such northernisms in postexilic material were the result of the fusion of exiles from Israel and farther north with those from Judah (ibid.). Such a meaning would explain Job 24:14, where the murderer arises in the dark, expressed as /@’6r (lit., “from the light’; Habel, 354).

There is, of course, an overlap in the use of prepositions; none of the Passover sacrifice is to be left until the morning, which may be expressed as ‘ad boger (Exod 12:10; 23:18) or labbdger (34:25; Deut 16:4). The phrase aibodger ar®’ item in Exod 16:7 is adverbial (you will see in the morning); similar is boger w°ydda‘ in Num 16:5 (the Lord will make known in the morning). Before morning (b°terem boéger) occurs only in Isa 17:14 in a passage promising the deliverance of Jerusalem as the tumult of the evening will dissipate before morning. The duration of a day is frequently expressed by evening and morning: ‘ereb

boger (Dan 8:14); ha‘ereb w°habboger (Dan 8:26); way*hi’ ‘ereb way‘hi’ boger (Gen 1:5, etc.). An unusual metaphor is Ps 65:8[9], in which the “risings of the mornings and

evenings” (mdsa’é boger wa‘ereb) is used to indicate east and west; i.e., the regions of evenings and mornings as the regions of the ends of the earth. In some contexts morning indicates the following day or days rather than morning in particular (Delekat, 7-9). This is important in the lament psalms pleading for help; it is particularly evident when morning is parallel with day (Ps 90:14; 73:14), or when the importance is that help come quickly, as soon as the coming day (Ps 46:5[6]; 143:8). In other contexts the sense of day is also present for morning; “in the evening” and “in the morning” in Ezek 24:18 and 33:22 probably have the sense of previous day and next day (the former refers to the death of the prophet’s wife and his subsequent speaking to the people, the latter to the burden of bad news and the arrival of the refugee from Jerusalem). In Isa 17:11 the idolatrous gardens grow up in a day, the seeds sown sprout already the next day (babbdger). It is likely that the same sense of day pertains at times to expressions of “every morning” (Isa 28:19; 50:4; Jer 21:12; Lam 3:23), and morning may at times specify day as opposed to night (Ps 92:2[3]). Isa 21:12 is uncertain in meaning; Wildberger attempts to make sense of the text by translating “morning has come and yet it is night” (787-88), which could be a contrast of day and night. Morning in lament psalms can have the sense of quickly, every morning, or every day; it simply indicates help that is timely and effectual. The

VAL2

P3(# 1332) phrase of Ps 46:5[6], that the Lord will help at the breaking of the day, is based on Exod 14:27, where Moses stretched out his hand and the sea returned to drive back the

Egyptians at the breaking of day. It is likely that this is the basis of a plea for help in the morning rather than the idea that judgment was rendered at the place of justice in the morning (2 Sam 15:2), or that night was the time of danger and morning the time of security. The role of the morning offering is to be noted (Ps 5:3[4]); the petitioner brings his sacrifice (the burnt offering is implied) as the visible expression of his petition, with the expectation that the Lord will render a decision on his behalf in the morning.

“The following day” is also the sense of bdger with reference to certain cultic rituals, such as Num 16:5, where the Lord passes judgment to designate the legitimate priests. The interpretation of the LXX is that the Lord would make inquiry (bgr I, ~> # 1329), an interpretation followed by Gordon (30-32) to provide the same meaning for Lachish ostraca iv 9. However, this does not correctly understand the ritual involved and the significance of bgr as the next day; sanctification (bathing and laundering) must take place the day before one enters the presence of the Lord (Milgrom, 384-86), as may be seen in other examples (Gen 35:2-3; Josh 3:5; 7:13-14). Korah and

his followers were required to follow the same procedure before the judgment of the following day. The signficance of morning in two references is quite obscure. The text of Ps 49:14[15] is so problematic that many commentators regard it as impossible to reconstruct. However, the idea that “the upright will rule over them in the morning” (NIV) is somewhat incongruous with the thought of the stanza and the poem. The suggestion that morning (bqr) is a metathesis for the word grave (gbr) as suggested by BHS is attractive; all that is required is a revision of word division so the line says, “they shall go straight to the grave,” a sentiment entirely in keeping with the development of the stanza. Both the line division and the metaphor of Hos 7:6 are obscure: vv. 3-7 give details of a priestly attack on the court; the description appears to be laid out in a palistrophic structure, with v. 5 at the center describing the victims (Andersen and Freedman, 448-53). The conspirators are described as laying their plots all night long (v. 6aB) while the baker sleeps until morning (v. 6bA). The heated furnace appears to be a metaphor for the anger of the conspirators (vv. 6bB, 7aA). In the portrayal, the baker may allude to the king, whose negligence allowed the raging conspiracy, or the baker may have been someone assigned to protect the king, but was in actuality one of the conspirators who neglected his duty on the fateful night. Morning is a part of various blessings and warnings. In praise for deliverance from death the psalmist contemplates the wrath and mecry of God (Ps 30:5[6]) in order to affirm the triumph of mercy. The wrath of God is momentary but grace is for a lifetime; at evening there may be weeping, but in the morning there is jubilation. Proverbs warns that one who at the break of morning presents himself to his neighbor as the very soul benevolence by blessing (or perhaps greeting) him in a boistrous voice will be considered a curse (Prov 27:14). Metaphors for social or political statements often involve the morning. In the last words of Jacob, Benjamin is described as a ravenous wolf who devours his prey in the morning (Gen 49:27), a reference to the military

exploits of the tribe (Judg 3:15-30; 5:14) or possibly to the kingship of Saul. The rule of a just king is described as light on a cloudless morning, when the grass glistens after

713

7P3# 1332) the rain (2 Sam 23:4). It is noteworthy that the morning is not defined as the time of justice, but justice is described in terms of the fertility of morning light. Micah has harsh words for those who plot schemes of appropriation of property at night so they can carry out their deeds of injustice in the morning (Mic 2:1); Isaiah warns those who begin their pursuit of alcohol in the morning and continue into the evening (Isa 5:11). The curses of the covenant include exile, where dread will haunt them day and night; thus, in the morning they wish it were evening, and in the evening wish it were morning (Deut 28:67). 2. The nom. layla is found 227x in the MT, including the variant orthography layil (Prov 31:18; Isa 16:3; 21:11; Lam 2:19). It is possible that the repeated (and obscure) phrase of Isa 38:13 (from day to night you have finished me) is a dittography (Wildberger, 1443). The nom. is added by 1QIsa® and the Vrs. in Isa 60:19 (the moon will not give light by night). Fohrer (473) considers Job 36:20, where Eliaphaz apparently warns Job not to long for the night, to be hopelessly corrupt; Gordis (418), however, suggests that the verse warns against seeking security in the night as other evildoers, because God can cut off (lit., take up) whole peoples in a night. Night occurs frequently with day to indicate a period of twenty-four hours (1 Sam 30:12; Isa 28:19; Jer 33:20); the order day and night, which is customary in

undisputably preexilic passages, may indicate the manner in which the day was reckoned (de Vaux, 181-82). The order night and day found in two preexilic passages (1 Kgs 8:29; Jer 14:17) is reversed in 2 Chron 6:20 and the Vrs. In the postexilic period the day begins at sunset, indicated by the orders of Nehemiah that the gates be shut at nightfall to prevent the merchants from breaking the Sabbath (Neh 13:19). Esther asks for a fast of three days, night and day (Esth 4:16); night here not only indicates the beginning of the day, but a very strict fast that included the night, though it was not actually seventy-two hours long, for Esther appeared before the king on the third day (S21); Uninterrupted time may be emphasized as (lit.) “the whole day and whole night, continually” (Isa 62:6), though “continually, day and night” expresses the same idea (60:11). A general continuity is indicated by the adverbial expression day and night. It may be a period of limited duration, such as Nehemiah’s prayer for his people (Neh 1:6) or his setting a guard to protect those building the walls (4:9[3]). On the other hand, the temple singers were exempted from other duties in order to tend to their own work day and night (1 Chron 9:33), and Solomon prays that the attention of the Lord be directed to his temple continually (2 Chron 6:20). The terms also occur in the reverse order: The Israelites in exile will fear night and day (Deut 28:66); the destruction of Jerusalem will bring tears night and day (Jer-14:17; cf. 9:1[8:23]); the Lord will protect his restored vineyard night and day (Isa 27:3).

This night (tonight) is expressed by use of the article (hallayla): Gen 19:5, 34; Ruth 3:2; 1 Sam 14:34; 2 Sam 17:1; etc. In the night or by night is expressed with the preposition b° (ballayla): Gen 19:33, 35; 31:40; Eccl 8:16; Lam

1:2; etc. A similar

adverbial sense is expressed by the simple layla (Exod 12:31; 13:21-22 [cf. Neh 9:12, 19]; Neh 2:12-13; etc.). Until nightfall is expressed with a preposition (‘ad layla, 2 Chron 35:14); during night time employs the customary adv. with the preposition (b° ‘6d layla, Prov 31:15). The middle of the night occurs as h“s6t hallayla (Exod 11:4; Job 34:20; Ps 119:62) or hs? hallayla (lit., half the night; Exod 12:29; Judg 16:3;

714

P35# 1332) Ruth 3:8); the midst of the night is also expressed as b°t6k hallayld (1 Kgs 3:20) and the dark of night as ’i56n layla (lit., the “pupil” of night, Prov 7:9). Within a night occurs in Jon 4:10 (bin layla). The pl. (/él6t) may express through the night or the night hours as a “plural of composition” (Joiion, 136 b): Ps 16:7; 92:2[3]; 134:1; S of Songs 3:1, 8; Isa 21:8.

Day and night belong to God as their Creator (Ps 74:16; 104:20; Amos 5:8), so their function cannot be altered (Gen 8:22); Job may wish that one single night could have been omitted (Job 3:3), but God’s ordinances stand. The order of day and night may serve as a metaphor for God’s faithfulness to his word (Jer 31:35-36; 33:19-20). However, God has power over the darkness, so that it is not possible to hide anything from him (Ps 139:11-12). There is, of course, a time when the order of creation itself

will be altered, and there will be no more place for day and night (Isa 60:11; Zech 14:7). Night is the time when God may speak in dreams and visions; so Israel is directed to Egypt (Gen 46:2), and the prophet Zechariah receives a whole series of night visions concerning the future of the faithful in the Persian empire (Zech 1:8). Eliaphaz reports on a night vision, possibly that of Job, in which he wonders if humans may be righteous before God (Job 4:13); Elihu asserts that God is not silent concerning human dilemmas, but does speak in visions of the night (33:15). Such dreams may be fleeting; Zophar says that the wicked will vanish like a dream or vision of the night (Job 20:8). Isaiah looks forward to a change in fortune for Jerusalem, in which the threat of

the enemy will vanish like a dream before God’s judgment (Isa 29:7); the enemies will be as one hungry or thirsty who dreams of eating and drinking, only to awake to hunger and thirst (v. 8; cf. Wildberger, 1110, who regards v. 8a as a clumsy interpolation con-

cerning a deceptive dream). God’s judgment against the false prophets is that they will be disgraced by not receiving any revelation, for the night will pass without a vision and the day will turn to darkness for them (Mic 3:5-7). God brings the schemes of the cunning to an end so that at noon day they grope as in the night (Job 5:14). Night is the time of deviant behavior, as seeking after the promiscuous woman (Prov 7:9) or steal-

ing and plundering (Obad 5; cf. Jer 49:9). Night is also the time of anxiety (Ps 16:7) and anguish (22:2[3]); Job has lost hope that his night could be turned into day (Job 17:12). However, night also gives testimony to the knowledge of God (Ps 19:2[3]) and can be the time of praise (119:62). Ps 134:1 makes reference to a night celebration, but the nature of such celebrations is unknown; Isa 30:29 makes reference to a night festival, but its nature is also unclear, as no known festival corresponds to it (Wildberger,

1220). The night crossing of the Reed Sea and the deliverance from the Egyptians was a key testimony to God’s redemption (Ps 78:14). A cloud separated the Israelites and the Egyptians so that they did not come near each other (Exod 14:19-20); Sarna (73) is probably correct in suggesting this cloud cast a spell on the Egyptians, based on the word ’rr (curse) rather than ’wr (give light). 3. The vb. ‘rb V is comparatively rare in the OT. At Judg 19:9 it indicates the arrival of evening, as indicated by its description as the ending of the day (h“not hayy6m; cf. HALAT 319). It is used metaphorically in Isa 24:11 to describe the cessation of all joy; this follows an Akk. sense of er@bu (go down, leave), making proposed emendations unnecessary (HALAT 830). It is probable that the inf. const. rather than

FAS

7P3@ 1332) the nom. occurs at Prov 7:9 (BHS; cf. Judg 19:9); following sunset, a period of twilight (nexep) begins, the time when the adulterer begins the quest (cf. Job 24:15). The hi. occurs at 1 Sam 17:16 as opposite to haSkém to indicate the positioning of the Philistine at rising time (the break of dawn) and at the setting of the sun. The nom. ‘ereb is found 134x in the MT, though it is probable that Prov 7:9 should be a vb. It is the time of dusk, beginning with the setting of the sun; Jer 6:4

describes it as the ending of the day (panah hayy6m) when the shadows of the evening have grown long. The expression between the evenings (bén ha‘arbayim) means between sunset and darkness (Milgrom, 67), which is the time of the offering of the Passover sacrifice (Exod 12:6; Lev 23:5; Num 9:3, 5, 11) and the lighting of the lamps (Exod 30:8). This is what is meant by the time of evening (/° ‘ét ‘ereb), when the stock would be watered (Gen 24:11), or when one is preparing to retire (2 Sam 11:2). The approach of evening (lipnét ‘ereb) is when final ritual preparations for cleanliness are carried out so that with the arrival of evening one may be prepared to reenter the community (Deut 23:11[12]); it is also the end of the day when one may be walking about in the field (Gen 24:63).

Daily activity is carried on from morning until evening (‘ad ha‘ereb), whether it be regular work, such as Moses’ judging the people (Exod 18:13-14), Ruth’s gleaning in the field (Ruth 2:17), or the Israelites’ seeking direction from the Lord (Judg 20:23, 26). The time of the evening is also indicated by /a@‘ereb, often in contrast to the morning (Gen 49:27; 1 Chron 16:40; Ezra 3:3). Every evening is once expressed as ba‘ereb ba‘ereb (2 Chron 13:11); elsewhere /a‘ereb serves to complement for every morning (1 Chron 23:30; cf. 2 Chron 2:4[3]). In the evening is commonly expressed by ba‘ereb (Gen 19:1; 29:23; etc.). From evening to evening (mé‘ereb ‘ad ‘ereb) is found once in Lev 23:32 to indicate the time of the observance of the Sabbath; more common

is from evening until morning (mé ‘ereb ‘ad boger) to describe the duration of the night (Exod 27:21; Lev 24:3; Num 9:21). David waged a reprisal against the Amalekites from just after evening at twilight (méhanneSep) until evening of the next day (1 Sam 30:17). In Exod 16:6 the adverbial ‘ereb wida‘tem (in the evening you will know) is complemented by in the morning you will see (dbéger tir’ item).

Evening is part of the divine providence in the cycle of labor (Ps 104:23), though fearful uncertainty might drive one to work even when evening comes (Eccl 11:6). Along with the morning, evening is the time of recognizing the providence and presence of God through the regular offerings of incense and sacrifices (Exod 29:38-43; 30:7-8; 2 Chron 31:3). The evening prayer is also a sacrifice before God (Ps 141:2). The evening prayers may be those of penitence and petition (Ezra 9:4-5; Dan 9:21). Evening is the time when impurities are ended (Lev 11:24, 25, 27; etc.; Num

19:7, 8, 10); corpses had to be brought down by the time of the evening (Josh 8:29; 10:26; cf. Deut 21:22-23). Evening was the time that prisoners would be led off into exile (Ezek 12:4, 7); it is the time when the enemy would prowl for victims like a howling dog (Ps 59:6[7], 14[15]). Job complains that the time of evening when he goes

to bed is prolonged, so he tosses until morning twilight (Job 7:4). Human life is like grass that by evening time has withered (Ps 90:6; cf. Job 4:20). The time is coming, however, when there will be no more night, and at the time of the evening it will be light (Zech 14:7).

716

Pa (# 1332) In 1 Sam 20:5 the MT describes David as hiding from Saul until the “third evening”; the adj. is awkward, and likely secondary (cf. LXX), having been added in

anticipation of the later events of. the story (vv. 19-20, 35). “The evening wolf” is referred to in Hab

1:8 to describe the coming of the Chaldeans, and in Zeph 3:3 to

describe the judges of Jerusalem who leave nothing until morning. The wolf was larger than the jackal and most dogs and a ravenous hunter, lying low until dusk, when it would go on the prowl and gorge itself by the time of the morning (cf. Gen 49:27). 4. The nom. soh°rayim is not likely a dual, nor does it have a reference to brightness. The form is probably a secondary development from an original adverbial ending of am, referring to either place or time (cf. y6mam), though the dual could be construed as a dual representing the summit of two intersecting lines (Joiion, 91g). A relationship with the root zhr (shine) is often assumed, but it is just as likely the root shr is related to the apex of a roof, a meaning that is possible for the sdhar of Gen 6:16 (Armstrong, 328-33). If the latter is correct, soh°rayim refers to the high point of the sun (THAT 1:647). The nom. soh°rayim is found 23x. In several instances it simply marks the time of day, such as the prophets of Baal pleading from morning through noon (1 Kgs 18:26, 27, 29), the time when the child of the Shunammite woman died (2 Kgs

4:20), the time of the attack of Ahab against unguarded Ben-Hadad (1 Kgs 20:16), the time when Ishbosheth was killed (2 Sam 4:5), or the time when Joseph dines with his brothers (Gen 43:16, 25). In most occurrences, however, noon is significant for the

activity associated with the time. Noon may be the time of decimating war or disaster: the inhabitants of Ashdod will be driven out at noontime (Zeph 2:4); the attack against Jerusalem will begin at noon and continue through the lengthening shadows of evening into the night (Jer 6:4); the destroyer of the mothers of the valiant will strike

Jerusalem

at noon, bringing anguish and terror (15:8); and Jeremiah wishes that the one who announced his birth might be like the overthrown cities (terminology used for Sodom and Gomorrah), who heard the cry in the morning and the alarm at noon (20:16). In the lament against Moab the counsel for Jerusalem is that her shadows should become long at noon in order to provide hiding places for the refugees (Isa 16:3); this is an extremely difficult section, but it seems the identity of the city is the daughter of Zion introduced in v. 1 (Wildberger, 600). Amos pronounces judgment against Israel, warning that their sun will go down at noon and their festivals will be turned into lamentation (Amos 8:9). Pestilence may strike at night, and disease at noonday (Ps 91:6). There is a progression of evils described here; v. 5 speaks of the terrors of the night and the arrows (i.e., sicknesses) of the day, while v. 6 speaks of the evils of the darkest night and brightest day, a possible allusion to demonic powers (Kraus, 223). The curse of breaking the covenant will be a smiting of blindness and madness so Israel will grope at noon like a blind man in darkness (Deut 28:29); so Zion is described as those who grope like the blind, stumble at noon as at twilight (Isa 59:10). Job is assured that the wicked encounter darkness by day and grope about at noon as at night (Job 5:14).

However, just as judgment at noon is particularly calamitous, so noon signifies the time of hope and justice. Care for the hungry and the needy will result in light rising in the darkness and the gloom becoming like noon (Isa 58:10). Trust in the Lord will result in righteousness rising like light, justice like the noonday sun (Ps 37:6). The 717

“P3 @ 1332) cry of distress may be at evening, morning, and noon (55:17[18]), but at all times the Lord will hear. Zophar assures Job that if he directs his heart aright, his world will become bright as noonday, his darkness will shine like the morning (Job 11:17). In one reference noon is the time for making love; the request of the woman to know where her true love rests his flock at noon (S of Songs 1:7) is a reference to the siesta of the . shepherd, which affords time for a love tryst (Pope, 328-29).

5. The etymology of Sahar is unclear (THAT 2:990-91); one suggestion is that it is a Sem. causative (shaphel) of hrr I, to make hot (HALAT 1360). It refers to the time

before daybreak, the red or grey appearance of the advancing light. In lands where the heat rises very quickly, the interval from the first glimmers of dawn to the rising of the sun provides a light condition with opportunity for immediate activity (Gen 19:15, 23; 32:24[25], 26[27], 31[32]; Judg 19:25-26; Jon 4:7-8). The final march around Jericho began just as the dawn was rising (Josh 6:15); Nehemiah’s crew began their work at the first rays of dawn (Neh 4:21[15]. Samuel arranged for the anointing of Saul at the break of dawn (1 Sam 9:26). The king of Israel was killed at dawn (Hos 10:15), the time when the plot against the king was consummated (cf. Hos 7:6); an attack before sunrise has both the element of surprise and the opportunity of coming daylight. See also # 8840.

The nom. is found 24x in the MT, but a number of texts are of questionable interpretation. It is probable that Joel 2:2 should be vocalized to speak of the spreading of the shadows (Shr I) rather than the dawn (cf. BHS), an image in keeping with the day of darkness, gloom, and clouds. Related to this is the doxology of Amos 4:13, where God turns the blackness to glimmering dawn; it is possible that Shr in this verse has the meaning of darkness and that the following ‘yph means brightness or glimmer (Paul, 155; cf. Akk. api, Supt, Sutapi, CAD AII, 201); the only other biblical occurrence of ‘yph is Job 10:22, where it also has the probable meaning of light (Gordis, 115-16; cf. t‘ph, Job 11:17). Andersen and Freedman, however, prefer the traditional meaning for Shr in Amos 4:13 and translate “dawning out of darkness,” taking it as a demythologized expression (456; Shr is a god of the dawn, and ‘pt’ is a female demon who flies around in the dark in an incantation text from Arslan-Tash). Isa 8:20 and 47:11 present similar difficulties. Wildberger (352) finds in 8:16-20 a parallel to 47:9-13, where

Babylon cannot avert her coming destruction through the powers of sorceries and enchantments; the sense of 47:11 is that Babylon will not know how to exorcise or dispel the coming evil (Shr II, vb., HALAT

1359-60). Jerusalem, in the time of Assyrian

distress, similarly sought refuge in the soothsayers (8:19); the word of vv. 16-18 must be given to them, so they may understand that no spell or charm («hr II, nom., HALAT 1362) is able to dispel the coming judgment. (Wildberger, 343). However, Hartmann contrasts Shr in 8:20 with 58:8 (THAT 2:991); there will be no morning light for Jerusalem under Assyrian siege, such as the vindication of Jerusalem after the Exile, when light will break as the dawn (cf. Ps 37:6; 46:5[6]).

Hos 6:3 speaks of the emergence of Yahweh to be as certain as the dawn; the probable meaning is that the prophetic word going forth encourages those who renew their devotion just as dawn is the presage of the coming day (Andersen and Freedman, 423-24). Isaiah refers to the “son of the dawn” in the poem concerning the fall of the Babylonian king (Isa 14:12). The identity of the “radiant star” (hélél; #2122) with an astral deity cannot be established; rather, the imagery of the star gods is used to portray 718

—

“PS# 1332) the unmitigated hubris of the king. Similar imagery is found elsewhere. Gallagher has recently made a more convincing case for an identification with the Sumerian god Enlil (Illil) as a Mesopotamian god who is portrayed as having an astral function, as aspiring to be the highest, but in later texts as falling into the underworld (133-43). However, he is not “son of the dawn,” an innovation that would need to be attributed to Isaiah.

Though it is not certain, such a connection of a Mesopotamian god to the stars was known in the Isaiah context, the imagery of star gods is used to portray the unmitigated hubris of the king. In Ps 110:3 the ruler of Zion is said to be from “the womb of the dawn” (it is likely the correct reading is Shr rather than mShr, the mem being dittography, as suggested by Kraus, 344); this is not a reference to the Ugaritic deity, but rosy dawn is a metaphor of hope and change, as in Isa 58:8 (ibid., 350). The “wings of the dawn” and the “far side of the sea” in Ps 139:9 serve as metaphors for the most distant east and west where God is also present; if the expression originated with reference to a deity, it has been long since demythologized. Similar is the personification of waking the dawn with the lyre and harp (57:8[9]; cf. 108:2[3]); this is simply a reference to the morning song of praise and thanksgiving, the hour of the bestowal of salvation and help. In S of Songs 6:10 the beauty of the beloved looks down as the rosy glow of the dawn on the horizon. The eyes of Leviathan are red like the dawn (Job 41:18[10]); in Egyptian hieroglyphics the eye of the crocodile was the symbol of dawn. The figurative use of the phrase is a masterful contrast with the literal use of the image in 3:9. In 38:12 Sahar is parallel with béger, as God challenges Job concerning his knowledge of the universe; this is in response to Job’s earlier complaint that his day should never have seen the glimmer of dawn (3:9). The heading of Ps 22 (according to the hind of the dawn, cf. RSV) is enigmatic, but is likely the name of a melody (Kraus, 30). The G and Tgs. interpret hind (’ayyelet) as strength (’“yalit). The attempt to link the image of a deer, representing a sun deity, with the Ugaritic deity of the dawn is purely speculative (Jirku, 85-86). Also speculative is Mowinckel’s suggestion that Ps 22 concerns an atonement offering, so the heading reads “to the one offering a female sheep at the break of dawn” (26-29); most questionable is interpreting ’ayyelet as the feminine form of ’ayil (ram).

P-B The words morning, night, and evening are common in Late Heb. and Aram. In RL morning is frequently used metaphorically of light or salvation and night of demise or judgment (Jastrow, 187). “In the morning” may refer to the world that is all good; when the morning of the persecuting nations becomes evening, then the evening of Israel will become morning. The dual of evening is taken as the time between the beginning of the decline of the sun and sunset, that is afternoon (Jastrow, 1111). In Late Heb. the vb. ‘rb V in the hi. means to do something in the evening; in later Aram. it is used in the middle to speak of the setting sun. The Talm. makes reference to jewels shining as the noonday. Dawn is the time of reciting the Shema and the Benedictions, as well as the bringing of the daily offering of the morning. An apocryphal psalm at Qumran (11Q 26.11) praises God as the one who separated light from darkness and established the dawn with the knowledge of his heart. Day: ~ boger II (morning, daybreak, #1332);

> yom I (day-light, day, eschatological day,

today, # 3427)

719

WPA(# 1335) BIBLIOGRAPHY

THAT 1:86-87, 647, 709; 2:990-92; F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Hosea, AB 24, 1980, 423-24, 448-53: idem, Amos, AB, 1989, 456; J. F. Armstrong, “A Critical Note on Genesis VI 16a,” VT 10, 1960, 328-33; A. Berlin, Zephaniah, AB, 1994; F. M. Cross, “Lachish Letter LV?

BASOR 144, 1956, 24-26; L. Delekat, “Zum hebradischen Worterbuch,” VT 14, 1964, 7-9; J.C. de Moor, An Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit, 1978, 31, 125; G. Fohrer, Das Buch Hiob, KAT, 1989, 473; W. R. Gallagher, “On the Identity of Helel Ben Sahar of Is. 14:12-15,” UF 26, 1994, 131-46; R. Gordis, The Book of Job, 1978, 115-16, 268-69, 418; C. Gordon, “Lachish Letter IV,” BASOR 67, 1937, 30-32; N. Habel, The Book of Job, OTL, 1985, 354; G. F. Hasel, “Day and Night,” JSBE,

1:878-79; A. Jirku, ““Ajjelet has-Sahar (Ps. 22, 1),’ ZAW 65, 41953;

85-86; P. Joiion, Grammaire de l’hébreu biblique, 1923, 91g, 136b; L. Kohler, “Die Morgenrote im Alten Testament,” ZAW 3, 1926, 56-59; H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 1-59, 1988, 30; idem, Psalms

60-150, 1989, 223, 344, 350; H. May, “Lachish Letter IV,” BASOR 97, 1945, 22-25; T. W. McKay, “Heleh and the Dawn-Goddess: A Re-examination of the Myth in Isaiah xiv 12-15,” VT 20, 1970, 451-64; J. Milgrom, Numbers, JPS Torah Commentary, 1990, 67, 384-86; S. Mowinckel, Psalmen-Studien 4:26-29; S. Paul, Amos, Hermeneia, 1991, 140, 155; M. Pope, Song of Songs, AB, 1977, 328-29; S. J. Schwantes, “ereb boger of Dan 8:14 Re-Examined,” AUSS 16, 1978, 375-85; S. N. Sarna, Exodus, JPS Torah Commentary, 1991, 73; R. de Vaux, Anclsr, 1965, 1:180-83; H. Wildberger, Jesaja, BKAT 10, 1978, 343, 352, 600, 787-88, 1110, 1220, 1443.

A. H. Konkel

1333 (baqqard, care), > # 1329 1334 (bigqoret, inquiry, reprimand), > # 1329

1335

YPa

wpa (bqs), pi. seek, find, look for (an object), ; ; . :

require, desire, discover, request, seek to obtain;

pu. be sought (for), be searched, be examined

(# 1335); MWPA (bagqasa), nom.

request, desire (# 1336).

ANE The lexeme is well attested in the Sem. languages. Phoen. bqs search, find: ’/ ybqs bn mnm, “let no one search for anything in it” (DISO, 41); Ugar. bqt, search, seek (UT # 505): in the Ugar. Poem of Baal and Anat: “And I shall seek (bgt) Aliyn (Puissant) Baal” (UT 49:IV:44), and in the Epistle to the King on Ships and Maritime Trade: “(The) queen shall look for (bgt) ships and you” (UT, Text 2008:rev.13; cf. PRU 5:15); Aram.-Syr. bhS, scrape, observe, examine, stir, agitate (HAHAT, 7; Payne Smith, 41);

Akk. bahasu, ba’asu, be’ ésu, stir, strive(?) (AHw 1:117; CAD 2:185); Mand. bhi, agitate, stir about, incite; search, examine (MaD, 54); classical and modern Arab. bahata, search, investigate, explore (Lane, 155; Wehr, 42).

a

OT The vb. bg§ occurs 225x in the OT (222x in the pi. and 3x in the pu.). It appears only once in Lev (19:31) and Job (10:6). However, it is widely used in the rest of the OT: pentateuch (15x); historical books—preexilic: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel (44x); exilic: 1 & 2 Kings (13x); postexilic 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (32x); poetic books (55x); and the prophets (66x; bg¥ does not occur in Joel, Obad, Jon, Mic, Hab, Hag).

720

WP(# 1335) 1. Idiomatic. The function and meaning of bg¥ is determined by its object in a given context; however, the following idiomatic usages may be observed. (a) bqs with acc. of object with the prep /° means seek after s.t., search for/out; e.g., Job 10:6: “You must search out my faults.”

(b) bs followed by the inf. const. of another vb. with the prep. prefix /° expresses the intent of the subject: “Jonathan intended (bq3) to cross” (1 Sam 14:4). (c) bq¥ with the prep. min has the notion of requiring, demanding, asking,

pleading. For instance, “We will not demand (bg) anything more from them” (Neh 5:12); and to “plead (bqs) with him” (Esth 4:8). 2. Synonyms. In the OT besides the vb. bq¥ eight other words are translated “seek” or its synonyms, i.e., bgr (seek, inquire, # 1329), dr (seek, # 2011), hlh (seek favor, #2704), hgr (seek, explore, #2984), smt (seek to destroy, #7551), gsm (seek/consult omen, #7876), 5’! (ask, seek, consult, #8626), ‘hr (earnestly seek, # 8838). The most frequent ones, however, are bqs (pi.) and dr¥ (q.), used of “seeking God,” which is a synonym for “seeking the LORD/Yahweh.” Moreover, the two words bq and drs are used together in synonymous parallel-

ism in some passages. For example, in Deut 4:29 Moses speaks to Israel: “But if from there you seek (bg) the LORD your god, you will find him if you look (drs) for him with all your heart and with all your soul.” This is an exhortation of Moses to that generation and to the generation to come as a warning against the outcome of idolatry and subsequent returning to God with remorse for his mercy and forgiveness. Similarly in Jer 29:13, Jeremiah writes to all the exiles to submit to the Babylonian captivity as God’s legitimate punishment for her apostasy and with penitence to return, asking for his restoration: “You will seek me (bq5) and find me when you seek (drs) me with all

your heart.” Other usages of bg and drs in synonymous parallelism are found in 2 Chron 20:3-4; Ps 105:3-4 = 1 Chron 16:10-11; Zeph 1:6. These two vbs. are synonymous and when used together often heighten the thought. In the case of Zeph 1:6, bqs lays stress on general seeking or asking someone, while drs emphasizes the person’s specific concern in the inquiry of God associated with repentance (Patterson, 307). Two other words, 5’/ and Shr, are also used of seeking God: 5’/ is a technical term for consulting God (Josh 9:14; Isa 30:2; 65:1), while Sr emphasizes the personal character of the encounter with God in prayer (Job 8:5; Ps 63:1[2]; Isa 26:9; Hos 5:15). There are a few other expressions synonymous to “seeking God.” They are: seeking (bq5) “the name of Yahweh” (Ps 83:16[17]) and searching for (bgS) “the word of Yahweh” (Amos 8:12). 3. All three occurrences of bgs in the pu. (Esth 2:23; Jer 50:20; Ezek 26:21)

convey the passive meaning. The context of Esth 2:23 suggests that the root bqS is to be interpreted as meaning examine or investigate. The text reads: way*buqqas haddabar, “when the report was investigated.” It relates the official record of Mordecai’s good deed of uncovering the conspiracy of two officers to assassinate the king and of his saving his life. According to Jer 50:20, the iniquity of Israel and Judah shall be sought (y°buqgax), but it will not be found because Yahweh will have forgiven it. To the contrary, according to Ezek 26:21, the destruction of Tyre as God’s judgment is so complete that it will never be found when sought for (¢“buqst). 4. The nom. baggasd appears 8x in the OT—7x in Esth and 1x in Ezra (Esth 5:3, 6, 7, 8; 7:2, 3; 9:12; Ezra 7:6). This nominal form is modeled on an Aram. pael

721

Wd(# 1335) infinitive with very strong nom. characteristics (cf. HALAT 1:146). In all the eight passages, each one appears with a suffix attached to it. Frequently Se’eld, request (> #8629), is synonymously parallel to baggas4, denoting a petition, wish, desire, request, etc., made by a subject to a king. 5. General use. In the OT the root bg¥ is used in two broad ways. (a) The vb. bqg¥ takes persons (brothers [Gen 37:15-16]; spies [Josh 2:22]; man [Judg 4:22]; Elijah [1 Kgs 18:10]); animals (donkeys [1 Sam 9:3]; flea [1 Sam 26:20]);

and inanimate objects (food [Ps 104:21]) as its object in the sense of finding, looking for someone or something (50x). This vb. also takes abstract objects in the sense of pursuing, e.g., wisdom (Prov 14:6; 15:14; Eccl 7:25), love (Jer 2:33), harm (Esth 9:2), peace (Ps 34:14[15]; Ezek 7:25), lies (Ps 4:2[3]), the word of God (Amos 8:12), the name of God (Ps 83:16[17]), and so on.

(b) The idiomatic expression of killing or wanting to kill s.o. is expressed in two different modes. (i) Indirect mode of expression: bqs (’et) nepes (+ suffix), lit., “to seek the soul/life of s.o.” This phrase occurs 30x in the OT. Almost half of these occurrences are found in Jeremiah (e.g., Jer 21:7; 22:25; 38:16; 46:26; 49:37). The phrase also appears frequently in the Psalms (Ps 35:4; 38:12[13]; 40:14[15]; 54:3[5]; 63:9[10];

70:2[3]; 86:14). Similarly, the idiomatic expression bqs dam, “seek blood,” employed in the legal sense of “requiring blood,” i.e., facing death, is found in 2 Sam 4:11. In this passage David has the murderers of Ish-Bosheth, son of Saul, executed. A similar expression is also found in Ezek 3:18, 20; 33:8 (see section 6-b-iv below).

(11) Direct mode of expression: bq¥ plus inf. const. of mwt (hi), “death,” or hrg, kill; e.g., “The king sought (bqs) to put him to death” (Jer 26:21); with the prep. prefix I°, e.g., “He tried (bq) to kill Moses” (Exod 2:15). 6. Theological use. Theologically the root bg, seek, is employed in the OT in connection with God either as the object or the subject of the act of seeking. (a) God as the subject of seeking. In the OT the usage of the root bgs, seek, with God as the subject, appears only 14x. It nevertheless presents a wide variety of divine activities.

(i) Seeking the lost (Ps 119:176; Eccl 3:15; Ezek 34:16). In his prayer to the Lord, the psalmist asks the Lord to seek him, because he feels that he is lost (Ps 119:176). Ezekiel speaks of the shepherd’s responsibility of seeking the lost sheep (Ezek 34:16). In Eccl 3:15, bg¥ appears in an affirmative statement that all incidents of the present and future are determined by God, and thus he is able to seek that which has passed by (nirdap). The expression nirdap is difficult and rendered differently, e.g., “disappeared”

(TDOT

2:240;

Zimmerli,

“passed/gone by” (NRSV, NASB).

168,

173,

174);

“persecuted”

(JB),

The translation “passed/gone by” (cf. HALAT

4:1112) seems to fit the context better. That is to say, God seeks to do things he has done before in order to bring them back into the present, because he is in control of all events of history.

(ii) Choosing, designating (1 Sam 13:14). In the narrative of Saul’s rejection by God because of disobedience, the text reads: “The LORD has sought out (bq5) a man

after his own heart and appointed (swh) him leader of his people.” There is a wordplay on the vbs. bq5, seek, and swh, appoint, because these two make a composite unit in T22

WPA (# 1335) this particular piece of narrative. That is to say, the Lord has chosen and designated a man after his own heart (cf. Jer 3:15), i.e., an ideal ruler, to succeed Saul. (iii) Search or look for (Sob 10:6; Ezek 22:30). Job in his lament speaks of a

divine investigation for the purpose of establishing iniquity and sin (Job 10:6). God declared through Ezekiel that he found no one who could prevent the judgment by building a dam against the people’s sins and by interceding for the people (Ezek 22:30). (iv) Intent to kill (Exod 4:24; Judg 14:4; Zech 12:9). In Exod 4:24, the phrase

way°baqges h*mité “and he (the Lord) was about to kill him,” bg¥ plus inf. const. of mwt (hi), kill, denotes the intention of God to kill Moses. This incident took place on the journey back to Egypt, somewhere in the wilderness. It is difficult to understand why God intended to kill Moses. Childs admits that understanding of this enigma is a crux (Childs, 103). Zipporah, Moses’ wife, came to his rescue. (v) Investigating, i.e., in a legal sense. In Josh 22:23, in a dispute between the leaders of the western tribes and those of the eastern tribes over an altar, the eastern

tribes swear: “Let Yahweh himself investigate (bg5)” the situation and bring his judgment accordingly. Although the NIV translation of the phrase “may the LORD himself call us to account” is somewhat of a paraphrase, the sense of executing justice is rightly maintained. (vi) Requiring/demanding (1 Sam 20:16; Ezek 3:18, 20; 33:8). In 1 Sam 20:16, in the context of the account concerning the sworn friendly relationship between David and Jonathan fashioned after the covenantal contract, Jonathan says: “May the LORD call David’s enemies to account.” The NIV translates bgs (pi.) as “call to account,”

which evidently is ambiguous. The literal translation as suggested by S. R. Driver is helpful: “And may Yahweh require it at the hand of David’s enemies! (viz., if they presume to attack or calumniate him)” (Driver, 165). In his commission to the prophet

Ezekiel the Lord puts him under obligation by requiring the blood (dm ... bqS) of the sinner who faces the death penalty if he fails to warn him beforehand (Ezek 3:18, 20;

33:8). Requiring blood, therefore, means facing death. (b) God as the object of the act of seeking. God as the object of bgs appears about 30x in the OT. There are basically two main categories of phrases used for seeking God. (i) The longer form is bg ’et-p*né yhwh, seek the face of Yahweh (2 Sam 21:1). A shorter form is bq¥ (et) yhwh, seek Yahweh (Exod 33:7; Deut 4:29; 1 Chron 16:10 = Ps 105:3; 2 Chron 11:16; Prov 28:5; Isa 51:1; Jer 50:4; Hos 3:5; 5:6; Zeph 1:6;

2:3; Zech 8:21-22;). (ii) bgs, seek, plus a pronominal suffix (with or without panim) referring to Yahweh, “seek me” (Isa 45:19; Jer 29:13); “seek you” (Ps 40:16[17]; 69:6[7]; 70:4[5]); “seek his face” (Ps 105:4 = 1 Chron 16:11); “seek my face” (2 Chron 7:14; Hos 5:15); “seek your face” (Ps 24:6; 27:8); “seek me not” (Isa 65:1); “seek him

not” (cf. Hos 7:10); “sought him” (2 Chron 15:4, 15); “the Lord you are seeking” (Mal 3:1). (i) Pentateuch. The expression “seeking God” appears in Exod 33:7 and Deut 4:29; both are used in association with sin, i.e., worshiping of the golden calf and warning of apostasy respectively. Childs rightly observes that Exod 33:7-11 serves as a connection between what precedes and what follows by combining Moses, God, and the people within one activity (Childs, 592). That activity involves mourning (v. 4), worshiping God in fear (v. 10), and manifesting God’s glory (v. 22). The key phrase is

#23

WPA(# 1335) m‘ baqgés yhwh, seeking Yahweh (v. 7). In Deut 4:25-31 God warns his people of possible apostasy in the future. However, even in the state of apostasy God’s people will seek (bg) the Lord (v. 29) and return (Swb) to the Lord. Here one can discern a word-

play on bqs, seek, and Swb, return. This schema is also found in the prophets. Thus “seeking God” stands parallel to “returning to God” from the state of apostasy or wicked ways. The wording of the saying about seeking and finding Yahweh (Deut 4:29) resembles that in Jer 29:13. Von Rad sees the possibility of the Deuteronomist quoting from the well-known letter of Jeremiah ch. 29 (von Rad, 50-51). This need not be so, because the concept of “‘seeking the LORD” is not a late phenomenon as it has been linguistically and theologically analyzed. (ii) Historical books. After Solomon had finished building the temple (ca. 947/946 BC), the Lord appeared to him and promised that if in the times of difficulties his people would humble themselves and pray and seek his face (bg¥ panim) and turn (§wb) from their wicked ways, he would forgive them (2 Chron 7:14). Here bq is used in conjunction with prayer. When Ezra with his company undertook the journey from Babylonia to Jerusalem (ca. 458/457 BC), he went without military escort, trusting in God by affirming, “The gracious hand of our god is on everyone who looks to (bqs) him, but his great anger is against all who forsake him” (Ezra 8:22). The words cited here are probably a traditional couplet, with antithetic parallelism between “those who look to him” (part. pl. of bgs) and “all who forsake him” (part. pl. of ‘zb), namely, the people of god and the enemy of god or Israel respectively. Some scholars conjecture that Ezra wrongly calculated that the way to Jerusalem was safe and therefore he did not request a military escort from the king (e.g., Pavlovsky, 275-305). This is not likely so, because it was indeed an adventurous journey made with full confidence in God. This was an acting out of firm conviction that God grants help to those who seek (bq§) him. (iii) Poetical books. Among the numerous references to seeking the Lord in Psalms (11x), David says, “My heart says of you, “Seek his face!’ Your face, LORD, I will seek” (27:8). Ps 40:16[17] = Ps 70:4[5]: “But may all who seek you rejoice and be

glad in you.” Prov 28:5: “Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the LORD understand it fully.” This seems parallel to the expression found in Prov 1:7 and 9:10, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge.” Therefore, in Proverbs, “seeking (bg5) the Lord” may be theologically connected with “‘fearing/revering (yr’) the Lord.” (iv) Prophets. In the prophets the expression “seeking God” occurs 14x (cf. Isa 45:19; 65:1; Hos 3:5; 5:6, 15; 7:10; Zeph 1:6; 2:3). It is interesting to note the nuances of the expression “seeking God” employed by the prophets. It is a difficult task due to the wide distribution of the expression. We will focus our attention on the use of the expression in the prophets, i.e., in Hos 3:1-5 within its context and in relation to Zephaniah. It is to be noted that the time span between these two prophets is about a century. The initial activity of the prophet Hosea took place in the last years of Jeroboam II, while the prophet Zephaniah ministered during the reign of Josiah before the great reformation of 622 BC. The expression wbigsi ’et-yhwh ’“lohéhem, “[they will] seek the LorD their god” (Hos 3:5), is connected with repentance (Swb). Hosea combines two themes: Yahweh’s love for Israel, expressed by means of the prophet’s own dramatic act of 724

WP (# 1335) marrying an unfaithful woman, i.e., a harlot (vv. 1-3); and the apostate state of Israel

and her requirements to seek God and turn to him (vv. 4-5). Some scholars think vv. 4-5 do not belong here and hence are a later insertion (e.g., Robinson, 16). This is unlikely because the two themes, Yahweh’s

concern and Israel’s accountability, are

related to each other and as such they remain in tension. The expressions “seeking God” and “returning to God” are connectors that indicate the consequences of apostasy and future hope of restoration. In the expression, “Afterward the Israelites will return (§wb) and seek (bq5) the LorD their god” (v. 5), bgs, seek, stands parallel to swb, return. We see here a play on words in the usage of bq and Swb (see also 7:10). The root bg, seek, is a technical term for seeking God’s will at a shrine. It corresponds to “ephod” and “idol” (v. 4), which are cultic objects that are also found in pairs in Judg 17:5; 18:14, 17-18. As a pair they are probably used as a means for seeking the divine will apart from God’s revelation or the prophetic message (Mays, 59). Hosea warns that Israel will be stripped of such divination techniques along with other detestable things (v. 4). Perhaps in 4:12 he alludes to these techniques as abominations (cf. 1 Sam 15:23; 2 Kgs 23:24; Ezek 21:21; Zech 10:2). Likewise, the root Swb (> # 8740), return, denotes confession, forgiveness, and reconciliation, and it corre-

sponds to “sacrifice” and “sacred stones” (v. 4) (Beeby, 41). Similarly, the prophet Zephaniah pronounces God’s judgments upon “those who turn back from following the LORD and neither seek (bq5) the LORD nor inquire of (drs) him” (Zeph 1:6). As commented earlier, when used together, bg denotes seeking in a general sense while dr denotes inquiring of God with the view to repentance (Patterson, 307). Zephaniah pronounces God’s judgment on three groups of the people of God (1:5-6): (1) those who worship the hosts of heaven on roofs, 1.e., participation

in pagan worship of the stars and the moon; (2) those who swear by Yahweh and Molech, i.e., the practice of syncretistic religion; and (3) those who have abandoned Yahweh. These people need to seek God with a penitent heart. Further, in Hos 5:6 the prophet says, “When they go with their flocks and herds to seek the LorRD (/°baqqés ’et-yhwh), they will not find him. He has withdrawn himself from them.” Hosea is here perhaps making a reference to the numerous sacrificial animals the people of Israel bring to sanctuaries when they “seek the LORD” (cf. 1 Sam 15:14, 21). According to Hos 4:3, 13, improper animal sacrifice is reckoned by the

prophet as part of Israel’s guilt (Wolff, 100). In Zeph 2:3 the prophet uses the term bgs 3x. This seems to make the idea of seeking God more intense. That is to say, in this passage “seeking God” stands in parallelism with seeking sedegq, righteousness, and ‘““nawd, humility, and doing mixpato, his (Yahweh’s) judgment. So “seeking God” demands ethical responsibilities on the part of the seekers. “Seeking God,” therefore, is a call to repentance and conversion, which requires diligently observing God’s ordinances. The contrast to seekers (bq) of Yahweh (Hos 3:5) are those with “a spirit of prostitution” (riiah z°ninim; > #2388), who do not know Yahweh (Hos 5:4). Instead

of seeking the Lord in humility, those who seek their own image, “a spirit of prostitution,” will never know God (cf. Hos 3:3). In sum, (1) seeking God requires turning from one’s wicked ways and worshiping him in humility. (2) In prophetic thought, to seek God means to be in constant

fellowship with God, to observe his commandments, and to practice love and justice. 725

WP (# 1335) (3) Sacrifices, no matter how lavish, cannot guarantee access to God for those who do

not turn from evil ways and repent. (4) Even though the arrogant and sinful seek God, they never find him. (5) According to the OT writers, ultimately it is God who chooses and seeks the lost to reveal himself to them, but the one who sincerely seeks him can

hope to find him. P-B The Greek translators of the OT have used seventeen different vbs. for the translation of bg¥ in the pi. However, among them are the two main G vbs., namely, the simple zéted and the compound ekzéted, translated 175x and 25x respectively. These two G words have almost the same meaning as the Heb. bqg5, seek. The G usages of these terms in the LXX have fundamentally the same senses as the Heb. bgs discussed above. In classical G literature, zétein, seek, is a technical term for philosophical inves-

tigation (TDNT 2:893). In the DSS, there is one instance where bg and drs are used together in synonymous parallelism with an advance in thought similar to Zeph 1:6 (see above). For the Qumran community, seeking (bqs) and inquiring of (drs) God in his statutes are necessary qualifications to be in the covenant community (1QS 5:11). Other occurrences of bgs denote seeking in a general sense: “seeking to enter Jerusalem” (4QpNah 2); and in a nonliteral sense: to kill, i.e., “seeking one’s life” (1QH 2:21) and “seeking

to put forth a hand” (4QpPs 37 b3). Seeking: —~ bqs (seek, find, look for, require, desire, # 1335); > drs (care about, inquire, seek, #2011); > hprI (dig, seek out, #2916); > Shr II (seek, inquire for, # 8838) BIBLIOGRAPHY

NIDNTT 3:527-33; TDNT 2:892-96; TDOT 2:229-41; 3:293-307; THAT

1:333-35, 460-67;

TWOT 1:126, 198-99; J. M. Allegro, “Further Light on History of Qumran Sect,” JBL 75, 1956,

89-95; H. D. Beeby, Grace Abounding: A Commentary on the Book of Hosea, ITC, 1989; B.S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary, 1974; S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of Samuel, 1984; O. G. de La Fuente, La Biisqueda de Dios en el Antiguo Testamento, 1971; E. Lohse, Die Texte aus Qumran, 1971; E. W. Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon, 8 vols., 1863-93; J. L. Mays, Hosea, OTL, 1969; R. D. Patterson, Nahum, Habakkuk,

Zephaniah, WEC, 1991; V. Pavlovsky, “Die Chronologie der Tatigkeit Esdras: Versuche einer neuen Lésung,” Bib 38, 1957, 275-305; J. Payne Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, 1903; G. von Rad, Deuteronomy: A Commentary, 1966, H. Ringgren and W. Zimmerli, Spruche-Prediger, ATD 16/1, 1962; T. Robinson, “Hosea,” HAT 14, 1964, 1-64; E. Rubinstein,

““Causation’ and ‘Volition’ as Semantic Components of Verbs: A Study of the Biblical Verb bqs,” IOS 6, 1976, 122-30; O. R. Sellers, “Seeking God in the Old Testament,” JBR 21, 1953, 234-37; R. L. Smith, Micah-Malachi, WBC, 1984; C. Westermann, “Die Begriffe fiir Fragen und Suchen im AT,” TBT 55, 1974, 162-90; H. W. Wolff, Hosea: A Commentary on the Book of Hosea, 1974.

Chitra Chhetri

1336 (baqqasa, request, desire), > # 1335 1338 (bar U, pure, clear), > # 1405

726

“Va (# 1339)

1339

vepo

“12 (bar IID) grain, corn (# 1339).

OT This is also a general word for “grain” and appears to be used interchangeably with Seber. The semantic range of these words appears to be similar to that of the word dagan. It occurs 14x in the OT and its cognates, Arab. (burr) and Old South Arab. (br), mean “wheat, grain of wheat.” The LXX translates it with the general word sitos, “grain.” It most commonly occurs in the Joseph narrative, referring to the grain his

brothers came to buy. Jer 23:28 provides insight into how valuable grain was in comparison to straw, which had little value. Grain, barley, millet, rice, ete.: > ’abib (ears of grain, # 26); > bisqaldn (fresh stalks [cj.], # 1303); > bar III (grain, corn, # 1339); > gadi¥ I (stack of grain, # 1538); > geres (grits, # 1762); > dagan (grain, # 1841); > dohan (sorghum, millet, # 1893); > hittd (wheat, # 2636); ~> kussemet (emmer-wheat, # 4081); > karmel IV (grain, fresh, newly ripened grain, # 4152); > mlild (grain, grains, #4884); — minnit (rice, #4976); > mods (chaff, #5161); > sdlet (wheat flour, # 6159); > panndag (parched? grain, meal or flour, #7154); > sebet (grain, bundle

of grain, #7395); > sanum (hard, barren [ears of grain], #7568); — gal? (parched grain, # 7833); — gamé4 (crops, grain, standing grain, #7850); — s6rd (millet, #8463); > s° ‘ord (barley, # 8555); > Sibbdlet I (ear of grain, # 8672); > Seber II (grain, # 8692)

BIBLIOGRAPHY AuSP, 3:161. Paul D. Wegner

1340

“3

“2 (bar IV), nom. wild, open country (hapleg., Job 39:4, # 1340).

ANE Mish. Heb.; Jewish Aram.; Syr. bwr, to lie waste, to be without a crop; Mish. Heb., biblical Aram. bar I, outside; Jewish Aram., Syr., Mand. bara’, exterior, open field, outside; Akk. baru, open country (Cohen, 142, n. 84); Arab. barr, mainland; OSA. br, open country.

OT AHALAT identifies bar IV as a hapleg. found in Job 39:4. In the larger pericope (38:1-40:2) Yahweh interrogates Job about the created order. Not only did God create and does he understand all facets of the universe (38:4-24), the Lord perfectly governs both the inanimate (38:25-38) and animate world (38:39-39:30). God knows about the birthing of mountain goats, carried out away from human observation (39:1-2). After they are born, young goats develop on their own, “in the open” (39:4, babbar). Although HALAT (146) identifies this form as a Heb. word (bar IV), the term is most likely a foreign loanword, either Arab. (Dhorme, clxxvii) or Aram. (Wagner, 37, $47; Schwarzenbach, 87). Gordis (456) points out two other Aramaisms in Job 39:4. This Aram. word (# 10119) also occurs in Dan (2:38; 4:9, 18, 20, 22, 29[12, 21, 23, 25, 32],

héwat bara’,beasts of the field = Heb. hayyat hassadeh, e.g., Gen 2:19, 20). Field, ground, rural area: ~ ’Gdam IV (ground, #135); > bar IV (wild, open country, # 1340); — gazér (infertile land, #1620); > hisét (open fields, #2575a); > yageéb (field, # 3321);

> m®lehd (barren land, salt-plain, #4877);

> mimaq

(ground overrun with weeds,

# 4940); > m®° ‘ard II (bare field, #5118); > nér II (ground newly broken & cleared, #5776); — ‘Agob (ground [uneven and bumpy], crafty heart, #6815); > p*raz6n (fertile field, #7251);

yp

75 (# 1342) J eee eee > rekes (rugged ground, # 8221); > sadeh (open country, open field, fields, domain, # 8441); > §déma (terrace, # 8727); > aman (fertile field, # 9044)

BIBLIOGRAPHY H. Cohen, Biblical Hapax Legomena in the Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic, 1978; E. Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job, 1978; R. Gordis, The Book of Job, 1978; A. Schwarzenbach, Die geographische Terminologie im Hebrdischen des Alten Testaments, 1954; M. Wagner, Die lexicalischen und grammatikalischen Aramdismen im alttestamentlichen Hebrdisch, 1966.

Michael A. Grisanti

1341 (bor I, purity), > # 1405

1342

=o

73 (bor ID) nom. potash (# 1342); M73 (borit), nom. a soap-like substance of alkali or potash

used in washing (# 1383); < 173 (brrI, purge out, > # 1405).

OT 1. The expression with the term potash or lye is idiomatic and may be rendered: “T will thoroughly purge away your dross” (lit. “as lye”) (Isa 1:25; J. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1-39, NICOT, 1986; cf. Job 9:30).

2. Both occurrences of bérit are in prophetic literature. Soap cannot remove sin (Jer 2:22). The word also refers to the purifying procedures of the Messiah (Mal 3:2). Wash, washing: ~ bdr II (potash, # 1342); > dwh (rinse, # 1866); > tbl I Gmmerse, # 3188); > kbs (wash, pound, # 3891); > neter (nitre, # 6003); > rhs (wash, # 8175); > Seleg II (soap-

wort, # 8921) Clean, pure: > brr I (purge out, sort, keep pure, sift, # 1405); > zkh (be pure, clean oneself, # 2342); > hap I (pure: clean, #2899); — thr (clean, cleanse, purify, # 3197) Elmer A. Martens

1343

x5

N73 (br’ I), q. create, separate (as by cutting); ni. be created; pi. (br’ III?) cut (# 1343); M8°7S (b°ri’G) separated, “created” thing, (hapleg.) (# 1375).

ANE ANE texts and iconography provide illuminating parallels and contrasts to OT accounts of creation. In some respects, OT creation texts form a polemic against polytheism (Gen 1; Deutero-Isa; Hasel); in others, the similarity of ANE and OT concep-

tions and images remind us how alien modern ways of representing reality are to those of the Bible (see Keel, 7-60). Awareness of this fact can go far to temper the passion that sometimes characterizes Christian discussions of biblical and scientific accounts of origins (Van Till). In contrast to the exclusive monotheism of OT creation, ANE texts are characterized by polytheism in which gods are identified with powers, parts, or aspects of cosmos and culture. Modern secular societies “worship” similar realities, such as nation, sex, power, and tradition, but usually without explicit awareness of their “polytheism.” Modern worldviews, however, generally oppose nature to culture/history, fact to value, and secular to sacred, while the ANE, including Israel, understands nature,

culture, and history as aspects of one, all-encompassing, cosmic order, This order was established primordially and remains determinative for existence.

728

$713 (# 1343) Even where OT accounts and ANE myths share similar actions or imagery, the ANE polytheistic context gives them a fundamentally different character. ANE myths often involve a combined theogony-cosmogony out of primordial matter. Moreover, primeval conflict in the divine-cosmic world can imbue reality itself with an ambiguous, good-evil character. In Enuma Elish, for example, Marduk, a younger god, slays and separates the water deity and genetrix Tiamat into heaven and earth (ANET, 67). In Egypt, whose myths also include divine/cosmic conflict (Re and Apophis, Seth and Osiris), Heaven and Earth are the fertile female-male pair Nut and Geb (Keel, 26-47).

Nut functions to separate the heavenly ocean

from that below, as does the OT

“expanse” (ragia‘, > #8385; Gen 1:7; cf. Ps 148:4).

Against this background, Gen 1:1 appears as a thunderbolt: Israel’s god is exclusive creator and sovereign of the entire cosmos (= “heaven and earth,” a merismus) and is fundamentally distinguished from his nondivine creation. Moreover, this creation is entirely “good” (Gen 1:4, 9, 12, 31).

Tsumura has presented a strong linguistic case against the widespread tendency to see parallels between Gen 1 and ANE combat myths. Thus, while it may be incorrect to speak of demythologizing, nonetheless, the absence of divine beings and combat in Gen | is itself a powerful polemic against the myths of the surrounding nations. °hdm (the “deep”; Gen 1:2) is not the divine monster Tiamat, but the amorphous and unruly sea, upon which God places cosmic limits by commands of separation (Gen 1:6-7, 9; cf. Job 38:8-11; Ps 104:9; Prov 8:29; Jer 5:22). The great “creatures of the sea” (Gen 1:21) are not divine monsters, but merely beasts made to “sport” (KJV, Ps 104:26) in the sea. Again, sun and moon, named by pagans as deities, are created only on the

fourth day and not even mentioned by name (Gen 1:16). Yet, in other traditions, the OT freely uses the imagery of ANE combat myths to portray Yahweh’s sovereignty over nature and history. Sea and related monsters can symbolize evil (e.g., Leviathan

= Ugar. Lotan; Job 3:8; Ps 74:13-17; references in

Gunkel). Such explicit use of ANE combat myth imagery serves to assert the sole sovereignty of Yahweh or to represent the “chaos” of human evil, which rises up against Yahweh and his people. The point is that Yahweh, who in creation “defeated” the cosmic “monsters,” can surely defeat Israel’s foes and restore the human world to order (McCarthy, 1967). The import of these factors for theological analysis of the OT should be obvious: here, as in all literature, it is necessary to distinguish the representation of reality from the reality to which the representation refers. For the use of comparative ANE evidence and philology to argue that the divine name Yahweh reveals Yahweh as a creator deity (Cross; McCarthy, 1978; Anderson, “Tntroduction”), see Yahweh (#3378). The Heb. terms corresponding to Eng. “creation” are only partially congruent with their Eng. counterparts. For example, the OT does not use a nom. corresponding to Eng. “creation” in the sense of (a) the sovereign acts by which God brought the ordered universe into being, or (b) the universe as a result of such acts of origination. The OT does, however, have a rich vocabulary to describe (a), (b), and (c) God’s acts of bringing into being various entities or conditions within or out of an already existing universe.

OT | 1.br’ and its lexical field. Scholarship has focused on the root br’ because of its prominent role in Gen 1:1-2:3 and Deutero-Isaiah. But the OT concern with creation

729

N13 (# 1343)

extends far beyond occurrences of this root. Israel’s “ability to express the concept was not dependent on the availability of br’” (Stek, 209). First, even where br’ does not occur, the universe as created by Yahweh finds explicit treatment in many texts (e.g., Job 28; 38-41; Ps 19; 33; 147; Prov 3:19-20; 8:22-31). Second, an implicit view of creation (worldview) can be discerned in most OT texts of more than moderate length or

forms the tacit presupposition for understanding divine and human actions. Thus, pronouncements of Yahweh’s sovereignty presuppose creation (e.g., 1 Kgs 8:23, 27, 30, 32). The separation of the “Red” Sea and of the Jordan to form dry ground recapitulates the original acts of creation (cf. Eliade), demonstrating to all nations that “Yahweh is king” of creation and thus of history (Exod 15:18; cf. 14:18; Josh 2:10; 3:10-11;

4:23-5:1 [cf. Stone]; Ps 74:12-17; 114:3, 5). Again, the priestly system of holy-cleanunclean has its cosmic basis in the creation theology of Genesis 1, as does the entire temporal-spatial system of priestly ritual including Sabbath and tabernacle (Wenham, 18-24, 164-81; Gorman; Levenson, 78-99).

An extensive group of roots expresses creation as God’s action; related nom. reveal the cosmos or something within it as a product of his action. A partial list of significant roots that appear in collocation with br’ (and with one another; cf. Isa 43:7; 45:7, 18) or in similar syntactic-semantic slots includes ‘sh, make, do (> #6913; Isa 45:18; Jer 10:12); ysr, form, shape (> # 3670; Gen 2:7; Isa 45:18); p‘l, make, work (> #7188; Exod 15:17; Isa 26:12; Prov 16:4 par. 1QH 15:17 br’); Sym, set, put (> #8492; Exod 4:11; Prov 8:29; Jer 33:25; cf. Rudolph, 200); kwn, establish, make firm (> #3922; Isa 45:18; Jer 10:12; cf. Forrest, 162-65); ysd, found, establish (> #3569; Ps 24:2; Prov 3:19); mwt, totter, shake (> #4572; Ps 82:5; 93:1; 96:10; 104:5; Prov 12:3; Isa 24:18-19), which functions antonymously to kwn and ysd; bnh,

build, make (> # 1215; Gen 2:22; Amos 9:6; in Akk. the cognate bani is the regular term for creation); yld, bear, bring forth (> # 3528; Deut 32:18 [cf. 32:6; Isa 43:6-7]; Job 38:28-29 [negative imagery]; Ps 90:2 [par. hwl]; cf. Prov 8:24-25); nth, spread out (heavens as a tent) (> #5742 Job 9:8; Isa 42:5); gnh, get, beget, create (> #7864). In Aram., ‘bd, make, do (> # 10522) is used for “create” as an equivalent to br’ or ‘sh (Jer 10:11; cf. Dan 6:27[28]). The objects of these terms are significant in indicating

the scope of creation: Both human and cosmic, natural and historical entities are brought into existence by God; temporally, creation includes not only acts of origination but the ongoing succession of entities and conditions within the cosmos up to the present of the biblical writers. Finally, the OT can describe the same creative events as occurring both by God’s word and by natural means and processes over time (Stek). The OT does not separate, though it may distinguish, divine and “natural” causality in creation.

There is also a rich stock of words and phrases that refer to creation or creatures as that which God has made. Typical is the merismus, known throughout the ANE, “heaven/earth” (Heb. Samayim/ eres) to designate the universe (Gen 1:1; Ps 115:15; 121:2; Prov 3:19-20). The formula may be variously expanded, e.g., Exod 20:11, “the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” (cf. Ps 24:1-2; Jer 51:48; etc.; Stadelmann, 1-3). Several tripartite expressions for the cosmos also occur (Exod 20:4; Ps 135:6; etc.; Stadelmann, 9-10). Occasionally, reality will be called “the all” (hakkdl, Ps 103:19; 119:91; Eccl 11:5; Jer 10:16= 51:19).

730

N13 (# 1343) Also of great significance are several nom. forms that characterize the nature of reality as created by God. Chief among these are sedeq/s“daqga (# 7406/7; > sdq, #7405; Schmid; Knierim; Knight); hokma (> #2683; von Rad); and the root hqq (carve, inscribe, decree; Knierim, 87; Van Leeuwen, 118-26). These roots portray both

“natural” and sociocultural aspects of reality as ordered by God. While the human world is frequently called to the norms of “justice and righteousness” (Gen 18:19; Isa 1:26-27; Amos 5:24, etc.), the OT also declares that the cosmos embodies and reveals

or communicates

God’s righteousness

(Ps 50:6; 97:6) and his concomitant glory

(kabéd [> # 3883]; cf. Ps 97:6; 19:1). Similarly, the cosmos is imbued with and communicates wisdom (Ps 104:24; Prov 3:19-20; 8:22-29: cf. Job 28; Sir 24; von Rad,

144-76). Just as Israel’s social world has divinely given “decrees” or “statues” (hdq, huqq4@), which set limits that humans may not transgress, so does the “natural” world (Job 38:8-11; Ps 104:6-9; Prov 8:29; cf. 8:15, hgq; Jer 5:22). In Israel and the ANE, cosmic order is the ground of the sociocultural order. To be good, human behavior

must correspond to cosmic order, to “the nature of things” as determined by God. Such harmony with cosmic order is most easily seen in the world of agriculture (Gen 8:22; Prov 10:5; Isa 28:23-29), but the principle operates generally. Thus the prophets direct humans to consider creatures as models who, in contrast to humans, follow God’s cosmic norms: Isa 1:3; Jer 8:7; cf. Job 12:7-10.

2. In the past, biblical theologians, eager to discover theological significance in individual words, have overloaded br’, create, with semantic freight in three respects.

First, it was commonly emphasized that this vb. is predicated only of Israel’s god as subject; second, that br’ never appears with explicit mention of the material out of which something has been “created”; third, that br’ was a uniquely nonmetaphorical, nonanthropomorphic vb. for creation, since it was predicated only of Israel’s god. Upon these linguistic foundations theological arguments concerning the uniqueness and incomparability of Yahweh’s creative activity were erected. These points (and theological pronouncements founded upon them) are, however, somewhat misleading. Though br’ does not appear with mention of material out of which something is created, it is regularly collocated with vbs. that do (e.g., Gen 1:26-27; 2:7, 19; Isa 45:18; Amos 4:13). More significantly, br’ is used of entities that come out of preexisting material: e.g., a new generation of animals or humans, or “a pure heart” (Ps 104:29-30; 102:18[19]; 51:10[12]; cf. 1 Cor 4:6). 3. To ascribe the verbal root br’ only to God requires that br’ I (create) be distinguished from br’ III, cut (> #1345), as does HALAT. This distinction of roots, however, ignores two decisive linguistic facts. First, br’, create, occurs only in q. and ni., while br’, cut—with one largely unnoticed exception—appears only in pi. (Josh 17:15, 18; Ezek 23:47; 21:19[24]; text uncertain; see DISO, 43; TDOT 2:245 for cognates). On linguistic grounds, it appears that the opposition is not between two homographic roots br’ I and br’ III, but between br’ q., ni. and br’ pi. Since the ni. merely functions as passive to q., the primary semantic opposition here is between q. (transitive), which emphasizes the subject’s action, and pi. (resultative), which emphasizes the result of the subject’s action on the passive object or “undersubject” (/BHS 21.2.1-2; 24.3-3.1). Second, in Num 16:30, br’ q. is predicated of Yahweh with the meaning “cut” or “separate,” (par. bq‘ split, v. 31), followed by the cognate accusative hapleg. b°r?’a,

731

S73(# 1343) something separated; i.e., “chasm” (Humbert,

147; that br’ in Ezek 21:30[35] means

“cut” is possible, but less certain [cf. Isa 51:1]). Milgrom translates, “But if the Lord makes a great chasm....” (137).

Thus, OT br’ (pi.) is predicated of humans, but in q. and ni. its subject or implicit agent is always God. While the pi. signifies (resultative) “cut” exclusively, the q. signifies “create” with the exception of Num 16:30, “cut.” Consequently, the semantic development from “cut” to “create” described by Westermann (99, after F. Delitzsch and others) is a natural one. By “cutting,” a particular shape is given to an object that, as it were, comes into being.

4. This semantic development has its parallel in hgq (> #2980), which similarly refers to cutting, engraving, and to a “carved” or “cut” created order that is demarcated by boundaries or separations (Knierim, 87; Van Leeuwen, “Proverbs 1-9’). This development makes the preeminence of br’ in Genesis 1 a natural one. This root begins the OT with a theologically rich wordplay (br’Syt br’, “In the beginning [God] created...” ). But it also, in a punning way, accents the manner in which God gives order to his creation: he divides its various cosmic components from one another through a series of “cuts” or separations (Dantinne; Clines, 73-77) and differentiates the various

“kinds.” The foregoing linguistic matters lead to several conclusions. br’ as a root is not a uniquely theological term. Moreover, it does not, contrary to other predications concerning God, denote an act without metaphoric parallels to human actions. While cosmic creation is a unique and ultimately incomprehensible divine activity, the OT expresses this in a humanly comprehensible, highly metaphorical vocabulary. Thus, even in Genesis 1 br’ can alternate with ‘sh (especially Gen 1:31-2:4) and, as a process, employ vbs. of separation (bdl, hi.; > #976). The root br’, Genesis 1, or creation by the word (contra Foerster) cannot explicitly communicate a doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, yet the intention of this later, more abstract theological formulation (2 Macc 7:28) is not false to Genesis 1. This text is best understood as communicating an absolute beginning of the universe as well as the absolute sovereignty of God in bringing reality into being and ordering it according to his will (contra Levenson; cf. Eichrodt; Westermann; Wenham,

1987).

5. If the portrait of creation in Gen 1:1-2:3 emphasizes God’s sovereign transcendence as he orders creation by separations, 2:4-25 complements the former text by its picture of Yahweh’s creative activity as immanent: as a “potter” Yahweh shapes Adam from the clay. Moreover, in Genesis 2, the emphasis is not on the separations in the cosmic order, but on the bonds that connect man and soil (pun on Adam; 2:7), man and woman (pun on ’#¥; 2:18, 23), God and “humans (2:7; cf. 1:26), and humans and

animals (2:19-20). As Clines (61-79) shows, the theme of Genesis 1-11 as a whole is “Creation-Uncreation-Re-creation.” Sin undoes the separations and bonds of God’s created order, especially in the Flood-Re-creation story. The theme of sin and the undoing of creation’s beneficent order will continue throughout the OT, especially in the prophetic books and in “World-Upside-Down” imagery (Exod 7:14-10:23; Prov 30:21-23; Isa 24:1-7, 18b-23; Jer 4:23-28; Amos 4:6-11; 5:18-20; Hag 1:6, 10-11; cf. Van Leeuwen, 1986). Creation, in the wisdom books and without, provides the context

and means for God’s judgments in history (Schmid; cf. Crenshaw).

732

N73 (# 1343) In this context the astonishing declaration that Yahweh “creates evil” (béré’ ra‘; Isa 45:7) is to be understood. Reference here is not to metaphysical evil, created

from the beginning, which would compromise Genesis’ teaching of creation’s pervasive goodness. Rather, Yahweh “creates” judgments in history that are “natural” or consonant with the evil that people have done. In both the natural and cultural orders, the “act-consequence” or “character-consequence” sequence is a general rule of creation (but cf. Job; Eccl) that one reaps what is sown (Ps 7:14-17[15-18]; 9:16-17[15-16]; Hos 8:7; 10:12-13; cf. Gal 6:7-8; Koch). Isa 45:7 may be appropriately compared to Exod 32:12, 14; Isa 41:23; Jer 1:9-10; 5:14; 18:11; 21:10; Lam 3:37-38; Hos 6:5; Amos 3:6.

Yet it must be acknowledged that a crucial problem for OT theology is the relation of the goodness of the one god and creation to evil in the cosmos. On this mystery the last word has not been spoken (cf. Levenson). Canonically, the problem manifests itself in the different perspectives on creation in various texts. How, for example, is Genesis 1 to be related to the use of combat myth imagery (Job 26:12-13; Ps 74:12-19;

etc.), or Job 28 to Prov 8:22-31? A further, and related, question concerns the finality of creation. In what sense

is creation in Genesis | “finished” (Gen 2:1-3)? This question is particularly acute for moderns aware of cultural and moral relativism and of the immense periods of time over which stellar systems, planets, and species have developed. Canonically, how is the finality of creation expressed in 1:1-2:3 to be related to cosmic and cultural development, including aberrations, and to OT utterances concerning new cosmic and historical realities that Yahweh is said to “create” (cf. Stek)? Some progress towards answering the scientific questions concerning origins can be made by acknowledging the nonscientific character of the biblical accounts (see above). Genesis 1 presents a completed cosmic order in that it views the creation in terms of the existing human world known to ancient Israel. For Gen 1, creation is complete when humans are on the scene; the account itself has been structured to provide a framework for Israel’s communal life, including the cult (see above). At the end of 2:3, the cosmos is complete. Yet this complete world does not preclude development and change within the limits and possibilities established at creation. It is ready to bring forth the (human) generations announced in the “toledoth” of 2:4. A full OT theology of creation must also incorporate the OT’s eschatological dimension, on both human and cosmic levels. The creation of a new heaven and earth (Isa 65:17; 66:22) includes a new Jerusalem (65:17-25) and a new humanity within its walls (Gowan).

6. Isaiah 40-55. Treatments of creation in Deutero-Isaiah often follow von Rad in subsuming creation under salvation. Schmid (1984), however, rightly argues that salvation and righteousness in these chapters entail the restoration of cosmic order, also in the human realm. The presentation of Yahweh as Creator in Isa 40-55 functions to establish him as god of the entire universe, including the nations, in spite of Israel’s defeat and exile at the hands of Babylon and against the ancient belief, shared by Israel, that the defeat of a nation meant the defeat of that nation’s god. The argument is (a) that Yahweh is the sole creator and Lord of all, who has chosen Israel for his purposes. (b) By his prophet(s) he foretold the judgment of Judah in military defeat, so that, contrary to piss)

N73 (# 1343) appearances, Judah’s exile was not evidence of Yahweh’s impotence but of his universal sovereignty. (c) As Yahweh’s prophecies of judgment had come to pass, so also would his prophecies of “new things,” of salvation and restoration, come to pass, in spite of their seeming improbability. This powerful chain of logic is set in ironic contrast to the “creative” work of the pagan idol-smiths, who “make” their own gods, and to the weakness of Judah itself. The vocabulary used to describe the human manufacture of idols overlaps that of Yahweh’s creative work (‘sh, ysr) except for the vb. br’. Creation: — br’ I (create, separate, # 1343);

> ysr (form, shape, create, # 3670) > ‘sh I (make, do, prepare, create, work, service, # 6913); > p‘l (do, make, produce, practice, # 7188); > gnh

(get, beget, create, # 7864) Earth: > ’“damd (ground, piece of land, soil, earth, realm of the dead, # 141); > ’eres (earth,

land, # 824); > tébél (world, #9315) > “gudda (firmament, sprinkling brush, #99); > ragia‘ (firmament, plate, # 8385);

Heaven:

> Sahagq (clouds of dust, # 8836); > Samayim (heaven, sky, air, # 9028)

Sea and large bodies of water:

> gal II (wave, #1644);

~ h*ripét (cj. grains of sand, #3041); depths, #5185);

— hdl I (mud, sand, #2567);

> yam (sea, seas, #3542);

> garqa‘ I (floor, bottom of sea, #7977);

> m®°sdla/m®siila (deep,

> t*hém (Primeval ocean, deeps of

the sea, subterranean water, deep, # 9333) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDNT, saja,

1000-35; R. Albertz, Weltschépfung und Mensenschdpfung: Hiob

und

in den

Psalmen,

1974;

B.

Albrektson,

Untersucht bei Deuteroje-

History

and

the

Gods,

1967;

B. W. Anderson, ed., Creation in the Old Testament, IRTG, 1984; idem, “Introduction: Mythopoeic and Theological Dimensions of Biblical Creation Faith,” in Creation in the Old Testament, 1-24; D. J. A. Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch,

1978; J. L. Crenshaw, “Prolegomenon,” in 1976, 1-60; F. M. Cross, Canaanite

Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom, ed. J. L. Crenshaw,

Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel, 1973; E. Dantinne, “‘Création et Séparation,” Mus 74, 1961, 441-51; J. C.de Moor, “El, the Creator,” in The Bible World: Essays in Honor of Cyrus H. Gordon, ed. G. Rendsburg, R. Adler, M. Arfa, and N. H. Winter, 1980, 171-87; L. Derousseaux, ed., La création dans l’orient ancien, Congrés de 1’ ACFEB, Lille, 1985, Lectio Divina, 1987; P. Doll, Menschenschdépfung und Welschépfung in der alttestamentlichen Weisheit, Stuttgarter Bibelstudien, 1985; W. Eichrodt, “In the Beginning: A Contribution to the Interpretation of the First Word of the Bible,” in Creation in the Old Testament, 65-73; M. Eliade, The Myth of the Eternal Return Or, Cosmos and History, tr. W. R. Trask, Bollingen

Series 46, 1971; R. W. E. Forrest, “An Inquiry into Yahweh’s Commendation of Job,” SR 8, 1979, (159-68) 162-65; F. H. Gorman, Jr., The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in the

Priestly Theology, JSOTSup, 1990; D. E. Gowan, Eschatology in the Old Testament, 1986; H. Gunkel, “The Influence of Babylonian Mythology Upon the Biblical Creation Story,” in Creation in the Old Testament, 25-52 [1895]; G. F. Hasel, “The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cos-

mology,” EvQ 46, 1974, 81-102; P. Humbert, “Emploi et portée du verbe bara (créer) dans l’ancien testament,” in Opuscules d’un hébraisant, 1958, 147-65; O. Keel, The Symbolism of the

Biblical World: Ancient Iconography and the Book of Psalms, tr. by T. J. Hallett, 1978; R. Knierim, “Cosmos and History in Israel’s Theology,” HBT 3, 1981, 59-123; idem, “The Task of Old Testament Theology,” HBT 6, 1984, 25-58; D. A. Knight, “Cosmogony and Order in the Hebrew Tradition,” in Cosmogony and Ethical Order: New Studies in Comparative Ethics, ed. R. W. Lovin and F. E. Reynolds, 1985, 133-57; K. Koch, ed., Um das Prinzip der Vergeltung in Religion und Recht des Alten Testaments, 1972; J. D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of

734

N13 (# 1344) Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence, 1988; D. J. McCarthy, “‘Creation’ Motifs in Ancient Hebrew Poetry,” CBQ 29, 1967, 87-100; idem, “Exod 3:14: History, Philology and Theology,” CBQ 40, 1978, 311-22; J. Milgrom, Numbers, The JPS Torah Commentary, 1990; O. O’Donovan,

Resurrection

and Moral

Order:

An

Outline for Evangelical

Ethics,

1986;

J. J. M. Roberts, “The Ancient Near Eastern Environment,” in The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters, ed. D. A. Knight and G. M. Tucker, 1985, 75-121; idem, “Myth Versus History: Relaying the Comparative Foundations,’ CBQ 38, 1976, 1-13; W. Rudolph, Jeremia, HAT, 1958; H. H. Schmid, Altorientalishche

Welt in der alttestamentlichen

Theologie, 1974; idem,

“Creation, Righteousness, and Salvation: ‘Creation Theology’ as the Broad Horizon of Biblical Theology,”

in Creation

in the Old Testmant,

102-17; idem, Gerechtigkeit Als Weltordnung,

Beitrage zur historischen Theologie 40, 1968; L. I. J. Stadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of the World, 1970; J. H. Stek, “What Says the Scripture?” in Portraits of Creation: Biblical and Scientific Perspectives on the World’s Formation, ed. H. J. Van Till, 1990, 203-65; L. G. Stone, “Eth-

ical and Apologetic Tendencies in the Redaction of the Book of Joshua,” CBO 53, 1991, 25-36; D. T. Tsumura, The Earth and the Waters in Genesis 1 and 2: A Linguistic Investigation, JSOTSup, 1989; R. C. Van Leeuwen, “Liminality and Worldview in Proverbs 1-9,” Semeia 50, 1990, 111-44; idem, “Proverbs 30:21-23 and the Biblical World Upside Down,” JBL 105, 1986, 599-610; H. J. Van Till, ed., Portraits of Creation: Biblical and Scientific Perspectives on the World’s

Formation,

1990; B. Vawter,

“Prov.

8:22: Wisdom

and Creation, “ JBL 99, 1980,

205-16; G. von Rad, “Some Aspects of the Old Testament Worldview,” in The Problem of the Hexeteuch and Other Essays, tr.

E.W. T. Dicken, 1984, 144-65; idem, “The Theological Prob-

lem of the Old Testament Doctrine of Creation,” in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT, 1987; C. Westermann, Genesis I-11: A Commentary, tr.

Essays, 131-43; idem, Wisdom in Israel, 1972; G.

1979; idem, Genesis

1-15, WBC,

J. J. Scullion, 1984. Raymond C. Van Leeuwen

1344

Nis

S72 (br’ ID, fatten o.s. (# 1344); 87D (bar?’), adj fattened, well fed 1374):

ANE A cognate is attested in Arab. wariya, be very fat. OT Words of the br’ group appear to refer to the realization of full physical, or sometimes moral, potential. This is seen in br’ III (> #1345), where it is used to express the cutting down of trees to clear the land (Josh 17:15, 18) or of sinners to purify the land (Ezek 23:47). The attainment of potential is not always something that is praised (Judg 3:17; Ezek 34:20). 1. The vb. br’ occurs only once as a vb.: 1 Sam 2:29, “Why do you honor your sons more than me by fattening yourselves on the choice parts of every offering made by my people Israel?” There are a number of textual obscurities in this verse and in its context. McCarter, followed by Klein and with support from the Vg., conjectures for

I°habri’“kem, “by fattening yourselves,” an original /“habrétam, “in letting them eat,”

from brh I, feed (> # 1356). The LXX with support from 4QSam* supposes the root to be brk. McCarter tentatively suggests that the LXX tradition reflects an avoidance of the culturally unacceptable /hbrwtin.../pny, to let them (your sons) eat before I (the Lord) do. Whatever the solution, the comment is a reference back to vv. 15-16, where

oi)

N13 (# 1345) Hophni and Phinehas are said to have forced the worshipers to cede a share of the sacrificial meat to them before the offering to God had been made. 2. The adj. bari’, fattened, is used across the range of OT literature to express the full-formed quality of the nom. it qualifies (Gen 41:2-20; Judg 3:17; 1 Kgs 4:23[5:3]; Ps 73:4; Ezek 34:3, 20; Dan 1:15; Hab 1:16; Zech 11:16). It is used of cattle

(Gen 41:2-20, NIV fat; 1 Kgs 4:23[5:3], NIV stall fed); sheep (Ezek 34:3, NIV choice animals; 34:20, NIV fat; Zech 11:16, NIV choice sheep); food (Hab 1:16, NIV choicest); men (Ps 73:4, NIV healthy; Dan 1:15, NIV better nourished). In Judg 3:17 (NIV fat) it refers simply to the girth of Eglon, who is said in v. 22 to have been well endowed with internal fat (héleb). The translation “stall fed” in 1 Kgs 4:23[5:3] is probably too closely defined. In Ezek 34:20 biryd, fat (connected with bari’), sums up

the two words sleek (5°ménd@) and strong in 34:16. bari’ is parallel to Samén, fat in Hag 1:16. In Ps 73:4 NIV renders bari’ as “healthy.” P-B_ The frequent Vg. renderings, pinguis, fat and crassus, thick, introduce a pejorative note that is certainly present in Judg 3:17 and Ezek 34:20 but not elsewhere. LXX eklektos, choice, is closer. Fat, fatty food, oil: > ’bs (fatten, #80); > br’ II (fatten o.s., # 1344); > dsn I (become fat, #2014); > héleb I (fat, #2693); > mhh III (fattened, #4683); > m*ri’ (fattened, #5309); > peder (fat, # 7022); > pimd (fat, #7089); > Smn I (be fat, # 9042) BIBLIOGRAPHY

R. W. Klein, 7 Sameul, WBC, 1983, 22, 23; P. K. McCarter,

7 Samuel:

A New Translation, AB,

1980, 87-88.

Robert. J. Way

1345 OT

s12

N23 (br’ Ill), pi. clear out (trees), cut, destroy

(# 1345),

Occurring 3x in Ezekiel, the vb. means to prepare a sign (yad) for the king of

Babylon (Ezek 21:19 [24], [2x]) and to destroy, kill, wipe out Judah with the sword

(23:47). It is also attested in Josh 17:15, 18 to describe the literal clearing of forest land. For a discussion on the bearing of the vb. on creation terminology, > br’ I (create, separate, # 1343). Cutting, destruction, extermination, shearing, trimming: > bs‘ (cut away, get gain, cut off, break up, #1298); > br’ III (clear out trees, cut, destroy, # 1345); > btr (cut into pieces,

# 1439); > gd‘ (cut short, # 1548); > gzh (bring forth, # 1602); > gzz (cut, shear, # 1605); > gzrI (cut, take away, # 1615); > grz (be cut off, # 1746); > gr‘ I (cut out; reduce, # 1757); > hip Il (cut through, pierce, # 2737); > ksh (cut, cut down, # 4065); > krsm (make cropped, trimmed off, #4155); > krt (cut, cut off, exterminate, cut a covenant, circumcise, # 4162); > melqahayim (snuffers for trimming/cleaning of lights/lamps, #4920); > ngp I (cut/chop down, destroy, #5937); > nth (cut in pieces, #5983); > gsb (cut off, shear, # 7892); > Ssp (hew into pieces, #9119); > tzz (cut away, # 9372)

Eugene E. Carpenter

736

7373(# 1350) port $510

22

33

(barbur), (onomatapoeic) name for uncer-

_ tain species of fowl: goose(?); capon(?); hen(?);

lark-heeled cuckoo (Centropus aegyptius Shelly)(?) (hapleg., only pl.; # 1350; HALAT 147b). ANE Perhaps one of either Arab. birbir, (young) chicken, or Egyp. Arab. (abi) burbur, cuckoo (= Centropus monachus) represents a cognate for Heb. barbur, but neither connection is certain. OT There has been a long-standing tradition of understanding Heb. barbur as referring to some species of domesticated fowl (cf. Midr. Rabbah to Eccl. II,7, referring to barburim in 1 Kgs 4:23[5:3]). The term has been variously understood to refer to: (1)

geese (W. Gesenius, Thesaurus philologicus criticus linguae hebraeae et chaldaeae Veteris Testamenti 1/1, 1829, 246 [after Tg. Jer]; so F. S. Bodenheimer, FS Harry Torczyner, 1947; Eissfeldt; Eager; Ross) or swans (H. Ewald), as having pure white feathers (< Heb. barar, be white); (2) capons (D. Qimhi; D. Cassel, Hebréiisch-Deutsches Worterbuch, 1909, 51b); (3) hens (cf. Arab. birbir, [young] chickens; Driver); or (4) lark-heeled cuckoos (Centropus aegyptius Shelly)(?) (cf. Egyp. Arab. abi burbur [= Centropus monachus]; Koehler, “Problems”; KB; M. Noth, Kénige, BKAT, 1968, 58;

HALAT). Of these alternatives, the first has the longest standing support, but the latter two have better lexical support. Koehler may have been justified in inferring that it was an onomatapoeic imitation of the call of the lark-heeled cuckoo, allegedly attested also in Arab. imitations (barbur, burbur), that gave rise to the name for the species (as it did in Eng. “cuckoo,” and in German Kuckuck) (Koehler, “Problems”). Since the mention of barburim in 1 Kgs 4:23[5:3] occurs in a list of seven species of diet-fed and game

animals considered delicacies suitable for the royal table of Solomon, it may be expected that the meat of diet-fed/fattened barburim would have been particularly appetizing. If Koehler’s identification of the barbur with the lark-heeled cuckoo is correct, some support may derive from Pliny’s remark that the meat of no bird surpasses that of the cuckoo in sweetness of taste (Nat. Hist. X.xi.27—often wrongly cited as X.ix:27). Birds, flying creatures: > ’br (fly, #87); > bésd (egg, # 1070); > barbur (species of fowl, # 1350); > gézal (young bird, # 1578); > dgr (hatch eggs, # 1842); > h“sida (stork, # 2884); > yond I (dove, # 3433); > ya“nd (ostrich, eagle-owl?, #3613); > kanap (wing, skirt, outermost edge, # 4053); > neser/n°Sar (vulture [eagle], #5979); > ‘dp (flying creatures, # 6416); > ‘ayit (birds of prey [collective], #6514); > ‘dréb I (raven, #6854); > sippdr I (birds, #7606); > gore’ I (partridge, # 7926); > §*law (quails, # 8513) BIBLIOGRAPHY

G. R. Driver, “Birds in the OT. II, Birds in Life” PEQ 87, 1955, (129-40) 133-34; G. B. Eager, “Rood,” ISBE, 1915, 2:(1121b-24a) 1124a; O. Eissfeldt, “Zur Deutung von Motiven auf den 1937 Gefundenen phonizischen Elfenbeinarbeiten von Megiddo,” in Kleine Schriften, 3, 1966, (85-93) 89-91; L. Koehler, Neue Ziirchner Zeitung 14-7, 1936, 1218; idem, Kleine Lichter: 50 Bibelstellen erklart, 1945, 27-30; idem, “Problems in the Study of the Language of the OT,” JSS 1, 1956, (3-24) 14 (on barbur); J. F. Ross, “Food,” IDB 2:(304b-308a) 305a; A. van Selms,

“Food,” ISBE, 1982, 2:(327a-331a) 329b. Robert H. O'Connell

737

372 (# 1351)

1351 ANE.

maa

373 (brd I), q. hail (# 1351); nom. 193 (barad), hail (# 1352).

The nom. bardd is related to Arab. barad, hail.

Hail was not a beneficial form of precipitation and could severely damage crops OT (Baly, Geography, 51; Orni-Efrat, Geography, 147). God kept hail in a storehouse “for times of trouble, for days of war and battle” (Job 38:22-23). Of the twenty-nine occurrences of barad twenty refer to hail as God’s weapon wielded against the Egyptians at the time of the exodus (see Exod 9:13-10:20; Ps 69:47-48;

105:32). This hail was

miraculous not only in the timing but also in the amount, hail being minimal in Egypt (see Exod 9:18; Reymond, L ‘eau, 24). God also used extraordinary hail as a weapon to kill Israel’s enemies in Josh 10:11 (see Isa 30:30), underscoring the theme of the Lord’s fighting for Israel (Josh 10:14, 42; 23:3, 10). At times, however, God fought

against Israel, wielding hail as his weapon to destroy the farmer’s crops (Isa 28:2, 17; Hag 2:17). Even hail, a weapon of destruction, serves the ultimate purpose of bringing glory to the creator (Ps 148:8). Rain, dew, drizzle, hail, showers: > ’égel (drop [of dew], #103); > brd I (hail, # 1351); > gsm (make rain, #1772); > zrm II ({clouds] pour out [water], #2442); > h“namal (sleet, hail?, #2857); > tal (dew, light rain, drizzle, # 3228); > yrh II (give drink, cause rain, # 3722); > mtr (make rain, #4763); > malqds (late rain, #4919); > sagrir (downpour, #6039); > sapiah II (violent storm, # 6207); > r“bibim (showers, # 8053); > rasis (dew drop, # 8268);

> r‘p (drip, flow, rain, #8319);

> sa‘ir IV (heavy rain, # 8540); > sikba (layer of dew, emis-

sion/ discharge of seed, # 8887) Snow, frost, ice: > ’elgabi¥ (hail or ice crystals, # 453); > k©pér II (frost, hoar-frost, # 4095);

> qippa on (frost, # 7885); > gerah (ice, #7943); > Seleg I (snow, # 8920) BIBLIOGRAPHY

D. Baly, Geography of the Bible, 1957; G. Dalman, AuSP; E. Orni and E. Efrat, Geography of Israel, 1971; P. Reymond, L’eau, sa vie, et sa signification dans |’Ancien Testament, 1958. Mark D. Futato

1352 (barad, hail), > # 1351

1353

OT

ie

vt des

772

(barod),

(# 1353).

speckled,

spotted,

dappled

1. This word appears twice in the Jacob-Laban story (Gen 31:10, 12) and twice

in the description of the horses associated with the fourth chariot (Zech 6:3, 6). bardd

is one of three words describing the goats that Jacob bred to his advantage (31:10; cf. v. 12). In Zech the word defines the color of the horses pulling the third chariot (6:3, 6). McHardy dismisses barédd as a corrupt addition to Zech (so also Brenner, 113) and favors the consistent reading of four colors in 1:8 and 6:6-7: red, sorrel, white, and black.

2. The proposal that Neh 5:18 (choice sheep) be emended to spotted sheep (MSS) or to fat sheep has little merit (see H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, WBC, 1985, 234).

738

173 (# 1356) Colors—spotted, dappled: > ’amds (pie-bald?, # 600); > barad (dappled, spotted, # 1353); > q’ (spotted, gaudy, # 3229); > nagéd (speckled, # 5923); > ‘aqéd (striped, streaked, # 6819) BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Brenner, Colour Terms in the Old Testament, JSOTSup, 1982; R. P. Gordon, “An Inner-Targum Corruption (Zech. I 8),” VT 25, 1975, 216-21; W. D. McHardy, “The Horses in Zechariah,” In Memoriam Paul Kahle, BZAW 103, 1968, 174-79. Robert L. Alden

1356

—

i113 (brh J), eat portions, take rations/a (special) diet(?) (Sx + MT Lam 4:10[?]; # 1356; HALAT

148a); 1173 (barat), a (food) portion, ration (hapleg. + Lam 4:10[?]; # 1362; HALAT 148b); 172 (birya), a (food) portion, dish; (special) diet(?) (3x; #1376; HALAT 150a).

ANE It is a notoriously difficult task to trace the etymological derivations of III-weak forms *br- among the Semitic languages, and tracing the derivation of Heb. brh I proves no exception. The various spellings and semantic reflexes of forms *br- range across perhaps four domains. First is the domain of *br’, create, form; construct, build (Aram.; Heb. q. and ni.; Arab.), and *bnw/, create, build, beget (Akk. bani A [CAD,

B, 83b-90b; = band(m) II in AHw 1:102b-103a]; Ugar.; Phoen. and Aram. [D/SO, 38]; Heb. [bnh]; Arab.). Second is the domain shared by *brw, cut off, slaughter (Old South

Arab.), *bry, cut (down), carve (Old South Arab.; cf. Arab. baray, trim, shape, sharpen [Wehr 56a]), and *br’, cut; fashion by cutting, engrave (Phoen. [DISO 43]; Heb. pi.; Arab.). Third is the domain of *bry, look upon, consider; devise; search; check (Akk. bari A [CAD, B, 115a-18b; = bari 1 in AHw 1:109a]; Akk. adj. bari A, checked, collated [CAD, B, 115a]), *br’, be free (from...), exempt, innocent (OSA; Arab. bari’ [Wehr 49b]), *bry, be free (from defect); sound, healthy (OSA; cf. Soqotri, adj. “free”), *br’, be fat (Heb.), and probably *brr, be free, pure, clean; purify, cleanse (Ugar.; Heb.; Arab. [Wehr 49a]). Fourth is the domain of *bry, be hungry, starve (intrans.); eat rations (Akk. bari B [CAD, B, 118b-20a; = berii(m)/barii(m) Il in AHw 1:123a]; Akk. adj. beri, hungry [CAD, B, 207b; = berii(m) I in AHw 1:123a]), and *br’/brh, eat/take portions/rations (Heb.). Since it is in the last domain that cognates

for Heb. brh I are most likely to be found, an etymological connection between Heb. brh {and br’ II, be fat, remains the more doubtful (pace HALAT), as does a connection

between the former and the nom. brit, covenant, as something thought to have been enacted by sharing in a sacrificial meal (pace Koehler; KB; McCarthy, 3; and HALAT

[with “?’’]; cf. Barr). OT 1. Inthe OT brh I signifies the eating of food portions. It occurs in contexts that describe eating by one who is supposedly ill (“So that I [Amnon] may eat portions [q. w°’ebreh] from her/your [Tamar’s] hand,” 2 Sam 13:6, 10; cf. hi. in 2 Sam 13:5), or one who is being coaxed to end a mournful fast: “He [David] did not eat portions/take rations (Leningradensis, bara’; many MSS, bara) of food with them [the elders of his house]” (2 Sam 12:17; cf. hi. in 2 Sam 3:35). In the MT of Lam 4:10, the hands of

compassionate

women

are said to have cooked

their own

children, whom

they 739

wina/ninaé 1360/1361) apportioned/rationed (pi. inf. const. [*barét) for themselves, during the siege of Jerusalem. 2. Ps 69:21[22] offers the only OT use of nom. bariit “(food) portion”: “They have put gall in my food (portion)” (unless we read */*barat in Lam 4:10 [so LXX,

Pesh., Vg.; Koehler]). Although in Ps 69:21[22] the references to eating gall and drinking vinegar are hypocatastases for the psalmist’s enduring the bitter scorn of his foes, the NT Gospel writers saw in its correspondence to the uses of gall and wine vinegar.at Jesus’ crucifixion a sensus plenior (Matt 27:34, 48; Mark 15:23, 36; Luke 23:36; John

19:28-30). All three uses of nom. biryd in 2 Sam 13:5, 7, 10 refer to a prepared (food) portion or dish, though it is impossible to determine whether it actually denotes a special diet for the ill (pace HALAT). P-B_

The following postbiblical forms, often cited as cognates of OT brh I (so

HALAT), adhere only to the third domain of vbs. *br-, listed above. The Mish. Heb. vb.

bry/bara’ appears only in the hi., “cause one to be healthy” (Jastrow, 192b [2]) and

seems to be a denom. related to the adj. bari’, sound, healthy, and nom. b°ri’ at/b°riyit, health, strength; fleshiness (Jastrow, 192b, 193a,b). In Jewish Aram., however, b°ra’,

get well, become strong, is a full vb., being attested in peal, aphel, and itpeel forms (Jastrow, 192b), though Jewish Aram., likewise, has an adj. b®°ri’ and nom. b°ri’ ata’ /b°riyita’, health, strength; fleshiness (Jastrow, 193a). Syr. has pael bari, leave out, omit; exempt, set free, a denom. related to nom. bara’, open country; the outside. Eating, food, sustenance, taste: > ’k/ (eat, consume, devour, #430); > brh I (eat portions, take rations, # 1356); > basar (meat, food, flesh, # 1414); > gzr II (cut, slaughter, tear, prey, # 1616); > zwn (provide, supply, #2315); > t‘m (taste, test, sense, discern, # 3247); > krh III (serve, banquet, offer up, #4127); — Jht II (devour, #4266); > lhm (thing to be swallowed, choice morsel, delicacy, # 4269); — lhk (lick up, # 4308); > lhm II (feed on, eat, #4310); > /‘t (swallow, make/let swallow, # 4358) BIBLIOGRAPHY

J. Barr, “Some Semantic Notes on the Covenant,” in Beitrdge zur alttestamentliche Theologie, FS W. Zimmerli, ed. H. Donner, R. Hanhart and R. Smend, 1977, 23-38; A. W. Jenks, “Eating

and Drinking in the OT,” ABD 2:250b-54b; L. Koehler, “Problems in the Study of the Language of the OT,” JSS 1, 1956, (3-24) 4-7 (on b®rit, brh); D. J. McCarthy, Der Gottesbund im AT, 1967; ET: OT Covenant, 1972, 2-4, 59-61; J. L. Palache, Semantic Notes on the Hebrew Lexicon, 1959, 7 (under kl).

Robert H. O’Connell

1359 (bariir, pure), > # 1405

1360/1361 ANE

wis . wina/nina

hy a z eee

4) 1 j rés/b°rét), juniper (# 1360/

CAS,

An Akk. cognate is burasu.

OT The term b°r6¥ is found 19x and its Aram. or dialectal variant, b°rdt, only once (S of Songs 1:17). BDB defines the nom. as cyprus or fir, and Phoen. lexicons some-

740

Or (#1366) times give it the meaning of juniper. The NIV consistently translates b°rd¥ as pine and b°rét as firs. The KJV consistently translated the terms with firs (the RV as cypress). The juniper is identified as a chief tree of Lebanon (Isa 60:13)—one of usefulness (41:19; 55:13). It is associated with cedar (2 Kgs 19:23; Ps 104:17; Isa 14:8; Zech

11:2), has broad boughs (Ezek 31:8), and is evergreen (Hos 14:8[9]). It supplied pine planks for the floor of the temple (1 Kgs 6:15) and pine for the doors of the temple (6:34). It was also used to panel the main hall of the temple (2 Chron 3:5) and was used in shipbuilding (Ezek 27:5). P-B_

The word comes into G as brathu and into Latin as bratum. The LXX renders it

kyparissos, cypress. Trees: > eld I (mighty tree, #461);

> ’erez (cedar, #780); > ’dren I (pine, #815); > ’éSel

(tamarisk, # 869); > b°rés (juniper, # 1360); > liz I (almond-tree, # 4280); > ‘és (trees, tree,

wood, timber, sticks, #6770); — ‘ar‘ar (juniper, #6899); > sammeret (acacia, [tree-]top, #7550); — Sagéd (almond, #9196); — Sigma (sycamore-[fig-] tree, #9204); > 1°’ akSir (cypress, #9309); > tamar I (date-palm, #9469); > tirzd (unknown tree, # 9560); (> Tree of

Knowledge/Life: Theology) Larry L. Walker

1362 (bari, portion, ration), > # 1356

ies vintaS66: 1366 toeosne aan 2?3. 51713 (barzel), nom. iron (# 1366). ae nom. is common in ANE. The Akk. parzillu is found in early documents, ae from the time of Hammurapi (eighteenth century BC). The Ugar. brd/ is found in an itemized consignment of goods, possibly for tribute; the unusual phonetic correspondence of b for p and d for z makes it likely the word is not originally Sem. (UT, 511); it may be a Caucasian derivative (HALAT 148). The nom. is found in Phoen. and Punic (DISO, 43).

OT 1. The nom. is found 76x in the OT and all the occurrences have reference to iron. The first mention of iron is in Gen 4:22, where forging bronze and iron is said to be the vocation of one line of Lamech’s family. This reference to iron is not to be regarded as anachronistic, for the hammering of meteoric iron, as opposed to smelting and casting, was known in the early third millennium BC; in this text the author is simply tracing the origin of all metallurgical experts to Northeastern Asia Minor. Iron was one of the notable riches of the land of wealth that would be home for Israel (Deut 8:9)

and was a valuable item of trade (Ezek 27:12, 19). Iron is referred to for many types of instruments, such as might be used to commit a homicide (Num 35:16) or used as a

weapon in war (1 Sam 17:7); it could be a tool to shape stones for building (Deut 27:5) or for cutting wood (2 Kgs 6:5-6); it could be an agricultural instrument (2 Sam 23:7). Iron was used to provide strength for a larger structure, as in the wheel fellies or pole connection to a chariot (Josh 17:16, Judg 1:19, etc.). Iron was used in the frame of the enormous bed of king Og (Deut 3:11); there is no literary support for the suggestion this was a sarcophagus or dolmen. There is also reference to iron as a part of defensive structures (Deut 33:25; Isa 45:2). The use of iron for such purposes was a significant technological advantage over softer metals. The art of smelting and working iron from

741

OTT(#1366) terrestrial ores is generally believed to have been the innovation of the New Hittite states (North Syria to Assyria) ca. 1400 BC, from where it was brought down to the coastal plain by the Sea Peoples. This would account for the non-Semitic origin of the word for iron. 2. Material evidence for iron in Palestine is relatively abundant by the twelfth century; various iron implements, weapons, jewelry, and ornaments have been found at sites such as Gezer, Beth-Shemesh, and Gerar (Hasel, 881). Iron is listed as booty taken by Israel in wars with the Canaanites and the Midianites (Josh 6:24; 22:8; Num

31:22). However, the Philistines withheld iron technology from the Israelites so their weapons would be inferior (1 Sam 13:19); Israelites had to resort to Philistine smiths when implements and tools needed sharpening or repairing (1 Sam 13:20-22). Iron became plentiful in Israel during the time of David, who is said to have laid up great stores of iron (1 Chron 22:3), which were used for the construction of the temple (1 Chron 29:7). In the early kingdom period farmers had access to iron axes, mattocks, plowpoints, pruning hooks, and sickles (2 Sam 12:31; cf. 1 Chron 20:3). Mining and smelting camps along the Wadi el-‘Arabah and an advanced metallurgical industry for smelting and casting of iron and copper at Tell Deir ‘Alla provide tangible evidence for the extensive use of iron in the kingdom period of Israel. 3. The nom. iron is frequently used metaphorically as a description of physical strength or hardness, hardship and difficulty, or recalcitrance. The curse of disobedience will bring drought so the land becomes hard like iron (Deut 28:23), and the subjugation of the nation will be like an iron yoke (Deut 28:48). The strength of Judah could be represented by iron horns (Mic 4:13); the prophet Zedekiah made horns of iron to attempt to muster courage for the king of Israel (1 Kgs 22:11); the prophet Jeremiah made a yoke of iron to signify the irresistible strength of the Babylonians over other nations (Jer 28:13-14). On the other hand, Jeremiah himself was made as strong as a fortified city with pillars of iron and walls of bronze (Jer 1:18). The staff of iron represents the unalterable rule of God over the nations (Ps 2:9). Holladay suggests Ps 2:9 may lie behind the puzzling metaphor of Jer 15:12; he translates Jer 15:12a, “Can he break iron, iron from the north and bronze,” the subject being Hananiah, who would break the iron yoke of Babylon (cf. Jer 28:13-14) because of his failure to understand the invincible rule of God among the nations (446-47, 453-55).

4. Iron serves as synecdoche for the fetters of imprisonment (Ps 107:10), a sense that may also apply to Ps 105:18, but the interpretation is difficult. Kraus, following the lead of Gunkel, translates “‘in’ iron his neck was placed,” assuming that nepeS may be parallel with the Akk. napistu, meaning throat; however, the metaphor may be emotional, as Kraus recognizes, in which case the translation should be “iron

entered his soul” (2:306-7). The sharpening of iron with iron symbolizes the way a wise man will sharpen another’s wits so his capacity of perception is keen as a razor (Prov 27:17). The smelting of iron in a furnace symbolizes the trials that lead to purification (Deut 4:20; 1 Kgs 8:51; Jer 11:4; Ezek 22:20). Bronze and iron as compared with silver and gold refer to Israel’s corruption (Jer 6:28; Ezek 22:18). In Jer 17:1 the

prophet describes the will of Judah as a stone tablet on which her sin is inscribed with an iron pen; the iron sinew of Jacob is a symbol of stubbornness (Isa 48:4). In Job “rods of iron” of behemoth picture the physical strength of his bones (Job 40:18). The many aspects of iron in terms of processing and function make possible a rich variety 742

P73 (# 1368) of theological application. The rule of God as a rod of iron will crush the horns of the nations as a clay pot; on the other hand God’s judgment of servitude to another nation is an iron yoke. Exile may be described as imprisonment with iron fetters, a situation that is remedied by God’s purifying the nation in the smelting furnace of suffering. A variation of this image is to turn the nation into a pure and precious metal by the purging out the slag of iron and tin. P-B_ The nom. is common in later literature. A number of the biblical uses are found at Qumran. A lament in a thanksgiving hymn describes the oppression of enemies as an imprisonment in iron (1QH 5.37). The Rule of Blessings (1QS 5.26) promises the righ-

teous horns of iron to gore the wicked nations like a bull. A similar sentiment is expressed in one of the noncanonical apocryphal psalms (4Q381 46 1.7). The Psalms of Joshua (4Q378 11 1.7) describe the metallic riches of the promised land in the terms

of Deut 8:9. The spear and sword of the soldier in the War Scroll are described as “shining white iron” and “purified iron” (1QM 5.10, 11).

NT The rule of the anointed one with a rod of iron in Ps 2:9 is applied to Christ Rev 12:5 and 19:15; it is applied to those who rule with Christ in 2:27. The repetition indicative of the importance of the theological interpretation of Christ. Iron in a list precious trading commodities is found in 18:12. In 9:12 it describes a shield, and Acts 12:10 a prison door. These are also continuous with OT usage.

in is of in

Metals: > *“ndk (lead, # 643); > b°dil (dross, # 974); > barzel (iron, # 1366); > zahab (gold, # 2298); > hel’a I (rust, # 2689); > hasmal (glow?, electrum, glowing metal, #3133); > kesep (silver, money, # 4084); > masgér II (metal worker, # 4994); > ma“beh (foundry, #5043); > n°hoset I (copper, bronze, #5733); > sig (lead oxide, #6092); > séper II (bronze, plate,

# 6220); > ‘dperet (lead, #6769); > pah II (thin sheet, #7063); > p*ladot (steel?, #7110); > swr III (cast [metal], #7445); > sa“su ‘im (things formed by metal coating, #7589); > sph Il (arrange, overlay, plate, glaze, #7596); > srp (melt, smelt, refine, # 7671); > qgalal (polished metal, # 7838); > sht II (alloyed, # 8822) BIBLIOGRAPHY

DISO 43; UT 376; G. F. Hasel, “Iron,” JSBE 2:880-82; W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 1986, 446-47, 453-55; H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 60-150, 1989, 306-7; F. V. Winnett, “Iron,” IDB 2:725-26. A. H. Konkel

— M73 (brh J), q. run away, flee, disappear, slide; 1368 hi. drive out (# 1368); 71°72 (bariah), nom. fugitive (# 1371); MTAfa(mibrah), nom. company of fugitives (chosen?), hapleg. (# 4451). ANE Ugar. brh, flee; Phoen. brh, flee; Arab. baraha, go away, depart. According to Jenni (56), Heb. brh is semantically equivalent to Akk. nabutu. BH has two vbs. meaning “to escape by flight” or “to flee,” brh and nws. The OT classic view, summarized by Kennedy, is that brh implies “secret, unobserved flight from danger, whether actual or expected,” while nws indicates “open and visible flight from danger” (2-3). Jenni (1993) has suggested that brh means “to flee [out of an insupportable socio-political situation into more security|” while nws means “to flee [out of a dangerous situation into more security]” (Abstract, 59). The contrasting

743

AT (# 1368) examples offered by Jenni—that of Moses fleeing (brh) to Midian from Pharaoh after he killed the Egyptian (Exod 2:15) in contrast to his fleeing (nws) from the serpent (Exod 4:3), and that of Absalom fleeing (brh) from the kingdom of Judah to the realm of Geshur (2 Sam 13:37) in contrast to the king’s sons fleeing (nws) the scene of their murder of Amnon (2 Sam 13:29)—fit the classic view, too.

1. Individuals and collectives run away stealthily from unpleasant and confrontational situations in one dominion and pass into another dominion for safety: Hagar from Sarai into the desert (Gen 16:6, 8); Jacob from Esau to Aram (Gen 27:43; Hos 12:12[13]); Jacob from Laban back to Canaan (Gen 31:20-22); Moses from Pharaoh to Midian (Exod 2:15); the Israelites from Egypt into the wilderness (14:5); Jonah from the Lord to Tarshish (Jon 1:3, 10; 4:2); David from Saul to the countryside (1 Sam 19:12); David from Judah because of Absalom (2 Sam 19:9[10]); Jeroboam from

Solomon to Egypt (1 Kgs 11:40; 2 Chron 10:2); Hadad to Egypt to escape Joab (1 Kgs 11:17); Uriah the prophet to Egypt to escape Jehoiakim (Jer 26:21); Jephthah from his brothers to the land of Tob (Judg 11:3); the leaders of Judah from Jerusalem in view of its imminent fall (Isa 22:3); King Zedekiah and his soldiers from Jerusalem surreptitiously at night after the Babylonians had breached the wall (Jer 39:4; 52:7); and the

Israelites from Babylon when the Lord redeems them (Isa 48:20). Descendants of Benjamin who settled the Aijalon Valley put the inhabitants of Gath to flight (1 Chron 8:13), as did the warriors of David who lived in the valleys (1 Chron 12:15[16]). In

both these cases where the hi. appears, no battle is mentioned; it may have been flight by intimidation. In his personal account of the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem, Nehemiah answers the deceptive Shemaiah with a rhetorical question that anticipates a negative reply and so stands as an example for the faithful in every generation: “Should a man [i.e., a leader] like me flee” in cowardice to the safety of the temple from the threats of the wicked Tobiah and Sanballat, leaving the work my God has sent me to do (Neh 6:11)? In a song of lament about his persecution by the wicked, the psalmist testifies of his faith in the omnipresent creator by confessing, “Where can I flee [i.e., escape] from your presence?” (Ps 139:7).

2. Unliked prophets are told to “go back” to their own countries by those disgusted with their prophecies: Balaam by Balak, after Balaam blessed Israel rather than cursing them (Num 24:11); the Judean Amos by Amaziah, priest of Bethel, because of Amos’ prophetic word of judgment against the northern kingdom (Amos 7:12). 3. In the poetry of Job the wicked flees from the power of the east wind (Job 27:22) and the godless from an iron weapon (20:24), but the arrow can not make Leviathan flee (41:28[20]). In the phrases “(days) fly away” (9:25) and “(man) flees like a shadow” (14:2), the vb. means “disappear quickly,” indicating the shortness of life. 4. In love poetry the lover is urged by his beloved to “sneak away” with her to indulge in pleasure (S of Songs 8:14). 5. In a proverb, maltreating one’s father and “driving out” one’s mother is labeled as shameful (Prov 19:26). 6. Paranomastically, the middle bar (b“riah) of the tabernacle is said to pass through or extend (brh q. and hi.) from one end to the other (Exod 26:28; 36:33). This usage apparently derives from the nom. and may belong to a different root.

744

M72 (# 1369) 7. The nom. bariah appears as an apposition functioning attributively to the nom. nahas, serpent, as a description of Leviathan in the Isaianic apocalypse (Isa 27:1) and in Ugar. literature (cf. Job 41:1[40:25]; liwyatan, Leviathan, > # 4293). It means “glider, fleer” and, thus, attributively “gliding, fleeing.” For alternative explanations, consult TWAT 1:780 = TDOT 2:252, and RSP 1:33-36. It has been suggested that the reading b‘rihehd, “her bars,” of the MT of Isa 15:5 be emended to barthehd, her fugitives, or the like (i.e., difference in vocalization; so NIV, NRSV). The reading barihim, fugitives, of the MT of Isa 43:14 (cf. Pesh. and LXX) has a Heb. variant b“rihim, bars, attested in the Vg. 8. In describing the defeated armies of the king of Judah, the nom. mibrah means “company of fugitives” (Ezek 17:21), if it is indeed a genuine lexeme. The Heb. variant mibharaw, chosen, (i.e., the metathesis of heth and resh; > bhr Il, # 1047) is preferred by many, because the text next speaks of “those remaining” as a group distinct from this group, and the lexeme is attested nowhere else. P-B Usage of the vb. in Tannaitic Heb. is conditioned by usage in BH. The two most frequently attested formal equivalents of the vb. in the LXX are apodidraskein, run away (esp. by stealth), 23x, and phugein, flee, 27x. Disappearance, flight, escape: > brh J (run away, flee, disappear, # 1368); > hip I (pass by, disappear, violate, change, renew, # 2736); ~ hrh II (disappear, be few in number, # 3014); > nws (flee, escape, slip away, #5674); — ptr (vanish, escape, let out, #7080); > pit (save, bring to safety, #7117); > pars@don (loophole [for escape]?, # 7307); > Srd (run away, escape, # 8572) BIBLIOGRAPHY NIDNTT 1:558-59; TDOT 2:249-53; TWAT 1:778-81; TWOT 1:131; B. Grossfeld, “The Rela-

tionship Between Biblical Hebrew N13 and O13 and their Corresponding Aramaic Equivalents in the Targum - PUY, JAX Ott A Preliminary Study in Aramaic-Hebrew Lexicography,” ZAW 91, 1979, 107-23; E. Jenni, “‘Flichen’ im akkadischen und im hebraischen Sprachgebrauch,” Or 47, 1978, 351-59; idem, “Response to P. Swiggers,” ZAH 6, 1993, 55-59; R. J. Kennedy, Studies

in Hebrew Synonyms, 1898. Jerome A. Lund

1369

Flas

FI (brh I), hi., injure (# 1369).

ANE An Arab. cognate means “to worry, chafe” and “to suffer” (HALAT 149), with other occurrences indicating twisting (Rabin, 1946, 39). An older source also suggests a meaning of “molest, annoy, hurt” (Lane, 181).

OT Most OT uses of the vb. concern someone fleeing or disappearing (HALAT 149, see brhI > 1368), but in one case this interpretation does not appear adequate. The vb. is used in Prov 19:26 with the vb. §dd, which indicates violent treatment, here of one’s father; Sdd is a vb. often associated with destruction and death (BDB, 994). The

accompanying action done to the mother in this verse may indicate something more violent than simply chasing her away (NIV, RSV). An actual injury may be more fitting with the context here (HALAT 149; cf. Driver, 373-74). This sort of action towards one’s parents is shameful (see Exod 20:12; cf. Deut 21:18-21). But see the NIV, which

745

m2 # 1378) takes the traditional sense of brh, flee or drive out: “He who robs his father and drives out his mother is a son who brings shame and disgrace.” (> # 1368)

P-B

By the Rabbinical period, the vb. is used of stealing and defrauding (Baba 113a; PTalm Ketubot 6:30).

Qamma Violence:

> hms I (do violence, # 2803); > Sdd (devastate, # 8720)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT

2:249-52;

TWOT

1:131;

G. R. Driver,

“Proverbs

XIX.26,”

TZ

11, 1955,

373-74;

W. Eichrodt, TOT, 2, 1967; E. W. Lane, Arabic English Lexion, 1863; repr. 1955.

David W. Baker

1370 (brh Ill, make impossible), > # 1378

|

1371 (bariah, fugitive), > # 1368

1374 (bari’, fattened), > # 1344 1375 (b°ri’G, separated, created thing), > # 1343

1376 (biryd, portion, dish; special diet?), > # 1356

1378

—s ee!

AP (b%riah), nom. bars, gate bars (# 1378); denom. M73 (brh Ill), hitp. make impassable

(# 1370, only in 1 Chron 12:14[16)]).

OT _ 1. Of the more than 40 occurrences of the nom. b*riah, approximately half refer to wood frame construction for the upright boards of the tabernacle wall (e.g., Exod 26:26-29; 36:31-34). Other uses of the word revolve around city gates, for which a bar (possibly fastened horizontally) was a securing mechanism. One frequent word cluster deals with construction of cities: “walls, gates, and bars” (e.g., 1 Kgs 4:13; 2 Chron 8:5; cf. Ezek 38:11). Another cluster is descriptive of city gates: “doors, bolts, and

bars” (e.g., Neh 3:3, 6, 13-15). As security devices for large gates, bars gave protection to those inside; to those involuntarily inside they spelled confinement. Broken or burnt gate bars spoke of invasion and destruction (Isa 45:2; Jerusalem, Lam 2:9; Nineveh, Nah 3:13). God’s power was praised as one who breaks gates and cuts through bars, and so overpowers defenses and obstacles (Ps 107:16). 2. On the metaphorical level, as used_in poetry, bars represent the impregnable (and so “stubborn” person, cf. Prov 18:19), but also the limits beyond which one cannot go, as with the sea (Job 38:10) or the underworld (Jon 2:6). In the cosmic context, bars point to the ordering of the world. Gate: > Sa‘arI (gate, #9133) BIBLIOGRAPHY

ISBE

1:429; TDOT 2:249-53; S. Segert, “Paranomasia xili-xvi,” VT 34, 1984, 454-61, esp. 457.

in the Samson

Narrative

in Judges

Elmer A. Martens

746

nm?(#1382)

lek:

‘absen >)

7

2a

(b*rit), > treaty, 2 agreement,

“nant (# 1382),

2

alliance, > cove-

ANE The nom. brit is so far attested clearly only in Heb. Moreover, it cannot be attached with confidence to any known Heb. verbal root; the suggested link with brh I, eat (Kohler, 3-7), because of the significance of the communion meal in some covenant ceremonies, is not convincing, and the proposed derivation from a brh II requires the

postulation of such a root, based on an Akk. parallel (see below). There have been three main attempts to explain brit by reference to Akk. The first relates b©rit to the nom. biritu, clasp, fetter, and thus thinks of covenant essentially

as a bond (Weinfeld). A second refers to a use in a text from Mari of the Akk. preposition birit, between, and thus sees the covenant as an arrangement between two parties (Noth). The third option, which postulates a vb. brh II, has been influential because of the work of E. Kutsch. Finding a connection with the Akk. bari, see, he argues for an extended meaning in Heb., “select for a task,” hence “obligation,” on the basis of the

form b®ri in 1 Sam 17:8 (apparently “choose,” but the text is disputed; see McCarter, 287). A fourth explanation (not connected with Akk.) is Gerleman’s proposal of the meaning “something specially set apart,” deriving b°rit from the root brr. The catalogue of proposals concerning the meaning of b*rit illustrates the close connection between etymological derivation and theological interpretation that has characterized the attempt to understand covenant in the Bible. All the proposals mentioned, however,

are flawed.

(For specific criticisms

see Nicholson,

99-103;

Barr,

31-35.) In the end, the meaning of “covenant” must be sought by means of a study of its usage. The ANE provides another kind of background to the discussion of biblical covenant, however, namely, in its numerous treaties and law codes. In particular, the

form of the Hittite vassal-treaty (second millennium) shows strong similarities with that of Deut. Its six elements are: (i) titulary (introducing parties); (11) historical prologue (rehearsing their past relations); (111) stipulations; (iv) document clause (requir-

ing the preservation of the document in a temple and its regular reading); (v) god list (i.e., witnesses to the treaty); and (vi) blessings and curses (invoked for keeping or violating the treaty) (following McCarthy, Treaty, 51; cf. slightly differently, Craigie, 22-24). The chief distinguishing mark of the Hittite treaties, as opposed to the Assyrian treaties of the first millennium, is the presence of an historical prologue, which the latter normally lack. Some scholars (Kitchen, Kline, Craigie) accept that Deut follows clearly the Hittite pattern, while others (Weinfeld, McCarthy, Frankena) think that the differences between 2M (Hittite) and 1M (Assyrian) treaties are not so marked that

Deut can be dated by its affinities with the former. However, the OT form is ultimately unique. The analogy of the treaties helps make the general points that Yahweh is Israel’s suzerain and that the covenantal relationship demands for its preservation a certain commitment from the people. In those places where the covenant idea is conveyed in a form resembling that of the treaty, it has a bilateral character, which ill agrees with Kutsch’s view of covenant as “obligation” (whether assumed or imposed). The historical prologue is relevant here, because it puts the treaty/covenant into the context of a continuous relationship. (The best OT example is Deut 1-3, where the

747

m3 (#1382) exhortations are put into the context of the relationship between God and Israel since they departed from Mount Sinai.) That the Hittites’ use of such a form shows that they had a certain sense of history is often acknowledged (Albrektson, 37-40; Butterfield, 60-71; cf. McCarthy, Treaty, 136f.). The point is not irrelevant to the choice of this

particular form (the Hittite vassal-treaty) as the closest model for OT covenantal texts, since it is a first suggestion that covenant in the OT is conceived essentially as relationship.

OT 1. Covenants between human parties. Covenants between human parties include a covenant of friendship, with an implication of obligation and perhaps even sanction (1 Sam 18:3; 20:8); treaties or agreements of parity between rulers or powerful individuals (Gen 21:27; 26:28; 31:44; 1 Kgs 5:12[26]; 15:19; 2 Kgs 11:4); treaties

or agreements in which the more powerful party sets the terms (Exod 23:32; Deut 7:2; Judg 2:2; Josh 9:15; 1 Sam 11:1; Ezek 17:13-18; Jer 34:8) or where the weaker party seeks terms (1 Kgs 20:34; Hos 12:1[2]); and marriage (Mal 2:14; cf. Ezek 16:8).

The concept therefore has a certain flexibility. Covenants can be contracted between individuals, or larger groups, or states. Moreover, they are not uniform in the clarity with which they spell out the commitments of the respective parties. Some clearly involve a mutual commitment (marriage, friendship treaties, and certain of the parity arrangements, e.g., Gen 31:44; cf. v. 52). Others are close to commands, where

one party lays obligations upon another and makes no explicit corresponding commitment (e.g., Ezek 17:13-18). Kutsch claimed that many of this type actually implied no such commitment (THAT 1:343-44); however, this cannot easily be maintained. Nebuchadnezzar’s covenant with Zedekiah implied an undertaking on the part of the former to keep the Jewish kingdom intact as long as its puppet king remained a loyal vassal (Ezek 17:14). Similarly, the priest Jehoiada’s command to the palace troops also implied a promise (2 Kgs 11:4b, 12). Kutsch’s claim, therefore, that covenants with genuinely mutual obligations are secondary has a fragile basis (THAT 1:344). 2. Covenants between God and his people. (a) The Noahic covenant. The OT contains a developing story of God’s covenants with his chosen people (> bhr, choose, # 1047). The first occurrence of the idea is at Gen 6:18, where God promises to establish (hégim) his covenant with Noah (>). This he does after the Flood (9:8-17), and the covenant consists of a promise (vy. 9-11)

and a sign (v. 13). When Gen 8:22-9:7 is taken as a prelude to the covenantal promise of 9:8-17, the latter has clear verbal connections with the story of creation, especially as in Gen 1 (cf. 9:1 and 1:28; 9:2-3 and 1:29; 9:10 and 1:20-25).

The question arises, therefore, whether the relationship between God and humanity at creation should be read as covenantal, even though the specific terminology of covenant is absent. A plausible exegetical case for creation as covenantal has been made by W. J. Dumbrell, partly on the grounds of the phrase “establish my covenant” in Gen 6:18. The use of the vb. hégim (< qwm [> #7756]) in that place, instead of the more usual vb. for initiating a covenant (krt [> # 4162]; cf. Gen 15:18; 21:27, 32; Exod 23:32, etc.), suggests the reestablishment of something already in

place, namely

“a divine

relationship established

by the fact of creation

itself’

(Dumbrell, 32). (For other uses of hégim, see Gen 17:7, 21; Exod 6:4; Deut 8:18; Gis.)

The use of héqim rather than krt, therefore, has nothing to do with alleged differences

748

m3 # 1382) of source (and consequently style), but arises from the fact that the covenant referred to in Gen 6:18 is not initiated there (Dumbrell, 20-33). Dumbrell then goes on to expound the creation-covenant in terms of kingship, rest, and the covenant demand (Gen 2:16-17; Dumbrell, 33-39). In the same connection, Hos 2:18[20] should be noticed, where God makes a covenant between Israel and the earth; there the covenantal idea is

applied to the establishment of a harmonious relationship between God and humankind in the context of their environment. A further issue arising from the covenant with Noah is whether it is exclusively promissory. Clearly, the element of promise dominates it, yet here too, when Gen 8:22-9:7 is taken with 9:8-17, the note of command is also present in the prohibition both of murder (vv. 5-6) and of the consumption of blood (v. 4), which is to play an important role in the OT’s ritual laws (Lev 17:11) and which is even sustained in the NT (Acts 15:20). In reality, therefore, both promise and command belong within the

covenantal thought of Gen 1-11. (b) The Abrahamic covenant. God makes covenants with Abraham (>) twice, at Gen 15:18 and 17:2. Both are related by their substance to the promise first made to Abraham in 12:1-3, involving posterity, land, continuing relationship with God, and

the goal of blessing for the nations. The emphasis here, too, on promise has led McComiskey (139-77) to identify the Abrahamic covenant as essentially promissory and as fundamental to all biblical covenant, other covenants being “administrations” of

it. However, as with the Noahic covenant, the element of expected response is present (Gen 17:1, 9-14). This covenant too has its sign, circumcision (McComiskey). (c) The Mosaic covenant. The Mosaic, or Sinai covenant, the heart of which is unfolded in Exod 19-24, is undergirded by God’s deliverance of his people from Egyptian slavery (Exod 19:4; 20:2), a connection that links it ultimately to the covenant with Abraham (3:7-14; 6:2-5). Here, however, the emphasis falls on the responsibilities of

the people to “keep” the covenant (19:5; cf. Gen 17:9). The “Decalogue” (20:2-27), supplemented by the laws of the so-called Book of the Covenant (Exod 21-23), constitutes its main stipulations, and it is ratified by a sacrificial ritual (24:3-8) and a covenantal meal (24:9-11). The erection of the tabernacle (Exod 25-27; 35-40), the consecration of Aaron and his sons as priests (Exod 28-29), and the ritual regulations of the book of Leviticus provide the fabric of worship within which the covenant may be sustained. The distinctive characteristic of the Mosaic covenant is its setting of God’s laws regulating Israel’s life in the framework of a theology of the election of Israel by grace. This distinctive feature is illustrated by Exod 19:5-6, at the beginning of the Sinai account, and by the prologue to the Ten Commandments: “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery” (20:2).

The most developed expression of the Mosaic covenant is in Deut (which bears strong resemblances to the form of the Hittite treaties; see above). Deut, in fact, is nota-

ble for bringing together the patriarchal (Abrahamic) covenant, primarily a sworn promise focused on the land and blessing in it (4:31), with that of Sinai (always Horeb in Deut), in which command comes to greater prominence (5:1-2). In fact Deut achieves a careful balance between promise and command, between God’s initiative and Israel’s required response (e.g., 7:9). This balance is illustrated by its varied use of

749

m1 (#1382) the term brit, sometimes in parallel with the idea of oath (4:31), and sometimes with that of command, or law (Torah; 4:13; 5:1-3; 31:26).

Deut also adds to the Horeb covenant another, made in the land of Moab, prior to the entry into the land, a covenant that seems to be a renewal of the former and similar in character (Deut 29-30). Further covenant renewals are recorded at Josh 24 (see

v. 25); 1 Sam 12; 2 Kgs 23:1-3. Deut thus provides a structure for covenantal thought in the OT, which can occur in different kinds of literature, e.g., the prayer in Neh 9:6-10:39; Ps 78. The “perpetual priesthood” with Aaron’s son Phinehas (Num 25:6-18) may be mentioned in connection with the Mosaic covenant. The idea may also underlie 1 Sam 2:30, 35, in the context of the accusation of Eli and his family of unworthiness for the

office, and the passing of the priesthood to another family. The permanence of the promise remains in principle, however (cf. Jer 33:17f., 22). (d) The Davidic covenant. The covenant with King David (~) arose as a concession to the disobedient demand for a king (1 Sam 8:5-8; God himself was their true king; cf. Deut 33:5) and promised that Israel would always have a king (Ps 89:3-4). The account of the institution of this covenant (2 Sam 7:8-17, though the term “cove-

nant” is not used here) contains no explicit conditions and therefore has a strong promissory dimension. It is described in 2 Chron 13:5 as a “covenant of salt,” an expression intending to convey permanence (cf. Lev 2:13; Num 18:19). The promissory dimension of the Davidic covenant poses a question about its relationship with the Mosaic covenant. It has in fact been held to have separate origins from the latter and to reflect the royal-priestly cult at Jerusalem, traceable back to the Jebusite priest-king Melchizedek (Gen 14:18-24), this connection possibly combining with a memory at Jerusalem of the Abraham tradition (Clements, Abraham and David,

54-56). There is substance in both these links. Certain OT texts depict the king as having a role in the cult (e.g., Solomon at the dedication of the temple, 1 Kgs 8:62-64). The king’s special relationship with God is also celebrated in a number of Psalms and is seen as the basis for the blessing of the people (cf. Ps 2; 20; 45; 72; 110; 132). There

are no grounds for thinking, however, that the OT has borrowed Canaanite ideas wholesale. The book of Psalms knows that the Davidic covenant came to an end (Ps 89) and affirms the kingship of Yahweh apart from the human king (Ps 93; 96-99). The links between the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants are also interesting. David’s rule over a numerous people, his tenure of the land promised to the patriarch, and his hegemony in the region (thus bringing Yahweh’s “blessing” to at least some of the “peoples on earth’) are reminiscent of the promise in Gen 12:1-3. Furthermore, the promise to David of a “house,” focused first on his own son Solomon (2 Sam 7:12-15),

makes another link with the story of Abraham and Isaac. If the Davidic covenant thus draws on a range of ideas, Israelite and other, in

which promise and assurance predominate, it is nevertheless ultimately shown to be properly understood only in the light of the Mosaic, where promise is balanced by command (1 Kgs 2:4; cf. Ps 132:11-12).

3. Covenant in the prophets. It has often been observed that the classical prophets seldom use the term b°rit (Perlitt, 129-52). Statistically this is true, though it is also true to the same extent of postexilic prophecy. However, the observation also invites

the question in what sense the covenant might have been conceived by the prophets. 750

m3 (#1382) That is, was the relationship between God and Israel so understood that it could only have been appealed to explicitly in covenantal terms? Or might the essential idea have been conveyed in other terms? In fact, the term brit is not entirely absent from the prophets. It features in Hosea at 6:7 and 8:1. In the latter, indeed, it occurs in parallel with tora, law, a connection reminiscent of Deut (cf. Deut 31:26). Perlitt, believing that these texts offered no evidence of a developed covenantal theology (Perlitt, 139-149), thought the latter actually inauthentic. Others, however, have shown this view to be tenuous and have argued

the opposite (Nicholson, 179-88; Day). Consequently, it is natural to suppose that Hosea, at least, thought of the relationship between God and Israel in covenantal terms. Hosea, of course, favors the strongly relational metaphors of marriage (Hos 1; 3) and sonship (Hos 11:1). However, there are indications that his marriage metaphor is associated with covenantal thought. One such indication lies in his use of the vb. bgd, deal faithlessly (> #953), in his accusation of Israel, both in the context of the metaphor of marital unfaithfulness (5:7) and in that of covenant breach (6:7; cf. Nicholson, 187-88). The closeness of the ideas of covenant and marriage is further

illustrated in Malachi, where the “covenant” of marriage seems to be a kind of symbol of the covenant itself (Mal 2:13-16; cf. 2:11). A similar thought may underlie Prov

ORAS Many of Amos’s sayings, on the other hand, fit well with the supposition that he knew a covenantal relationship between God and Israel: he appears to know the election traditions (Amos 2:9-11; 3:2), certain of the Pentateuchal laws (2:7-8; cf. Lev 18:8, 15; 20:11-12; Deut 24:12-13), and the covenantal curses (Amos 4:6-10; cf. Deut 28:21-22, 24). The so-called “lawsuit-pattern” of Hos 4:1-3 and Mic 6:1-5, in which God calls Israel to a kind of legal tribunal, is also best understood thus (Huffmon), despite the view of some that it merely uses language typical of ANE religious texts (Perlitt, 133).

The prophets raise the question whether the covenant may be said to have “ceased” at the exile. At first glance, there seem to be different answers to this question in the OT. One of them is suggested by Amos 5:2, where the nation is depicted as dead (cf. Ezek 37, with its image of the valley of dry bones, even though they are duly revivified). These texts seem to say that, with the invocation of the curses of the covenant,

the covenant is truly no more. On the other hand, in Lev 26:45 God promises that he will not “remember (his) covenant” with the people even in their captivity. Solomon too prays for the exiled people in terms that are intelligible only in the context of an existing covenant relation-

ship (“their cause,” “your people,” “your heritage”; | Kgs 8:49-53; cf. the terms of Lev 26:12). Jeremiah’s letter to the exiles in Babylon (Jer 29:4-14) is also based on the

assumption that God continues to have plans for his people, even though, for the immediate future, they are of a sort that they could not have anticipated. Paradoxically, therefore, although the prophets have invoked the curses of the covenant, there are also clear signs in the OT literature (including the prophets), that the covenantal relationship is not over. Amos’s vision of a “dead” Israel is rhetorical and hyperbolic. Indeed, the logic of God’s relationship with Israel is not bound into legal categories, such as might be suggested by the covenantal or treaty idea. Rather, in passages like Hos 11:8-9 and Jer 31:20, the impulse of God to invoke the curses of the

751

m3 # 1382) covenant is overcome by his own compassion for his people. The existence of the covenant depends ultimately on God’s love, which is prepared to deal even with the hardness of his people’s heart in order to bring them finally to himself. This observation brings us to the OT idea of the new covenant, best known in

Jer 31:31-34, which (pace Carroll, 215-23) is a profound engagement with the problem of how the covenant is to continue in view of the chronic apostasy of the people. There is, it is true, strong continuity with the past in the classic formulation of Jer 31:31-34 (cf. house of Israel and house of Judah, law). Nevertheless,

the ideas of the Torah

(EVV law) written on the heart and of a wholly new kind of forgiveness represent searchings for a deeper relationship than has hitherto been realized. The idea of God’s taking some profound new initiative in bringing about a covenant relationship that can be sustained is further developed in Jer 32:39-40. The paradox that God should take such an initiative without crushing the will of the people is not resolved in the texts of the OT. (It should be noted that while certain texts have an explicit role for repentance as part of the mechanism of the new relationship, e.g., Deut 30:2, others do not, e.g., Jer 24:7; 31:33; 32:39-40.) The new covenant, however, may loosely be extended to all

those OT expectations that, in spite of and beyond the falling of the covenantal curses, picture a future, living relationship between God and his people (e.g., Deut 30:1-10; Isa 55; Hos 14; Amos 9:11-15; Mic 4:1-8; see Dumbrell, 164-200).

One further development in prophetic thought about the covenant requires comment, namely, the suggestion in Isa 42:6b (cf. 49:6b), supported by its citations in Luke 2:32; Acts 13:47; 26:23, that God’s purposes of salvation would finally extend to the whole world and not just one chosen race. This seems to run starkly counter to the idea of election, but is actually implied in a classical election text (Gen 12:1-3), which itself anticipates the covenantal declarations to Abraham in Gen 15 and 17. 4. The nature of covenant in the OT. We observed at the outset that the meaning of covenant in the OT could be determined only by usage. Our survey has found a consistency in its character as a mutual commitment, which paradoxically recognized both the initiative of God in the arrangement and insisted on the reality and necessity of human choice as well. A crucial question remains, however (though it was adumbrated in connection

with the prophets), namely, just how central the covenant idea is in the OT. W. Eichrodt believed that covenant was the controlling idea, or “center,” of all OT theology (TOT 1:36-69). Though the idea underwent development in Israel’s history, the Sinai event was of decisive importance. Eichrodt therefore saw the main concepts in OT theology as dimensions or subsets of the covenantal relationship (e.g., the power, steadfast love [hesed], righteousness, love, wrath, holiness of God [228-82]; see also the attributes of God in Ps 145:7-9, 13-20). While the search for a “center” is

problematical (see Hasel, 117-43), the idea of covenant is indeed filled out by certain

important collocations, e.g., b°rit and hesed (steadfast love; Deut 7:9; > #2876); b°rit and Salém also above love is the 9:24[23]), ones” who Deut 7:9).

752

(peace; Isa 54:10; see Nicholson, 104-5, against Kutsch; > # 8934). Cf. on the collocations of covenant with oath and command in Deut. Steadfast typical quality of the covenant relationship, a quality of God (Ps 136; Jer and required of his covenant partners (see Ps 50:5, where “my consecrated “made a covenant with me” are h“siday, a nom. related to hesed; and-again

m3 # 1382) The covenant-making God also exhibits “righteousness” (s°dagd, > #7407; Ps 145:7, 17; Jer 9:24[23]). This quality is manifest in God’s relationship generally with his creation (Ps 145:13-17). It is especially so in relation to the covenant people, however, for whom it is a quality that guaranteed justice. Its aim, furthermore, is essentially salvific (Ps 143:1). As Deut in particular stresses, the proper response of the covenant people to God’s righteousness is their faithfulness to the covenant standards, and the product of such maintenance of the covenant is blessing, or “good,” in all of life (Deut 6:24-25; 28:1-14). Covenant as a theological idea is distinctively biblical. It is the Bible’s response to that kind of religion that reflects and justifies some social structure, certainly one function of religion in the ancient world. The cult of Marduk in Babylon, for example, was intended to celebrate the preeminence of Babylon among the nations. The participation of kings in the cult was based on their representation of the deity; their earthly rule was a kind of guarantee of the god’s favor. Religious rituals had a similar function of ensuring this. In place of this Babylonian, and indeed Canaanite, view, the OT knows of one

god who freely enters into a relationship, at once historical and ethical, with a people of his choosing. That people is not “determined” by the necessities of an impersonal natural order, but relates freely to the one knowable, personal, holy god, who reveals that the way of life consists in communion with him. Covenant, therefore, becomes a way of speaking of all of life in subordination to a loving god. As such, it can serve as a model for all Christian thinking, including ethical thinking (Ogletree, 47-85). More importantly, it reveals the unfathomable depth of the love of God, who endures a profound inner conflict (Hos 11:8-9) for the sake of sustaining his relationship with his people.

P-B_

The term b*rit appears frequently in postbiblical

Jewish literature. Sirach knows

of the covenant in general, involving ethical responsibilities (41:19), and of a succession of “covenants” (44:12; cf. 44:17-18, Noah; 44:22, Abraham and Isaac; 45:15,

Aaron; 45:24, Phinehas; 45:25, David). At Qumran the covenant is one of the dominant theological ideas. It is understood according to the sect’s belief in itself as the eschatological community—the community of the covenant and the true inheritors of God’s ancient promises to Israel. Covenant and new covenant seem to be one and the same (see CD 6:19; 20:21), in accordance with the sect’s view that the predictions of the prophets found their fulfillment precisely in it (e.g., 1QS 8:10-16). Membership is marked by obedience to the Mosaic law, to the community’s interpretations of it and the prophets, and also to its own rules (1QS V; 1QM 14:4). Those who are faithful to the covenant are consistently

contrasted with those (principally in “Israel”) who have forsaken it (1QS 5:10). NT The New Testament term diathéké stands closest to the OT’s b*rit. It occurs chiefly in connection with the idea of new covenant, as taken up in the words of institution of the Lord’s Supper (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25). Here the OT covenant is evidently seen as having its fulfillment in the life, and especially the death, of Christ. The reference to his blood in these texts recalls Exod 24:3-8. The new

covenant idea in the Gospels may be wider, however, because of the use of diatithemai

(related to diatheké) in Luke 22:29, which associates the idea of new covenant closely 753

m3 (#1382) with kingdom. New covenant theology is most fully developed in Hebrews, in which the substance of the Mosaic covenant finds new fulfillment in Christ. Covenant thinking also lies behind Paul’s understanding of the church as “Israel.” In Rom 9-11 he considers the relationship between Israel and Church. His view appears to be neither that the two remain as separate entities nor that the church “replaces” Israel; rather, the church is in strong continuity with the ancient people, as a new realization of the covenant (see Dunn, Romans 9-16, 539-40; Wright). This stress

on continuity leaves no place for the antisemitism that has arisen in the past because of the idea (unfounded in the NT) that the Jews as a whole rejected Christ. As in the OT, the idea of “righteousness” (dikaiosyné) is closely related to that of covenant: a saving manifestation of God’s character, no longer in relation to one people, but now in Christ (Rom 3:21-22; 10:4, and Dunn, Romans 9-16, 590-91). Covenant: > “mand I (covenant, binding agreement, #591); — b°rit (treaty, # 1382); > hozeh II (covenant, # 2603); > ‘édiit (statutes, stipulations, warning sign, reminder, # 6343) BIBLIOGRAPHY

B. Albrektson, History and the Gods, 1967; K. Baltzer, Das Bundesformular, WMANT

4, 1960

(ET The Covenant Formulary), 1971; J. Barr, “Some Semantic Notes on the Covenant,” FS W. Zimmerli, eds. H. Donner, R. Hanhart, R. Smend, 1977, 23-38; H. Butterfield, The Origins of History, 1981; R. P. Carroll, From Chaos to Covenant, 1981; R. E. Clements, Prophecy and Covenant, 1965; idem, Abraham and David, 1967; idem, Prophecy and Tradition, 1975; P. C. Craigie, Deuteronomy, 1976; J. Day, “Pre-Deuteronomic Allusions to the Covenant in Hosea and Ps. lxxviii,” VT 36, 1986, 1-12; W. J. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 1984; W. Eichrodt, TOT 1; R. Frankena, “The Vassal-treaties of Esar-haddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy,” OTS 14, 1965, 122-54; G. Gerleman, “Die Besonderheit: Untersuchung zu b°rit im Alten Testament,” Studien zur alttestamentlichen Theologie, 1980, 24-37; J. Guhrt, “Covenant,” NIDNTT 1:365-372; M. D. Guinan, “Mosaic Covenant,” ABD 4:905-9; G. Hasel, Old Testament

Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate, 1972; D. R. Hillers, Treaty Curses and the Old Testament Prophets, 1964; idem, Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea, 1969; H. B. Huffmon, “The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets,” JBL 78, 1959, 285-95; G. P. Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, SVT 52, 1994, 168-215; A. Jepsen, “b*rit. Ein Beitrag zur Theologie

der Exilszeit,” in Verbannung und Heimkehr, FS W. Rudolph, 1961, 161-79; K. A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, 1966; M. G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King, 1963; L. K6hler, “Problems in the Study of the Language of the Old Testament,” JSS 1, 1956, 3-24; E. Kutsch, Verheissung und Gesetz, 1973; idem, “b© rit,’ THAT 1:339-52; P. K. McCarter, ] Samuel, AB, 1980; D. J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 19812: idem, Old Testament Covenant,

1973; T. E. McComiskey, The Covenants of Promise, 1985; G. E. Mendenhall, G. A. Herion, “Covenant,” ABD

1:1179-1202; E. W. Nicholson, God and His People, 1986; M. Noth, “Old

Testament Covenant-Making in the Light of a Text from Mari,” in The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Essays, 1957, 108-17 (German original, 1955); K. Nielsen, Yahweh as Prosecutor and

Judge, JSOTSup 9, 1978; T. W. Ogletree, The Use of the Bible in Christian Ethics, 1983; L. Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament, 1969; R. Smend, Die Bundesformel, 1963; W. Vogels, God’s Universal Covenant, 1979; M. Weinfeld, “b°rit,’ TDOT 2:253-79; D. J. Wiseman, The Alalakh Tablets, 1953; idem, “The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon,” Traq 20, 1958, 1-99.

On the “covenant lawsuit”: R. E. Clements, Prophecy and Tradition, 1975; M. DeRoche, “Yahweh’s rib Against Israel: A Reassessment of the So-called Prophetic Lawsuit in the Preexilic Prophets,” JBL 102, 1983, 563-74; H. B. Huffmon, “The Covenant Lawsuit in the

754

72 @ 1384) Prophets,” JBL 78, 1959, 285-95; K. Nielsen, Yahweh as Prosecutor and Judge, JSOTSup 9,

1978.

On Qumran: G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 1987°, 36-58. On the New Testament: J. D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, 1988; idem, Romans 9-16, 1988; J. Guhrt, “Covenant,” NIDNTT 1:365-72; N. T. Wright, The Messiah and the People of God (Diss., Oxford), 1980; idem, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline

Theology, 1991. Gordon J. McConville

1383 (borit, soap-like substance), > # 1342

1384 ANE

Wa

113 (brk I), kneel (# 1384), denom. vb. < 2 (berek), nom. knee (# 1386).

brk is found in Ugar. literature with the meaning “knee,” e.g., Anat 2:13-14,

brkm tg[ll] bdm dmr, she wades knee-deep in warriors’ blood (cf. 2:27-28; UT, 253).

OT 1. The traditional association of “kneel” (brk I, used in q. and hi.) and “bless” (brk Il, used in pi., pu., hitp. and ni.) derives from the assumption that the person who was to be blessed knelt to receive the benediction (Davies, “Kneeling,” 41-42; TWOT 1:132; see BDB, 138-39; HALAT 152-54, for traditional etymologies, esp. Arab. baraka, with a similar range of meaning). Because the blessing formula is frequently used of Yahweh, more recent literature has come to understand brk I, kneel, as a denominative vb. from berek, knee, similar to sbr/Sbr (Mitchell, 10-11; cf. Akk. karabu). When used in the hi., brk I can mean “make [camels] kneel” in Gen 24:11.

In the preponderance of places where prayer is mentioned in the OT, the posture is that of standing (Bockmuehl). Yet it is clear that prayers were also offered on one’s knees both to Yahweh (1 Kgs 8:54; 2 Chron 6:13; Dan 6:10) and to other gods (1 Kgs 19:18; Keel, 308-23). Parallel vbs. found in Ps 95:6—“Come, let us bow down

in worship, let us kneel before the LORD...” —make it clear that kneeling was a part of the worship of Yahweh (Davies, 1973, 191-92). The use of ba@riik, praised, with kabéd, glory (> #3883), such as in Ps 72:19 (“Praise be to his glorious name forever; may the whole earth be filled with his glory”) would seem to make this suggestion more attractive. The use of the unusual vb. ghr, bow (> # 1566), in 1 Kgs 18:42 is usually interpreted to describe Elijah as squatting. What follows, however, is clear: “he put his face between his knees,” perhaps as a mourning rite pending the coming rain, or to simulate a rain cloud, or to induce concentration, or (more probable) to indicate an atti-

tude of submission. Rather than assuming that the one who is to be blessed must kneel, the association between kneel and bless (if one exists) may perhaps be better sought in the custom of taking a child on one’s knees to pronounce a blessing on it (e.g., Jacob, Gen 48:9-12; cf. Joseph, Gen 50:23-24). Knees (dual, with the sense of lap) are associated

with the birth of children (Job 3:12). The custom of placing the child on the knees is found in Hurrian literature and probably refers, not to adoption (> ) as commonly assumed, but to the birth process, the naming of the child, and its reception into the family: “she [Bilhah] will bear [a child] on my knees” (Gen 30:3; cf. the Neo-Assyrian blessing, “May the king, my lord, lift his grandsons upon his knees,” cited in Selman,

755

773(#1384) 130-31). Like so many terms that acquired theological meaning, to “take on one’s knees” might initially have been an action (receiving a child on one’s knees) and later became the abstract notion of pronouncing a blessing on someone. 2. It seems probable that worship is also the setting for the troublesome q. pass. part., referring to God as “blessed” (e.g., Gen 24:27, 31; 26:29; Exod 18:10; 1 Sam 25:32, 39; 2 Sam 18:28; 22:47; 1 Kgs 1:48; 5:21; 8:15, 56; 10:9; frequently in the Ps

and elsewhere). In surveying these constructions, the question of how the lesser (human) can bless the greater (God; cf. Heb 7:7) naturally arises. It may be that these part(s). should be construed as gerundives, with the meaning “to be knelt [before],” indicating “to be revered, praised” (as is a king; cf. 1 Kgs 2:45). Those finite vbs., then,

that speak of God as “blessed” may very well be q. forms artificially leveled by the Masoretes because the distinction between the vb. patterns had been forgotten (e.g., 2 Chron 20:26; Ps 26:12; 103:1) and would mean “kneel to, revere, exalt.” If such be the case, the distinction between “bless[ed]’ as God to human (pi.) and “revere[d], esteem[ed]’” as human to God (q.; cf. NIV “praise[d]” in such cases) would be appar-

ent. Where the vb. appears in a human-to-human context, the q. pass. part. would indicate a meaning of “praised, exalted,” thus “blessed” (e.g., Gen 14:19), while the pi. would signify “bless” in the formal sense. This explanation does not suffice for the forms used of “blessed” when found in formulas of ritual blessing and cursing, how-

ever, where brk appears opposite “cursed” (e.g., Gen 27:29; Num 24:9; Deut 7:14; often in Deut 27:15-28:19). In such cases it would take on the meaning of “esteemed,

blessed” in the sense of “prospered,” as contrasted with “cursed” in the sense of “made to suffer, want.” 3. Though conventionally rendered (as NIV), “Every hand will go limp, and every knee will become weak as water,” the puzzling language of Ezek 7:17 has occasioned considerable controversy (cf. 21:7[12]). A different idiom is used elsewhere to describe hearts turned to water (Josh 7:5), leading many scholars to question the traditional rendering. Driver has suggested berek as a euphemism for “penis,” similar to Akk. birku. A more recent study suggests that berek I, “knee,” must be distinguished from berek II, “penis,” the former being derived from an early biliteral rk, “fold,” while

the origins of berek II are to be sought in the root b/pr and a basic notion of “power.” The related vb. would mean “to commit violence” and the derived nom. b°raka, power

(cf. Toll, 111-23). But Greenberg advocates, “knees will run with water” [alluding to “urine passed in fright’] and dismisses efforts to make the knees weak as water as a “euphemistic skewing” of the obvious meaning of the text. 4. Rotenberg has suggested that the nom. berek may furnish not only the concept of blessing, but also a secondary vb. brk “curse,” a q. erroneously voweled as pi. Accordingly, he advocates that those passages where the root is traditionally read as a euphemism for “curse” be revocalized to q. (1 Kgs 21:10, 13; Job 1:5, 11; 2:5, 9; Ps

10:3) and be translated accordingly. Kneel, bend: > brk I (kneel, # 1384); > kr‘ (crouch, squat, # 4156); > grs (bend over, #7970) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TWOT 1:132-33; I. Beit-Arieh and B. Cresson, “An Edomite Ostracon from Horvat ‘Uza,” Tel Aviv 12, 1985, 95-101; M. Bockmuehl, “Shall We Kneel to Pray?” Crux 26, 1990, 14-17; G. H. Davies, “Kneeling,” DB 3:41-42; idem, “Psalm 95,” ZAW 85, 1973, 183-95; R. B. Dillard,

756

73 # 1385) 2 Chronicles, 1987; G. R. Driver, “Some Hebrew Medical Expressions,” ZAW 65, 1963, 260; J. Gray, I & II Kings:

A Commentary, 1963; G. H. Jones, J and2 Kings, 1984, 2:325-26; O. Keel,

The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Iconography and the Book of Psalms, tr. by T. J. Hallett, 1978; A. Lacocque, The Book of Daniel, 1979; C. W. Mitchell, The Meaning of BRK

“To Bless” in the Old Testament, 1987; A. C. Myers, “Bless,” JDB 1:522-24; M. Roten-

berg, “Ha’omnam histamm®sa ’éSet ’iyy6b b*laxén n&qiyya k’lappé ma‘la? [Did Job’s Wife Really Use a Euphemism against Heaven?]’” Le 52, 1987-88, 176-77; M. J. Selman, “The Social Environment of the Patriarchs,” TynBul 27, 1976, 114-36; C. Toll, “Ausdriicke fiir ‘Kraft’ im

Alten Testament

mit besonderer Riicksicht auf die Wurzel

BRK,” ZAW 94, 1982,

111-23;

H. G. M. Williamson, J and 2 Chronicles, 1982. William C. Williams

Bs

as

3 (brk II), q. [only pass. part., bartik, BAram b®rik] blessed, praised be; blessed, praised is);

pi. bless, praise; greet; pu. blessed, praised, adored; ni. be blessed; bless oneself; hitp.

be blessed;

bless

oneself (# 1385);

BAram

(# 1388).

(#10122);

M373 (b°rakd),

blessing

.

ANE The root brk is found in the Sem. languages with two principle meanings: (1) knee (Akk.; Ugar.; Aram.; Eth.); kneel, make kneel (Ugar.; Aram.; Arab.; Eth.); cf. also Heb. b°rékd, a pool of water, apparently, a place where animals would kneel to drink, with cognates in Northwest and South Sem.; (2) to bless (Ugar.; Phoen.-Punic; Aram.; Arab.; Eth.; nominal forms occur in Aram., Arab., and Eth.). Older etymological discussions tended to treat these two roots as one (cf., e.g., BDB, but note still

TWOT), positing a development from knee > kneel > kneel before (a superior) > receive blessing or, in OT usage, bless, praise (the superior) on bended knees. For the most part, however, such speculation has been rejected (cf. esp. THAT; TDOT; Mitchell), and the roots are listed as brk | and II. In any case, the etymological theorizing adds little to the overall understanding of the meaning and usage of brk, unless one could argue that the posture of kneeling explains both OT nuances of brk, namely, receiving blessing from and/or worshiping before a greater one. It is noteworthy, however, that in all branches of ancient Sem. outside BH (with the possible exception of pre-Christian Aram. inscriptions from Palmyra), the deity is always the giver of blessing, but never the recipient. Thus, one could be blessed by the deity, but a human being did not “bless” the god. Interestingly, the Akk. vb. karabu, bless, praise, provides a close semanitc parallel to Heb. brk, and it has been suggested that karabu is a metathesized cognate of brk. However, since the semantically related root krb also occurs in OSA, this theory is unlikely. For the argument that Ugar. brk is semantically related to mrr, make strong, see D. Pardee.

OT 1. Overview of OT usage of brk. The Heb. root brk occurs 327x verbally, including 71x as the q. pass part. (bariik), and 69x nominally in the OT (cf. also BAram b°rak, found in verbal forms 5x in Daniel, including the pass. part. b°rik once).

Its highest concentrations and/or key theological touchpoints occur in Gen (88x), Num (note especially 6:23-27, the priestly blessing, and chs. 22-24, the Balaam episode),

Deut (especially chs. 28-33), and Ps: books or pericopes dealing with human and wo?

73 (#1385) patriarchal foundations, the power of divine blessing or curse on the nation, covenant, and the centrality of the Lord in worship, praise, and prayer. It occurs most often in the historical books in the context of everyday speech, never occurring in Esther (related to the absence of any direct reference to God?), and 24x in the prophetic books, most frequently in Isa (10x). As a preliminary statement, it must be stressed that nothing was more important than securing the blessing of God in one’s life or nation. All religious or superstitious peoples (in other words, virtually the entire ancient world, along with most of the world to this day) have actively sought the blessing of a specific deity or spirit, believing that this blessing will make them fertile, or prosper them, protect them, deliver them, heal them, preserve them, empower them, exalt them, favor them, or, possibly,

bring about all the above. The blessing is thought of as tangible, its effects perceivable and, at times, measurable. The more powerful the deity, the more important the blessing. How crucial it was, then, for the people of Israel to secure the blessing of the all-powerful god, the only creator, the ruler of the ends of the earth, their true lord and rightful king, whose blessing no one could reverse and whose curse no one could lift. And where there was a covenantal (or family) blessing passed on through the generations, there was nothing more urgent than being properly positioned so as to receive (or inherit) that blessing (cf. 1 Kgs 2:45). A blessed life was the ideal; a life without God’s blessing (a fortiori, a life under God’s curse; cf. Jer 20:14) was the ultimate nightmare (cf. Ps 129:8; Jer 17:5-6; Mic 2:9). Real success was impossible without the muchcoveted blessing (cf. G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, WBC, 1987, 24: “Where modern

man talks of success, OT man talked of blessing”). Abraham fervently prays in Gen 17:18, “If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!” Nothing else really mattered. In this light, one immediately thinks of passages such as Gen 27:1-28:14, the battle for the blessing between Jacob and Esau, where the root brk occurs 29x, indicating both the intensity of the struggle and the importance of the theme; Gen 32:26b, Jacob’s wrestling at Jabbok (“I will not let you go until you bless me”); Num 22-24, reflecting Balak’s conviction that if a diviner could curse (> ’rr) Israel, they could be

defeated in spite of odds to the contrary; Job 42:12 (“The LorD blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the first”), which in a sense, says it all (cf. also Job 1:10); or Isa

19:24-25, where one of the loftiest visions in the Prophets is expressed with a threefold emphasis on the divine blessing: “In that day Israel will be the third, along with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing on the earth. The LORD Almighty will bless them, saying, ‘Blessed be Egypt my people, Assyria my handiwork, and Israel my inheritance.’” See also, e.g., Gen 30:27, 30; 39:5; 2 Sam 6:11-12; 7:29; 1 Chron 4:10; 17:27; Prov 10:22.

2. The divine blessing over creation. The first thing that God did after creating human life (as well as animal life) was to pronounce his blessing over the work of his hands (cf. Gen 5:2). The emphasis here is on the life-infusing power of the divine word, as God blesses his creation saying ... (Gen 1:22, 28; cf. also 9:1). Thus, God’s

blessing is his formative, empowering word (often, with overtones of appointing destiny). It is not an empty pronouncement or simply an expression of wish or goodwill, nor is it a bare command, although the formula of blessing in 1:28 is couched in the imperative (“Be fruitful ... increase in number ... fill the earth ... subdue it... Rule ...”). Rather, the blessing of God has content; it actualizes and enables. Thus,

758

73 @#1385) C. Westermann notes that “the blessing that confers the power of fertility is inseparable from creation where the creator is the one who blesses and the created living being has the power to reproduce itself because of the blessing.... To speak of life and its dynamism is to speak of the effective action of the creator” (Genesis 1-11, tr. J. J. Scullion, 1984, 140). Moreover, the divine blessing can come on both humans and animals (Gen 1:22, 28; Deut 28:4), as well as on the Sabbath itself (Gen 2:3; Exod 20:11, with no

suggestion of the personification of the Sabbath, as is found in later Judaism), or on inanimate objects such as crops, fields and cities, food and drink, kneading troughs, baskets and barns (cf. e.g., Gen 27:27-28; Exod 23:25-26; Deut 28:5, 8; 33:13). What

would creation be without the blessing of the creator? That which is blessed functions and produces at the optimum level, fulfilling its divinely designated purpose (contrast, e.g., Gen 3:16-19; Deut 28:15-68).

Primarily, however, the divine blessing is on the covenant people (cf. Num 24:1; Ps 3:8b[9b]; see also Ps 67:1, 6, 7[2, 7, 8]), in particular empowering them to exceptional fecundity (cf. Gen 9:1, 7; 12:2; cf. also 13:16; 15:5; 16:10; 17:6; 21:13, 18; 22:17; 24:35-36; 26:3-4, 24; 28:3, 14; 30:30; 32:12; 35:11; 46:3; 48:3, 15-16, 19-20; Exod 1:21; 23:25-26; Deut 1:10-11; 7:12-15; 10:22; 26:4-11; 28:4, 11). Thus, Ps

107:38a states: “He blessed them, and their numbers greatly increased” (cf. also Josh 17:14; 1 Sam 2:20; 1 Chron 26:5; Ps 127:3-5; 128:3-4). This emphasis on fertility was

typical of brk in ANE literature; cf. e.g., in Ugar. KTU 1.15.11.18ff. (El’s emphatic promise to bless Keret with seven, even eight children [brkm ybrk, in parallelism with mrr, to make strong, fortify]), or contrast the curses of infertility (cf. M. L. Brown, Israel’s Divine Healer, 1995, 78-81, 2.2.4). For the human race, there was no “blessing” more fundamental than that of the ability to reproduce. (Note, however, that C. Toll, “Ausdriicke fiir ‘Kraft’ im Alten Testament mit besonderer Riicksicht auf die Wurzel BRK,” ZAW 94, 1982, 111-23, is not to be followed in deriving some usages of

brk from a putative bisyllabic *br-, allegedly meaning “[sexual] penetration; potency; power.”) The blessing of God would also bring material prosperity; cf. Gen 24:35; 26-3712-14::30:27:.39:5-Levi25:21; Deut237512:27 715:426;.1,0914591 6:15: Prov. 10:22: Joel 2:14; Hag 2:19b; Mal 3:10. K. H. Richards, however, notes, “This focus on the

content of the benefit is now being viewed [by scholars] as secondary. The primary factor of blessing is the statement of relationship between parties” (ABD 1:754). This, of course, underlies the covenantal blessings and curses (see section 7).

3. The patriarchal blessing. Of a more particular nature was the divine blessing promised to the patriarchs, repeated 5x in Gen, but a constant theme in Gen 12-50. While there is little dispute as to the meaning of most of the promised blessing, referring to both posterity and land, and fully expressed in Gen 12:2-3 (note there: “T will bless you”; “be [or, you will be] a blessing”; “I will bless those who bless you’), there is dispute as to the meaning of the final clause, occurring 3x in the ni. (12:3; 18:18; 28:14) and twice in the hitp. (22:18; 26:4). Should it be rendered, “and all families ([so 12:3 and 28:14] 18:18; 22:18; 26:4 have nations) of the earth will be blessed

through you” (pass.; so, e.g., LXX, NT, AV, NIV, and, among recent commentators, V. P. Hamilton, Genesis, 2 vols., NICOT, 1990, 1995) or, “and all families of the earth

shall bless themselves by you” (reflexive, as if to say, “May God make us like Abraham and his descendants!”; so classically Rashi, and cf. now NJPSV, N. Sarna, Genesis, 1989); or, “and all families of the earth shall find blessing through you”

759

73 (#1385) (middle; cf. now Wenham, Genesis; Genesis 16-50, WBC, 1994)? Some modern commentators (e.g., Wenham and Westermann) think that there is no difference in substance between the passive and reflexive translations, since those who “bless them-

selves” hope to be the recipients of the blessing and thus “be blessed” (cf. the tacit expectation that underlies Deut 29:19[18]); others (e.g., Hamilton and E. A. Speiser [Genesis, AB, 1964]) find the distinction to be of great import. In point of fact, it is one

thing to receive blessing through Abraham’s

seed (passive or middle sense); it is

another thing to desire to be like Abraham’s seed (based on the reflexive sense).

Grammatical arguments are not decisive. Some examples of hitp. usage favor the pass., as opposed to the reflexive meaning,. suggesting that the ni. be interpreted similarly (cf. Eccl 8:10; Isa 30:29, although some grammarians think that this is a rela-

tively late development of the hitp.; cf. Rabbinic Heb. usage of the hitp. of brk, which is consistently pass.). On the other hand, there are many examples of the reflexive for both the ni. and hitp. (For the hitp. of brk specifically, cf. Deut 29:18; for more exact parallels, cf. Isa 65:16; Jer 4:2; and especially Ps 72:17, in light of 12:2a, “I will make

your name great”; the ni. of brk occurs only in the verses in question here; see also Gen 48:20: “He [Jacob] blessed them that day and said, ‘In your name will Israel pronounce

this blessing: “May God make you like Ephraim and Manasseh.”’”) It should be observed, however, that while it is difficult to argue with absolute certainty for either

the pass. or reflexive renderings (although Gen 48:20 makes the latter attractive), as far as history is concerned, it is the pass. meaning that has proved true, a point seized upon by the authors of the NT. It is also in keeping with Gen 12:2, “and be a blessing”

(weh*yéh b©raka). The battle for the blessing between Jacob and Esau in Gen 27 must also be seen in the light of the wider tradition of the patriarchal blessing; cf. Isaac’s words over Jacob, “May those who curse you be cursed and those who bless you be blessed” (27:29; see 12:3), and his prayer that El Shaddai might grant Jacob the Abrahamic blessing (28:4). The stakes are heightened because of Jacob’s prior obtaining of Esau’s birthright, taking advantage of him in a weak moment (cf. the play on words in 27:36: my brother stole my birthright [b°kdrati] and my blessing [birkati]; see further D. F. Pennant, “Alliteration in Some Texts in Genesis,” Bib 68, 1987, 390-92). Now,

through outright deceit, Jacob steals the blessing. Yet this is a pivotal moment in salvation history. Henceforth, it is assured that the blessing belongs to Jacob (= Israel) and his descendants (= the twelve tribes of Israel). This lays the foundation for all subse-

quent blessings promised to the nation, and it is reinforced by Isaac in 28:1-4 and guaranteed by the Lord himself in a night dream at Bethel (28:14). At the end of his life, Jacob singles out Joseph (= Ephraim and Manasseh) as the special recipient of his blessing; cf. Gen 48:9, 15-20 (and see vv. 3-4); 49:25-26 (where brk occurs 7x), although 49:28 indicates that each of Jacob’s sons received their appropriate blessing;

cf. also Deut 33. 4. The priestly blessing. In some pentateuchal accounts it is taken for granted that there was an efficacy to blessings pronounced by certain individuals acting in harmony with the Lord (because of their authority, position, or special enduement), including Noah (Gen 9:25-28), Isaac (Gen 27-28), and Jacob (Gen 48-49), as righteous patriarchs; Melchizedek, as either priest or king of Salem (or, specifically as priest-king?); or Balaam, a foreign soothsayer/prophet. From this it might be surmised

760

73 (#1385) that every father, tribal or national leader, king, or priest could potentially pronounce “inspired” words of empowerment, prayer, hope, benediction, or prophecy over his children or people, either: (a) as efficacious speech, in and of itself (cf. 27:34-38; according to J. Milgrom, this is “a vestige of an earlier, pre-Israelite view,” Numbers, 1990, 360, while H. W. Beyer, TDNT 2:756, claims that this reflects the view that

“man carries within him a power to bless which he can transmit, usually to his heirs”), or (b) as a hoped-for blessing to be granted by the deity (see further section 5). In this vein, Pharaoh asks Moses for blessing in Exod 12:32 (obviously because of the Lord’s supernatural power displayed on behalf of Israel; cf. also Gen 47:7, 107); Moses blesses the people after the erecting of the sanctuary (Exod 39:43); Joshua blesses Caleb (Josh 14:13) and the tribes (22:6-7); David blesses the people (2 Sam 6:18; in

1 Chron 16:2, this is done “in the name of the LORD”) and then his family (2 Sam 6:20; cf. also 1 Kgs 8:14, 55). Anyone, of course, could prayerfully wish that the Lord’s blessing might be upon someone (e.g., Judg 17:2, which carries additional weight because it issues from the mother; Ruth 2:19-20; 3:10; cf. also Gen 24:60, where Rebe-

kah’s brothers send her off with blessing), and a blessing from a wronged party with whom the Lord sided was needed in order to reverse the negative effects of divine disfavor (cf. 2 Sam 21:1-3).

However, the power of pronouncing blessings in Israel was especially vested in God’s appointed agents, namely, the priests (see further: Lev 9:22-23; 1 Sam 2:20; 9:13; 1 Chron 23:13; 2 Chron 30:27; Sir 45:15; note also Exod 32:29; Deut 33:8-11,

where the tribe of Levi is the recipient of divine blessing), a tradition preserved most fully in the priestly benediction in Num 6:24-26 (cf. also Lev 9:22-23; Sir 50:20-21). Thus, according to Deut 10:8, one of the key functions of the priests was to bless the Israelites: “At that time the LORD set apart the tribe of Levi to carry the ark of the covenant of the LORD, to stand before the LORD to minister and to pronounce blessings in his name, as they still do today” (cf. also Deut 21:5). In this way the power of the blessing was directly tied to the willingness and ability of the Lord to grant it; see especially 2 Chron 30:27, “The priests and the Levites stood to bless the people, and God heard them, for their prayer reached heaven, his holy dwelling place,” where the priests’ blessing is equated with prayer. These priestly benedictions are therefore best rendered as jussives: “May the LoRD bless you and keep you” (contrast NIV, “The LORD bless you and keep you,” which presumably is still meant to be taken in a jussive sense). Cf. also Exod 20:24b, in the context of cult and altar: “Wherever I cause my name to be

honored, I will come to you and bless you.” D. N. Freedman (cf. also G. B. Gray, Numbers, ICC, 1903), has observed that the threefold blessing of Num 6:24-26 builds to a climax, rising from three words, to five words, to seven words (cf. the same number of stressed syllables), consisting in

turn of fifteen, twenty, and twenty-five consonants, obviously pointing to a carefully crafted text. (The version discovered on a small silver plaque in 1980 in Keteph Hinnom [to be worn as an amulet?], is shorter, lacking the middle clauses wihunneka yiSsa’ yhwh panayw ’éleka; for the freer Qumran variation, see 1QS Il 1-4). Some scholars (e.g., T. R. Ashley, Numbers, NICOT, 1993; and F. Delitzsch, Psalms, tr. D. Eaton and J. E. Duguid, 3 vols., 1883; see further L. J. Liebreich) have pointed to

the possible literary dependence of the Psalms of Ascent on the priestly benediction

(cf., e.g., brk in Ps 128:5; 133:3; 134:3; Smr in Ps 121; Ann in 123:2-3; 130:2; sal6m in

761

773. 1385) 122:6-8; 125:5; 128:5-6); but the parallels only underscore the connection of priestly

blessing and the temple, emphasizing common themes without proving literary dependence. Others refer especially to Akk. parallels for ideological and linguistic elucidation (see C. Cohen). In point of fact, there are numerous blessing formulae or prayers, such as, “May the god X bless ...,” or, “May the god X grant that ...,” which parallel Num 6:24-26, in Heb. and throughout the ANE. In addition to the Akk. parallels, cf. e.g., the Heb. inscription from Kuntillet Ajrud: ybrk wySmrk wyhy ‘m ’dny, “May (Yahweh) bless and keep you, and may he be with my master” (either based on the blessing in Num 6, or drawn from a common traditional formula); or the Punic inscription from Byblos: b‘l ybrk wyhww, “may Baal bless and sustain him” (KAI # 12:4). Note also the common epistolary introduction in Aram. letters: dkyr wbryk qdm b‘{I|Smyn ’lh’..., “May PN be remembered and blessed before the god Baalshameyn” (KAI # 244:1); and see M. L. Barré, “A Phoenician Parallel to Psalm 29,” HAR 13, 1991, 25-32, for some related material from Ps 29:11 and Karatepe (KAI # 26). There was nothing more natural than invoking the divine blessing on those for whom good

was wished. In fact, M. Greenberg (Biblical Prose Prayer as a Window to the Popular Religion of Israel, 1983), followed by B. A. Levine (Numbers 1-20, AB, 1993, 237-38), believes that the cultic blessings arose out of everyday, common invocations of blessing. As Yahweh’s representatives, the priests were specially called to the official task of invoking the blessing, and the ideal formula was encapsulated in Num . 6:24-26. The five additional vbs. used in vv. 24b-26 simply expand on and articulate the meaning of ybrkk yhwh, “May the LORD bless you” cf. also 6:23: “Tell Aaron and his sons, ‘This is how you are to bless the Israelites ...’”; 6:27: “So they will put my

name on the Israelites [i.e., by speaking it over them, not by copying the formula onto an amulet to be worn, as suggested by Milgrom, Numbers], and I will bless them.” See further 11QBer 13.

5. Balak and Balaam. The Balaam (~) pericope naturally lends itself to the question of the possible magical origin of blessing and curse. Was the power of the blessing (or curse) grounded exclusively in the power and will of the deity (or spirit), or was it especially tied to the efficacious power of (magical) speech? Actually, a complete distinction cannot be made here, since even those who were alleged to have magical powers of blessing and cursing were believed to have a special relationship with the deity, power, or spirit, and thus magical, superstitious, and religious beliefs certainly overlapped. But even in Num 22-24, and reiterated emphatically throughout the OT, Balaam himself—in spite of his spiritual “‘skills’—-was powerless either to bless or curse without Yahweh’s unction and direction (Num 22:9-20, 35-38; 23:5-8, 11-12, 16-20, 25-26; 24:1-2, 10-13; Deut 23:4-5; Josh-24:9-10; Neh 13:1-2, the last three pas-

sages being nearly identical). He was only the earthly mediator and mouthpiece (since, of course, in order to be efficacious, the blessing or curse had to be spoken). To the Lord alone belonged the final authority, and he could not be coerced. Recent scholarship

(e.g., Wehmeier,

Westermann,

Scharbert

in TDOT,

and Mitchell)

has

therefore been correct in downplaying the alleged magical elements of blessing in the OT along with denying special powers to the spoken word alone. There may have been various powers and forces at work, but those of the Lord were greater. 6. The covenantal blessings and curses (Deut 28). According to Exod 23:25-26 and Deut 7:12-15, God promised to bless obedient Israel with everything necessary for 762

73 (#1385) survival, well-being, and continuance in posterity. This included adequate food and water supply, removal of sickness, no barrenness or miscarriage, and full, long lives. Thus, “You will be blessed more than any other people ...” (Deut 7:14a). This is more fully articulated in the covenantal blessings and curses, a common literary theme throughout the ANE (cf. Crawford for Syro-Palestinian evidence from the Iron Age; see also Fensham;

Hempel; and b°rit [> # 1382]). What is interesting from an OT

standpoint is the phraseology of the blessings in 28:2-6. After promising that “all these blessings will come upon you and accompany (lit., overtake) you if you obey the LORD your god” (v. 2), the blessings are then pronounced with the bariik formula; see also section 8), thus, “Blessed are you in the city and country ...” (as opposed to the NIV’s, “You will be blessed in the city and blessed in the country ...”). The decreed blessings are thus set into motion by obedience. They have been spoken and declared; heeding the commandments of the Lord will activate them on behalf of Israel. While the rendering of the NIV can theoretically be justified, based on the fact that the verbless clauses in vv. 3-6 depend on the tense of v. 2, which is imperfect (cf. also vv. 7-14), the

earlier pattern of 27:15-26, with the ’ariir formula (rightly rendered as, “Cursed is/be,” parallel to the ’ariir formula of 28:16-19), along with the fact that 28:2 makes reference to “these blessings,” suggests strongly that bariik be translated here with “Blessed are/is.” Thus, Israel is already pronounced blessed or cursed, as two certain destinies are set before them. If the people obey, the pronounced blessings will overtake them; if they rebel, the pronounced curses will be their portion. Cf. also 11:26-29; and note the language of 28:8 (cf. Ps 133:3), where God “commands” (swh) the blessing. For the solemnity attached to these national blessings and curses, cf. Josh 8:30-35. 7. The meaning of bariik: distinctions between bariik and ’aSré. In spite of some semantic overlap (cf. Ps 1:1 with Jer 17:7), ’aSré and bariik are not synonymous, reflecting their varied grammatical forms as well as the lexical distinctions between the two roots. ’aSré stresses a state of happiness, while bariik, though not excluding such a state, in keeping with its pass. participial form speaks more of being empowered or favored as the recipient of blessing from the Lord, and thus “blessed.” Those who are barik are therefore blessed in both a pass. and stative sense, namely, as recipients of blessing and, consequently, in a blessed state. (For God as bariik, see next section.) Thus, because God blesses Leah with fecundity (doubtless attributed to the “blessing” [b’rakd]of God; cf. section 2), she is now in a state of true happiness and will be

called happy (Gen 30:13, with ’sr). Thus ’asré serves as the opening exclamation of beatitudes, equivalent to makarios in the LXX and NT and beatus in the Vg. (cf. also Aram. tiibé). bariik, however, is correctly rendered with eulogétos in G and benedictus in Lat. (and b°rik in Aram.). Whereas ’asré can have a “secular” meaning (> # 887),

all usages of bariik presuppose God as either the ultimate author (of blessing) or receiver (of praise). Thus, H.-J. Kraus (Psalms 1-59, tr. H. C. Oswald, 1988, 115) cor-

rectly observes, although in slightly overstated terms, “The ‘secular’ Sry is to be distinguished from the solemn liturgical brwk (Jer 17:7)” (Contrast here S. Mowinckel [The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, tr. D. R. Ap-Thomas,

2 vols., 1962, 47], agreeing

with those who render the former with “happy” as opposed to “blessed.”) Thus, God is spoken of as barik, but never as ’airé (cf. TDOT 1:446), and in RL, only God is bariik (just as he alone is eulogétos in the NT). Similarly in 1 Kgs 10:9-10, Solomon’s people are ’asré (v. 9) while the Lord is bariik (v. 10). Note, however, that the distinction

763

13 # 1385) between the two words rests more on differences in meaning and grammatical form than on any “secular” versus “liturgical” opposition, since ’asré is, in fact, a favorite word of the cult. 8. Humans as bariik in the OT. Anyone who is bariik owes this to the Lord, the giver of blessing. This is sometimes explicit (generally with the formula, bardk PN lyhwh “Blessed be/is PN by the LorD,” for which see Gen 14:19; Judg 17:2; Ruth 2:20; 3:10; 1 Sam 15:13; in the pl., cf. 1 Sam 23:21; 2 Sam 2:5; Ps 115:15; for the construct b®riik yhwh, “Blessed of/by the LORD,” cf. Gen 24:31; 26:29; Isa 65:23 [pl.]); but

the connection to the Lord is always certain (cf. also 1 Sam 25:33; 26:25). To pronounce someone as bariik or to admit that someone is bariik can be: (a) an acknowl-

edgment that God has specially favored and been gracious to that individual, as if to say, “You are loved by the LORD!” or, (b) a prayer or desire that the individual might receive special blessing from God in light of their special acts, equivalent to our, “God bless you!” (cf. 1 Sam 15:13).

9. God as bariik or, how can a human being “bless” God? There is total fluidity in the dual aspects of brk in OT usage (i.e., God blessing people and people blessing God); cf., e.g., Gen 14:19-20: “Blessed be Abram by God Most High . . . And blessed be God Most High” (cf. the curious midrash on this in BTalm Nedarim 32b). Note, however, that the NIV almost always renders brk with “praise” when it is in the context of blessing God (72x; also, 3x with “extol’”’), thereby obscuring just how related the two concepts are (contrast, however, K. H. Richards, ABD 1:754, who is representative

of those who find it preferable to make this distinction in translation). See Ps 134:2-3: “Lift up your hands in the sanctuary and praise the LORD. May the LORD, the Maker of heaven and earth, bless you from Zion.” Cf. further Ps 115:12-18; 1 Sam 25:32-33; and

note especially 2 Chron 31:8: “When Hezekiah and his officials came and saw the heaps [of offerings for worship], they praised the LORD and blessed his people Israel.” But the Heb. has but one vb., namely, brk (way“bar"kit ’ et-yhwh w®’ét ‘ammé yisra’él), thus, “they blessed the LORD and his people Israel.” There can be no possible doubt, therefore,

that in the Hebrew

mind

only one lexical item was

in view

here (i.e.,

“bless”’), and at least in this verse, its semantic unity is also clear. Cf. also Ruth 2:19 and Prov 5:18 with 2 Chron 9:8, each with y°hi ... bariik, “May ... be blessed,” the first

two with human referents, the last referring to the Lord. It seems that this dual usage of brk, similar to Akk. karabu (see ANE section),

is to be explained on the following grounds: God blesses human beings by speaking well of them, thereby imparting “blessing” (good things) to them, and so they are “blessed” (bariik); human beings bless Godby speaking well of him, attributing “blessing” (good qualities) to him, and so he is “blessed” (bariik)—i.e., praised and praiseworthy, “blessed” in both a passive and stative sense. (According to H. W. Beyer, TDNT 2:754, G eu legein, from which eulogeé, the primary rendering of brk in the LXX, is derived, literally means “to speak well,” both in form and content;

did this nuance of the root help it to render freely both dimensions of brk, or is it a calque?) God blesses people by conferring good on them; we bless God by praising the good in him. Similar to this is the act of an inferior blessing a superior; cf., e.g., 2 Sam 14:22 (Joab blesses David);

1 Kgs 8:66 (the people bless Solomon,

who had just

blessed them in 8:55-61); Job 29:13; 31:20 (Job was blessed by the sufferers he helped in times past). In each case it is understood that the inferior praised or thanked the 764

72 (#1385) superior, although it is also possible that some of these texts indicate that a wish was expressed for divine blessing to come upon the superior. Cf. further E. Bickerman, followed by J. Faur, “Delocutive Expressions in the Hebrew Liturgy,” JANESCU

16-17,

1984/85, 41-54. The activity of human beings “blessing” God is documented primarily in the Psalms (~> hil; #2146), although similar expressions, sentiments, as well as the somewhat standardized bariik formulae, are found throughout the OT. The most frequent formula is bariik yhwh, “Blessed is/be the LORD” (“Praise the LORD,” or, “Praise be to the LORD” in the NIV, and sometimes simply meaning, “Thank God!”), which occurs

as a spontaneous acknowledgment of the Lord’s goodness, faithfulness, power, or grace (cf. Gen 24:27; Exod 18:10; Ruth 4:14; 1 Sam 25:32, 39; 2 Sam 18:28; 1 Kgs 1:48; 5:7[21]; 10:9; Ezra 7:27; Dan 3:28; Zech 11:5), or as a literary or liturgical statement of praise or prayer (e.g., Gen 9:26; 1 Kgs 8:15, 56; 1 Chron 16:36; 2 Chron 2:11[12] [missed in the NIV’s, “Because the LORD loves his people’’]; 6:4; Ps 28:6; 31:21[22]; 41:13[14]; 72:18; 89:52[53]; 106:48; 124:6; 135:21; 144:1 [cf. 18:46[47]; 2 Sam 22:47]; cf. Dan 2:20); see also Ps 66:20; 68:35[36] with bariik ’*lohim; 68:20 with bariik ’“donay; Gen 14:20 with bariik ’él ‘ely6n; Ezek 3:12, with bariik k*°béd

yhwh; and Ps 72:19, with bartik §ém k°b6d6. The pronouncement, barik atta yhwh, “Blessed are you, O LORD” (cf. NIV’s “Praise be to you, O LORD”), which became the most common opening words of later Jewish prayer, occurs in 1 Chron 29:10 and Ps

119:12. Verbal usage of the pi. of brk, “to bless, praise God,” is classically represented in Ps 103 (7x, and leading into the brk in 104:1), where the psalmist first stirs himself, then all creation (including the angels) to “bless the LORD.” Cf. also Ps 16:7; 26:12; 34:1[2] (| °hillaté); 63:4[5] (cf. §patay y°Sabb°hiinka in v. 3b[4b] and ’es$§a’ kappay in v. 4b[5b]); 66:8 (|| hakmi‘G gél t°hillat6); 68:26[27]; 96:2 (with Sird and bass°ri.. . yi ‘atd); 100:4 (with hddi); 104:35; 134:1-3 (with S°’a-y°dékem in v. 2); 135:19-21 (note the special connection between the priests/Levites and brk in this psalm; see also Ps 115; 134; and, possibly, “praise,” > hil (#2146).

100). For semantic

distinctions

between

“bless”

and

10. The blessing in Proverbs. While Prov stresses the causal relationship between right living and a good life, it does so in a God-centered way. Thus, a secure, stable, and satisfied existence is not just the natural result of godly living, it also comes as a direct blessing of God, the tangible consequence of his favor. Blessings crown the righteous (Prov 10:6a; cf. 10:7a), the generous (11:26b; 22:9), and the faithful (28:20a), as opposed to those who “get rich quick” (20:21; cf. with 28:20b). Succinctly stated, “The blessing of the LORD brings wealth, and he adds no trouble to it” (10:22).

As for Prov 11:11 (“Through the blessing of the upright a city is exalted, but by the mouth of the wicked it is destroyed’), the parallelism seems to indicate that the blessing in v. 11a refers to the blessing that the upright pronounce; as blessed people, they bring blessing to the city. 11. Blessing in the Prophets. The usage of brk in the prophetic literature is not extensive, limited to a total of fourteen verbal occurrences (including bariik 6x) and ten nominal occurrences; ten of all these are found in Isaiah. The five occurrences of Aram brk in Dan (2:19, 20; 3:28; 4:37; 6:11) are not included here, since, strictly speaking,

they reflect typical narrative or psalmodic usage. Certain fundamental themes are 765

772(#1385) reiterated: Israel was to be a fertile people (Isa 51:2) blessed by the Lord (61:9; 65:23); as well as a blessing to the nations (19:24-25; Zech 8:13; cf. Jer 4:2). The divine bless-

ing was essential for the spiritual well-being and material prosperity of the nation (Hag 2:19: Mal 3:10; cf. Ezek 44:30), and God promised to pour it out (in Isa 44:3, parallel

to raiah; cf. Ezek 34:26 with “showers of blessing”). In Malachi, as a result of the mate-

rial superabundance specifically promised there, it is declared: “‘Then all the nations will call you blessed (iks*ri), for yours will be a delightful land,’ says the LORD Almighty” Mal 3:12). 12. “To bless” as a salutation or greeting. In Ruth 2:4 the greeting of Boaz to his workers, “The LORD be with you!” is answered by, “The LORD bless you!” apparently reflecting a common practice (similar to set responses such as Mish. and Modern Heb. sal6m “lékem || “lékem Salém; Arab. assalam ‘alaykum || ‘alaykum assalam). Thus, in some circles, it was customary to greet someone

with a blessing, and both

Rabbinic and NT tradition indicate that the messianic king himself was to be greeted with pronouncements of blessing (based on Ps 118:26; cf. Matt 21:9; Mark 11:9-10; Luke 19:38; John 12:13; BTalm Pesahim 119a; Midr. to Pesahim 118:24 [242a]). It

was also appropriate (and important) to send people off with blessing, meaning, at the least, approval or permission (cf. 2 Sam 13:25), or, with deeper significance, with specific prayer for God’s special favor (cf. Gen 24:60). This can be expressed quite simply, as in, “Early the next morning Laban kissed his grandchildren and his daughters and blessed them” (Gen 31:55). This association of greeting and saying farewell with “blessing” is especially clear in 47:7, 10, as indicated by the alternative renderings in the NIV footnotes (cf. similarly Gen 28:1). It would be a mistake, however, to think

that brk simply meant “greet” or “say farewell” in these contexts; rather, some standardized “blessing” formula probably became part of these sayings, much like the popular, contemporary

Christian,

“Praise

the Lord”

(cf. the traditional

Jewish

bariik

hassém). For the children of Israel, it was good to begin with blessing and to end with blessing, to pronounce blessing in coming and going. This reflected the ideal in life. 13. Euphemistic usage. brk is used euphemistically for “curse” in 1 Kgs 21:10, 13; Job 1:5, 11; 2:5, 9; Ps 10:3. For differing perspectives, which are not compelling,

cf. M. Rotenberg, “Did Job’s Wife Really Use a Euphemism Against Heaven?” Les 52, 1987-88, 176-77 [Heb.]; D. L. Christensen, “Dtn 33,11—A Curse in the “Blessing of Moses’?” ZAW 101, 1989, 278-82.

P-B. The root brk occurs frequently in the DSS, reflecting typical, especially priestly, OT usage (and note 1QSb, the Rule of Blessings), and the hi. is used with the priests as subject (in the context of blessing [sacral] meals). Scharbert (TDOT 2:300) also observes a “certain archaism,” which “is noticeable in the use of the barukh-formula at Qumran” similar to that found in, e.g., Gen 14:19-20 (cf. esp. 1QM 13:2-3; in

general, this is the “Blessed be God” formula). In RL, because most prayers began with the barik formula, b°rakét became synonymous with “prayers” (cf. Dan 6:10[11]); thus, the tractate Berakot deals specifically with laws governing prayer. Note also that the talmudic justification for saying one’s prayers of thanksgiving after a meal is based

on a literal reading of w°’Gkalta w°saba ‘ta ibérakta in Deut 8:10 (see BTalm Berakot 20b-21a, though there is presented here also justification for reciting benedictions before the meal). As mentioned

766

in section 2, bdriik is used with reference to God

73(# 1385a) (cf. the common divine epithet, hagqad6s bariik hii’ —“the Holy One, blessed be He’), just as in the NT it is God, and not any human, who is eulogétos. Blessing: ~ ’aSré (truly happy, blessed, how happy, #897); > brk II (bless, praise, greet, # 1385) Curse: ~ ’/h I (swear, curse, put under oath, # 457); > ’rr (curse, be cursed, # 826); > brk (bless [euph. for curse], # 1385a); > gdp (revile, blaspheme, # 1552); > z‘m (be angry, curse, # 2404); > ngb (pierce, bore, distinguish, curse, #5918); > gbb (curse, # 7686); > gil (be

slight, swift, appear trifling, treat with contempt, # 7837); > Curse: Theology BIBLIOGRAPHY ABD 1:753-61; NIDNTT 1:206-18; TDNT 2:754-65; TDOT 2:279-308; THAT 1:353-76; TWOT 1:132-33; E. Bickerman, “Bénédiction et priére,” RB 69, 1962, 524-32; C. Cohen, “The Priestly Benediction (Num. 6:24-26) in the Light of Akkadian Parallels,” Tel Aviv 20, 1993, 228-38;

B. Couroyer, “BRK et les formules égyptiennes de salutation,” RB 85, 1978, 575-85; T. C. Crawford, Blessing and Curse in Syro-Palestinian Inscriptions of the Iron Age, 1992; F. C. Fensham, “Malediction and Benediction in Ancient Near Eastern Vassal Treaties and the Old Testament,” ZAW 74, 1962, 1-9; D. N. Freedman, “The Aaronic Benediction,” in No Famine in the Land McKenzie Festschrift, ed. J. W. Flanagan, A. W. Robinson, 1975, 35-47; M. Haran, “The Priestly

Benediction from Keteph Hinnom—tThe Biblical Significance of the Discovery,” Cathedra 52, 1989, 77-89; J. Hempel, “Die israelitische Anschaungen von Segen und Fluch im Lichte altorientalischer Parallelen,” BZAW

81, 1961; orig. 1925, 30-113; M. C. A. Korpel, “The Poetic Struc-

ture of the Priestly Blessing,” JSOT 45, 1989, 3-13; L. J. Liebreich, “The Songs of Ascent and the Priestly Blessing,” JBL 74, 1955, 33-36; P. D. Miller, “Syntax and Theology in Genesis XII 3a,” VT 34, 1984, 472-76; C. W. Mitchell, The Meaning of BRK “To Bless” in the Old Testament, 1987; S. Mowinckel, Segen und Fluch in Israels Kult und Psalmendichtung. Psalmenstudien 5, 1961; H. Mowvley, “The Concept and Content of ‘Blessing’ in the OT,” BT 16, 1965, 74-80; A. Murtonen, “The Use and Meaning of the Words /°barek and b‘rakhah in the OT,” VT

9, 1959, 158-77, 330; Y. Ono, “Blessings in the Old Testament—A Consideration of Its Significance in OT Theology,” Kwassui Ronbun-shu

27, 1984, 25-40 (Japanese); D. Pardee, “The

Semitic Root mrr and the Etymology of Ugaritic mr(r)!lbrk,” UF 10, 1978, 249-88; J. Pedersen, ILC, repr. 1991, 1:182-212; J. Plassmann, The Signification of B’raka, 1913; idem, Solidaritét in Segen und Fluch im AT und in seiner Umwelt, 1958; J. Scharbert, “Gesegnet sei Abram vom

Hochsten Gott?Zu Gen 14,19 und dhnlichen Stellen im Alten Testament,” in Text, Methode und Grammatik: Wolfgang Richter zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. W. Gross, et al., 1991, 387-401; W. S. Towner, “‘Blessed Be YHWH’ and ‘Blessed Art Thou, YHWH’: The Modulation of a Biblical Formula,” CBQ 30, 1968, 386-99; G. Wehmeier, “Der Segen im Alten Testament” (Diss. Basel, 1970); C. Westermann, Blessing in the Bible and the Life of the Church, tr. K. Crim, 1978. Michael L. Brown

1385a

V3

73 (brk Il), pi. bless (euph. for curse) (# 1385a).

Onseveral occasions when the subject is the cursing of God by humans, the vb. OT brk (pi.) is used euphemistically (1 Kgs 21:10, 13; Job 1:5, 11; 2:5, 9). See gil, curse (> # 7837).

767

MDD (# 1391) Curse: > ‘lh I (swear, curse, put under oath, # 457); ~ ’rr (curse, be cursed, # 826); > gdp (revile, blaspheme, # 1552); > z‘m (be angry, curse, # 2404); > nqb (pierce, bore, distinguish, curse, #5918); > gbb (curse, # 7686); — gil (be slight, swift, appear trifling, treat with con-

tempt, # 7837); > Curse: Theology BIBLIOGRAPHY

H. C. Brichto, The Problem of “Curse” in the Hebrew Bible, 1963; C. W. Mitchell, The Meaning of BRK “To Bless” in the Old Testament, 1987; H. Mowvley, “The Concept and Content of ‘Blessing’ in the OT,” BT 16, 1965, 74-80.

Robert P. Gordon

1386 (berek, knee), > # 1384

1388 (b°rakd, blessing), > # 1385 1391

no

M73 (b°réka), nom. pool, pond (# 1391).

OT 1. The term normally refers to man-made pools (2 Kgs 20:20; Neh 3:16; Eccl 2:6). Unlike wells and cisterns they were open and, because of their size, were communal. They were meeting places for significant events (2 Kgs 18:17; Isa 7:3). One pool in Jerusalem collected water to provide for the city’s inhabitants during a siege (Isa 22:9, 11); the people may have placed too much confidence in such things. 2. Figuratively, b°réka is used to represent a flourishing place. The pool of Heshbon was proverbial, “Your eyes are the pools of Heshbon by the gate of Bath Rabbim” (S of Songs 7:4[5]). Nahum contrasts the grandeur of Nineveh with her fall by

using the analogy of the pool, “Nineveh is like a pool, and its water is draining away” (Nah 2:8[9]). Cistern, well, pool, reservoir: > b°’ér I (well, #931); > bér (cistern, well, grave, # 1014); > b°rékd (pool, #1391); > géb I (cistern, # 1463); > mikal (reservoir, # 4782); > miqweh (accumulation of water, # 5224)

Fountain, spring: ~ mabbdak (spring, # 4441); > ma‘yan (spring, # 5078); > maqér (spring, # 5227); > nb‘ (bubble, # 5580)

BIBLIOGRAPHY ISBE 3:904-5; J. A. Thompson, Handbook of Life in Bible Times, 1986, 120; F. H. Wight, Manners and Customs of Bible Lands, 1953, 284.

Bryan E. Beyer

fees

eee 5

5

O27 (b°rdmim), : Hi

fabrics # 1394).

7

nom.

multicolored

(rugs 2

ANE The Arab. cognate signifies a rope braided of two colors and the Akk. word denotes a kind of clothing.

OT _b*romim appears only in Ezek 27:24, in the list of goods the Tyrians traded with other nations: “In your marketplace they traded with you beautiful garments, blue fabric, embroidered work and multicolored rugs with cords twisted and tightly knotted.” The NASB translates “carpets of many colors”; the NIV “multicolored rugs.” Robert L. Alden

768

P72 (# 1397) 1397

oar

pis (brq), 4q. flash lightning (#1397); _|

PIS

(baraq 1), nom. lightning (#4 1398); Ip 73 (bar-

gon), thorn (> # 1402); PTD (bazagq), sparks (# 1027). ANE The root brq, lightning, occurs widely in berqu, Ugar. brq, Aram., OSA, and Syr. The Ugar. predominant and important depiction of lightning gods. These gods are usually situated on a mountain for a deity in Canaan and elsewhere in the ANE. OT

1. Concordances

WestSem. languages, e.g., Akk. and Akk. texts have a particularly bolts as weapons in the hands of top, which is the site of preference

and lexica list 21 occurrences of the nom. barag, with two

general groups of meaning: (a) lightning as a phenomenon from the heavens, (b) “brightness” or “glittering,” as associated, for example, with the glittering of a sword (comparable to zhr “brightness”). The use of brg in the OT relates to the theophanic presence of Yahweh, usually in the context of divine judgment, retribution, or warfare. The two meanings listed above are closely related; in many cases, the nom. brg pertains to God’s awesome presence. (> Theophany: Theology) 2. In the Pent. the nom. baraq occurs twice. Exod 19:16 refers to lightning in the theophany accompanying the presentation of God’s law from Mount Sinai (note mountain top!). Deut 32:41 describes God’s avenging judgment; here comparison with other OT references and ANE descriptions suggests that the poet envisions Yahweh with a “lightning sword” in his hand. 3. In wisdom literature, the word baragq refers exclusively to manifestations of God acting in wrathful interaction with people on earth. In Job 20:25 the NIV reads “gleaming point,” in parallelism with “iron weapon” and “bronze-tipped arrow,” as God vents his inescapable anger. Job 38:35 recognizes that it is Yahweh who sends the lightning bolts on their way. In Ps 18:14(15) (= 2 Sam 22:15); 77:18[19]; 97:4; 135:7;

144:6 God’s threatening theophany in lightning is accompanied by descriptions of terrifying natural phenomena like storm clouds, rain, darkness, fire, wind, and smoke. 4. Eleven references are found in the prophetic literature. Jer 10:13 (= 51:16); Ezek 21:10[15]; 21:15[20]; 21:28[33]; Nah 2:4[5]; 3:3; Hab 3:11; Zech 9:14 present a

consistent picture of Yahweh enacting judgment or vengeance upon his enemy or the enemy of his people. Some of these references are more explicit than others. However, a close analysis presents a fairly consistent picture. The sword of Ezek 21:10[15] is to be understood, in the light of “my sword” in 21:4[9], as part of God’s judgment. The enigmatic wording of Nah 2:4[5]; 3:3 creates a vivid metaphorical association between lightning and the gleaming metal and terrifying speed of the enemy’s army. Use of baragq here also calls to mind the divine warfare of Yahweh (cf. 2:13[14]; 3:5-6; also 1:2-6, 13; 2:2[3]). By extension of the divine theophany rhetoric, Ezek 1:13 and Dan 10:6 use the word brq as part of descriptions that convey heavenly awe and terror. Ps 144:6 contains a q. impv. form and is the only occurrence of the vb. in the

OT. It provides yet another example of the confidence that the God of Israel manifests himself with frightening and dramatic cosmic phenomena to protect his people and to defeat the enemy. This survey of occurrences of brq in the OT shows that it is often used in a context of heavenly or divine theophany and seldom in a simple, neutral sense of lightning (Job 38:35) or a flashing sword (Nah 2:4[5]).

769

1P73 (# 1402) 5. The root bzg in Ezek 1:14 is considered by most scholars to be a corruption of brg, though M. Greenberg

(Ezekiel 1-20, 1983, 46) opts for a translation with

“sparks” on the basis of the context and a later Heb. word bzq, scatter. P-B.

The nom. occurs in 1QM 6:2 in a nice parallel to Nah 3:3. For LH, with a vari-

ety of meanings, such as rising light, starlight, and flashing lightning, see Jastrow 1:196-97. NT _ Significantly, the association of lightning with theophany continues in NT times (cf. Matt 24:27; 28:3; Rev 4:5; 8:5; 11:19; 16:18). Also noteworthy is the fact

that the vision of the defeat of Satan is described in terms of lightning being thrown from the sky (Luke 10:18), signifying the defeat of the divine archenemy. Lightning, torch: > ’6dr (light, daylight, dawn, lightning, #240); > brq (flash lightning, # 1397); > lappid (lightning, torch, # 4365) Fire, flame: — ’iid (log, burning stick, #202); > ’é¥ I (fire, # 836); > b‘rI (burn, blaze up, be consumed, #1277); > gahelet (burning charcoal, #1625); > goprit (sulphur, # 1730); ~ yst (kindle, burn, set on fire, # 3675); > ygd (burn, be burning, kindled, # 3678); > kidédd (spark, #3958); > lbb II (bake cakes, #4221); > lahab (flame, blade, # 4258); > lht I (glow, burn, #4265); — lappid (torch, lightning, #4365); > nisés (spark, #5773); > peham (charcoal, # 7073); > resep I (live coal, # 8363); > resep I (flame, glow, arrow, plague, # 8404); > srp (burn, be burnt, # 8596); > Sabib (flame, # 8663) Rain, dew, drizzle, hail, showers: > ’égel (drop [of dew], #103); > brd I (hail, # 1351); > gm (make rain, # 1772); > zrm II ({clouds] pour out [water], #2442); > h*ndmal (sleet, hail?, #2857);

> tal (dew, light rain, drizzle, # 3228); > yrh I (give drink, cause rain, # 3722);

> mtr (make rain, #4763); > malqg6s (late rain, #4919); > sagrir (downpour, # 6039); > sapiah Il (violent storm, #6207); > r“bibim (showers, # 8053); > rasis (dew drop, # 8268); > r‘p (drip, flow, rain, # 8319); > sa‘ir IV (heavy rain, # 8540); > sikba (layer of dew, emis-

sion/ discharge of seed, # 8887) Thunder: ~ héd (thunderclap?, #2059);

— haziz (cloud, strong wind, thunderclap, # 2613);

~> qol (voice, sound, thunder, cry, #7754); > r‘m I (storm, thunder, # 8306)

BIBLIOGRAPHY NIDNTT 3:1000-04; TWOT

1:133-34; R. J. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain

in Canaan and the

Old Testament, 1972; F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 1973; J. C. de Moor, An

Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit, 1987; M. Dykstra, “The Weather-God on Two Mountains” UF 23, 1991, 127-37; V. Haas, Hethitische Berggétter und hurritische Steinddémonen, 1982; P. D. Miller, The Divine Warrior, 1973.

William T. Koopmans

1398 (baraq I, lightning), > # 1397

1402 ANE

p72

}P73 (bargon), thorn, brier (# 1402).

There are no cognates in ANE languages.

OT According to HALAT (156), barqén may derive from brgq I (lightning) + én (diminutive) and means “something pricking, prodding, thorns (?), threshing-sledges?” It is used only in the pl. (Judg 8:7, 16), where it describes the threat and execution of judgment upon the men of Succoth by Gideon for their refusal to help him in his war

770

MpP7D(# 1403) with Midian. In some way, the skin of these men was flailed with thorns and briers (gos [> #7764] and bargon [> # 1402).

P-B

The term is found only in pl. “thistles” (BTalm Yoma 69a); cf. Arab. bergan.

Thornbush, nettle, sting, thistle, thorn: > ’atad (thornbush, # 353); > barqon (thorn, brier, # 1402); > deber Il (thorny sting, # 1823); > dardar (thistle, # 1998); > hédeg (brier, # 2537);

> hdah I (thorn, #2560); > m°sika (thorn hedge, #5004); > na‘“siis (thornbush, #5848); > sird (thorny bush, #6106); > sillén (thorn, #6141); > s*neh (thorny shrub, #6174); > sirpad (stinging nettle, #6252); > se’“lim (thorny lotus, #7365); > s°ninim (thorns, # 7564); > qos I (thornbush,

#7764);

— gimmés

(weeds,

nettles,

#7853);

— sék (thorn,

splinter,

# 8493); > Samir I (Christ’s thorn, # 9031) BIBLIOGRAPHY

M. Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 1982, 158. K. Lawson Younger, Jr.

Njea (bareget),

£08 Nels beryl (hapleg., # 1404).

emerald,

dark

green

beryl?

(# 1403); NPIS (bar*qat), emerald, dark green

ANE

Compare Akk. barragtu (CAD 2:113), and Sanskrit marakatam, green beryl.

OT

1. The nom. bareget denotes one of the stones of the priestly breastpiece, the

third stone set in the first row. The NIV translates “beryl” (Exod 28:17; 39:10).

2. The pausal byform bar‘qat (cf. GKC §80f)occurs in the list of nine precious stones that adorned the king of Tyre (Ezek 28:13). The exact meaning of the stones is debated (see the discussion in L. C. Allen, Ezekiel 20-48, WBC

29, 1990, 94-95).

Apart from precise interpretation, it is clear that the adornment of jewels spoke of a privileged position, abused by Tyre, with the consequent punishment by Yahweh entirely justified. 3. For a theological introduction to the topic of gems in the OT, see ’6dem (# 138). Precious Stones: > ’eben (stone, rock, #74); > ’ddem (precious stone, #138); > ’ahlama (jasper, # 334); > ’eqdah (beryl, # 734); > bahat (precious stone, #985); > bareget (emerald,

# 1403); > yah“lom (precious stone, # 3402); > yas“péh (jasper, #3835); > kadkod (ruby?, # 3905); > leXem I (precious stone, # 4385); > ndpek (semi-precious stone, # 5876); > sdheret (mineral stone, # 6090); > sappir (lapis lazulli, #6209); > pitdd (chrysolite, #7077); > 5%bé (precious stone, # 8648); > Soham I (precious stone, #8732); > Samir II (emery, diamond?, #9032); > Ses II (alabaster, # 9253); > tarsi¥ Il (precious stone, # 9577)

Jewelry, ornaments:

~ h“/i I (ornament, jewel, #2717);

~ h*riizim (necklace of shells,

#3016); > tabba‘at (ring, #3192); > kimaz (ornament, #3921); > misb°sdt #5401); > nezem (ring, #5690); > n°ti(?)pa (ear-ring, #5755); > ‘dgil (ear-ring?, ~ ‘dh Il (adorn o.s., # 6335); > ‘ks (ingle, #6576); > ‘ng (put on as a necklace, ~ p*ninim (corals, pearls, #7165); —~ sawwaron (necklace, #7454); > samid I

(settings, # 6316); #6735); (bracelet,

#7543); > s°‘ada (anklets, #7577); > rabid (necklace, #8054); > Ssah*rdnim (crescents, # 8448); > sabis (ornament, # 8667); > SérI (bracelet, # 9217); > tor (pendant, # 9366)

771

3723 (# 1405) BIBLIOGRAPHY

IDB 2:898-905; ISBE 4:623-30; NIDNTT 3:395-98; J. S. Harris, “An Introduction to the Study of

Personal Ornaments, of Precious, Semi-Precious and Imitation Stones Used throughout Biblical History,” ALUOS 4, 1962, 49-83; L. Koehler, “Hebraische Vokabeln II,” ZAW 55, 1937, 161-74; H. Quiring, “Die Edelsteine im Amtsschild des jiidischen Hohenpriesters und die Herkunft ihrer Namen,” AGM 38, 1954, 193-213; W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 25-48, 1983, 82-84. Andrew E. Hill

1404 (bar’qat, dark green beryl), > # 1403 372 (brr 1), vb. q. purge out, select out; ni. keep 1405 vs clean; pi. sift, sort; hi. sift, cleanse; hitp. be sifted, sorted out (# 1405); "3 (bar ID), adj. pure, empty (# 1338); 73 (bor I), nom. cleanliness, purity (# 1341); 1373 (bariir), pure, plain, candid (# 1359).

ANE There is a vb. bararu in Akk., but its meaning is disputed by the two major lexicons (AHw, 106b translates flimmern = glisten, glimmer [cf. HALOT 162b and TDOT 2:308] but, according to CAD B 106b, it means just the opposite, to become filmy [?]). There are, of course, derivatives of this root, whatever it means (e.g., barru and bariru,

AHw, 107). The fact that the other cognates have such a root attested with a meaning like Heb. brr I suggests that glisten, shine is correct in Akk. For example, Ugar. has a root brr in the form of a vb., meaning to be pure (used of metals), free (used of slaves), with a nom. derivative pure, clean (UT glossary nos. 526-28, brr I-III, 377; TDOT 2:308). It also occurs in OSA, meaning cleanse (causative), and Eth. b°rur, silver

(HALOT 162b). It has been argued that this Heb. root derives originally from Arab. bari’a, be or become free, clear, pure (see esp. TDOT 2:308; cf. tionary, 3d ed., 1976, 49b).

J.

M. Cowan, Arabic-English Dic-

OT 1. There are two major problems in the analysis of this root and its meaning(s). First, in some instances it is difficult to distinguish between words associated with this root and those assigned to other roots in some lexicons or other reference tools. For example, the vb. brr I occurs a total of 18x in the OT according to Even-Shoshan, but according to HALOT (163a) Isa 49:2 (q. vb.) and Jer 51:11 (hi. vb.) refer to “sharpen-

ing” an arrow (brr II), not “polishing” it, and therefore do not belong to the root brr I. The NIV has “polished arrow” in Isa 49:2 (NASB has “select arrow” in the text and “sharpened arrow” in the margin), but in Jer 51:11 it has “sharpen the arrows” (NASB the same). Similarly, Prov 14:4a could mean, “Where there are no oxen, the manger is empty” (bar IL in NIV and HALOT 153a), but it could also mean, “Where there are no oxen, the manger has grain” (bar IIL in HALOT 153a; see Even-Shoshan, 202). Second, once one has decided how to handle the various occurrences in relation

to the several proposed roots and their meanings, there is still the problem of translation of certain passages. For example, the same adj. appears in S of Songs 6:9 and 6:10, referring to the beloved. HALOT (153a) puts both occurrences under the meaning “pure” (cf. also NASB). The NIV, however, translates v. 9 “the favorite of the one who bore her” (i.e., the “select one,” see the q. vb. in Neh 5:18) and v. 10 as “bright as the

sun.” Examples could be multiplied. TT2

V3 (# 1405) Given all this ambiguity it is probably best to conclude that some of the lines drawn between roots and meanings are artificial. In general, the root seems to mean

pure, clean, and therefore comes to: mean something that is choice, special. 2. In Ezek 20:38 the q. vb. is used in the clause, “I will purge you of those who revolt and rebel against me.” In Eccl 3:18 the same vb. seems to refer to God’s “testing” of humankind (TDOT 2:309), a notion easily derived from the concept of purging. HALOT (155a) treats two of the occurrences of bariir as a separate nom. rather than as a pass. part. of the q. vb. (Job 33:3; Zeph 3:9), but this seems unnecessary (TDOT

2:309). It is reasonable to suppose that to purge, test, purify something or someone (see above) can come to mean that the something or someone thereby becomes pure (Zeph 3:9, “Then will I purify the lips of the peoples”; cf. Job 33:3) and then select, chosen (see 1 Chron 7:40; 9:22; 16:41; Neh 5:18; regarding Isa 49:2 q. “select arrow” and

Jer 51:11 hi. “sharpen the arrows” cf. above). The ni. vb. (3x), therefore, comes to mean be pure (Isa 52:11), and then as a part., pure (2 Sam 22:27a; cf. Ps 18:26a[27a]), while the hitp. means show oneself pure (2 Sam 22:27b; cf. Ps 18:26b[27b]): “to the pure you show yourself pure, but to the crooked you show yourself shrewd” (2 Sam 22:27). Dan 12:10 tells us that in the end time, “Many will be purified (hitp. of brr I), made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked.” The only occurrence of the pi. is Dan 11:35, “Some of the wise will stumble, so that they may be refined, purified and made spotless until the time of the end.” The hi. vb. is used of the sweeping of the wind to cleanse the area over which it blows (Jer 4:11), and one time in relation to the sharpening, purifying, or selecting of arrows for battle (Jer 51:11, see above).

3. The adj. form is bar II, pure, empty (6x). It refers to a person being pure in the sight of someone else (Job 11:4) as well as to one’s beloved being “the favorite of the one who bore her” (S of Songs 6:9) and “bright as the sun” (v. 10). The commandments of the Lord are pure (Ps 19:8[9]). It is used twice in reference to a person or

group of persons having pure hearts (Ps 24:4; 73:1). Finally, it can refer to a clean (i.e., an empty) manger (Prov 14:4; see the remarks above).

The nom. bor I, cleanliness, purity (5x) occurs 4x in the phrase “cleanness of my/your hands” (2 Sam 22:21; Job 22:30; Ps 18:20[21], 24[25]). 2 Sam 22:25 reads,

“my cleanness in his sight’ (contrast the parallel in Ps 18:24[25], see above). 4. The combination of meanings cited above clearly shows that this root can be used of both concrete and figurative purity. An arrow can be pure or select, but so can a person. Moreover, a person can be pure in the eyes of another person. He can have pure hands (ethical conduct) and a clean heart (pure character and motives).

P-B__ This root is used in several places in the Qumran sectarian documents. It occurs 3x in the Temple Scroll for choosing (11QTS 57:5, 8) truthful and God-fearing commanders of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens who could stand approved (11QTS 57:8) in all their cities (Yadin 2:256-57). The War Scroll refers to pure iron for the blades of swords and pure horn for their hilts (1QM 5:11, 14; Vermes, 110). The Man-

ual of Discipline describes the community’s need “to purify their knowledge in the truth of God’s precepts” (1QS 1:12; Vermes, 62) and the fact that “God will then (e.,

in the appointed time of judgment) purify every deed of man with his truth” (1QS 4:20; Vermes, 66). The Damascus rule refers to the selection of ten men to be learned in the religious documents of the congregation (CD 10:4; Vermes, 94). Finally, the

T13

73 (# 1406)

Thanksgiving Hymns refer to keeping the hands clean: “I know that Thou hast marked the spirit of the just, and therefore I have chosen to keep my hands clean in accordance 16:10; Vermes,

with [Thy] will” (1QH Jastrow, 188, 191, 198. NT

204). For references

in the RL

see, e.g.,

Fora complete discussion of purity and purification in the NT see thr (# 3197).

Clean, pure: > brrI (purge out, sort, keep pure, sift, # 1405); > zkh (be pure, clean oneself, # 2342); > hap I (pure: clean, # 2899); > thr (clean, cleanse, purify, # 3197) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 2:308-12; TWOT

1:134-35; G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 3d ed., 1987;

Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll, vols. 1-2, 1983. Richard E. Averbeck

1406

aa

373 (brr ID q., hi. sharpen (# 1406).

ANE. Syr. berir means innocent, pure; Aram. berar means cleanse, select, make clear or demonstrate. OT

Used usually in cultic contexts, there are two places where it is used of arrows,

Isa 49:2 and Jer 51:11. In each case it appears to mean “polish” (for smoother flight), with no real presumption of a meaning “sharpen” (despite RSV). Sharp:

> brr Il (sharpen, # 1406);

> hdd (be sharp, keen, #2523);

> It (sharpen, # 4323);

> qill®6n (sharp object?, # 7849); > snn I (sharpen, pierce, #9111); Blunt: > p*sird (blunt?, #7201); > ghh (be blunt, # 7733) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 2:308-12; TWOT 1:134-35. Peter J. M. Southwell

Pg

he

ml

QW2

(bosem),

nom.

(oil), perfume (# 1411).

balsam

(shrub),

balsam

ANE The nom. bdsem, balsam (shrub), balsam (oil), perfume, has ANE background in Punic, Old Aram., Arab., OSA, Mand., Syr., Jewish Aram. and Christian Palestinian Aram. (see e.g., HALOT 163; DNWSI, 203-4; Jastrow, 199; and the explanation in Nielsen, 1986, 67). e OT

The nom. bdsem, balsam (shrub), balsam (oil), perfume, occurs 30x in the OT,

first in Exod 25:6 referring to “spices for the anointing oil” (cf. 30:23; 35:8; 1 Chron 9:29-30). This is one of the gifts that the Queen of Sheba brought to Solomon when she came to test his wisdom (1 Kgs 10:2, 10, 25; 2 Chron 9:1, 9, 24; note that neseg I in

2 Kgs 10:25 is rendered “weapons” in the NIV, but the LXX at 2 Chron 9:24 and HALOT 731b, suggest “pleasant scents’), and Hezekiah made the mistake of showing this and his other treasures to the visiting Babylonian king (2 Kgs 20:13; Isa 39:2; cf. 2 Chron 32:27; and also {6b II, perfume, in 2 Kgs 20:13, which occurs only here and has background in Arab. and OSA, HALOT 371). These passages confirm the 774

“WwW(# 1413) expensive nature of such perfuming ingredients in the biblical world. Asa’s tomb was perfumed with bésem (2 Chron 16:14). According to Esth 2:12, “Before a girl’s turn came to go in to King Xerxes, she had to complete twelve months of beauty treatments (m°riigim [# 5299]) prescribed for the women, six months with oil of myrrh (mdr) and six with perfumes (bosem) and cosmetics (tamrigim [# 9475])” (cf. S of Songs 4:10, 14, 16; 8:14; on the latter verse see Pope, 699). Thus, bosem was an ingredient important to the beautification process for women. Perfume, ointment:

> bdsem (balsam [shrub], balsam [oil], perfume, # 1411); > rgh (blend,

mix ointment, mixed, # 8379)

BIBLIOGRAPHY K. Nielsen, “Ancient Aromas Good and Bad,” BibRev 7, 1991, 26-33; idem, Incense in Ancient Israel, SVT 38, 1986; M. Pope, Song of Songs, AB, 1977. Richard E. Averbeck

WI

(dsr), pi. bring, proclaim,

preach, take

pte as (good, bad) news, tidings; hitp. receive, hear news (# 1413); TWA (b°sora), nom. (good) news, reward for news (# 1415). ANE_

br is

acommon root in Sem.: attested in Ugar. (bring glad tidings), Akk. (neu-

tral), and Arab. has connotations of remove the face or surface of something; it is also

related to the joy at the message of the birth of a child. Eth. conveys bringing a joyful message, as does also Assyr.

OT | 1. The root bsr occurs 24x, and in derivatives a total of 30x (b°s6rd occurs 6x).

This derivative root occurs frequently in Sam-Kgs, and 7x in Isa. The root meaning conveys the bringing of news, and often with military significance. 2. In essence bsr and b*sdrd involve good news (2 Kgs 7:9; Isa 41:27; 52:7; 60:6; 61:1; Nah 1:15[2:1]), but in some contexts irony is involved, as in 2 Sam 18, where the news-bearer is greatly mistaken, bearing news of victory to David that

included his son Absolom’s death. Another similar example is seen in an episode with fatal consequences for the news-bearers, Recab and Baanah, when they told David of Ish-Bosheth’s murder (2 Sam 4:9-10). David admonishes them to consider his earlier reaction to the news of Saul’s death from his supposed assassin (1:14-16). Adding to the drama, the reader knows that an Amalekite lost his life for claiming falsely that he had taken Saul’s life. There may also be irony in Jer 20:15, where the prophet puts a twist on the presumed good news of his own birth: he offers a rhetorical curse for the one who brought the news. 3. Proclamation of particularly bad news is seen in the important account of the loss of the ark of the covenant (1 Sam 4:17), although as it works out the account displays God’s sovereign role in the events. (The pi. part. is used frequently, as in the latter example, to describe the bearer of the news mebassér, as the “one who” brings the news.) An example of bad news for Israel in the judgment of God on Saul, which was (ironically) good news to the Philistines, is seen in 1 Chron 10:9 (note the discussion above on irony over the news of Saul’s death in 2 Sam 4:9-10). This “strange work” (Isa 28:21) of using Israel’s enemies in judging Israel is found throughout the OT and

re)

Wa (# 1413) should be understood in the broader context that such actions generally left Israel’s enemies culpable. A. There are occasions when the news is very exalted, as when Isaiah prophesies about those “who bring good news, who proclaim peace” (Isa 52:7), and when the psalmist calls the congregation to “proclaim his salvation” (Ps 96:2; also 1 Chron 16:23; Isa 40:9) and the Lord’s righteousness (Ps 40:9[10]). Proclamation of the good news of deliverance from the Assyrian threat to Israel is found in Nah 1:15[2:1]. Such statements are also ironic in that a proclamation of coming judgment on Israel’s enemies is indeed good news for them but disastrous news for their enemies (Ps 68:11[12]). P-B 1. Consideration of bér and b°s6ra is found under preaching in some cases (Isa 61:1) and is used synonymously with gr’ I (> #7924) to indicate a proclamation. The LXX consequently often translates bsr with euangelizo, generally taken as “to proclaim” in the OT and in the NT (> #2294). Isa 52:7 may imply something of this notion where the prophet calls for the proclamation of salvation (and Ps 96:2[LXX 95:2]). Though at Isa 60:6 the NIV and KJV translate bsr with tehilla (praise, glory,

# 9335) as “proclaim the praise,” the LXX renders it “proclaim salvation” (sotérion kyriou euangeliountai). Similarly Isa 61:1 is quoted by Jesus in Luke 4:18-19 in his proclamation of “freedom for the prisoners.” In the LXX (Isa 61:1) and in the NT (Luke 4:18-19) both words, euangelisasthai, and keryxai, are synonymously juxtaposed for the single inf. of bsr. In Nah 1:15[2:1] the LXX uses euangelizo and apangello (report, proclaim, # 550) synonymously, which suggests that bsr and the hi. pt. of sm‘ (proclaim, announce, # 9048) are likewise considered synonymous. 2. In the example of very bad news being brought in | Sam 4:17 the LXX does not use euangelizo to translate bsr. In the ironic examples in 2 Sam 18 the LXX does use euangelizo, with seemingly intentional repetition (6x) that heightens the irony. In the Jer 20:15 example of irony the LXX also renders bsr here with euangelizo (also Ps 68:11[12]; LXX 67:12; Nah 1:15[2:1]; LXX 2:1). It is reasonable to conclude that the

LXX tended to understand bSr primarily in the domain of good news. NT 1. The centrality of the themes of bringing news, proclaiming, and preaching in the NT is signaled by the array of words used. To note a selection: euangelizo; kéryssd (preach, proclaim); prokérysso (preached); kérygma (preaching, message); kéryx (herald, preacher); logos (message, report, preaching); ereugomai (to utter, proclaim emphatically); pléroo (fully proclaim, Rom 15:19), apangelld (proclaim, inform); apostolos (messenger); phoned (called, summon); etc. The usage range for some of these terms is broad. This reflects the extensive capacity for communicating information in the NT world (implying the obvious importance of trustworthy information and reliable conveyance). 2. The most notable NT communication is the preaching or proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is without question always good news and is to be brought to all the world (Mark 13:10; Rom 10:14-15; 1 Cor 15:1-4), although implicit is the assumption that for those who reject this news it becomes their judgment (Mark 16:16; John 3:18). Central to the preaching was the message that Christ, though crucified, was risen from the dead; this is the kérygma (the content of what was proclaimed: 1 Cor 15:14).

7716

WA # 1414) Message, messenger: > b§r (bring, proclaim [good, bad] news, # 1413); > mal’ak (angel, messenger, # 4855); > sér II hasan #7495); > 5°mii‘a (news, report, message, # 9019) BIBLIOGRAPHY

AB 6:644-53; DCH, 276-77; HAW, 50; IBD 4:688-93; NBD, 961-62; TDOT 2:313-16; THAT 1:900-908; TWAT 1:846-49; TWOT

1:135-36; NIDNTT 3:48-57 (esp. for NT see C. Brown, “The

Structure and Content of the Early Kerygma,” 57-68); M. Burrows, “The Origin of the Term ‘Gospel,’” JBL 44, 1925, 21-33; Zorell, 132-33. Stephen T. Hague

se 1414

Ws

“v2 (basar), skin, meat (including sacrificial meat),

flesh,

body,

humankind,

animals

(# 1414). ANE

Ugar. bir, flesh; Phoen./Punic bir, flesh; Aram. (including Egypt., Jewish and

Christian Palestinian) bsr, flesh; Syr. besra, flesh; Mand. besra, flesh; Eth. bsr, flesh; ESA bsr, flesh; Arab. ba¥arat, skin.

OT 1. The word is used of both animal and human flesh and refers on occasion (especially when used with kol, “all of’) to humankind and/or the animal kingdom in general (Gen 6:12-13, 17, 19; 7:16, 21; 8:17; Lev 17:14; Num 16:22; etc.). The referent

of “all flesh” in Gen 6:12-13 is unclear. The emphasis on the sinfulness of all flesh seems to point to humankind, but elsewhere in Gen 6-9 the phrase seems to refer to

animals as well as people. Perhaps animals can be held morally responsible by God (cf. Gen 9:5; Exod 21:28-32; Jon 3:7-8), or the text is here employing hyperbole to emphasize how corrupt the earth had become. (Note that the Flood destroyed animals as well as people.) As the sovereign ruler of all creatures, the Lord provides food for all creatures (Ps 136:25) and determines their lifespan (Job 12:10; 34:15). Being composed of “flesh,” humankind is as shortlived as the grass of the field (Isa 40:6) or a passing breeze (Ps 78:39). The mortal nature of God’s ancient covenant people, which made them susceptible to moral weakness, caused him to be merciful toward them and relent

from sending his judgment with full force (Ps 78:38). Because their fleshly composition makes them weak and mortal, human beings are a false object of trust (Jer 17:5) and are unable to resist God’s might (2 Chron 32:8) or to harm those whom he chooses

to protect holds true God, who judgment,

(Ps 56:4[5]). If mortal human beings are a false object of trust, the same for the war horse, which shares humankind’s fleshly nature (Isa 31:3). When is spiritual in nature and transcends the physical realm, decided to act in even the horse-drawn chariots of Egypt are unable to resist his purposes.

2. Following the Noahic flood (> Flood), which destroyed sinful humankind (Gen 6:13, 17), God made a covenant with all creatures (“flesh”) whereby he promised never again to judge the earth by water (9:15-17). Nevertheless, the prophets anticipated a day when God’s universal judgment would again fall upon “all flesh” (Isa 66:16; Jer 25:31). 3. In the eschaton the Lord will reveal his glory to “all flesh” (Isa 40:5). At that time all men and women will bow down before the Lord in recognition of his sovereignty (66:23). Joel envisioned an eschatological outpouring of God’s Spirit upon “all

777

“WW (# 1414) flesh” (Joel 2:28[3:1]). In this context the phrase seems to refer to all classes of people within Judah rather than to humankind in general (cf. “Your sons and daughters . . . old young men,” and “servants, both men and women,” vv. 2:28b-29[3:1b-2]).

men...

God would pour out his spirit upon all the residents of Judah, regardless of age, gender, or social status, enabling all to exercise prophetic gifts (cf. Ezek 39:29 and Zech 12:10; see also Num 11:29). 4. Ezekiel used the expression “heart of flesh,” in contrast to “heart of stone,” to describe Israel’s renewed allegiance to the Lord in the eschaton (Ezek 11:19; 36:26). In this case the heart is viewed as the seat of one’s moral life and volition, stone

symbolizes spiritual insensitivity, and flesh signifies spiritual receptivity. The Lord himself will supernaturally and sovereignly effect this transformation (cf. W. Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 1970, 499-500) in conjunction with exiled Israel’s spiritual cleansing and return to the land. 5. In a textually problematic passage Job anticipates being vindicated by God himself at some point in the future (Job 19:26). The phrase mibb®sari may be interpreted “away from my flesh,” i.e., after death, or “from/in my flesh,” i.e., in life. For

discussion of the exegetical difficulties posed by the passage, see S. R. Driver and G. B. Gray, The Book of Job, ICC, 1921, 1:171-74, and F. I. Andersen, Job, TOTC,

1976, 193-94. 6. The expression “one flesh,” used of the relationship between the first man and woman (Gen 2:24), draws attention to the inseparable bond inherent in the marriage relationship. The phrase must be interpreted in the light of the man’s statement in 2:23: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh,” the meaning of which is informed by the idiomatic expression “flesh and bone,” a phrase referring to kinship relationships within clan and tribal contexts (Gen 29:14; Judg 9:2; 2 Sam 5:1; 19:12-13[13-14]; see G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, WBC, 1987, 70). The language of

Gen 2:23-24 suggests that the first marriage was regarded as a kinship (“flesh and blood”’) relationship which, because of its temporal priority, supercedes all such blood relationships, even that of parent-child (see Wenham, 71). On this basis Jesus viewed the marriage relationship as essentially indissoluble (Matt 19:4-6). Flesh, food, meat: > basar (meat, food, flesh, # 1414);

Covenant:

> “mand

I (covenant,

binding

> 5°’@r (meat, food, # 8638)

agreement,

#591);

~— b®rit (treaty, # 1382);

> hozeh II (covenant, # 2603); > ‘édit (statutes, stipulations, warning sign, reminder, # 6343) Death: #141);

~ ‘bd I (perish, #6); > ’“damd (ground, piece of land, soil, earth, realm of the dead, > ’asdn (mortal accident, #656); > gw‘ (expire, die, #1588); > Arg (kill, murder,

#2222); > zrm I (put an end to life, #2441); > hedel (realm of the dead, # 2535); > hnt II (embalm, embalming, # 2846); > mwt (die, kill, execute, # 4637); > q¢l (murder, slay, #7779); ~ r°pa’im I (shades, departed spirits, # 8327); > §©’6l (sheol, netherworld, # 8619); > Sahat (pit, grave, # 8846) Flood, deluge, torrent: > bz’ (wash away, #1021); > grp (wash away, # 1759); > mabbil (heavenly ocean, deluge, #4429); > niggeret (torrent, #5600); > swp (flood, rise up, make float, #7429); > Sibbolet II (torrent, undulation, # 8673); > s6t II ([sudden] flood, # 8766); > Stp (wash away, flood, overflow, # 8851); > Sesep (flooding, #9192) BIBLIOGRAPHY

NIDNTT 1:671-82; TDNT 7:98-151; TDOT 2:317-32; THAT 1:376-79; R. B. Bjornard, “Beyond Looks and Appearances: The Old Testament on the Body,” TBT 29, 1991, 133-38; J. W. Cooper, Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting, 1989; A. R. Johnson, The Vitality of the Individual in the

778

NS (# 1426) Thought of Ancient Israel, 1964, 373-78; M. Krieg and H. Weder, Leiblichkeit, ThStud.

128,

1983; H. W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament, tr. M. Kohl, 1974, 26-31. Robert B. Chisholm

1415 (b°sdrd, news, reward for news), > # 1413 1418 (681, boil, cook), > Baking

1419 (bagel, boiled, cooked), > Baking

1422 (baSan Il, serpent), > #5729 1423 (bosnd, shame), > # 1017 1425 (boSet, shame, shamefulness, disgrace), > # 1017

1426

gal

KN (bat I), daughter, granddaughter (# 1426).

ANE _ bat (Ugar. bt, pl. bnt; Akk. bintu; Imperial Aram. [no OT occurrences] brh, br’;

Syr. brt’); pl. banét is fem. of bén. OT 1. bat occurs 585x in the OT, that is, less than one eighth as often as bén. The OT uses of bat correspond largely to those of bén but are more restricted. 2. Daughter. The most obvious meaning of bat is daughter, in particular one’s own daughter (Gen 11:29; 24:24; 30:21; Josh 15:16; Judg 11:34-35; 1 Sam 18:20). Though banim, sons, meaning children, may include daughters (Gen 3:16), children is

often expressed by banim tibanét, sons and daughters (Gen 5:4, 7, 10; Job 1:2). bat "abi, daughter of my father (Gen 20:12), or bat ’immeka, daughter of your mother, are half sisters and according to the Holiness Code may not be taken in marriage (Lev 18:9, 11; 20:17; Deut 27:22; Ezek 22:11). b°nét banayw, his son’s daughters (Gen

46:7), signifies “grandchildren.” Sometimes the simple bat, daughter, means “granddaughter” (2 Kgs 8:26). bat dodo, his uncle’s daughter (Esth 2:7), is “cousin,” while b©not ’ahéka, your brother’s daughters (Judg 14:3), more loosely signifies “relatives” rather than strictly “nieces” as the parallel “ammi, “my people,” indicates. bat ’ahi *4d6ni,

my

master’s

brother’s

daughter

(Gen

24:48),

makes

Rebekah

Abraham’s

“niece,” though actually she was the granddaughter of Abraham’s brother. bandt, daughters, in Gen 37:35; Judg 12:9; and Ruth 1:11 refers to “daughters-in-law.” The word bat is also used freely of a young girl (Gen 24:13; 30:13; S of Songs 2.2, ASA 52-9): 3. The social position of the daughter. The position of the daughter in Hebrew society was rather complex, and as it would seem at times, contradictory. That more store was placed in sons than in daughters is made obvious from the sheer statistics of these terms. Sons were more desirable than daughters (Job 1:2; 42:13-15, though only

the names of the daughters, who are praised for their beauty, are mentioned; Ps 127:3-4; 128:3). Nevertheless, the full measure of blessing is “sons...and daughters” (Ps 144:12). Moreover, the woman is called “the mother of all the living” (Gen 3:20), though nothing analogous is said of the man. As in the case of the son (Gen 24:3-4, 37-38, 48), the marriage of the daughter

was decided by the father (Gen 24:51; 29:19; Exod 22:17), though with the difference

779

Na # 1426)

that daughters are “given” and “taken” (Gen 34:9; Exod 2:21; Deut 7:3). The father (and the brothers) set the bridal price (Gen 34:11-12).

The bridal price was paid to the father (Gen 29:19; Exod 22:16) or to the father and the brothers (Gen 34:12), but was supposed to be given to the bride (31:14-16). A

daughter’s vow could be annulled by her father, as a wife’s could by her husband

(Num 30:3-8). The father had even the right to sell his daughter as a slave (Exod 21:7)

and she was not entitled (like the men-servants) to being set free on the seventh year. On the other hand, a daughter gored by a bull was treated equally as a son as far as remuneration and punishment of the guilty were concerned (Exod 21:31). Moreover, the daughter together with other family members participated in cultic festivities (Deut LQ 21 SeLOslavela): By demanding their rights Zelophehad’s daughters inspired a new law in Israel, namely, that the inheritance of a sonless father should go to the daughter(s) (Num 27:1-11; 36:8; Josh 17:3-4). The father’s love for his daughter (which must have been the norm) received a

classic expression in the Jephthah story (Judg 11:34-40) and became proverbial in Nathan’s words (2 Sam 12:3). This is borne out also by Mordecai’s loving care of his young cousin Esther, whom he had apparently adopted as his own daughter (Esth 2:7, 15). The concern of the father for his daughter’s happy marriage and well-being is testified by Sir 7:24-25; 42:9-12. 4. Figurative uses.

A number of times bat is used with figurative sense. In Num

21:25; Josh 15:45; Judg 1:27; Jer 49:2, b°ndtéha, its daughters, is used of villages. In Gen 49:22 banét, daughters, means branches, while in Eccl 12:4 the term may refer to

the musical notes of a song. The bat ‘ayin, daughter of the eye (Ps 17:8; LXX 16:8 koran ophthalmou) is the “pupil” of the eye in parallelism with ’7§6n, pupil of the eye, while the picture in Lam 2:18 (bat ‘énéka, daughter of your eye; the LXX has taken bat as vocative in parallelism with bat siyy6n) is confusing.

5. Membership of a people, city, nation. bat is sometimes used of the individual women of a people or city. Thus, in Gen 27:46 Rebekah is weary on account of the

b®nét hét, daughters of Heth, i.e., “Hittite women.” In Judg 21:21 b®nét S716 are the young (presumambly unmarried) women of Shiloh, and in Lam 3:51 b©nét ‘iri, daughters of my city, refers to the “women of my city,” i.e., Jerusalem. Similarly, b°ndt mé’ab (Num 25:1) “daughters of Moab”; b°ndt siyyén, daughters of Zion (Isa 3:16), and b©nét y*rasalayim, daughters of Jerusalem (S of Songs 3:10), are the “womenfolk” of Moab, Zion, and Jerusalem respectively.

6. Zion or Jerusalem. Different from the above is the use of bat in the sg. as a personification of Zion (e.g., 2 Kgs 19:21; Ps 9:14; Isa 1:8; 16:1; 62:11; Jer 6:23; Lam 4:22; Mic 4:8; Zeph 3:14) or less frequently of Jerusalem (e.g., 2 Kgs 19:21; Isa 37:22; Lam 2:13, 15). (The same applied to bat sor, daughter of Tyre [Ps 45:12]; bat babel, daughter of Babylon [Ps 137:8]; bat “dom, daughter of Edom [Lam 4:21].) Here the term is used appositionally to describe Zion or Jerusalem as a person, in particular as

the daughter of God. Not infrequently the passages so describing the chosen city exhibit God’s disappointment (e.g., Jer 8:19), sorrow (e.g., Jer 4:31; Zeph 3:14-15),

punishment (e.g., Isa 1:8; 52:2; Jer 6:2; Lam 1:5-6), promise for deliverance (e.g., Isa

52:2-3; 62:11), or actual support (e.g., 2 Kgs 19:21; Zech 2:8-10; 9:9). In other words,

780

mana 1435) the father-daughter relationship between God and his chosen city (representing his people) is thereby underscored. (> Zion: Theology) 7. Age. Finally, bat too, like bén, is used in statements of age. Thus, Sarah is bat tis ‘tm Sand, a daughter of ninety years (Gen 17:17), i.e., “ninety years old.” And the Nazirite was to offer an ewe lamb that was bat §“natah, a daughter of one year (Num 6:14), i.e., “one year old” (see further Lev 14:10). Son, daughter: > bén I (son, grandson, member of a group, #1201); > bat I (daughter, granddaughter, # 1426) Youth: ~ bahir I (young man, # 1033); > b°tald (young girl, # 1435); > n°‘arim (youth, #5830); > ““limim (youth, #6596); > sa ‘ir I (little, small, young, trifling, # 7582); > gaton (small, trifling, young, #7785); > Sah*riit (dark hair, prime of youth, # 8841)

BIBLIOGRAPHY E. W. Davies, “Inheritance Rights,” VT 31, 1981, 138-44, 257-68; J. C. de Moor, An Anthology

of Religious Texts from Ugarit, 1987; H. Donner, “Adoption oder Legitimation?” OrAnt 8, 1969, 87-119; K. Elliger, “Das Gesetz Leviticus 18,” ZAW 67, 1955, 1-25; A. Fitzgerald, “btwit and bat as Titles for Capital Cities,” CBQ 37, 1975, 167-83; A. Philips, “Some Aspects of Family Law,” VT 23, 1973, 349-61; idem, “Another Example of Family Law,” VT 30, 1980, 240-43; W. Plantz,

“Die Form der Eheschliessung im Alten Testament,” ZAW 76, 1964, 298-318; A. Viberg, Symbols of Law: A Contextual Analysis of Legal Symbolic Acts in the Old Testament, ConBOT 34, 1992: Chrys C. Caragounis

1427 (bat II, bath), > # 406 1431 (battd, precipice, cliff face), > #2215

1435

ae

nina

moana (b°tald), girl under the guardianship of

her father (# 1435); D?O3MD.(b¢tiltm); ‘adoles-

cence (# 1436). ANE.

Akk. m. batilu, young man; f. batultu, adolescent, nubile girl (CAD, B, 173a; in

neo-Babylonian marriage contracts the word takes on the more specialized connotation of virgin, ibid, 174a.); Ugar. btlt, used most often as an epithet of Anat, the wife of

Baal; Aram. b°tilta’, young girl. More specifically, “In an Aramaic text from Nippur, a spell by a barren wife seeking children, there occurs the phrase, btwit’ dymhbl’ wl’ yld’, ‘a “virgin” travailing and not bearing’” (Wenham, 326-27). It is Wenham’s conclusion that the cognate occurrences consistently refer to a girl of marriageable age (326-29).

OT Turning to the OT material, Wenham maintains that the lexical profile is identical to that of the cognates. One of the principal arguments supporting this conclusion is the fact that in their respective legal materials, Assyr. and Heb. law share nearly identical formulations of certain laws each using this cognate. If the laws are the same and the cognates are used, Wenham argues that the meanings of the cognates must be the same (330). Additional reasons he lists are as follows: 1. In Esther b°tild is applied to the new members of the harem both before and after they have spent their night with the king (Esth 2:17-19). 781

m>3na@ 1435) 2. bahar (young man) and b°tiild often occur as a fixed pair, and the former shows no evidence of referring to sexual status. 3. In Joel 1:8 the b°tald has a ba‘al, presumably a husband.

4. Job 31:1 is much more easily understood if the b°tild he is referring to is married; otherwise it would be difficult to understand why this would be an offense in a polygamous society. On the other hand, 2 Sam 13:18 speaks of Tamar tearing the garment indicative of her b°tiild status after she had been raped by Amnon. If, as argued by Wenham, this

is nothing more than tearing one’s clothing in grief, the text would not have needed to go into detail concerning the significance of the garment. Rather, it is likely that Amnon’s act has caused her to lose her status as a b°tild. Even so, however, that does

not mean that b°t#/d means virgin. Another difficulty with Wenham’s theory is that neither the girls in Esth 2:17 nor the woman in Joel 1:8 could still be called marriageable, in that they are officially spoken for. If availability for marriage was the criterion for the designation b°tild, one would think the term would cease to be applicable when a marriage arrangement was made. If the term did not cease to be applicable until the consummation of the marriage, then sexual status again becomes an issue. In reality it appears that Wenham is suggesting “teenager,” though a specifically female one. Given passages such as 2 Sam 13:18, however, one must wonder if that is all that there is to it.

Perhaps responsible for some of these lexical difficulties is our unwarranted assumption that categories classifying individuals in any society are definable by a single feature rather than being multifaceted. So, for instance, “spinster” in English has elements of age, marital status, and, less definably, sexual status all as criteria. In a

similar way we suggest that b°riild has age, marital status, and sexual status as criteria. Age. There is every indication that a b°tild is young. This is supported by the many passages that contrast the term with those who are old (Deut 32:25; 2 Chron 36:17; Ps 148:12). Marital status. It appears that a young woman may be betrothed and still be in the category of b°tild, but the evidence concerning whether a married woman can be in this category is inconclusive. In Judg 21:11-12 a contrast is drawn between nasxim (wives) who had had sexual relations and b°til6t who had not. One might then infer that a young girl who becomes an ’isS@ (wife) ceases to be a b°tiild. Sexual status. It is likely that a young girl is not considered a b°tild until she reaches puberty (see the discussion of b‘tilim below). Then, as mentioned above, at least certain types of sexual activity preclude one’s being considered a b°tild (e.g., Tamar). Nevertheless, it is not clear that any sexual activity disqualifies one from this category. Esth 2:19, Ezek 23:3-8 are the primary mitigating contexts, with the cognate material contributing to the uncertainty. Perhaps one’s sexual reputation is more at issue. In such a case rape or prostitution eliminate the possibility of a girl being considered a b°riild. Consequently, it is preferable to speak of the girl as being reputable. This would assume no wanton behavior. Given these categories, our conclusion is that b©tilad should be identified as a social status, defining someone as “an ostensibly reputable young girl who is past puberty and is, by default at least, still in the household of her father.” In Joel 1:8 we assume that the marriage has not been consummated and the woman is therefore still

782

mana# 1435) technically in her father’s household (cf. H. W. Wolff, Joel and Amos, tr. W. Janzen et al., Hermeneia,

1977, 30). Likewise, the young women

in Esther do not cease to be

b°ralot until they are officially given a place within the king’s harem. Job’s claim that he has not looked upon a b°tiild is maintaining that he has never considered any action that would ruin a girl’s reputable status. Even the Aram. spell of the barren wife may suggest that she has not achieved secure or permanent status in her husband’s household until she has borne a child. Overall, the cognate usage is in close agreement with this description, which is substantiated by the details of Middle Assyrian Law A55: “(If someone) took by force and dishonored a man’s (daughter), a batultu, (who was dwelling in her father’s house), whose (body?) had not been soiled, who had not been (forcibly?) deflowered and not married (betrothed). . . (Wenham, 329; ANET, 185). Epithetical usage. Epithets, by their very nature, must be considered in isolation

from the rest of the semantic field. Epithets tend to represent frozen forms and may, as such, fail to offer a reliable guide to the current usage of the word. Additionally they may be applied in an honorary, idealist, or even patronizing spirit. The Canaanite goddess Anat is most frequently given the epithet bt/t in the Ugar. texts. Though she is the consort of Baal, she is also his sister and so is still technically within the household of

her father, El. She is a goddess of war, whose bloodshed is wanton but whose sexual conduct is not addressed in the literature. Anat is poorly attested in the literature. For more information see A. Kapelrud, The Violent Goddess: Anat in the Ras Shamra Texts (1969), and U. Cassuto, The Goddess Anath (1971).

There are allusions to the beauty and fertility of Anat, but no preserved text clearly depicts her as giving birth to offspring. However, Anat can be viewed as a fertility goddess in this sense: she is Baal’s partner, zealous for his cause, aiding him, and by her defeat of Mot, enables Baal to come back to life (W. A. Maier III, “Anath,” ABD 1:226). Consequently,

the Ugar. epithets cannot serve to inform the details of our study.

The use of b°tild as an epithet for a city is understandable within the general framework of the definition offered above. A city that is politically reputable and under the guardianship of its people or gods could be so described. So Israel’s status as a b°tald is compromised by her unfaithfulness to Yahweh (Jer 18:13-14; 31:21). The lexical relationship between b°tild and ‘almd is that the former is a social status indicating that a young girl is under the guardianship of her father, with all the age and sexual inferences that accompany that status. The latter is to be understood with regard to fertility and childbearing potential. Obviously there are many occasions where both terms apply to the same girl. A girl ceases to be a b°tild when she becomes a wife; she ceases to be an ‘alma when she becomes a mother.

In the theological discussion it has at times been suggested that if Isa 7:14 intended to make reference to a virgin, the prophet would have used the word b‘rild. However, if the woman is already pregnant (Walton, 290-91) or is one of the women from Ahaz’s harem, the term b‘tiild would hardly be suitable. The m. pl. form, b°tilim typically occurs as the nom. abstraction for the social status detailed above (Lev 21:13; Judg 11:37-38). “Adolescence” is inadequate as a translation, but is closer than the other Eng. alternatives. In a context such as Judg 11, “virginity” is certainly to the point, but that is a contextual decision, not a lexical

783

pn 1438) mandate. Further clarification is necessary for Deut 22:14-20. The use of the pl. abs. form in the husband’s accusations could certainly be understood as nom. abstractions. But the const. pl. forms used by the parents (vv. 15, 17, also the construction in v. 20) refers to material evidence of her status as a b°tiild, which v. 17 identifies as a garment

(Simla). Wenham’s interpretation that this is a garment worn recently by the girl showing menstrual stains, thus proving that she was not pregnant, is plausible (334-36; but see P. C. Craigie, Deuteronomy, NICOT, 1976, 292-93). Youth:

> bahir I (young man, # 1033);

> btdld (young girl, # 1435);

> n° ‘trim (youth,

# 5830); > ‘“limim (youth, # 6596); > sa ‘irI (little, small, young, trifling, #7582);

> gaton

(small, trifling, young, # 7785); > Sah*rit (dark hair, prime of youth, # 8841) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 2:338-43; T. Wadsworth, “Is There a Hebrew Word for Virgin?” ResQ 23, 1980, 161-71; J. Walton, “Isa 7:14—-What’s in a Name,” JETS 30, 1987, 289-306; G. J. Wenham, “B°tulah ‘A

Girl of Marriageable Age’” VT 22, 1972, 326-48. John H. Walton

1436 (b°tiilim, adolescence), > # 1435

1438

pna

(M3 (big), pi. slaughter (# 1438).

ANE The Heb. vb. btq is apparently cut off (CAD B, 161-65), although because it is found also in other Sem. also in Arab. and Eth. with essentially

an Akk. loanword from the well-attested bataqu, one could question that it is an Akkadianism languages (see Greenfield, 220 n. 21). It occurs the same meaning (HALOT 167b).

OT This vb. occurs only 1x in the HB: “They will bring a mob against you, who will stone you and hack you to pieces (btq) with their swords” (Ezek 16:40, referring to lewd Jerusalem as an adulterous woman). The proposed emendation of baré’, cut down, in Ezek 23:47 to battoq, slaughter (HALOT 154a and 167b) seems unnecessary (Zimmerli, 480). Offering, sacrifice: > ‘azkarda (sign-offering, #260); > ’is‘eh (offering by fire, #852); > ‘asam (guilt offering, # 871); > zbh (slaughter, sacrifice, #2284); > hattda’at (sin offering, # 2633); — tbh (slaughter, #3180); — minha (gift, present, offering, sacrifice, # 4966); > ma“Seér (tithe, #5130); > ndr (make a vow, # 5623); > nwp I (move back and forth, wave, #5677); > nsk I (pour out, be consecrated, libation, #5818); > ‘o/a I (burnt offering, # 6592); > ‘“risd (meal/dough offering, #6881); > gorban (offering, gift, #7933); > Sht I (slaughter, # 8821); > Selem (settlement sacrifice, # 8968); > tamid (regular offering, #9458); > rama

(tribute, contribution, #9556); Levites: Theology

> Aaron: Theology;

BIBLIOGRAPHY J. C. Greenfield, “Lexicographical Hermeneia 1, 1979.

Notes

I,” HUCA

> Offering: Theology; > Priests and

29, 1958, 228; W. Zimmerli,

Ezekiel,

Richard E. Averbeck

784

“3 (# 1439)

1439 halves (# 1440).

LL

“WN (btr), q. cut into pieces, half; pi. cut into pieces (# 1439); nom. 1D (beter I), pieces,

ANE

Arab. batara/matara, cut off; Eth. matara.

OT

1. The vb. is used twice. In the pi. it refers to Abraham’s cutting up of the

heifer, goat, and ram into halves (Gen 15:10) in the covenant (b°7it, treaty, # 1382) rit-

ual. Interestingly the q. of the vb. is then used to declare that he did not cut up the birds. The pi. was evidently factitive in nature. The pieces, the result of the cutting (btr), were then arranged opposite each other. 2. The nom. beter also refers to the two halves of a calf cut up in a ritual in Jer 34:18-19, where the people were possibly vainly imitating the ancient ritual of Gen 15. The persons passing through the pieces would possibly receive the fate of the slain animals, for they had defiled the Lord’s covenant (Jer 11). These pieces (b°tarim) could

probably be thought of as pieces of flesh for a religious offering. P-B

The LXX translates the vb. with diaireod, divide, cut in two.

Cutting, destruction, extermination, shearing, trimming: ~ bs‘ (cut away, get gain, cut off, break up, #1298); > br’ II (clear out trees, cut, destroy, # 1345); > btr (cut into pieces, # 1439); > gd‘ (cut short, # 1548); > gzh (bring forth, # 1602); > gzz (cut, shear, # 1605); > gzrI (cut, take away, # 1615); > grz (be cut off, # 1746); > gr‘ I (cut out, reduce, # 1757);

— hip UI (cut through, pierce, #2737); > ksh (cut, cut down, # 4065); > krsm (make cropped, trimmed off, #4155);

> krt (cut, cut off, exterminate, cut a covenant, circumcise, #4162);

> melqahayim (snuffers for trimming/cleaning of lights/lamps, # 4920); > ngp I (cut/chop down, destroy, #5937); > nth (cut in pieces, #5983); > gsb (cut off, shear, #7892); > Ssp (hew into pieces, #9119); > tzz (cut away, # 9372)

Eugene E. Carpenter

1440 (beter I, pieces, halves), > # 1439

785

TiS] (# 1448)

1447 (gé’, proud), > # 1448

TNA (g’h), q. rise up, be exalted (# 1448); TNA i AR: (gé’a), nom. pride (hapleg. in Prov 8:13) (# 1449); TN} (gé’eh), adj. proud (# 1450); 718) (ga’“w4), nom. rising, majesty, pride (# 1452); PN (ga@’ dn), nom. pride, majesty, exaltation (7 # 1454); NINA (ge az), nom.

rising, majesty, pride (# 1455); 82 (gé’), adj. proud (hapleg. in Isa 16:6, which may be a scribal error for Nias in the identical clause in Jer 48:29) (# 1447); TVNSI(ga’“y6n), adj. proud (hapleg. in Ps 123:4; # 1456); 1113 (géwd), nom. pride (# 1575). ANE In Aram. and Syr. this root means to be high, exalted. Akk. ga’iim, be presumptuous. Ugar. g’n, pride (2 Aqhat VI:44; VT, no. 548; TDOT 2:344). Punic has the phrase “the exaltation/magnificence (g’h) of Bel” (DISO, 46) while Egyptian has the corresponding form (q3y), be high. OT 1. The root is used with the literal sense of plants rising up and growing tall or thick (Job 8:11; Jer 12:5; 49:19; 50:44; Zech 11:3 [ga’6n]), of water rising up to a great depth (Ezek 47:5), and of smoke rising up in the sky (Isa 9:18[17], ge’at). The root occurs in a rhetorical question by Bildad, “Can papyrus grow tall where there is no marsh?” (Job 8:11). The question obviously has a negative answer, 1.e., eventually they will wither and die, and, thus, Bildad can continue, “Such is the destiny of all who for-

get God” (v. 13). “Man’s action and God’s retribution operate in the moral sphere as surely as cause and effect in the world of nature” (Gordis, 90). The literal and figurative meanings are combined in Job 10:16, where the literal

lifting up of the head is a sign of pride (bowing the head is a sign of submission). A similar situation is found in passages that describe God’s sovereign rule over the rising/raging/proud sea (Ps 46:3[4]; 89:9[10]. NIV renders Job’s words in Job 10:16a as,

“Tf I hold my head high, you stalk me like a lion.” This translation requires emending the Heb. text, which has not a first person vb. but a third person vb. (“he is proud, he holds his head high’). Most recent commentators

on Job (Gordis,

114; Pope, 81;

Hartley, 188) prefer to change the MT wyig’eh to w°’ge’eh, “proudly, you hunt me like a lion.”

786

TN (# 1448) 2. ga’on has a positive connotation in reference to the majesty or glory of Israel’s land in the past (Ps 47:4[5]) and in the future restoration period (Isa 4:2; 60:15;

Nah 2:2[3]). The land of Babylon also had a beauty or glory, but that resulted in pride and the eventual destruction of the nation (Isa 13:19). For the expression g°’6n hay-

yardén, > # 1454.

3. When used to describe God, this root and its derivatives refer to his majesty or excellence. This term is not used in conjunction with the external shekinah glory of God, but refers to God’s majestic power that was revealed through his acts of redemption (i.e., the deliverance of Israel from Egypt through the sea) when all earthly foes were powerless before him (Exod 15:1, 7, 21). The expression “he is highly exalted,” or, “he hath triumphed gloriously” (KJV) (ga’6h ga’d) in Exod 15:1, 21 is part of Moses’, Israel’s, and Miriam’s song of praise to God for his deliverance of them at the

sea from the pursuing Egyptians. (~ Song of the Sea: Theology) God is exalted in his gracious acts of salvation, deliverance, and preservation.

The phrase forms a parallellism with a later phrase in the song, v. 7, “in the greatness of your majesty (ga@’6n) you threw down those who opposed you.” God’s unique majesty is displayed when he subdues his enemies with the sword (Deut 33:26), sovereignly rules over Israel (Ps 68:34[35]; 93:1; Mic 5:4[3]), and controls nature with his voice (Job 37:4). At times God swears by himself or by his holiness (Amos 4:2; 6:8),

so it is not surprising that he swears by himself as the majestic, exalted one of Jacob (8:7). On the Day of the Lord the splendor of God’s majestic power will be revealed and the pride within people will be humbled (Isa 2:10), for the exalted position belongs to God alone (2:19, 21). The wicked do not recognize the exalted position or majestic power of God (Isa 26:10), but on the day of salvation many will glorify him (24:14-15), give thanks for his wondrous deeds, and declare his exalted name among the nations (12:5). Although there is seldom a direct reference to God’s kingship over the world in these passages, that kingship is a fundamental part of Isaiah’s theological understanding of the exalted nature of God (6:1-5). 4. Pride is a fundamental attitude of self-sufficiency because of which a person throws off humility and pursues selfish desires. In pride a person rejects the need for dependence on God or his laws and despises moral or social limitations that regulate behavior according to the highest good for others. In Wisdom literature the proud are contrasted with the humble (Job 40:11; Prov 16:19; 29:23; > #6700), and a proud. attitude is the opposite of fearing the Lord (Prov 8:13). Pride is evil and leads to destruction (Prov 15:25; 16:18; 29:23). Elihu believed that one of the reasons why God

did not answer prayer was because of an attitude of pride (Job 35:12-13). In hymnic texts the proud are the wicked who oppress the righteous (Ps 10:2). Their opposition is expressed as lies, scoffing, and words of contempt for the faithful followers of God (17:10; 31:18[19]; 59:12[13]; 123:4). The faith of the righteous is

demonstrated in their laments, where they ask for God’s protection from the proud (36:11[12]), express their confidence in his deliverance, and rest secure knowing that he will bring his judgment on them (31:23[24)]). In prophetic literature proud people include both foreigners and Israelites.

Although the foreign nations are not accountable for all the laws of the covenant, God does hold each of them responsible for acts of selfish pride. Pride could develop because of military power (Egypt’s problem in Ezek 30:6) and great wealth (as in Tyre, 787

TIS] (# 1448) Isaiah 23:9), and it expresses itself in idle boasts and excessive bragging (Moab’s sin in Isa 16:6; Jer 48:29; Zeph 2:10). Arrogance is often accompanied by affluence, careless ease, and failure to help the poor (Sodom’s condition in Ezek 16:49). Pride can lead to ruthlessness (as in Babylon, Isa 13:11; 14:11). The proud rulers of these nations will be brought low (Isa 25:11; Ezek 30:18; 32:12; 33:28; Zech 9:6; 10:11), and all the arro-

gant will be abased on the day of God’s judgment (Isa 2:12). The self-confidence of the proud was based on their own ability, militarily and financially, to control their own lives and the lives of others. The proud felt they did not need to trust God or follow his instructions because they could now determine their own destiny. When God establishes his kingdom over the nations of the earth, there will be no arrogance; its citizens

will be humble people who do not lie with their lips (Zeph 3:11). Arrogance was also a problem in Israel and Judah. God abhorred the arrogance of the Israelites who lived in luxury in their palace-fortresses and ignored the plight of the poor (Amos 6:8). Pride is particularly devastating because it prevents people from knowing God and returning to trust him (Hos 5:4-5; 7:9-10). Surprisingly, even the holy temple became an object of pride and trust (Ezek 7:20, 24). The people came to trust in it (like a charm) rather than in the God who lived within the temple. Every source of pride will be removed, even God’s own temple (Ezek 24:21). 5. The derivatives of g’h have the meaning of proud, pride, majesty (gé’eh, proud; ge’d, pride; ga’“w4, pride, majesty; ga@’6n, height, exaltation; gé’ait, majesty): “The LORD Almighty has a day in store for all the proud (gé’eh) and lofty (ram)” (Isa 2:12). Most interesting is Jer 48:29, “We have heard of Moab’s pride (g°’6n)—her overweening pride (gé’eh) and conceit (gobhéd), her pride (g°’6nd) and arrogance (ga’“wat6) and the haughtiness (rim) of her heart.”

P-B The main words that translate these Heb. terms in the LXX are hybris and hyperéphania. These get at the main meanings of the root g’h when it is used to describe the arrogance and pride of humankind, although hybris probably introduces an element of violence that is frequently not a part of the Heb. root (TDNT 8:300). Where this Heb. root describes the majesty, splendor, or excellency of God, the LXX will translate the term glory of God. For the NT usage of this root, see zyd (# 2326). Arrogance, pride, presumption: ~ g’h (rise up, be exalted, # 1448); > zyd (act presumptuously, prepare food, #2326); > yahir (haughty, #3400); — sil (lift up, exalt, #6148); > ‘pl (swell, lift up, #6752); > ‘atag (old, arrogant, #6981); > phz (be reckless, arrogant, # 7069); > rwm (be high, exalted, proud, # 8123); > Sahas (pride, # 8832) Height: > g’h (rise up, be exalted, #1448); > gbh (be high, exalt, be haughty, # 1467); > géwd I (pride, # 1575); > ns’ (lift, raise high, pardon, bear, exalt 0.s., #5951); > sil (lift up, exalt, # 6148); > rwm (be high, exalted, proud, # 8123) BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 2:344-50; THAT 1:379-82; TDNT 8:295-307; TWOT 1:143-44; G. Bertram, “Hochmut und verwandte Begriffe im griechischen und hebraischen Alten Testament,” WO 3, 1964, 32-43: A. R. Ceresko, “A Rhetorical Analysis of David’s ‘Boast’ (1 Sam 17:34-37): Some Reflections on Methodology,” CBQ 147, 1985, 58-74; R. Gordis, The Book of Job, 1978; D. E. Gowan, When Man Becomes God: Humanism and Hybris in the Old Testament, 1975; M. Gula, “Sin: The Arrogance of Power,” Reconciliation 1, 1987, 63-83; J. E. Hartley, The Book of Job, NCOT, 1988; P. Humbert, “Démesure et chute dans |’ Ancien Testament,” Hommage a Wilhelm Vischer,

788

VINA

1454)

1960, 63-82; R. Knierim, Die Hauptbegriffe fiir Siinde im Alten Testament, 1965; M. H. Pope, Job, AB, 1973; N. H. Snaith, “The Snare of Pride,” ExpTim 165, 1954, 345-46. Gary V. Smith/Victor P. Hamilton

1449 (gé’d, pride), > #1448 1450 (gé’eh, proud), > # 1448

1452 (ga’“wa, rising, majesty, pride),

> # 1448

1453 (g°’iilim, redeemed), > # 1457 1454

iN? T1832 (ga’6n), height, eminence, pride (# 1454), i used for vegetation always in the expression g°’6n hayyardeén, thicket of the Jordan (k°béd ya‘ar in Isa 10:18); < 783 (g’h, rise up, be exalted, > # 1448).

ANE

Ugar. gan, pride (KTU 1.17:6:44).

OT

1. The term refers to the splendor (cf. TDOT 2:347) of the southern region of

the Jordan (Zor; cf. Y. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible, 1979, 33-34) with its lush vege-

tation where lions lurked. In Jer 12:5 the prophet is challenged to endure greater hardships (running through the thick jungle of the Jordan) in his ministry for God and not complain about his own suffering or troubles. 2. The motif of the lion coming from the thicket occurs in prophetic oracles of judgment against Edom and Babylon (Jer 49:19; 50:44). Like a lion coming from the thicket Yahweh will attack the sheep (viz., Edom and Babylon). It is also used in connection with Israel: in a taunt-song against the proud leaders, probably the priests around 500 BC (R. L. Smith, Micah-Malachi, WBC, 1984, 267), the lions roar because

the Jordan thicket as symbol of pride is destroyed (Zech 11:1-3). Forest, park, thicket: ~ ga’dn (height, eminence, #1454); — horeS (forest, woodland, #3091); > ya‘arI (forest, wood, #3623); > s*bak (thicket, #6019); > pardés (park, forest, # 7236) BIBLIOGRAPHY

BRL”, 357; M. Har-El, “The Pride of the Jordan, the Jungle of the Jordan,” BA 41, 1978, 65-75. I. Cornelius

1455 (gé’ it, rising, majesty, pride), > # 1448 1456 (ga’“yon, proud), > # 1448

an

on

ox (g’l), q. to redeem, deliver, ransom;

redeemed,

delivered

(#1457);

n. be

D548}

(g°’alim), nom. redeemed (# 1453); MPN} (g°’ulld), nom., right and duty of redemption (# 1460).

ANE Except for the Amorite personal name Ga’ ilalum, this root only occurs in Heb., so its meaning must be inferred entirely from that usage. The name g’/yhw occurs on a

789

989 (# 1457) seal impression from Beth Zur, but it may have a scribal error and perhaps should be read as gdlyhw. g’I1 I has no connection with g’/ II, to make (cultically) unclean, a byform of the root g‘l. 1. In legal contexts. The root g’/ (q. and n.) and its nom. derivatives, gd’él and OT ge’ulld, primarily represent technical legal terminology of Israelite family law. More than half their occurrences concentrate in legal instructions (Lev 25; 27; Num 35; Deut 19), many others in topically related narratives (Josh 20; Ruth 4; Jer 32). The root’s use

elsewhere probably derives from its original legal usage and still retains that original legal nuance. (a) Lev 25 instructs Israel concerning the redemption of family property (vv. 25-28), houses (vv. 29-34) and relatives in difficulty (vv. 47-49). Babylonian law has a similar redemption provision, although unlike Heb. g’/, Bab. vb. pataru also treats ran-

som beyond the family circle (e.g., of slaves, prisoners). The OT’s view of redemption, however, has theological roots unique to Israel. Yahweh actually owns the land, while Israel merely has it on loan (v. 23). That owner’s policy provides for the redemption of property to restore it to the family originally owning it (nom. g°’ulld) rather than permit its permanent sale to outsiders (vv. 23-24). Further, the redemption of enslaved

Israelites derives from the Exodus (vv. 42, 55): to enslave people liberated by Yahweh from Egypt not only infringes on his rights (that act made them his servants) but also in effect reverses the Exodus. This theology undergirds the treatment of the following specific cases of redemption. (i) If an Israelite sells some property to survive financially, his nearest relative the nom. close relative (so also Num 5:8; 1 Kgs 16:11 [NRSV the next of kin]; cf. g°’ulla, Ezek 11:15 [NIV blood relatives; NRSV your fellow exiles]), and the q. vb.

means specifically to buy back (property previously sold) and thereby return it (Swb q. and hi.; v. 28) to its original owner. Also, any poor Israelite who somehow acquires the funds may repurchase it himself (vb. q., vv. 26-27). In v. 26 the nom. g°’ulld specifically denotes the act of redemption or repurchase. (ii) Lev 25:29-34 treats the redemption of houses. Anyone who sells a house in a walled city has the right of redemption (g°’u/ld) for one year from the date of sale (v. 29). If it is not redeemed (vb. ni.) in that period, the new owner may keep it permanently even past the next Jubilee (v. 30). Houses in unwalled villages, however, may be redeemed (vb. ni.) at any time and must be returned to their original owner (or presumably his family) at the next Jubilee (v. 31). Perhaps the law regards inhabitants of unwalled villages as somehow more vulnerable to homelessness than urbanites and, hence, in need of permanent protection. The same principles of redemption (nom. g°'ulla and vb. q.) apply to houses mortgaged in cities of the Levites (vv. 32-33). In both cases the redeemer probably kept and used the house until the next Jubilee as compensation for his financial outlay. Presumably, it then returned to the family originally owning it. (iii) An Israelite who sells himself as a slave because of poverty still retains the right to redemption (nom. g°’ulld, v. 48). One of his brothers, an uncle, a cousin, or

another blood relative may redeem him (vb. q.; vv. 48-49). If he obtains the means, he may also redeem himself (vb. ni., v. 49). No matter who pays, the parties are to calculate the price of redemption (nom. g°’ulld) in light of the years remaining to the next

790

O89 (# 1457) Jubilee (vv. 50-52). If enslaved Israelites are not redeemed (vb. ni.) by any of the above

means, they automatically go free at the next Jubilee (v. 54). (b) Lev 27 instructs that offerings dedicated to God may be may be bought back (vb. q.) by the original offerer by paying the original price plus twenty percent. This principle applies to offered animals (v. 13), houses (v. 15), land (vv. 19-20), or tithes (v. 31). In these cases to redeem is to buy back into one’s own possession something whose ownership had been in effect transferred to God. Strikingly, this context does not use g0’él to designate the one who redeems, probably because, unlike Lev 25, the

redeemer here is the one who gave up ownership originally, not a relative who intervenes on his behalf. The vb. ni. occurs in prohibitions that forbid redemption of fields already sold to someone else (v. 20), of any item already subject to the ban (hérem, v. 28), and of animal tithes in a state of holiness (v. 33). Unredeemed unclean firstborn animals (vb.

ni.) may be sold at the going rate plus twenty percent (v. 27). (c) Instructional texts concerning the law of asylum (Num 35; Deut 19; Josh 20)

treat a special family duty. If a relative is murdered, the go’él haddam, avenger of blood (usually the son of the deceased), has the duty to kill the murderer or a member of the latter’s clan (Num 35:19). In essence this redeems the blood of the dead clans-

man, that is, it restores the clan’s equilibrium and wholeness disrupted by the murder. If the killing was accidental, however, the killer may find protection from the avenger in one of the designated cities of refuge (Num 35:12, 22-25; Deut 19:4-7; Josh 20:2-3, 5, 9; see also the parable in 2 Sam 14:11). (d) The narratives in Ruth 4 and Jer 32 handle aspects of redemption not found

in Lev. Some scholars interpret Ruth 4 as an example of levirate marriage (cf. Deut 25:5-10), but the use of g’/ and its derivatives seems to portray Boaz’s acquisition of Elimelech’s ancestral land and the widow Ruth as his wife as redemption, not levirate

(> Levirate Marriage: Theology). Initially, Naomi identifies Boaz as a go’él or kinsman redeemer (2:20), i.e., a

close relative under obligation to help the widows. That obligation also justifies Ruth’s marriage proposal to Boaz (3:9), although the OT nowhere else identifies marriage to a relative’s widow

as part of the redeemer’s duty. The union cannot occur, however,

until Boaz gets another go’él to cede his prior redemption right to Boaz (vb. q., 3:12-13; 4:1, 3, 4, 6; 2°’ulld, v. 6), a concession symbolized by the passing of a sandal

(v. 8). Since no money apparently changes hands, it is uncertain whether redemption here means actually to buy back by purchase or simply to take possession of by exercising the right of first refusal. Probably Boaz merely took over the right rather than actually bought it (> ‘zr, help, support, find help [#6468]; ‘ézer I, help support [# 6469]; ‘ezra I, help, support [# 6476]). Unlike other usage, in Ruth 4:4 the vb. [q.] lacks a direct object and, hence,

means to perform the kinsman’s duty. The inseparable redemption of both land and widow is also unique to Ruth, apparently aiming to restore the unity of descendants and ancestral property. Ruth 4 also marks the only place where go’él identifies a newborn (v. 16), but again the context enriches our understanding: the redeemer’s duty also includes the care of elderly relatives in their old age (v. 14; cf. 15). The nom. g¢°’ulld designates the redemption custom in general in 4:7, the right of redemption, in v. 6. In Jer 32:7-8 it means the right of first refusal since rather than

791

Os(# 1457) buy back family property at Anathoth, the cousin sells it to the prophet to keep ownership within the family. (e) The root’s family background probably underlies its use in 1 Kgs 16:11. That Zimri’s slaughter left Baasha without a single male relative (g0’él) may also imply that there was no one to avenge his assassination or assert his claims to the Israelite throne. 2. Yahweh as go’él. OT texts of various genres portray Yahweh as the divine go’él who, like his familial counterpart, helps those who have fallen into need.

(a) Several authors picture the exodus from Egypt as the paradigmatic act of redemption. When Yahweh commissions Moses, he promises miraculously to redeem (vb. q.) Israel from slavery (Exod 6:6). The context marks this redemption as the rescue of people unjustly enslaved by decisive military means, not as the release of slaves by purchase. Later, Israel’s victory song affirms their identity as the people whom Yahweh redeemed (vb. [q.]), i-e., rescued from terrible oppression (Exod 15:13).

(b) Isaiah 40-66. Yahweh is also the g6’él par excellence in this section of Isaianic literature. One salvation oracle eases puny Israel’s fear by promising her redeemer’s might to help them do miracles (41:14-16). Several times g6’él forms a title within the prophetic messenger formula, implicitly invoking Yahweh’s long-established credentials as Redeemer. The title lends credibility to God’s announcement of Israel’s liberation from Babylonian prison (43:14; 48:17), his exclusive claim to fore-

tell the future through his prophets (44:6, 24), and his faithfulness to Israel’s election (49:7). Yahweh’s identity as Redeemer reassures Israel that, as a compassionate husband, he will take back his wife (Isa 54:5, 8) and that, as guardian of justice, he will

come to the repentant in Zion (59:20). It also gives certainty to the prophet’s taunt song about Babylon’s future humiliation (47:4-5). Given Babylon’s might, Yahweh’s incredible rescue of Israel will even enhance his reputation as Redeemer (49:26) and

result in greater glory for Israel (60:16). Part of a communal complaint (63:16) likewise appeals to Yahweh as Israel’s ancient Redeemer to end their present punishment. By recalling the first Exodus in many of the above texts (e.g., 43:16-21), the prophet portrays future events as a new exodus, which frees Israel from slavery and restores them to their rightful, original owner.

In Isa 40-66 the vb. q. occurs almost exclusively in the so-called prophetic perfect, thereby underscoring the certainty of the announcements made. In Isa 43:1 g’/ has a more narrow, specifically commercial, sense (cf. vv. 3-4), ie., Yahweh redeems by swapping Egypt, Ethiopia, and Seba to reacquire exiled Israel from captivity (but see 45:13). When Yahweh announces his redemption of Israel from the Exile (44:22), Israel will sing a joyous song of praise (v. 23) or themselves gladly announce it (48:20). Since both the above cases concern Israel as Yahweh’s servant and opens the way for Israel’s return, here g’/ retains its ancient sense of repurchase (or at least reacquisition) from slavery.

Similar singing will break out when the ruins of Jerusalem also experience their future eschatological redemption (Isa 52:9). The prophet’s retrospective review of Yahweh’s praiseworthy deeds includes his redemptive return of Israel (63:9). By joining g’/ to the motif of Yahweh’s carrying them as children (vv. 8-9), the prophet again 7192

ON (# 1457) subtly seems to evoke the metaphor of the redemption of children from indentured servitude. (c) The Psalms also employ both the vb. (q.) and the nom. One psalmist appeals to Yahweh as Redeemer for protection (Ps 19:14[15]), in context, for rescue from dom-

ination by pride and sin through careful observance of the law (cf. v. 13[14]). Psalm 78’s didactic review of Israel’s wilderness rebellion recalls how distressed Israel remembered her Redeemer, i.e., the one who freed her from Egypt (v. 35; cf. 77:15[16]). Another psalmist pleads to be rescued from apparent legal difficulties (119:54). (d) In several texts the vb. q. seems to have the broad sense of to save or rescue

from harm, most with the prep. min. Dying Jacob’s poetic blessing wishes that the same angel who redeemed (i.e., rescued) him from danger may similarly protect Joseph’s two sons (Gen 48:16). In retrospect poets affirm Yahweh’s redemption (i.e., deliverance) of Israel from her enemies (Ps 106:10; Hos 13:14), as well as individuals from deadly disease (Ps 103:3-4), enemies (Lam 3:58), and all kinds of trouble (Ps 107:2-3). Two prophets reckon Yahweh’s future return of Israel from exile as redemption (Jer 31:11; Mic 4:10). Another psalmist petitions Yahweh for escape from accus-

ing enemies (Ps 69:18[19]). Though less certain, Yahweh

as rescuer may subtly

underlie Job 3:5. If so, Job’s curse asks that terrible darkness lay claim to (vb. q.) his birthday rather than have Yahweh rescue it from that doom (cf. v. 4).

(e) Three wisdom texts picture Yahweh as the Redeemer (g6’é/), who legally defends his people as the human g6’é/ does a relative. Prov 23:10-11 protects the property of orphans from illegal encroachment by warning that Yahweh himself will defend them in court—and obviously win! Interestingly, a prophetic prose oracle applies this proverb to Babylon’s refusal to let Judah go home from exile (Jer 50:34). In this case, to redeem means to free from prison by asserting the prisoner’s presumed rights, with the result that the earth will enjoy restored rest (i.e., its normal wholeness). Finally, in

his now familiar affirmation of confidence, Job affirms Yahweh as the ultimate lawyer who will eventually intervene to protect Job’s legal rights (Job 19:25). 3. In Ps 72:14, the psalmist affirms that Israel’s king conforms to the common

ancient oriental ideal of redeeming (i.e., delivering) a poor subject from legal oppression by restoring to the person a right taken from him. 4. Besides the seven occurrences in Leviticus (see above), the only other vb. ni.

appears in Isa 52:3, a poetic oracle of salvation. It pictures exiled Israel as a slave to be redeemed, not by monetary purchase but by Yahweh’s intervention.

5. The Isaianic corpus portrays Yahweh as redeemer (g6’é/) and Israel as the recipient of his redemption (nom. g°’dlim, redeemed). In two oracles of salvation, the nom. describes those who experienced the first Exodus, the paradigm of those who will experience the second (Isa 51:10-11), and those returning to Zion from Exile along a special, danger-free highway (35:9). In both cases a return home means the restoration of a lost, original wholeness, thus reflecting an essential semantic aspect of g’/ evident above. An oracle of assurance (62:12) promises Israel a new name, “the Redeemed of

the LORD,” symbolic of their salvation and reward. Though problematic, in Isa 63:4 g°’tilay seems to mean my redeemed ones (cf. us/them, v. 7; my people, v. 8; contra NRSV redeeming work; NIV blood avenger).

7193

59(# 1458) A liturgy of thanksgiving appeals to the redeemed of Yahweh to speak of their redemption (Ps 107:2). In context, redemption refers to Yahweh’s deliverance of indi-

viduals from danger while traveling, imprisoned, and sick. P-B

The LXX renders g’! principally with lutroomai or rhuomai but not with s6z6

(for minor variations, see THAT 1:393). For gd’él haddam LXX has ho anchisteuon (to

haima, but genitive in Deut and 2 Sam 14:11), to specify the one exercising the duty of the nearest relative. The root occurs on coins from the first Jewish revolt with the sense to set free, liberate. At Qumran, only gd’él occurs (CD 14:16), meaning nearest relative. NT Rom 11:26 quotes Isa 59:20-21, including the G part. rhuomenos, deliverer. The word alludes to Christ, the one who preserves Israel from ultimately losing the eternal salvation that God has promised them. Salvation, deliverance, ransom, rescue: ~ g’/ I (redeem, deliver, ransom, # 1457); > ys‘ (be victorious, receive help, save, rescue, # 3828); > mit I (get to safety, escape, deliver, give birth to, # 4880); > ns/ (rescue, # 5911); > pdh (ransom, redeem, deliver, # 7009); > pit (save, bring

to safety, #7117); > Srd (run away, escape, #8572); prosperity, health, salvation, # 8934)

> sal6m (peace, friendship, happiness,

BIBLIOGRAPHY TDNT 4:328-35; 6:1002-3; TDOT 2:350-55; THAT 1:383-94; TWOT 1:144-45; R. Hubbard, Jr., The Book of Ruth, NICOT, 1988; idem, “The go’él in Ancient Israel: The Theology of an Israelite Institution,’ BBR 1, 1991, 3-19; A. Jepsen, “Die Begriffe des Erldsens’ im Alten Testament,” Solange es “Heute” heisst, FS R. Hermann,

1957, 153-63; R. Kessler, “‘Ich weiss, dass mein

Erloser lebet’: Sozialgeschichtlicher Hintergrund und theologische Bedeutung der Léser-Vorstellung in Hiob 19, 28,” ZTK 89, 1989, 139-58; J. Stamm, Erldsen und Vergeben im Alten Testament, 1940, 31-46, 87-105; D. Thomas, Documents of Old Testament Times, 1958, 223-24; J. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, NICOT, 1980; G. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT,

1979. Robert L. Hubbard, Jr.

1458

ae

On (g’l If), vb. ni. be defiled; pi. desecrate, defile; pu. be defiled; hi. stain (# 1458); ON

(g6’al), nom. defilement (# 1459).

ANE The consensus of opinion is that g’/ II (ALOT 169b) is a byform of g’1/, loathe (HALOT 199b; cf. the remarks in TDOT 3:46 and the discussion of etymology under gl, #1718). OT 1. The vb. g’/ II occurs 11x or 12x in the OT, depending on how one reads Job 3:5a, “May darkness and deep shadow claim it (i.e., the day of Job’s birth) once more.” Like the NIV translation, HALOT (169b) reads g’/ I, redeem, reclaim as one’s own (> # 1457), but Even-Shoshan (216a) puts it under both roots with (?) in front of the

entry in this vb. shadow ation of 794

both places. If we read g’/ II it would be the only occurrence of the q. form of and would probably be rendered something like, “May darkness and deep defile it once more” (see Dhorme [26] for this proposal and the negative evaluhis proposal in Clines, 69-70).

ON(# 1458) This vb. can be used of the actual physical ritual defilement of one’s garments by shedding blood (Isa 63:3, referring to the Lord’s defiling his garments by taking vengeance for Israel against her enemies; cf. Num 31:19), or a combination of the physical with the metaphorical sense of defiling oneself, hands, or garments with blood through the corruption of one’s office in Israel (Isa 59:3; Lam 4:13-14, prophets and priests; and Zeph 3:1 referring to Jerusalem’s princes, prophets, judges, and priests, cf. vy. 2-4). Mal 1:7 and 12 refer to the Jews’ defiling the Lord and his table by bringing defiled food there. Daniel requests that he not be forced to defile himself by the unclean foods offered to him in the royal court at Babylon (Dan 1:8, 2x). Finally, in the

return from the Exile the priests whose genealogical right to the priesthood could not be confirmed by the records were considered defiled and, therefore, excluded from the

priesthood until it could be confirmed by Urim and Thummim that they were qualified to be priests (Ezra 2:62; Neh 7:64). For a full discussion of the issues surrounding defilement see tm’, unclean, (# 3237).

2. The nom. gd’al occurs only 1x: “Remember them, O my God, because they defiled the priestly office (lit., upon the defilements of the priesthood) and the covenant of the priesthood and of the Levites” (Neh 13:29). The cultic context argues for a physical ritual defilement. P-B__In the Qumran sectarian literature g’/ II is used 3x (possibly 4x). The Temple Scroll requires that wine, oil, and other foods be brought to the temple in the skins of

animals that had been sacrificed at the temple. Thus, “they shall not defile my temple with the skins of their abominable offerings which they will sacrifice in their land” (11QTS 47:13-14; Yadin 2:204). The War Scroll exhorts the priests who blow the

trumpets in battle to stay at a safe distance lest they be made unclean by the warfare blood of defilement (1QM 9:8; Vermes, 114; see Isa 63:3 above; cf. Num 31:19). The

Manual of Discipline warns the community members that even the dust defiled by an impure man defiles one who touches it (CD 12:16; Vermes, 96).

NT _ For adiscussion of impurity in the NT see tm’, unclean (# 3237). With regard to g’l II in particular, the LXX uses several different roots to render this term in the OT, but the most common is alisg6, pollute. The root occurs only 1x in the NT (as a nom. alisgéma)

in the Jerusalem

Council

letter to the Gentile believers in the churches,

instructing them to, among other things, “abstain from food polluted by idols” (Acts 15:20). Uncleanness, defilement, pollution: > g’/ II (be defiled, desecrate, stain, # 1458); > Anp I (be godless, be defiled, #2866); — tm’ (be/come ceremonially unclean, defile 0.s., desecrate,

# 3237); > piggil (unclean meat, # 7002) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 3:45-48; D. J. A. Clines, Job 1-20, WBC,

1989; E. Dhorme, Job, 1967; G. Vermes, The

Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 3d ed., 1987; Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll, vols. 1-2, 1983. Richard E. Averbeck

1459 (gd’al, defilement), > # 1458

1460 (¢°’ulld, right & duty of redemption), > # 1457 795

33(# 1461) 1461 OT

alr]

=3 (gab I), back (# 1461).

The basic meaning of the word is “elevated, curved” (HAHAT!8, 191), “any-

thing convex, curved” (BDB, 146; see also Murtonen, 52). The resultant meanings that

occur in the various Sem. languages (see HAHAT'®, 190-91) can be explained from this basic idea. The word has a variety of meanings connected with the idea of a “curved back.” It refers to the back itself. Ezek 10:12 speaks of the “backs” of the cherubim being full of eyes, just as the rest of their bodies are. A poetical use is found in Ps 129:3, where Israel says of her enemies, “Plowmen have plowed my back and made their furrows long.” The word refers to the “eyebrows” (a curved formation of the body) in Lev 14:9 and to the “rims” of wheels in the description of the movable bronze stands in Solomon’s temple in 1 Kgs 7:33. It refers to “the convex projection” of a shield, the “thick, strong shield” in Job 15:26. It refers to “mounds” used as altars for the carrying out of cultic prostitution in Ezek 16:24, 31 (see Zimmerli, Ezechiel, BKAT, 1:359; especially U. Winter, Frau und Gottin, 1983, 611-12, picture # 353). Back: > gab I (back, #1461); > mipsa‘a (buttocks, # 5156)

> gibbén

(hunchbacked,

#1492);

> gaw

1979,

(back, # 1567);

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Murtonen, Hebrew in Its West Semitic Setting, Section Ba: Root System: Hebrew Material, 1988. Cleon L. Rogers, Jr.

1463

24

= (géb I), nom. cistern (# 1463); N2A (gebe’),

nom. cistern, pool (# 1465).

ANE The Heb. root gbb is related to the Akk. gubbu, cistern, and Aram. gdb, den or pit (Dan 6:7[8], 12[13], 16-17[17-18], 20, 21, 24, 25).

OT 1. The word géb occurs in two verses (2 Kgs 3:16; Jer 14:3). Full cisterns represent God’s blessing, while empty cisterns signify God’s judgment. 2. The term gebe’ occurs in Isa 30:14 and Ezek 47:11. Ezekiel’s reference is to the marshy area along the Dead Sea, “But the swamps and marshes will not become fresh; they will be left for salt.” In this case, the fullness of the huge pool is a sign of God’s blessing. Cistern, well, pool, reservoir: > b°’ér I (well, #931); > bér (cistern, well, grave, # 1014); > b®réka (pool, #1391); > géb I (cistern, # 1463); > mikal (reservoir, # 4782); > miqweh (accumulation of water, # 5224) Mud, mire, swamp: ~ bds/bissd (swamp, # 1288/1289); > dlh (trouble [water], # 1931); > fit

(mud, mire, clay, # 3226); > yawén (mud, # 3431); > rps (trample, # 8346) Fountain, spring: > mabbak (spring, # 4441); > ma‘yan (spring, #5078); # 5227); > nb‘ (bubble, #5580)

> magér (spring,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ISBE 1:702; TDOT 2:463-66. Bryan E. Beyer

796

ria (# 1467) 1464 (géb II, unexplained [NIV beams]), > # 1215 1465 (gebe’, cistern), > # 1463 1466 (gébd, locust),

1467

> #746

= 55

m2] (gbh), q. to be high, exalt, be haughty; hi. to lift up, exalt; (#1467); M32 (gabéah), nom.

haughtiness, courage (# 1468); 723 (gaboah), adj. high, lofty (# 1469); 33 (gdbah), nom. height, pride (# 1470); N73

(gabhiit), nom. haughtiness (# 1471).

ANE This root is found once in Ugar. (El exalts the moon-god, RS 24.258, 4), and in the Aram. Ahikar (the loud [high] voice of the king, in line 107). Hentschke (TDOT

2:356-60) and HALAT do not connect this root with the Akk. gab’u (height), derived from the WestSem. root gb‘, because of the improbability of a change from the consonant he to ‘ayin. The Arab. root gabaha (lit. high forehead) can have the figurative meaning of being proud and is likely related to this root (BDB; HALAT; but against this see Hentschke).

OT 1. The vb. is used (34x) in the contexts of sparks rising high in the sky (Job 5:7), an eagle flying high (Job 39:27), the heavens as being high above the earth (Ps 103:11; Isa 55:9), a man of high stature (1 Sam 10:23), or making a high wall (2 Chron 33:14). The noms. godbah (used 18x) and gabhiit (used twice) have the literal sense of “height” to describe people, trees, mountains, or the parts of the future temple (1 Sam 17:4; Ezek 19:11; 40:42; 41:8, 22; Amos 2:9). The adj. gaboah (found 36x) usually refers to the height of a hill/mountain (places of idolatry), wall, tower, or some other object (Gen 7:19; Deut 3:5; 1 Kgs 14:23; Isa 2:15).

2. The figurative use of the vb. can refer to God’s exaltation of kings to a social and political position high above all other people (Job 36:7; Ezek 21:26[31]). In Eccl 5:8[7] the high one seems to be a person of high status, an official of the government, who has a higher one, God himself, watching over his administration of justice. Pride

precedes a person’s downfall (Prov 18:12). God’s exaltation high above all proud people will be established on the Day of the Lord, when he demonstrates his holiness (Isa 5:16). God’s exaltation of the suffering servant will come because he will humble himself and give his life for the sins of many (Isa 52:13). People can lift up God’s reputation and honor him by worshiping him and repudiating the exalted position that some give to other gods (2 Chron 17:6). Exalted positions of power are not inherently evil; the problem comes when undeserving objects or persons are exalted, or when exalted people see their position as a self-serving opportunity rather than a gift from God for the purpose of service. God desires that his people give glory to him and not be haughty (Jer 13:15). 3. Negative usages of this root explain how people inappropriately lift themselves up to exalted positions by claiming power and authority over circumstances that are beyond their control. Military strength can lead to the proud attitude that one can do anything one desires (Uzziah thought he could take the role of a priest and sacrifice in the temple, 2 Chron 26:16;

> #6460), but the proud can humble themselves and avoid

God’s judgment (cf. Hezekiah, 32:25-26; > #2624). Riches led to arrogance for the women of Jerusalem (Isa 3:16), the people of Sodom (Ezek 16:50), and the king of

797

rial (# 1467) Tyre (28:5). The righteous are not proud (Ps 131:1). The arrogant will not be included in God’s kingdom (Zeph 3:11). In one unusual case God ironically challenged Job to put on loftiness or majesty so that he might be able to instruct God and show him how to rule the earth with justice (Job 40:10). 4. Like the vb., the related adj. gabdah (“high, haughty”) and the nom. gdbah (“height, haughtiness’”) have both a spatial and ethical meaning. For instance, the adj. may be used to describe a tall tree (Ezek 17:24), a high tower (Isa 2:15), an imposing mountain (Gen 7:19), or a person tall in stature (1 Sam 9:2). Similarly, the nom. is used to describe the height/top of a tree (Ezek 19:11; 31:10, 14; Amos 2:9), the dwelling of God in the heights of heaven (Job 22:12), and Goliath’s giant stature (1 Sam 17:4). But the adj. and nom. frequently have an ethical/moral thrust, usually negative. The adj. gaboah (“haughty”) is used in conjunction with one’s mouth (1 Sam 2:3), eyes (Isa 5:15), heart (Prov 16:5), and human spirit (heart, Eccl. 7:8 NIV). Also the nom. gobah is used with the heart (2 Chron 32:26), the human spirit (Prov 16:18), and one’s facial features (Ps 10:4). The arrogant attitude is an abomination to the Lord (Prov 16:5) and

precedes a person’s destruction (16:18). 5. Ps 10:4 presents some problems for translators. Dahood (Psalms, AB, 1:62) reads not the nom. gdbah but the adj. gaboah, and takes it as a divine appellative: “Since the ‘Lofty One’ will not avenge his anger, God will not upset his plans,” words used by the wicked to emphasize God’s removal from and indifference to the happenings on earth. Dahood finds the same title for Yahweh in Ps 138:6b, “though he is the ‘Lofty One,’ he knows from afar off’ (NIV’s “but the proud he knows from afar’’), and in Job 22:12, “Isn’t God the “Lofty One’ of heaven who sees the top of the stars though they are high?” (cf. NIV’s “Is not God in the heights of heaven? And see how lofty are the highest stars!’’). 6. The OT draws attention to the higher than average height of Saul (1 Sam 9:2; 10:3) and Goliath (1 Sam 17:4), the only two in the OT whose height is highlighted. Both are tall, imposing individuals, and in the case of the latter also intimidating. However, we discover later that big Saul has no desire to engage huge Goliath in battle. David cannot wear Saul’s armor for it is too large for him, he who is dwarfed by Saul. Later, Samuel is about to anoint Eliab, son of Jesse, as Saul’s successor until God inter-

venes and tells him not to consider his stature, “Do not consider his appearance or his height (gobah), for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart” (1 Sam 16:7). The heart rather than the height is the crux of the matter. 7. In Ezek 28 the judgment speech addressed to the ruler of Tyre (vv. 1-10) is followed by a lament (vv. 11-19). In the judgment speech the prophet castigates this pagan ruler for his attempt at self-deification. In the lament he depicts the ruler as an Adam, the first being on earth. The twofold emphasis of commendation allows Gowan (91) to say: “The Hebrew view of man is thus profoundly humanistic: tremendously enthusiastic about the man God made and the gifts God gave him. But it is also profoundly theistic, for the Israelite was convinced there is one thing man cannot do, and that is replace the God who made him.” Three times (vv. 2, 5, 17) the vb. gbh is used in reference to the “uplifted/proud” heart of the ruler of Tyre.

798

M32 (# 1477) P-B Since this root frequently has the literal meaning of high or height, the LXX translates it hypsos “height, top,” or hypsélos “high, lofty, proud,” which includes the metaphorical sense of arrogance. Height:

~ g’h (rise up, be exalted, # 1448);

> gbh (be high, exalt, be haughty, # 1467);

> gewa I (pride, # 1575); > ns’ (lift, raise high, pardon, bear, exalt 0.s.,

#5951); > sil (lift up,

exalt, # 6148); > rwm (be high, exalted, proud, # 8123) Arrogance, pride, presumption: ~ g’h (rise up, be exalted, # 1448); > zyd (act presumptuously, prepare food, # 2326); > yahir (haughty, #3400); > sil (lift up, exalt, #6148); > ‘pl (swell, lift up, #6752); > ‘atag (old, arrogant, # 6981); > phz (be reckless, arrogant, # 7069); > rwm (be high, exalted, proud, # 8123); > Sahas (pride, # 8832)

BIBLIOGRAPHY TDNT 8:295-307; TDOT 2:344-50; 356-60; THAT 1:379-82, 394-97; TWOT 1:143-44 (g’h); G. Bertram, “Hochmut und verwandte Begriffe im griechischen und hebraischen Alten,” WO, 1964, 32-43; A. R. Ceresko, “A Rhetorical Analysis of David’s ‘Boast’ (1 Sam 17:34-37): Some Reflections on Methodology,” CBQ 147, 1985, 58-74; D. E. Gowan, When Man Becomes God: Humanism and Hybris in the Old Testament, 1975; R. M. Gula, “Sin: The Arrogance of Power,” Reconciliation 1, 1987, 63-83; P. Humbert, “Démesure et Chute dans |’Ancien Testament,” Hommage a Wilhelm Vischer, 1960, 63-82; N. H. Snaith, “The Snare of Pride,’ ExpTim 165,

1954, 345-46.

Gary V. Smith/Victor P. Hamilton 1468 (gabéah, haughtiness, courageous), > # 1467

1469 (gabdah, high, lofty), > # 1467 1470 (gobah, height, pride), > # 1467

1471 (gabhat, haughtiness), > # 1467 1473 (g°bil, boundary, border, territory), > # 1487 1474 (g°biald, boundary, border, territory), > # 1487 1475 (gibbér, manly, powerful, brave, valiant, vigorous, despot, hero), > # 1504

1476 (g°bird, strength, powerful deed), > # 1504

#1478).

1477

ne,

M31

(gibbéah),

adj.

bald

in

the

forehead

(# 1477); MMDI (gabbahat), nom. bald forehead

The nom. occurs only in the five passages where garahat, bald spot, appeared, OT including the difficult Lev 13:55. The adj. in Lev 13:41 is in the same context. For a discussion of baldness, see grh, shave bald (# 7942). Baldness, shaving: > gibbéah (bald in forehead, # 1477); > mit I (be bald, #4881); (pull out hair, hairless, # 5307); > qrh (shave bald, # 7942)

> mrt

Robert L. Alden

T9

72°33(# 1482) a

SSS

SS

1478 (gabbahat, bald forehead), > # 1477 1479 (gdbay, locust), > # 746

ee ANE

Men

.

712°33(g°bina), hapleg. nom. cheese (Job 10:10),

(# 1482).

Cognates of g°bind appear in Aram., Arab., and as a WestSem. loanword gub-

natu in Akk. (AHw, 295). Milk, milk products: > g°bind (cheese, # 1482); > halab (milk, mostly from goats, # 2692); ~> hem’G (curdled milk, butter, #2772); > haris I (slice, piece of cheese, # 3043); > § pot (curds, # 9147) J. P. J. Hannes Olivier

Before the second return trip home to Canaan by Joseph’s brothers, Joseph had his silver cup, gabia‘, put into Benjamin’s sack (Gen 44:2). When the men left, Joseph commanded his steward to overtake them and to accuse them of stealing the valuable cup Joseph used for both drinking and divining (v. 5). Although augury or interpreting omens was subsequently strictly forbidden as a pagan custom (Lev 19:26; Deut 18:10), no law on divination was as yet promulgated in Joseph’s day. Did the narrator of Gen 44 consider the custom harmless and consonant with faith in Yahweh? The technique of divining by means of a goblet is well known from the ancient world. The practice took various forms, including the employment of water, oil, or wine. The practitioner professed to be able to interpret either the surface patterns formed when a few drops of one liquid were poured onto another or the movement of small objects floating on or sinking in a fluid. The aim of the exercise was to determine the future, locate the source

of trouble, or apportion blame or credit (e.g., Gen 30:27). The practice is not so distant from moderns who read the arrangement of coffee grounds or tea leaves in a cup, and who watch the shapes of molten lead or wax as it cools after being poured into water on New Year’s Eve. Basin, bowl, jug, jar: > ““gartal (bowl, basin, #113); > gabia‘ (cup, # 1483); > kad (jar, # 3902); > kés I (cup, goblet, bowl, # 3926); > kl? (vessel, container, receptacle, # 3998) Edwin C. Hostetter

1484 (bir, lord, master), > # 1505 1485

>

ny

1732 (g°bird), lady, mistress, queen mother (# 1485); N34 (g°beret), lady, queen, mistress (# 1509); < IDA (gbr), accomplish, excel (> # 1504). ANE There are no words cognate to Heb. g“bird/g°beret in other Sem. languages, but there are terms that express some of the same nuances. For example, the Hittite term tawananna, “queen mother,” refers to a lady who in the Hittite Old Kingdom period was a religious functionary, but who in the later period of the Hittite empire took on

800

T7739(# 1485) nonreligious functions, e.g., social, political, and economic (Bin-Nun). There is also a

parallel between g“bird and Ugar. rbt/rabitu, “queen mother” (Gordon). Thus, one encounters frequently the phrase rbt atrt ym, “Lady Asherah of the Sea.” Asherah is wife of El, yet while he is called milk, she is never called mlkt, queen, but only rbt, great lady. Compare CTA 6, i:43-46, a text dealing with the necessity of finding a new king to replace the deceased Baal, the king of the gods: (43) gm ysh ’il (44) Irbt ’atrt ym Sm‘ (45) Irbt ’a[trt] ym tn (46) ’ahd b bnk ’amlkn, (43) El shouts aloud (44) to the Rabitu, Asherah of the Sea. “Hear (45) ‘O Rabitu Asherah of the Sea! Give (46) one of your sons so that I may make him king.’”

OT 1. Never in the historical books of the OT is the wife of a king called malké, queen. Rather, the woman referred to in connection with the chief lady of the royal court is the mother of the crown prince, who eventually would be queen mother. 2. There are nineteen queen mothers named in the Bible. One is from the time of David (Bathsheba, 1 Kgs 2:19), one is a northerner (Jezebel, so styled by Judaeans in 2 Kgs 10:13), and the remaining seventeen are from Judah.

3. Such queen mothers are identified in a stereotypical phrase, an example of which is 1 Kgs 14:21: “Rehoboam son of Solomon was king in Judah.... His mother’s name was Naamah; she was an Ammonite.” Consistently the two individuals identified

in introducing a royal reign are the king and his mother. 4. The queen mother, in some instances, was called a g°bird. Cf. 1 Kgs 15:13 (= 2 Chron 15:16), where Maacah is stripped of her status as g°bird by Asa because of her idolatrous practices (Jer 13:18; 29:2; cf. 2 Kgs 10:13). Similarly, in 1 Kgs 11:19 Pharaoh gave the sister of Tahpenes, who is Pharaoh’s g“bird, as spouse to the Edomite prince Hadad. Is Tahpenes Pharaoh’s “wife” (NIV) or “chief wife”? If g°bird here refers to “wife,” it is the only time g°bird would have that meaning. Note that Egyptian distinguishes between hm.t, “wife” and hmt.t wr.t, “great wife,” i.e., the chief woman in his harem, and possibly a role filled by Tahpenes. 5. Based on the above, it appears that the g°bird was queen mother not in any European sense, but in the sense that she was the chief lady (Heb. g@bird, Akk. rabitu, Egyp. m.t wr.t) in the king’s harem, who could bear the crown prince. After the death of her own royal husband, she became queen mother.

6. Apart from producing her husband’s heir, were there any other responsibilities for the g“bira? Scholarly discussion has gone along three routes: (1) the e°bird/queen mother did not have any institutionalized position within the monarchy, though a few of them exerted considerable influence merely through the force of their personalities (Ben-Barak); (2) the g“bird/queen mother was an officially recognized lady counselor, like Lemuel’s

mother, who counsels her royal son in Prov 31:1-9

(Andreasen); (3) the g“bird/queen mother had an official role in the cult (Ackerman). 7. Other meanings for g°bira/g°beret besides queen mother are “mistress” (in relation to maidservant [Gen 16:4, 8, 9; 2 Kgs 5:3; Ps 123:2; Prov 30:23; Isa 24:2]) and “female ruler, queen, governess” (Isa 47:5, 7). Female:

> ’is34 (woman,

> na“ra I (girl, (lady, # 8721)

#851);

~ g°bird/g°beret

(lady, queen,

mistress, # 1485/1509);

#5855); > n°qéba (female, # 5922), > pileges (concubine, #7108); > Sidda

~ b‘] I (marry, rule over, own, #1249), Kingship, rule, supervision, dominion: > g°birdlg°beret (lady, queen, mistress, # 1485/1509); > ykh (dispute, reason together, prove,

801

W331 (# 1486) ee

ee

EE

EE

judge, rule, reprove, # 3519); > kbs (make subservient, subdue, # 3899); > mlk I (rule, # 4887);

> mil II (tule, govern, #5440); > nsh (supervise, #5904); > rdd (repel, subdue, # 8096); + rdh I (tule, govern, # 8097); > r‘h I (feed, graze, shepherd, rule, #8286); > Srr I cule, direct, superintend, # 8606); > Sit (gain power, # 8948); > Spt (get justice, act as a judge, rule, # 9149) BIBLIOGRAPHY

S. Ackerman, “The Queen Mother and the Cult in Ancient Israel,” JBL 112, 1993, 385-401; N. A. Andreasen, “The Role of the Queen Mother in Israelite Society,” CBQ 45, 1983, 179-94; S. Arbeli, “Maacah, the Queen Mother (g®birdh) in the Reign Time of Abiah and Asa, and her Removal,” Shnaton 9, 1985, 165-78; Z. Ben-Barak, “The Status and Right of the G*birda,” JBL 110, 1991, 23-34; S. R. Bin-Nun, The Tawananna

in the Hittite Kingdom,

1975; C. H. Gordon,

“Ugaritic RBT/RABITU,” in Ascribe to the Lord, FS P. Craigie, 1988, 127-32; G. Molin, “Die Stellung der G%bira im Statte Juda,” TZ 10, 1954, 161-75; P. H. de V. Uys, “The Term g®bird in the Book of Proverbs,” OTWSA 11, 1968, 83-85. Victor P. Hamilton

; wrod

1486

Hala (gabis), Gey mee rock crystal (#1486), only Job

OT The NIV translates this word as jasper, and the NEB reads alabaster, while the JB and the NRSV read crystal. Note the variant form kapis (with Phoen. cognate kps, stucco-work) in Hab 2:11 (NIV = “stones of the wall”) and ’elgabis (with Akk. cognate algameSu, sleet, ice-crystals) in Ezek 13:11, 13; 38:22 (NIV “hailstones”’). Rock, stones: > ’eben (stone, rock, #74); > gabi§ (rock-crystal, # 1486); > hallamis (flint, # 2734); > hasas (gravel, #2953); — kép (rock, #4091); > sdheret (mineral stone, # 6090); > sela‘ (rock, #6152);

(pebble, flint, # 7447);

> sql (throw stones, # 6232); > sirI (rock, boulder, # 7446); > sir II

> sorI (flint knife, # 7644); > rgm (stone, # 8083); > talpiyyét (courses

of stones, # 9444) Andrew E. Hill

pct (gbl 1), denom. vb. q. to bound, to border;

hi. to set bounds around (# 1487); 5933 (g°biil), boundary,

border,

territory (# 1473);

112123 (g“bila),

boundary,

border, ‘territory

(# 1474); na} (gablut), welding together (> # 1491); nibs (migbalét), chains (Exod 28:14; > #4456).

ANE

It is debatable

whether there are cognates. There

are, however,

geographic

names that bear a connection with gb/. The region of Edom, known as Gebal, is mentioned (Ps 83:7[8]). Gibal is a place-name in Arab.; the Akk. Gubla is Byblos (Ezek 27:9).

OT

1. There are five occurrences of the verbal form. God directs (hi.) that bound-

aries be set at Mount Sinai prior to the theophany, in order that the place be holy (Exod 19:12, 23). Within the laws it is prohibited to move the property boundary stone that had earlier been established (Deut 19:14). The remaining two instances deal with forming territorial boundaries (Josh 18:20; Zech 9:2). The suggestion by BHS, in light of the 802

523 (# 1487) LXX and other versions, is to read a hi. part. magbil instead of migg®biil at Ezek 47:18, 20. Other conjectural readings are listed in HALAT 166 (cf. Josh 13:5; 1 Kgs 5:32[18]). 2. The nominal forms, which occur more than 250x, are used to describe boundaries of the land or territories that God set aside for the tribes of Israel in the books of Joshua (e.g., Josh 12:2; 16:2-8) and Ezekiel (e.g., Ezek 47:15; 48:28). The words are also used of the precincts of a city or town (Num 35:27), the closed area of the temple (Ezek 40:12), or the wall of restored Zion (Isa 54:12). Because the land (> Land) belongs to God (Lev 25:23), he has the right and responsibility to divide and rule it. It is God who enlarges the border (Deut 12:20).

3. God’s

creative and providential

activity included

setting the boundary

beyond which the deep, or the waters, could not pass (Ps 104:9; Jer 5:22). Ps 74:17 describes God’s ordering of “all the boundaries of the earth,” including the sea, the sea-

sons of the year, and day and night. These acts demonstrate that God is King over the earth (74:12) and give assurance to the believer that God is in control of our world.

4. Yahweh is described as setting up “boundaries for the peoples,” generally (Deut 32:8). Although the preponderance of God’s activity in establishing or enlarging boundaries is in relation to the people of Israel (Exod 23:31; 34:24; Deut 12:20; 19:8;

Josh 22:25 [and all the setting of boundaries in Joshua]; 2 Kgs 14:25), Yahweh’s ordering activity (making boundaries) involves all aspects of creation—the earth and seas, threatening forces, and nations. Thus, both familial and national borders belong to Yahweh’s ordering sphere of influence. Two prophetic criticisms suggest that not only familial borders, but also national borders, ought to be preserved and honored (Isa 10:13; Amos 1:13).

5. The extent of Israel’s land, its borders, is variously stated. Geographical boundary terminology is not evident in all the texts that develop the notion of boundary, but in Israel’s historical memory, its own boundaries are not unambiguously defined (cf. Num 34:1-12; Deut 1:6-8; 3:12-20; 11:24; Josh 1:3-4; 13:8-12; Judg 20:1).

The issue is raised in Josh 22, the narrative in which the Transjordanian tribes build an altar “on the border (el mil) of Canaan” near the Jordan River (22:10-11; g°bil refers to the Jordan in 22:25). The text addresses several theological concerns: (a) the cleanness or uncleanness of the land east of the Jordan, which God gave to the tribes of

Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh; (b) the identity of Yahweh’s land; (c) the appropriate place of service to Yahweh; and (d) the unity of the Israel (see Jobling; Polzin). In this

regard, Yahweh’s gift of land stands in tension with the gift of the same land to the nations on the west and east side of the Jordan (see Deut 32:8). Although God gave land to each nation, that nation could be removed from it and its land given to another nation. The narrative of Josh 22 suggests that the Jordan was more of a symbolic

boundary than an explicitly geographical boundary. 6. The combined verbal and nominal usage of gb/ is found in the instruction not to remove the boundary stones, which, as markers, were set up by the ancestors (Deut 19:14). The prohibition is restated in Prov 22:28 (cf. 23:10; Job 24:2-4). God declares

himself to be the protector of such boundary stones, as in the case of widows (Prov 15:25). The seriousness of any violation is evident from the curse pronounced on violators (Deut 27:17) and the implied coming of divine wrath (Hos 5:10). Border, boundary,

# 2312);

— kanap

corner, edge, rim:

(wing,

~ gb/ I (bound, border, # 1487);

skirt, outermost

edge, #4053);

> karkob

> zawit (corner,

(rim, edge, #4136);

803

m33(# 1491) + mhhIl (border on, #4682); > swg IL (border by, #6048); > pé’a I (corer, # 6991); ~ pinnd (corner, #7157); > sad (side, #7396); — séla‘ I (side, rib, side-chamber, # 7521); ~ gés (limit, boundary, #7891); > gdseh (end, border, #7895); > qs‘ II (made with corners,

# 7910) BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABD 4:143--54; TDOT 2:361-66; Y. Aharoni, “The Northern Boundary of Judah,’ PEQ 90, 1958, 27-31; G. W. Buchanan, The Consequences of the Covenant, 1970, 91-109; D. Jobling,

“The Jordan a Boundary: Transjordan in Israel’s Ideological Geography,” The Sense of Biblical Narrative: Structural Analyses in the Hebrew Bible II, JSOTSup 39, 1986; Z. Kallai, “The Southern Border of the Land of Israel—Pattern and Application,” VT 37, 1987, 438-45; N. Na’aman, Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography, JBS 4, 1986; R. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, 1980, 73-145; M. Weinfeld, “The Extent of the Promised Land—the

Status of Transjordan,”’ in Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit: Jerusalem-Symposium 1981, Gottinger theologische Arbeiten 25, 1983, 59-75; C. J. H. Wright, God’s People in God’s Land: Family, Land, and Property in the Old Testament, 1980, 44-70; G. E. Wright, “Boundary and Province Lists of the Kingdom of Judah,” JBL 75, 1956, 202-26. Gordon H. Matties

149]

167a; > #1487), OT

nba

as

naa

(gablut),

interwoven,

twisted

work

(#1491); < 923 (gbi ID, weld together (HALAT

The phrase Sars6t/Sars°rét gablut occurs twice in Exodus, in the instruction in

28:22 and in the corresponding fulfillment passage of 39:15 (Sars°rd, > #9249). In both places it refers to the way the gold chains attached to the high priest’s breastplate (pouch: U. Cassuto,

A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, 1967, 377) are woven or

twisted together like cords (A. R. S. Kennedy, “Breastplate of the High Priest,’ HDB 1:319). Both the Sam. Pent. and LXX (Exod 28:22, 36:22) represent the term in the plural. These twisted chains may or may not be considered part of the breastplate itself (see M. Noth, Exodus: A Commentary, 1962, 223-24). They are not described or commented upon in other passages that refer to the breastplate or apparently use its richly symbolic set of jewels, as in Ezek 28:12-14 or Rev 21:19-20. Chain, fetter: — ’sr (bind, imprison, fetter, hitch, #673); > zég I (chain, fetter, # 2414); > harsob (chain, fetter, #3078); > kebel (shackle, #3890); > migbalét (chains, # 4456); > mahpeket (stocks, #4551); > mosér (fetters, chains, #4591); > sad (stocks, shackles, #6040); > phh (be captured, chained, # 7072); > rtq (be bound, #8415); > Sars*rd (chain, # 9249) :

Intertwining, twisting: ~ gablut (interwoven, twisted work, #1491); branches, # 8449); > srg (intertwine, #8571); > srk (twist, # 8592)

> sébek (tangle of George J. Brooke

,

1492

”

ee

{24 (gibbén), hunchbacked (only in Lev 21:20;

# 1492),

ANE Attested in Syr. as nom. g°bina’, brow, and adj. ¢®bin, hunched. A model of an

Egyptian with a pronounced spinal kyphosis (Pott’s disease) caused by tuberculous 804

MYDI 1496) spondylitis was recovered from the Old Kingdom period tomb of Mitri at Saqqarah. The replica was made of plaster, and was painted brown to simulate wood. OT A hapleg., gibbén occurs in Lev 21:20 as one of the deformities sufficient to disqualify a man from the priesthood. The reason is that the priest or Levite, like a sacrificial animal, must be as close to a physically perfect specimen as possible since he was being given over to God and his service (J. Hartley, Leviticus, WBC 4, 1992, 349-50). Handicaps,

disfigurement,

blind, lame, stammer,

speechless:

~ ’illém

(speechlessness,

#522); > gibbén (hunchbacked, # 1492); > hariis IV (mutilation [animal], #3024); > heres (speechless, # 3094); > ksh (be lame, crippled, #4171); > mim (blemish, #4583); > mixhat (disfigured, #5425); > nakeh (crippled, smitten, #5783); > ‘wr I (be blind, # 6422); > ‘illég

(stammering, stuttering, # 6589);

> psh (be lame, crippled, # 7174); > sl‘ I (limping condition, > sr‘ (deformed, mutilated, # 8594); > 1°ballul

#7519); > qlt I (defective [animal], #7832); (white spot in eye, # 9319)

R. K. Harrison/E. H. Merrill

1493 (gabnén, many-peaked [mountains]), > #2215

1496

mwa

M53 (gib‘a I), nom. hill, height (# 1496).

ANE Also in Middle Hebrew and Jewish Aramaic, and cognate with the rare Assyr. term gab’u, height. OT 1. In more than half its occurrences, gib‘d is used in association or in parallel with har, though it covers a narrower range of meaning than har. The geographical features to which gib‘d refers are generally lower as to height and more easily accessible than those described as a har, even though several passages emphasize the height of a gib‘d (Isa 2:14; Jer 49:16). A significant proportion of occurrences are found in the prophetic literature, often in an eschatological context describing either imminent judgment (Jer 4:24; Zeph 1:10) or blessings that will stream from the hills (Isa 30:25; Joel 3:18[4:18]; Amos 9:13). 2. In contrast to har, gib‘d is rarely used for places where Yahweh revealed himself or was worshiped (Exod 17:9-10 is a rare exception). Even Abinadab’s house on a hill where the ark rested was probably once a Canaanite sanctuary (1 Sam 7:1; 6:3). The one phrase in which gib‘d regularly appears without har is in condemning Israel’s idolatry “on every high hill and under every green tree” (e.g., Deut 12:2; Jer 2:20). This phrase confirms that gib‘d is primarily associated with pagan worship, particularly in the preexilic period. Mountain, hill, high place: > bama (cultic high place, # 1195); > gib‘a I (hill, # 1496); > har #2215); > y°rékd (thigh, rear portion of mountain, #3752); > nép (height, (mountain, hill, # 5679); > m®sdd (stronghold, #5711); > ‘wz (take refuge, # 6395); > ‘lh, go up, ascend, bring up, #6590); > sir I (rock, boulder, #7446); > sapdn I (north, #7600); > rwm (be high, exalted, proud, # 8123); > Sgb (be high, fortified, protect, # 8435) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 3:227-47. Martin J. Selman

805

Waa (# 1504) 1497 (gib‘a I, Gibeah), > Gibeah 733 (gbr), q. be strong, accomplish, excel, swell,

fates a rise, prevail be superior; pi. strengthen, make excel, superior; hi. make strong; hitp., show oneself mighty or superior to; behave/act with defiant hostility, show oneself insolent, proud (# 1504); 33 (gibbér), adj. manly, vigorous, powerful, brave, valiant; nom. hero, despot (# 1475); M7133(e°bird), nom. strength, powerful deed (# 1476). ANE. The root gbr is found in most of the Sem. languages (Kosmala, In all occurrences save for Eth. (where it means do, make), the emphasis and strength and often on excellence and superiority as well (Kosmala, In Akk. gab/paru occurs with the meaning overcome, subdue, vanquish, jugate,

overpower,

overwhelm;

vie/contend

with.

The

Arab.

TDOT 2:367). lies on power TDOT 2:367). conquer, sub-

gabara

V

means

behave/conduct/deport oneself with strength. The Arab. gabbar means all-powerful. The nosis nom. forms also occur with the meaning strength: Jewish-Aram. eobir’ ta’; Syr. gabrita’; Arab. gubrit, gabarit (cf. Akk gabbaru/gabru, strong). OT

The vb. occurs either 24x (Kosmala, TDOT 2:367) or 25x (NIVEC, 1407). 1. The q. means be strong, but is also used in a comparative sense with the meaning be stronger than, superior to, exceed, prevail over (Kosmala, TDOT 2:368). (a) The ancestral blessings surpass (gab°rii ‘al, lit., they are stronger over, i.e., exceed) the majesty and fertility of the Ephraimite hills (Gen 49:26; May and Metzger, 65 [following LXX and emending héray ‘ad, my progenitors unto, to har“ré ‘ad, mountains of eternity; on this, see Bennett, 402; Driver, 1916, 393; Skinner, 531-32; Spence and Exell, 529; Herbert, 157; Speiser, 369; Westermann, 1986, 220, 241; BHS; pace Hertz, 187. For other interesting interpretations, see Hamilton, 682-83, n. 19]).

(b) Although the birthright was transferred from Reuben

to Joseph (Gen

49:22-26; Deut 33:13-17), Judah surpassed all his brothers in strength and became

prominent/achieved preeminence among his brothers (gabar b°’ehayw, lit., he was strong among his brothers [NIV has “was the strongest of his brothers”]) and became the forefather of a prince (a reference to David) (1 Chron 5:2). Here, the Chronicler identifies three levels of priority among Jacob’s sons: the biological (the firstborn, Reuben), the legally nominated elder (Joseph), and the one who grew superior to his brothers and wielded actual authority (Judah) (Japhet, 133). (c) In his moving elegy over his heroic comrades slain in battle (2 Sam 1:17-27), David describes Saul and Jonathan as swifter than eagles (v. 23; cf. Deut

28:49; Prov 23:5; Jer 4:13; Lam 4:19; Hab 1:8) and stronger than lions (v. 23; cf. Judg 14:18; 2 Sam 17:10), two comparisons that convey exceptionally swift and powerful movement and formidable strength (Baldwin, 1988, 180).

(d) In a searing indictment of the adultery, duplicity, dishonesty, mendacity, and cruelty (Green, 69; cf. Carroll, 238-39; D. R. Jones, 164) of his incorrigibly corrupt people (Jer 9:2-9[1-8]), Jeremiah laments in v. 3[2] the fact that his fellow citizens have grown strong in the land for falsehood and not for truth (so NRSV); or that it is not by truth that they triumph in the land (NIV); or that falsehood and not truth has grown strong/holds sway/prevails in the land (so RSV; NEB; REB; JB; TEV; Bright, 67; Thompson, 307; Carroll, 237-38; McKane, 1986, 199-200; following LXX in

806

“33 (# 1504) preference to MT’s “their bow is false and not for truth have they grown strong in the land’). (e) A wise man is adjudged to be mightier (reading, with LXX, the vb. gabar rather than MT’s nom. geber, man) than one who is strong (reading, with LXX, mé ‘Gz, than a strong man, for MT ba ‘6z, in [the] strength), and a man of knowledge than one

who is physically powerful (reading, with LXX, mé’ammis-koah, than one strong of power, for MT m*’ammes-kéah, one strengthening power [pace Martin, 150; Tate, 1972, 76; McKane, 1970, 248; NIV]) (Prov 24:5). Intellectual ability is more effective than brute strength (Cox, 196-97).

(f) The vb. is often used in the sense of prevailing over. When Yahweh created a catastrophic flood by simultaneously opening the windows of the heavens and causing the subterranean waters to surge upwards (a reversal of the creation process [Maher, 68]), the waters prevailed (RV; RSV; Spence and Exell, 118-19; Cassuto, 92-94, 97; Hertz, 29; Kline, 89) mightily upon the earth (Gen 7:18, 19, 20, 24—-Wenham, 150 has “triumphed”; Westermann, 1987, 389, 438, has “mounted”; JB has “rose”; NIV has “rose” in vv. 18, 19, and 20 and “flooded” in v. 24; NRSV has “swelled”; NEB has “swelled” in v. 18 and “increased” in vv. 19, 20, and 24; REB has “swollen” in v. 18 and “increased” in vv. 19, 20, and 24; and TEV has “became

deeper” in v. 18, “became ... deep” in v. 19, and “went on rising” in v. 20). Just as God can make a person grow and become strong as a result of his blessing, so, too, he can

make the flood grow and become strong so as to destroy life as a result of his curse (Westermann, 1987, 438).

The vb. is often used in a military context for success in war. During the battle against Amalek, Moses stood on the summit of a hill with the rod of God (a symbol of power and victory associated with wonderful deliverances, notably that at the Reed Sea) (Exod 17:9). Whenever he raised his hand(s), the Israelite army led by Joshua prevailed (gained the advantage [JB; NEB; REB; Childs, 310]; started winning [NIV; TEV]), while on those occasions when, through fatigue, he lowered his hand(s), Amalek prevailed (v. 11). It has been thought that the raising of the hand(s) was an appeal to God for intercession (Dummelow, 64-65; Driver, 1953, 159; H. R. Jones,

130; Cole, 136-37). Some think that Moses was raising the rod and that the rod was a standard or an ensign that may have symbolized the divine presence and power (cf. Gray, 51; Honeycutt, 402; Fretheim, 193 [however, see Childs, 314]). If this were so,

then the sight of it on the hilltop would have encouraged the fighters to greater effort (Dummelow, 64-65; Fretheim, 193). Clements (103-4) maintains that Moses’ action was neither a gesture of prayer nor a signal. Instead, he argues, the divine power was believed to flow through Moses and to be effective only when his arms were raised. In similar vein, Durham (1987, 236, 238) thinks that not only did the uplifted hands of Moses symbolize Yahweh’s power, but they also became conductors of that power. According to Hyatt (184), Moses is depicted here as a wonder-working magician, whose act has an intrinsic efficacy as a channel through which the divine power is released. Another suggestion is that Moses’ action is similar to a prophetic symbolic action designed to release the divine power and secure the desired victory (Stalker, 225; Honeycutt, 401; Ch

Rylaarsdam, 961). Noth (142; cf. Burns, 132) refers to the strikingly impersonal magical effect that the raising of the hand(s) had. Childs (315) argues that the hands of

807

“V3 (# 1504)

Moses in Exod 17 are, as is common throughout the ANE, the instruments of mediating power and that the raising of Moses’ hand(s) was an amoral agent that unleashed power. Cole (136) offers the suggestion that the uplifted hand(s) may have been the sign of an oath (cf. Gen 14:22 [I have raised my hand = I have sworn]), placing Ama-

lek under the sacred ban or curse of destruction. When reporting to David the death of Uriah the Hittite during a skirmish with the Ammonites besieged in Rabbah, Joab’s messenger described how, prior to a reckless assault ordered by the Israelite commander, which led inevitably to heavy casualties near the city wall, the enemy had gained an advantage over (the vb. gbr with preposition ‘al) the Israelites and sallied out against them (2 Sam 11:23; JB translates eab°ri ‘aléni as “made a show of force against us”; NEB and REB have “massed against us”; NIV translates “overpowered us”).

Reflecting on the desolation and agony of her children following the city’s destruction in 587/586 BC, personified Zion weeps bitter tears and bewails the fact that

the enemy prevailed (Lam 1:16; JB has “proved too strong”; NEB and REB translate “is victorious”; Westermann,

1994, 111, has “is too powerful”).

Praise is given to God, who forgives transgressions when they prevail over (RSV), overwhelm (NRSV; NIV; Buttenwieser, 345; Oesterley, 309; Tate, 1990, 136), overpower (JB; Delitzsch, 1889, 224), or become too much for (Kraus, 26) his wor-

shipers (Ps 65:3[4]). Normally, Israelites made atonement for their sins by making some amends, not so much to propitiate the anger of God as for the twofold purpose of expressing a changed attitude towards him through confession of sin and of helping to remove the barrier between the sinner and the object of his worship (Anderson, 467).

Forgiveness or atonement cannot be earned or bought (Tate, 1990, 141). Rather, it is the merciful God who atones or forgives the iniquity (Anderson, 467). In Ps 65:3[4], as in other texts (cf. Deut 21:8; Ps 78:38), the vb. kpr seems to signify to forgive, i.e., to

restore the previous relationship (Anderson, 467; Bratcher and Reyburn, 560). According to the Song of Hannah (1 Sam 2:1-10), no one who trusts in his own

might will prevail, triumph (JB), or survive (Klein, 13) (v. 9; cf. Zech 4:6). No power can withstand the rule of Yahweh (Brueggemann, 20). The devout will prevail by God’s power alone (Klein, 19).

(g) One of the most important theological statements in the Bible is Exod 34:6-7 (Mays, 327-28), which asserts that compassionate Yahweh’s steadfast, forgiv-

ing love, which is the basis for the restoration of a right relationship broken by human failure (Sakenfeld, 96), is much greater and more lasting than his anger at sin. This healing and redeeming love, which he extends to his trusting and obedient worshipers, is of infinite vigor (Ps 117:2, gabar ‘aléni hasdé [Buttenwieser, 359, has “boundless”]) and is as immeasurably great as the distance separating earth from the heavens (Ps 103:11). In the case of Ps 117:2, other nations seem to be included with Israel as the recipients of the divine love and faithfulness (C. A. and E. G. Briggs, 402; ef. Kraus, 391; Weiser, 721-22; Rogerson and McKay, 83; Mays, 372-73; Bratcher and

Reyburn, 985). The use of the vb. in Ps 103:11 and 117:2 conveys the intensity and fulness of Yahweh’s love, which superabundantly covers (i.e., forgives) human sin and infirmity (Delitzsch, 1885, 221).

808

723 (# 1504) (h) The combination of gbr in the q. with the nom. hayil, power, occurs in Job 21:7, where Job, striking at the heart of the friends’ claims about retributive punishment, asks why the wicked live to a ripe old age and grow mighty in power. 2. The pi. occurs 3x. The compassionate Yahweh gives the assurance that he will redeem, strengthen (pi. of gbr, i.e., empower with martial prowess and independence [Driver, 1906, 248]), and restore his dispirited people, whom he had rejected and

dispersed (Zech 10:6, 12). The pi. with nom. hayil (in the pl.) occurs in Eccl 10:10, which makes the observation that if the blade of the cutting instrument is blunt, then

more strenuous effort is required when wielding it. The meaning of this v., considered by Delitzsch (1877, 379) to be linguistically the most difficult in the book, may be that just as it is wiser to keep a cutting tool well sharpened rather than have to be compelled to exert more strength with less effect when using it, so wisdom takes a person much further and with a great deal less effort than brute force (Martin, 270). Another possible meaning is that just as expenditure increases unless one uses practical knowledge, so wisdom is ineffective unless one puts it to work for some benefit (Crenshaw, 173; other suggested interpretations are listed by Gordis, 1955, 311-13). 3. The hi. probably occurs 2x. A psalmist appeals to Yahweh to intervene and destroy the impious, double-dealing braggarts, who cleverly use deceit and flattery to achieve their own selfish ends and who think that they can prevail (i.e., maintain their power) by their slick rhetoric and sophistry (lilsonéni nagbir, with our tongue we will prevail, or by our tongue, we will establish strength [cf. Craigie, 136]) (Ps 12:4[5]). When one is in rebellion against God, the skilful use of words can be a dangerous

instrument of power and a deadly weapon that can tear apart the basic fabric of human existence (cf. Jer 12:6) (Weiser, 160; StuhImueller, 102).

The meaning of the words whigbir b°rit larabbim in Dan 9:27 is debated. If the text be accepted as it stands (on the various proposed emendations, see Montgomery, 389-90), then the most straightforward translation is, “And he will make a strong/firm covenant/league/alliance/agreement with many” (cf. RSV; NRSV; JB; NEB; REB;

TEV; NIV has “He will confirm a covenant with forcing an agreement by means of superior strength ars consider that the subject of the vb. is Antiochus tify it with Antiochus’s eschatological antitype or Driver, 1922, 141; Jeffery,

498;

many’). The use of the hi. implies (Baldwin, 1978, 171). Many scholIV Epiphanes, whereas others idenChrist himself. Again, some (e.g.,

Heaton, 215; Porteous,

143; Hammer,

99; Collins,

357) understand the many to be renegade, Hellenizing Jews, who were apostate from Yahweh’s covenant and with whom the foreign ruler concluded an agreement (1 Macc 1:11-15), whereas others translate “he shall make burdensome the covenant for many,”

understanding the words to mean that the faithful who keep Yahweh’s covenant will be subjected to severe persecutions (Hitzig, cited by Bevan, 159; see, too, Jeffery, 498). 4. The hitp. is found 3x. Yahweh, who goes forth like a mighty warrior (cf. Exod 15:3; Ps 24:8; 46:8-9[9-10]; Isa 63:1-6; Zeph 3:17) shows himself mighty against (RSV; NRSV), shows himself victor over (Westermann, 1969, 102), shows his prowess (McKenzie, 42), or triumphs over (NEB; REB; NIV) his foes (Isa 42:13). Such lan-

guage conveys dramatically Yahweh’s effective power and determination to bring his plans to fulfilment without defeat (Wright, 106; cf. Smart, 89). Championing the doctrine of retributive punishment, Eliphaz assures Job that

distress and anguish terrify and overcome the wicked man because he has stretched 809

“Wa (# 1504) forth his hand against God (an image of the warrior [Clines, 358; cf. Habel, 85]) and bids defiance to (RSV; NRSV; cf. JB; TEV [Heb. yitgabbar]), has hurled defiance at (Dhorme, 219), or vaunts himself against (NIV; cf. Pope, 113; Hartley, 249, 252) the Almighty (Job 15:25 [Gordis, 1978, 156, 164, and Clines, 341, have “played the hero

against”; cf. Dhorme, 220]). Defending the divine justice and mercy, Elihu asserts that God tells the wicked when they are behaving arrogantly (RSV; NRSV [Heb. yitgabbarii]) or have sinned arrogantly (NIV) (36:9), so as to bring them to their senses that they might turn from their evil conduct (v. 10). 5. The word gibbér, which is an intensive form with the middle radical doubled, occurs ca. 160x (HALAT; NIVEC, 1406; Kosmala, TDOT 2:367).

(a) The word is used of a person, animal, or thing that possesses the kind of power that surpasses ordinary strength and is capable of accomplishing a great feat (cf. Kosmala, TDOT 2:373). In the animal kingdom the lion is the mightiest among beasts (Prov 30:30). Supreme among astral bodies, the sun runs its course like a mighty man, i.e., with the same kind of speed as is required of a good fighting man (Ps 19:5[6]; in the literature of the ANE the sun is referred to as “valiant Shamash” [ANET, 89b, 91a, 115a] and as “lordly hero Shamash” [ANET, 337b]; cf. Anderson, 170). The generation

of giants (the Nephilim, a word of uncertain meaning, but in Num 13:33, men of gigantic stature) born of the union between “the sons of the gods” (or “the sons of God” [i.e., male members of the heavenly court]) and “the daughters of mortals” were mighty men, men of renown, heroes of old (Gen 6:4; on the interpretation of Gen 6:1-4, see, especially, Westermann, 1987, 363-83).

Nimrod was a mighty man (Gen 10:8; cf. 1 Chron 1:10)—possibly the word here expresses the idea of violent, tyrannical power (Skinner, 207; cf. Westermann, 1987, 516)—who distinguished himself as a mighty hunter (Gen 10:9). Specially equipped and empowered by God, the king of Israel was a gibbér (Ps 45:3[4]; 89:19[20]). The ironic or sarcastic use of mighty man to refer to a tyrant occurs in Ps 52:1[3], where the treacherous “big shot” (Durham, 1972, 278; cf. Tate, 1990, 36) and con man (Tate, 1990, 36), whom God will break down forever, is asked why he boasts of the mischief he has committed (Ps 52:1[3]). Another ironical or sarcastic use of the

word is found in a series of six reproaches (Isa 5:8-23), where Isaiah condemns those who are wicked, including those who are heroes at imbibing liquor, i.e., who demonstrate their manliness in drunken excess (Kaiser, 70) (5:22).

(b) The word is sometimes used of those occupying a preeminent position. For instance, the title gibboré hasx6 “rim, the principal gatekeepers (of the Jerusalem temple), is used of those who were responsible for all the guards (1 Chron 9:26). Braun (131) makes the pertinent comment that the application of heroic terms in an honorific sense to less than heroic positions is prevalent in modern political, religious, and social organizations.

(c) The word often occurs in tandem with hayil, and, depending on the context,

this combination can mean someone who is exceptionally strong and/or valiant (Josh 1:14; 8:3; 10:7; Judg 6:12; 11:1; 1 Chron 7:5; 2 Chron 13:3; 14:8[7]), someone who is

exceptionally capable and/or industrious (1 Kgs 11:28), or someone who is wealthy (1 Sam 9:1; 2 Kgs 15:20), sometimes one who possesses a large amount of land (Ruth 2:1). In certain passages it is not possible to determine the precise meaning of the phrase gibbéré hayil. In Neh 11:14, for example, the words have been variously 810

71231(# 1504) understood:

those capable of bearing arms (Blenkinsopp, 321-22), brave warriors

(NRSV; NIV), outstanding soldiers (TEV), adult men (JB), able men (Fensham, DASE men of substance (NEB; REB). In 1 Chron 9:13, the words are taken to refer to those showing valor in (Batten, 270), ability (RSV), or aptitude for temple work.

(d) The most common use of the word is in texts dealing with military activities. It can designate a man who is eligible for military service, is able to bear arms, has combat experience, or has acquired a reputation for outstanding bravery (Kosmala, TDOT 2:374). In some texts the word stands alone (1 Sam 2:4; 17:51; 2 Sam 20:7; 23:8, 9; Eccl 9:11; S of Songs 3:7; Isa 21:17; Jer 26:21; 46:12; 48:41; 51:30; Hos 10:13; Joel 2:7; 3:9[4:9]; Amos 2:14; Zeph 1:14). Often the word is used in combination with (ha)hayil (Josh 1:14; 8:3; 10:7; Judg 6:12; 11:1; 2 Chron 13:3; 14:8[7]) and sometimes with (ha)h“yalim (1 Chron 7:5; 11:26). Examples of the use of the word

with

other,

usually

synonymous,

terms

are

the

following:

kol-’i¥

gibbér

w°kol-ben-hayil (any strong man or any brave man; 1 Sam 14:52); gibbér w°kol-’i¥ milhama (mighty men and warriors of every kind; Ezek 39:20); gibbéré milhama (val-

iant men of war; 2 Chron 13:3); gibbérim ’“nahnii w°’ an°xé-hayil lammilhama (we are heroes and mighty men of war; Jer 48:14); gibbaré-hayil di b°hayléh (certain of the strongest soldiers of his army; Dan 3:20); ’is bahiir gibbér hayil (picked troops, stout fighters; 2 Chron 13:3); gibbér maSkil (skilled warrior; Jer 50:9) (cf. Kosmala, TDOT

2:374). There were special groups of gibbérim. There was an elite group of them who formed the royal bodyguard (see 1 Kgs 1:8, 10; 1 Chron 29:24; De Vaux, 219-20; Kosmala, TDOT 2:374-75). Their quarters seem to have been in the bét haggibborim (the house

of the heroes; Neh

3:16). They were

the most outstanding

combatants,

the

“champions, the flower of the warriors of Israel” (S of Songs 3:7 [JB]). They were strong and courageous fighters, some of whom were recruited by the king himself (1 Sam 14:52). At least in the case of David’s bodyguard, not a few of these men were foreigners who had been taken from the defeated Cretans and Philistines (“the Kerethites and Pelethites” [2 Sam 8:18; 15:18; 20:7, 23; 1 Kgs 1:38, 44]), who may have

been taller and more powerfully built than the Israelites (Kosmala, TDOT 2:374-75). They were deployed in situations of crisis that demanded a swift and effective response (e.g., 2 Sam 10:7). David, who was leader of Saul’s misma ‘at (lit., those who obey or

answer the call [De Vaux, 220]), i.e., personal bodyguard, is described as a mighty warrior (gibbér hayil, 1 Sam 16:18) and was clearly considered a gibbér by the people (cf. 17:4-54; 18:6-7, 14-16). Two other notable orders of gibbdrim to receive special mention for their outstanding acts of bravery are “the Three,” whose leader was Josheb-Basshebeth (2 Sam 23:8-12), and “the Thirty,” whose commander was Abishai (23:18, 24-39). When

referring to these special companies of picked men, the word gibbér seems to denote a title or rank (Kosmala, TDOT 2:375). (e) Yahweh’s angels, who are obedient to his command and carry out his word,

are once described as gibboré koah (powerful heroes; Ps 103:20 [the same phrase occurs in 1QH 8:11; 10:34 as a synonym for angels; cf. 1QH 3:35, where the phrase gibbéré Samayim, the mighty ones of the heavens, is found]; > mal’ak [angel, messenger, #4855]). These celestial warriors will carry out Yahweh’s judgment on the nations (Joel 3:11[4:11]). Their commander-in-chief is none other than Yahweh, who

811

“Waa (# 1504) is variously described as yhwh ‘izziiz w°gibbor yhwh gibbor milhama, Yahweh, strong and mighty, Yahweh, mighty in battle (Ps 24:8); ’@l gibbér, mighty God (Isa 10:21), ha’él haggadél haggibbéor yhwh s°ba’ot*méd, the great and mighty God, whose name

is Yahweh of hosts (Jer 32:18); yhwh ’“lohékem ... ’*lohé ha’*lohim wa’“doné ha’“donim ha’élhaggadol haggibbor w°hannéra’, Yahweh your God ... God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the terrible (NIV awesome) God (Deut 10:17; cf. 7:21; Neh 1:5; 9:32; Dan 9:4). The military champion of incomparable power and military might, Yahweh goes forth like a gibbér, like a man of war, stirring up his fury, yelling the battle cry, and showing himself mighty (yitgabbar) against his foes (Isa 42:13). When he fights on behalf of his people, he avenges the sins committed against them by their enemies, and he can always be relied on to bring salvation or vicAMA tory because he is gibbér yOSia’, a warrior who saves (Zeph 3:17). (f) A special application of the title ’@/ gibbér occurs in Isa 9:6[5]. Here it is applied to the incomparable coming ruler of the house of David, who will be endowed with extraordinary qualities that belong to Yahweh’s g“bird (Kosmala, TDOT 2:376; other exalted terms applied to Hebrew monarchs are found in Ps 2:7; 89:19[20], 27[28]; 110). Ruling in and with God’s name and as a result of his will, this king will have fullness of power and will govern with justice and righteousness in an everlasting kingdom of peace (Isa 9:7[6]) (Kosmala, TDOT 2:376). (g) In Jer 9:23-24[22-23], the old idea of gibbér, which emphasizes the physical and material, is transformed into the spiritual (Kosmala, TDOT 2:376-77). Just as the wise man is not to glory in his wisdom or the rich man in his wealth, so too the gibbér is enjoined not to glory in his power (v. 23[22]), for true glory resides in the knowledge that Yahweh practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth (v. 24[23]). Like Yahweh, humans should delight in steadfast love, justice, and righteousness, rather than in wisdom, power, or wealth. The spiritual and the physical/material seem to be combined in Ps 112, which gives the assurance that the descendants of the man who fears the gracious, merciful, and righteous (v. 4) Yahweh and obeys his commandments (v. 1) will be mighty (gibbér [v. 2]) in the land and will be rewarded with affluence and riches (v. 3), traditional signs of divine blessing (cf. 1 Kgs 3:13; Ps 37:11; Prov 3:9-10, 16; 8:18; 13:18; 22:4).

6. The nom. forms g°bird and g°biirét occur 62 x (NIVEC, 1406) or 64x (Kosmala, TDOT 2:367).

(a) The strength conveyed by the word g°biird is a gift from God (Job 39:19-20). Physical strength is manifested by the sun (Judg 5:31), by the horse (Job 39:19; Ps 147:10a), by the sea-monster Leviathan (Job 41:12[4]), by warmongering nations (Jer 49:35; Ezek 32:29, 30; Mic 7:16), by the acts of kings (1 Kgs 15:23 [Asa]; 16:5 [Baasha], 27 [Omri]; 22:45[46] [Jehoshaphat]; 2 Kgs 10:34 [Jehu: 13:8 [Jehoahaz], 12 [Joash]; 14:15 [Jehoash], 28 [Jeroboam]; 20:20 [Hezekiah]; 1 Chron 29:30 [David]; Esth 10:2 [Ahasuerus]), by humans who live longer than the average lifespan

of seventy years (Ps 90:10), and by powerfully built men (147:10b), especially those who are warriors (Isa 3:25; Jer 51:30; cf. Judg 8:21).

The strength of leaders is not always exercised legitimately or morally (Jer 23:10). Citizens must be grateful for responsible rulers who govern with wisdom, dignity, and restraint, and who partake of sustenance only to replenish their vigor rather than engaging in decadent bouts of drunken revelry (Eccl 10:17). Wars are won not by

812

3

(# 1504)

warlike words or propaganda, but by careful strategy and military might (2 Kgs 18:20; par. Isa 36:5). The word is synonymous with victory in the phrase gél ’“ndt g°biird, the sound of shouting for military triumph, which is contrasted with the phrase gél ’“nét h“lasa, the sound of the cry of defeat (Exod 32:18). Yet, while skillful diplomacy and military power can be advantageous if used responsibly, wisdom is more effective than might as long as it can make its voice heard and people take heed of its counsel (Eccl 9:16). (b) Ultimate power belongs to Yahweh (1 Chron 29:11-12), and it is from his

sovereign rule that humans derive any potential they may have (Japhet, 510). Who can comprehend the thunder of his power (Job 26:14)? At best, a human being catches but a glimpse of his mysterious and marvelous ways (Hartley, 368). Yahweh’s power is inextricably linked to righteousness, goodness, justice, steadfast love, and faithfulness (Ps 89:13-14[14-15]; 145:6-17; Mic 3:8). The divine power and righteousness are as vast as the immeasurable distance separating earth from the high heavens (Ps 71:18-19).

God’s g°biira is also associated with the spirit of wisdom and understanding, counsel and knowledge (Job 12:13; Prov 8:14; Isa 11:2; Sir 42:21). God has wisdom and might (Job 12:13), and nothing and no one can frustrate his purpose (vv. 14-25). In

the hand of Yahweh, who rules over all the kingdoms of the nations, are power and might, which no one is able to withstand (2 Chron 20:6). God created and controls the world and the forces of nature because he is girded with might (Ps 65:6[7]). It is natural, therefore, that his people cry out to him in their oppression to stir his might for him to come and deliver them (Ps 80:2[3]; Isa 63:15). The incomparable Creator has a mighty arm (Ps 89:13[14]), which he uses to subjugate the power of chaos, nature, and all his enemies (vv. 9-10[11-12]). There is none like Yahweh, whose name is great in

might (Jer 10:6), who rules by might forever (Ps 66:7), and who can use his mighty power to rescue his faithful people from oppression (106:8), sometimes by overriding the forces of nature (66:6). By his infinite power, Yahweh can rescue, revive, and restore even those who are close to death as a result of their severe affliction (Ps 71:17-24). Those in distress can appeal to him for vindication (54:1[3]), confident that their prayers will be answered (vv. 6-7[8-9]). Yahweh helps his anointed (Israel’s king) with mighty victories by his right hand (20:6[7]). He empowers hard-pressed warriors defending the embattled city (Isa 28:6); he equips his prophet (Mic 3:8); he strengthens his defeated, scattered people (Zech 10:12 [reading, with BHS, tig°buratam, and their strength, for

MT w‘gibbartim, and I shall strengthem them]; cf. vv. 6-7); and he will endow the coming ideal ruler with the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of Yahweh, and the spirit of counsel and might (Isa 11:2). Yahweh is the source of strength for the faithful, who place their confidence in him rather than in tangible military devices (Isa 30:15).

Yahweh’s mighty deeds are incomparable (Deut 3:24). It is only fitting that his faithful ones should express their joyful gratitude for all he has done and continues to do, by sharing with others the glory of his kingdom, his power, and his mighty deeds (Ps 145:4, 12) and by celebrating his power in song and praise (21:13[14]; 71:16; 150:2). But while this is an appropriate response, no one is able to express adequately the praise of Yahweh for all his mighty deeds (106:2). Yahweh’s annihilation of those

813

“Waa (# 1504) nations advancing under the leadership of the destroyer will reveal his power to all peoples, and they will acknowledge his irresistible might (Isa 33:13). Foreign nations will come to recognize and confess the falseness and emptiness of their ancestral religion and will join in worshiping Yahweh (Jer 16:19-20), after he has made known to them his power and his might (v. 21), probably by restoring Israel and returning the deported to their own land (cf. Carroll, 347-48). It is scarcely surprising that in the rabbinic age, when the name of Yahweh was no longer uttered, the word g“bird became one of the substitutes for God’s proper name (Kosmala, TDOT 2, 370-71). Jesus used the term at his trial before Caiaphas,

saying that he would be seen sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven (Matt 26:64). No other terrm could convey the authority of Jesus as clearly as this one (Kosmala, TDOT 2:371). The “blasphemy” of Jesus consisted not in uttering God’s name, but in identifying his own power with God (Kosmala, TDOT 237h): (c) The divine g°biird, in which humans share (Kosmala, TDOT 2:371), mani-

fests itself not only in terms of physical strength, but in spiritual qualities as well—particularly wisdom,

understanding,

counsel, knowledge,

and the fear of Yahweh

(Isa

11:2; cf. Job 12:13). Human strength lies not in physical power, but in quiet confidence and trust in God (Isa 30:15), and in obedience to his t6rd (Isa 11:3). In the same way that God’s special delight is not in physical strength but in those who fear him and who hope in his steadfast love (Ps 147:10-11), so humans should not glory in their might, wealth, or wisdom, but in the knowledge that Yahweh practices steadfast love, justice,

and righteousness (Jer 9:23-24[22-23]).

P-B

The vb. gbr (Aram. gbr, same) occurs with the meaning be uppermost, prevail;

be strong; pi. make strong, strengthen, sustain; hi. make strong, strengthen, sustain;

grow strong; hitp. and nitp., rise, swell; grow strong, gather courage; make oneself master. The adj./nom. gibbér occurs with the meaning strong, brave, mighty; hero. The nom. g“bird is also found, with the meaning superiority, strength, might; [with def. art.] Divine Majesty, the Lord; high age; [pl.] manifestations of divine power, wonders; G°biirét (the second section of the Tfillah, praising the powers of the Lord; [in combination with g°samim, the power of rain (a clause praising the Lord for giving rains, inserted in G*biirét)]. The following forms also occur: geber (= Aram. g°bar, gabra’), man, master; cock; (euphem.) membrum virile; gabri’él, Gabriel (Divine Strength); gabrit, cock-like; g“bird, g°beret, mistress, lady; g°bartan, brave, hero; g°bartanit, powerful, overwhelming (Jastrow 1:205, 207-9). Giant, hero: > gibbér (manly, vigorous, despot, hero, > r°pa’im II (Rephaites, # 8328) Power, strength: > ’abir (strong, powerful, # 51); > ’6n > ’ayil I (man of power, #380); > ’él IV (strength, strengthen, be superior over, #599); > ’apiq II (strong, > gbr

(accomplish,

excel,

> zimré II (strength, #2380);

swell,

rise,

be

strong,

# 1475);

> n®pilim (giants, # 5872);

I (generative power, strength, # 226); power, #445); >.’ms (be strong, #693); > ’3¥ (take courage, # 899);

#1504);

— ddbe’

(strength,

# 1801);

> hzq (be strong, overpower, support, seize, # 2616); > hayil

(capacity, power, property, # 2657); > hason (strong, #2891); > ykl (able, endure, be victorious, conquer, #3523); > ysr II (strengthen, #3580); > kabbir (strong, #3888); > kéah I (strength, power, possession, means, # 3946); > kellah I (maturity, full vigor, #3995); >. m°’dd (power, might, #4394); > ma’“mas (exertion, #4410); > ngg (overtake, be able to, afford,

814

3

(# 1504)

appear, #5952); > ‘zz (be strong, defy, show a shameless, # 6451); > ‘sm I (be mighty, vast, numerous, make strong, # 6793); > tgp (overpower, # 9548) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDNT 3:397-402; TDOT 2:367-82; THAT 1:398-402; TWOT

1:148-49; A. A. Anderson, The

Book of Psalms. Volume 1: Introduction and Psalms 1-72, NCBC, 1972; J. G. Baldwin, Daniel: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC, 1978; idem, J and 2 Samuel: An Introduction and

Commentary, TOTC, 1988; L. W. Batten,A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, ICC, 1961; W. H. Bennett, Genesis, CB, n.d.; A. A. Bevan,

A Short Com-

mentary on the Book of Daniel for the Use of Students, 1892; J. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary, OTL, 1988; R. G. Bratcher and W. D. Reyburn,A Translator’s Handbook on the Book of Psalms, 1991; R. L. Braun, 1 Chronicles, WBC, 1986; C. A. and E. G. Briggs,A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms. Vol. II, 1CC, 1960; J. Bright, Jeremiah: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 1965; W. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, Interp, 1990; R. J. Burns, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers With Excurses on Feasts/Ritual and Typol-

ogy, OTM, 1983; M. Buttenwieser, The Psalms Chronologically Treated With a New Translation, 1969; R. P. Carroll, Jeremiah: A Commentary, OTL, 1986; U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Part II: From Noah to Abraham, 1974; B. S. Childs, Exodus: A Commen-

tary, OTL, 1974; R. E. Clements, Exodus, CBC, 1972; D. J. A. Clines, Job 1-20, WBC, 1989; R. A. Cole, Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC, 1973; J. J. Collins, Daniel, Hermeneia, 1993; D. Cox, Proverbs With an Introduction to Sapiential Books, OTM, 1982;

P. C. Craigie, Psalms 1-50, WBC,

1983; J. L. Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes:

A Commentary, OTL,

1987; F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes, KD, 1877; idem, Biblical Commentary on the Psalms. Vol. II, KD, 2d ed., 1889; idem, Biblical Commentary on the Psalms. Vol. III, KD, 2d ed., 1885; E. Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job, 1967; S. R. Driver, The Minor Prophets Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, CB, 1906; idem, The Book of Genesis With Introduction and Notes, 10th ed., 1916; idem, The Book of Daniel With Introduction and Notes, CBSC, 1922; idem, The Book of Exodus, CBSC, 1953; J. R. Dummelow ed., A Commentary on the Holy Bible, 1909; J. 1. Durham, “Psalms,” in BBC, 1972, 4:153-464; idem, Exodus, WBC, 1987; F. C. Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, NICOT, 1983; T. E. Fretheim, Exodus, Interp, 1991; R. Gordis, Koheleth—The Man and His World, 1955; idem, The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation and Special Studies, 1978; J. Gray, “The Book of Exodus,” in The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the

Bible, 1971, 33-67; J. L. Green, “Jeremiah,” in BBC, 1972, 6:1-202; N. C. Habel, The Book of Job, CBC, 1975; V. P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis Chapters 18-50, NICOT, 1995; R. Hammer, The Book of Daniel, CBSC, 1976; J. E. Hartley, The Book of Job, NICOT, 1988; E. W. Heaton, The Book of Daniel: Introduction and Commentary, Torch, 1964; A. S. Herbert, Genesis 12-50: Introduction and Commentary, Torch, 1962; J. H. Hertz, ed., The Pentateuch and Haftorahs: Hebrew Text, English Translation and Commentary, 2d ed., 1969; R. L. Honeycutt,

“Exodus,” in BBC, 1970, 1:305-472; J. P. Hyatt, Exodus, NCBC, 1971; S. Japhet, J & II Chronicles: A Commentary, OTL, 1993; A. Jeffery, “The Book of Daniel: Introduction and Exegesis,” IB, 1956, 6:339-549; D. R. Jones, Jeremiah, NCBC, 1992; H. R. Jones, “Exodus,” in NBC, 1972, 115-39; O. Kaiser, Isaiah 1-12: A Commentary, OTL, 1977; M. Kalafian, The Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks of the Book of Daniel, 1991; R. W. Klein, 1 Samuel, WBC, 1983; M. G. Kline, “Genesis,” in NBC, 1972, 79-114; H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 60-150:

A Commentary,

1989; W. Mc-

Kane, Proverbs: A New Approach, OTL, 1970; idem, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah. Volume 1: An Introduction and Commentary on Jeremiah I-XXV, ICC, 1986;

815

7131 (# 1505) J. L. McKenzie, Second Isaiah: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 1968; M. Maher, Genesis, OTM, 1982; G. C. Martin, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs, CB, 1908; H. G.

May and B. M. Metzger eds., The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1973; J. L. Mays, Psalms, Interp, 1994; J. A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, ICC, 1964: M. Noth, Exodus:

A Commentary, OTL, 1966; W. O. E. Oesterley, The Psalms Translated

With Text-Critical and Exegetical Notes, 1959; M. H. Pope, Job: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 3d ed., 1979; N. W. Porteous, Daniel: A Commentary, OTL, 1965; J. W. Rogerson andJ.W. McKay, Psalms 101-150, CBC, 1977; J. C. Rylaarsdam, “The Book of Exodus: Introduction and Exegesis,” in JB, 1952, 1:831-1099; K. D. Sakenfeld, Faithfulness in Action: Loyalty in Biblical Perspective, 1985; J. Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, ICC, 2d ed., 1969; J. D. Smart, History and Theology in Second Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 35, 40-66, 1965; E. A. Speiser, Genesis: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 1964; H. D. M. Spence and J. S. Exell, Genesis, Pulpit, new ed., 1909; D. M. G. Stalker, “Exodus,” in Peake, 1964, 208-40; C. Stuhlmueller, Psalms 1 (Psalms 1-72), OTM, 1985; M. E. Tate, “Proverbs,” in BBC, 1972, 5:1-99; idem, Psalms 51-100, WBC, 1990; J. A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, NICOT, 1987; R. de Vaux, Anclsr, 2d ed., 1968; A. Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary, OTL, 1965; G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, WBC, 1987; C. Westermann, Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary, OTL, 1969; idem, Genesis 37-50: A Commentary, 1986; idem, Genesis 1-11: A Commentary, 1987; idem, Lamentations: Issues and Interpretation, 1994; G. E. Wright, Isaiah,

LBC, 1965; E. J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel, 1949. Robin Wakely

1505

"23 “aa (geber I), young man, male (most often in me Job, 15x; (#1505); 3) (g°bir), lord, master (# 1484); < V3 (gbr), accomplish, excel (> # 1504). ANE

AKkk. gabru, “strong” (CAD, G, 6); line 16 of the Moabite Mesha Inscription:

“Taking it and slaying all, seven thousand men (g/bjrn), boys, women (wgbrt), girls and maidservants” (ANET 320); line 8 of the Phoenician Kilamuwa Text: “He gave a maid for the price of a sheep, and a man for the price of a garment (wgbr bswt)” (ANET 654; KAT 1:24, 8). OT 1. It is not certain whether the nom. geber is derived from the vb. gabar, “to be strong, superior,” or the vb. is derived from the nom. 2. Some uses of geber draw attention to the element of strength in the nom., especially when it is contrasted with child(ren) (fap) and with women (nasim: Exod 10:10, 11; 12:37; Jer 41:16 [NIV renders g“barim ’ansé hammilhamé simply as “soldiers”], 43:6). The same nuance appears when geber appears with n°gébd: “The LORD will create a new thing on earth—a woman [n°qébd] will surround a man [geber],” Jer

31:22b. Similar is Jer 30:6 “Can a man (’#%) bear children? Then why do I see every strong man (geber) with his hands on his stomach like a woman in labor...?” (NIV). 3. The phrase “blessed (or cursed) is the man (geber)” occurs frequently in wisdom statements (Ps 34:8[9]; 40:4[5]; 94:12; 127:5; Jer 17:5, 7). In such instances ’asré haggeber may be a poetic synonym for ’asré ha’ix (Ps 1:1). If ideas of strength are still residual in the nom., then the reference is to spiritual rather than physical strength. 816

31 (# 1511) Some of this emphasis on the spiritual strength of the geber is transparent in the frequent uses of the nom. in Job (3:3, 23; 4:17; 10:5; 14:10, 14; 16:21; 22:2; 33:17, 19; 34:7, 9, 34; 38:3; 40:7). Kosmala remarks (169): “It will not help us to a correct under-

standing of the term geber if we see in it only another word for man. Already in the OT we have a clearly defined group of statements on the geber which show him as a man of particular spiritual qualities.” 4. The nom g“bir occurs only in Isaac’s word of blessing—a blessing of dominion—to Jacob: “Be lord over your brothers” (Gen 27:29, 37).

Male: > ’adam (Adam, people, # 132); > ’?¥ I (man, husband, #408); > ’*n6¥ I (men, single man, # 632); > ’asi¥ (man, #861); > geber I (young man, # 1505); > zakar (male, #2351); > m°tim I (men, people, # 5493); > na‘ar (boy, # 5853) Female: ~ ’is34 (woman, #851); > g°bird/g°beret (lady, queen, mistress, # 1485/1509); > na“ra I (girl, #5855); > n°qéba (female, # 5922); > pileges (concubine, # 7108); > Sidda (lady, # 8721) BIBLIOGRAPHY H. Kosmala, “The Term geber in the Old Testament and in the Scrolls,” SVT 17, 1969, 159-69.

Victor P. Hamilton

1508 (gabri’él, Gabriel), > #4855 1509 (g°beret, lady, queen, mistress), > # 1485

1511 ANE

2

13 (gag), nom. roof(s), top; top of house/wall (#1511).

Ugar. gg; Egyp. dd’; Aram. talla’, t°lala’; Arab. talal, roof.

OT 1. The nom. gag, roof, is used 31x in the OT and is usually translated roof(s) (ca. 25x), but also as top. The term describes the roof of Rahab where, as was common in the NE, she was drying grain/stalks; these served as a hiding place for the Israelite spies (Josh 2:6, 8). The top of the tower (citadel) in Thebez, where Abimelech was slain, is described by the word (Judg 9:51). When Samson pushed down the pillars of a Philistine temple, three thousand men and women, spectators on the roof, gag, perished

(16:23-30). 2. The roof(s) of houses were thus used for various functions far beyond keeping out rain/the heat of the sun. Much time was spent also upon the roofs of houses by the family members,

since they were flat and safe to walk on. The nom. ma “geh

(jPMIS parapet, #5111) designated a protective small fence/banister placed around the roof of a house to keep individuals from falling from the roof. The owner otherwise could be guilty of bloodguilt (Deut 22:8). Samuel and Saul discussed Yahweh’s choice of Saul as king on the roof (gag) of Samuel’s house (1 Sam 9:25; cf. 10:1). It was from his roof that David, whose bed was evidently on the roof, observed Bathsheba (2 Sam 11:2). Appropriately, it was on the roof of his house that Absalom openly mocked David his father before all Israel by lying with his father’s concubines, consummating his rebellious claim to his father’s throne (16:22-23). The top/roof of the gateway toa

city provided a view of all that approached the city (2 Sam 18:28).

817

“Ta(# 1512) 3. The weak sprouting of grass on a roof is a simile used to describe the perilous nature of peoples who stood in the path of a conquering Sennacherib (2 Kgs 19:26; cf. Ps 129:6; Isa 37:27). The roofs in Jerusalem were favorite places where incense to Baal

and other gods was offered (Jer 19:13; 32:29). On the other hand, they were a place where persons went to mourn or where they awaited a threatening advance of an enemy (Isa 22:1; Jer 48:38; Zeph 1:5).

4. The word roof (top) covers a wide variety of objects. The altar of incense in the Holy Place had a top (gag) of acacia wood overlaid with pure gold (Exod 30:3; 37:26). Ezekiel’s gateway into his New Temple outer court measured twenty-five cubits (ca. 37 1/2 ft.) from the top/back (gag) of one alcove/back room to the top/back of the opposite one (RSV back; NIV top). The vb. ¢/ I (550, pi. roof over, # 3233) is used once to describe Sallum’s repair and roofing over (¢//) of the fountain gate (Neh Si55; pi.) House, dwelling, tabernacle: > bayit I (house, dwelling, building, family, dynasty, # 1074); > ysb (dwell, #3782); > ma‘6n II (den, dwelling, #5061); > nwh I (rest, #5657); > Skn (settle, # 8905) BIBLIOGRAPHY

S. M. Paul & W. G. Dever, eds., Biblical Archaeology, 1973.

Eugene Carpenter/Michael A. Grisanti

1512

“) (gad I), nom. coriander (Coriandrum sativum)

a

(# 1512).

ANE

Not attested in Semitic sources.

OT

Coriander is mentioned in two passages to illustrate the appearance of manna,

“white like coriander seed” (Exod 16:31; cf. Num 11:7). The fact that the seeds of the

coriander plant are grey or light brown has raised some doubt as to the accuracy of the identification with gad. P-B

The LXX uses the term korion, a shortened form of koriannon or koriandron

(= Coriandrum sativum). Herbs, spices: ~ ’6rd II (herb, mallow, #246); > gad I (coriander, # 1512); > kammon (cumin, # 4021); > ginnamén (cinnamon, #7872); > gesah (black cumin, #7902); > q°sia‘ (cassia, # 7904); > reqah (spice, # 8380)

BIBLIOGRAPHY y W. E. Shewell-Cooper, “Coriander,” ZPEB, 1:960; Michael Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 1982, 92. M. G. Abegg, Jr.

1513

oF

“Ta (gad II), nom. luck, fortune (# 1513).

ANE The derivation of gad II remains unclear. Although it might derive from the vb. gdd, to cut off (TDOT 2:382), it only appears as a nom. in a number of Sem. languages (Mari, Ugar., Phoen., Pun., Aram., Nab., Palm., Syr., Mand., OSA, Arab., and Eth.; cf.

Noth, 126) and consequently may not be derived from a vb.

818

TWhA(# 1517) OT

1. In addition to the tribal name Gad (see gad, # 1514, # 1532) and the occur-

rence of Gad in toponyms (e.g., Baal Gad, Josh 11:17; 12:7; 13:5; Migdal Gad, Josh 15:37) and personal names (Num 13:10-11; 2 Kgs 15:14, 17), a similar form, gad Il, occurs twice (Gen 30:11; Isa 65:11). 2. As is common

with the naming of five other sons in Gen 30, Leah connects

the proper name of her son (by Zilpah) with a catch phrase, “what good fortune!” (30:11). The Q. (cf. Syr. Tg.), ba’ gad, fortune has come, is preferred (LXX, Vg.), b°gad, with luck. Andersen and Forbes (85-86) contend that was vulnerable to omission since it never developed as the standard mater any specific vowel. In exultation at the birth of another son, Leah rejoices

over the K. the aleph (’)

lectionis for in her expe-

rience of good fortune. Although gad occurs as some kind of divine name (whether a semidivine or full-fledged deity is not essential to this discussion, see Tigay, 163, 185, nn. 38-40), it

appears unlikely that Leah intended religious overtones in her rejoicing over Gad’s birth (contra Noth, 126-27; Gaster, 584; Wenham, 246).

3. In his condemnation of those who forsake Yahweh for their pagan worship, Isaiah (65:11-12) depicts these apostates spreading a table and serving drinks to pagan gods of fortune (gad) and fate/destiny (m°n?), gods worshiped throughout that region (cf. Gaster, 584-85, 701, nn. 8-11; Tigay, 163, 167, 185, nn. 39-40). Fortunate, lucky: ~ ’sr II (be fortunate, # 887); > gad II (luck, fortune, # 1513); > migreh _ (happening, occurrence, fate, fortune, # 5247); > S“bit (fortunes, # 8654) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 2:382-84; F. Andersen and A. Forbes, Spelling in the Hebrew Bible, 1986; T. Gaster, Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament, 1969; M. Noth, Die israelitischen Personenna-

men in Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung, 1966; J. Tigay, “Israelite Religion: The Onomastic and Epigraphic Evidence,” Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, 1987, 157-94; G. Wenham, Genesis 16-50, 1994. Michael A. Grisanti

“11 (gdd I), hitpol. inflict cuts on oneself, make AS ET a incisions on oneself (#1517); nom. 7172 (g°diid1), furrow ridge (> #1521); 1113 (g°%diidd), incision, cutting (of hands; # 1523); byforms MT}, gzh, q. cut, cut away (BDB, 152; HALAT, 178; > # 1602); 173, (gzz), q. shear sheep, cut hair; ni. be cut off (> # 1605); Akk. gazazu, shear (sheep and goats). ANE Akk. gadadu, chop (CAD, G, 8), separate (AHw, 273); Aram., gdd, cut down (Dan 4:14, 23 [4:11, 20]).

OT 1. Cutting oneself (one’s body, flesh, skin, or hands) was a pagan, Canaanite practice indicating mourning (either for the dead or at impending military defeat/divine judgment that would involve death). As a sign of mourning it was often accompanied

by shaving one’s head and beard, tearing one’s clothes, and wearing sackcloth. It was also practiced in ecstatic religious ritual, accompanied by loud shouting. It was intended as an act of sympathetic magic to appease the gods or influence them to show favor to humans. Compare the Ugaritic myth “Baal and Mot,” in which the god Latipan 819

194 1517) mourns the death of Baal by scraping his skin, shaving his beard, and “harrowing”/“‘ploughing” his “chest” and “waist” (see CML, 73, 5.vi.14-23). The Israelites were forbidden to engage in this practice because it was a pagan religious ritual. The Israelites, as God’s chosen, covenant people (Deut 14:11) were to be holy, separated unto the Lord, to whom alone they owed worship. For priests to engage in this rite meant profanation of the name of God. The prohibition was based on the Hebrew understanding of the sacredness of life and the human body. The day after Gedaliah’s assassination eighty men from the northern kingdom came in mourning to worship at the temple, having cut themselves, shaved their beards, and torn their clothes (Jer 41:5), but they were killed by Gedaliah’s assassins. Cutting of the body, together with shaving the head, is a sign of Philistia’s mourning at impending divine judgment (Jer 47:5). Likewise, Moab’s citizens engaged in cutting their hands, together with shaving the head, cutting the beard, and wearing sackcloth, as signs of their mourning (Jer 48:37). Cutting oneself and shaving the head in mourning for the dead is sarcastically said not to occur for the dead of Judah whose death will be the result of the coming divine judgment (Jer 16:6). A conjectural reading in Jer 49:3 suggests that bagg“dérét may be read bigdudét (BHS, see Jer 48:37), so that the exhortation to the Ammonites to “rush here and there inside the walls” (NIV) becomes “rush about with slashing (of hands or body)”; the latter translation suits the context of mourning depicted by wailing, crying

and wearing sackcloth. In Hos 7:14, in an oracle against rebellious Ephraim, it is better to read yitgddadii (Heb. MSS and LXX katetemnonto) than yitgérarii (BHS) and treat yitg6dadi as the hitpol. of gdd I. The vb. then means, ““They [the Ephraimites] cut themselves,” as in cultic ritual of Baal (v. 16) to influence the pagan gods (if not Yahweh) to send them

grain and wine. 2. A direct insight into Canaanite practice is given in 1 Kgs 18:28, as prophets of Baal contest with Elijah and Yahweh on Mount Carmel to influence their gods to send fire to consume the sacrifice on the altar. Their loud shouting and cutting of themselves so as to draw blood depicts the ecstatic frenzy of the prophets’ cultic activity (see Zech 13:6). 3. The use of the hitpol. of gdd in Mic 5:1[4:14] and Jer 5:7 is understood as belonging to gdd II, throng together. Otherwise, it is difficult to understand Mic 5:1, according to which the people of Jerusalem are advised to cut themselves in pagan rituals of mourning when the nations gather against them (4:11-12), especially since Jerusalem is favored by God for ultimate triumph (4:13; 5:lff). The NIV takes the vb.

as a homonym (gdd II, throng together, marshal): “Marshal your troops, O city of troops.” Incision, cut, tattoo: > gdd I (inflict cuts, make incisions, #1517); > haris IV (mutilation, # 3024); > qaqa‘ (tattoo, incision, # 7882); > srt (cut, make incisions, be cut up, # 8581) Shaving, trimming: ~ glh (shave, # 1662); > ksm (trim hair, # 4080)

BIBLIOGRAPHY M. Delcor “gazaz: ‘tendre en coupant’ les brebis,” Quaderni di semitistica 5, 1974, 117-18. Malcolm J. A. Horsnell

820

TTA(# 1518)

1518

TA (gdd II), q. to band together against (only in Ps 94:21); hitp. throng together (only in Jer 5:7; # 1518); T1113(¢°did ID), nom., raiding party; division of an army (# 1522). ANE

A

—

neo-Babylonian text attests the sole occurrence of gudiidu, which is trans-

lated “military detachment” on the basis of the Heb. cognate and context (cf. CAD G, 120). Eth. also attests a cognate. OT 1. The vb. means to throng or gather together and only occurs 2x, once in the q. and once in the hitp. The q. occurs in Ps 94:21 and describes the wicked as gathering together against the righteous. The hitp. in Jer 5:7 is not recognized by some dictionaries and is thought to be associated with gdd I, inflict cuts on oneself (> # 1517), but it

is an occurrence of gdd II. It refers to God’s wayward people who throng to houses of prostitutes. Craigie, Kelley, and Drinkard (Jeremiah 1-25, 86) suggest an extended meaning based on the nom. gediid and translate it “patronize.” 2. (a) The nom. occurs more frequently. Its most basic meaning is a group or band of military personal, and it most often refers to small parties of loosely organized raiders (1 Kgs 11:24; 2 Kgs 5:2; 6:23). The goal of these groups was usually not conquest (1 Sam 30:8; 1 Chron 12:21[22]; 2 Chron 22:1), but pillaging and robbery. Indeed, in Hos 7:1 g°did appears in parallel with robber (gannab). In 2 Chron 25:9, 10, 13 the Israelite mercenaries whom Amaziah hired, but then released, are called 9°did;

but they are not to be considered part of a formal army; rather, they are troops for hire, who go on a rampage once they are released from duty. (b) However, in some cases g“did refers to a division of soldiers within an established army (see 2 Chron 26:11). (c) In Job 19:12 God’s troops (presumably celestial beings) are referred to as g°diid, whom Job imagines as moving against him to ruin his life at God’s command. (d) One of the most interesting occurrences of the root is found in Gen 49:19. The chapter contains the aged Jacob’s blessings and curses upon his children, representing the tribes of Israel. The blessing on Gad is a wordplay on the name, “Gad (gad) will be attacked (gwd) by a band of raiders (g°diid), but he will attack (gwd) them at their heels.” The point of the blessing is that the tribe of Gad, located in a vulnerable location east of the Jordan River, will suffer incursions from neighboring states, but it

will be able to fight back effectively. The vb. gwd (attack, raid, # 1574) is obviously related to the vb. gdd II as well as the nom. (e) In two places normally listed with the nom. g“déid (raiding band), the vb. is related rather to gdd I, to cut oneself. These are Jer 48:37 and Ps 65:10[11]. War, army, battle, fight: > gdd II (band together, # 1518); > hm (organized for war, # 2821);

~ lhm I (do battle, fight, # 4309); > mah“neh (camp, encampment, war, # 4722), > ma “rakd (battle-line, #55120); > sb’ (go to war, serve, muster, conscript, # 7371); > sé (warship, #7469); > srh (yell, call shrilly, raise the war-cry, # 7658); > q‘rab (battle, # 7930); > rkb (ride/mount, # 8206); > rw‘ (shout, give war-cry, #8131); — Sali¥ III (third man in war-chariot, adjutant, # 8957) Tremper Longman III

821

“3713(#1521) i

sions on oneself

7A (g°diid 1), wall, ridge (#1521); < mine (gdd 1), hitpol. inflict cuts on oneself, make inci-

_ mee:

eet

(> # 1517).

ANE

¢“diid Lis related to gudda’ (wall).

OT

The basic meaning of g°diid seems to be wall (see Ps 18:30

Il 2 Sam 21:30,

where g“diid is parallel to Sar [wall]). By extension g°did comes to mean the wall-like ridge left between the furrows after plowing (see Ps 65:11, where gdidd is parallel to telem [furrow]). Plowing: ~ ’ét III (plowshare?, axe, # 908); > g°didI (ridge, # 1521); > hr¥I (plow, engrave, prepare, plan, #3086); > ma“nd (furrow-length, #5103); > nyr II (break up [unplowed ground], #5774); > telem (furrow, # 9439) BIBLIOGRAPHY

M. Futato, “A Meteorological Analysis of Psalms 104, 65, and 29,” diss. The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., 1984.

Mark D. Futato

1522 (¢°dad Il, raiding party, robber, military troops), > # 1518 1523 (g°did4, incision, cutting),

> # 1517

1524 (gadol, great), > # 1540

1525 (g°dilla, greatness), > # 1540 1526 (giddiip, taunt, reviling), > # 1552

1527 (¢°diipd, taunt),

> # 1552

1528 (giddipd, taunt), > # 1552 1531 (g°di, kid), > #7366 1537 (g°diyyd, kid), > #7366

1538

wea

W713 (gadi¥ I) stack of grain (# 1538).

OT This word occurs 4x in the OT. Its only cognates appear to be the late Aram. g°disa’ and Arab. gadis, meaning a stack, pile, or heap, and the LXX employs two different G words, thémonia, stoibé, each meaning heap or stack, for this Heb. word. It is common for the biblical text to refer to a stack of sheaves of grain (Exod 22:6[5]; Judg

15:5 [|| gama in both]; Job 5:26), but in Job 21:32 it refers to a “grave” (> # 1539). Several biblical passages use this word to distinguish stacked grain from grain still standing uncut in the field (Exod 22:6[5]; Judg 15:5). Job 5:26 uses the vb. ‘lh, set up,

with this word to indicate the idea of stacking or setting up the grain. Grain, barley, millet, rice, etc.: > ’abib (ears of grain, #26); > bisqalén (fresh stalks [cj.], # 1303); > bar Ill (grain, corn, # 1339); > gadi¥ I (stack of grain, #1538); > geres (grits, # 1762); > dagan (grain, # 1841); > dohan (sorghum, millet, # 1893);

822

> hitta (wheat, # 2636);

wd # 1539) > kussemet (emmer-wheat, # 4081); > karmel IV (grain, fresh, newly ripened grain, # 4152); > mila (grain, grains, #4884); > minnit (rice, #4976); > mos (chaff, #5161); > sdlet (wheat flour, # 6159); > panndg (parched? grain, meal or flour, #7154); > sebet (grain, bundle of grain, #7395); — sanum (hard, barren [ears of grain], #7568); > qali (parched grain,

# 7833); > gama (crops, grain, standing grain, #7850); > sdrd (millet, #8463); (barley, # 8555); > Sibbdlet I (ear of grain, # 8672); > Seber Il (grain, # 8692)

> S° ord

Paul D. Wegner

ee

; rath

mika,

WT)oS (gadi¥ Il), nom. grave, > grave-mound (hap-

leg.) (# 1539).

OT The word occurs in Job’s response to his friends. He asks them why the rich oppressor receives an honorable burial (21:32), in response to their assertion that the wicked always perish (see Hartley, Job, NICOT, 1988, 320-22). The close relationship between gadis II and I, stack of grain (> # 1538), is borne out in Job 5:26, where the

grave is likened to it: “You will come to the grave in full vigor, like sheaves gathered in season.” It may have been that a mound was heaped on the grave (Dhorme, 323-24; see Hartley, 321). Burial: ~ qbr (bury, # 7699) Grave: > ’“damd (ground, piece of land, soil, earth, realm of the dead, # 141); > bér (cistern, well, grave, #1014); > gadi¥ II (grave, grave-mound, # 1539); > 5°’6/ (sheol, netherworld, # 8619); > Sahat (pit, grave, # 8846)

BIBLIOGRAPHY E. Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job, 1967. T. Desmond Alexander

Sai (gdl I), q. to grow up, become great, become wealthy, bring up, make greater, make great, boast, show oneself great; pi.; pu.; hi.; hitp. (# 1540); Paar (gadél), nom./adj. great (# 1524); moan} (g°dilla), nom. greatness (# 1525); oa (gadél), adj. (strictly, q. part.), great (# 1541); 53 (godel), nom. greatness, great, deeds (# 1542); 7137 K (migdil), ?171IQ (migdél), nom. tower (hapleg.; # 4460); 71319 (migdal), nom. tower (> # 4463).

ANE

The root is found in Ugar., Moabite (DISO, 142) with the meaning of great, but

not Akk., Aram., or Phoen.

OT 1. The vb. gdl is used 117x, occurring in the q. (stative), pi., pu., hi., and hitp.; 31x the q. denotes the meaning to be great. The majority of the passages represented here concern the greatness or esteem of human beings, “He [Manasseh] too will become great. Nevertheless, his younger brother will be greater than he” (Gen 48:19; see also 41:40; 2 Sam 5:10; 1 Kgs 10:23; Eccl 2:9; 1 Chron 11:9; 2 Chron 9:22; Esth 9:4; Jer 5:27; Zech 12:7). The greatness of God is also extolled in seven instances,

“How great you are, O Sovereign LORD!” (2 Sam 7:22; see also Ps 35:27; 40:16[17]; 70:4[5]; 104:1; Mic 5:4[3]; Mal 1:5). God’s power (Num 14:17), name (2 Sam 7:26; 1 Chron 17:24), and works (Ps 92:5[6]) are also described as being great. In other

823

5 (# 1540) passages gdl describes sin (Ezra 9:6; Lam 4:6), pain (Job 2:13), mourning 12:11), life (1 Sam 26:24), and the cry of Sodom (Gen 19:13).

(Zech

(a) 8x in the pi. and 20x in the hi. gd/ means to make great or magnify. The difference in sense between the two stems appears to be that whereas the pi. brings the object to the state of being great, “I will make you into a great nation” (Gen 12:2), the hi. brings about the process, “[You] increased their joy” (Isa 9:3[2]; see Jenni, 33-36, 275). The majority of the passages have God as subject. Among the varied contexts, he magnifies his works (1 Sam 12:24; Ps 126:2, 3; Joel 2:21), exalts humankind (1 Kgs 1:37, 47; Job 7:17; 1 Chron 29:12), and promises to make Israel a great nation (Gen 12:2). In contrast, human beings enlarge their own work (Eccl 2:4) and wisdom (1:16), magnify weights dishonestly (Amos 8:5), and increase treachery against friends (Ps

41:9[10)]). (b) The q. is used 20x to indicate the maturing process, to grow up, especially in relation to children, “The child grew and was weaned” (Gen 21:8; see also 21:20; 25:27; 38:11, 14; Exod 2:10, 11; Judg 11:2; 13:24; Ruth 1:13; 1 Sam 2:21; 3:19; 1 Kgs 12:8, 10; 2 Kgs 4:18; 2 Chron 10:8, 10; Job 31:18). It is also used of animals (2 Sam 12:3), and figuratively of Israel as God’s faithless bride (Ezek 16:7).

(c) gdl in the hitp. means to become arrogant or magnify oneself in the hitp. (Isa 10:15; Ezek 38:23; Dan 11:36-37). The internal or intransitive hi., often in conjunction

with the preposition ‘al, produces a similar sense, “Do not let them gloat or exalt themselves over me” (Ps 38:16[17]). Edom (Ezek 35:13) and Moab (Jer 48:26, 42) magnify themselves over God. Moab and Ammon exalt themselves over the people of God (Zeph 2:8, 10). The psalmist (Ps 35:26; 38:16[17]; 55:12[13]), as well as Job (Job

19:5) and Jeremiah (Lam 1:9), lament that the enemy has arrogated himself over them. Daniel’s vision of the arrogant ram and goat uses the hi. (Dan 8:4, 8, 11, 25), whereas

the boasting of the king of the north is in the hitp. (Dan 11:36-37). (d) gdl in the pi. denotes raising or rearing children in six passages, “I reared children” (Isa 1:2; see also 2 Kgs 10:6; Isa 23:4; 49:21; 51:18; Hos 9:12). With plants

(Isa 44:14; Ezek 31:4; Jon 4:10) or hair (Num 6:5) gd/ means to make grow. The pu. is used once to denote the passive (Ps 144:12). (e) Using the pi., the Lord exalted Joshua (Josh 3:7; 4:14) and Solomon (1 Chron 29:25; 2 Chron 1:1). (f) gdl in the q. relates that a result of God’s blessing on Abraham (Gen 24:35) and Isaac (26:13, 2x) was an increase of crops, herds, and servants.

(g) The pi. is used twice to denote promotion or advancement. At Esth 3:1, Xerxes promotes Haman over all the princes, emphasizing the irony of Mordecai’s advancement at the end of the book (10:2). > (h) Dan 1:5 employs the pi. in the sense of instruction, “They were to be trained

for three years.” 2. The 524 instances of gad6l make it the most common adj. in BH apart from the demonstrative pronouns and the numbers one, ’ehdd, and one hundred, me’. gadél most often describes the size or magnitude of the word it modifies (over 100x). Gibeon (Josh 10:2), and Nineveh (Jon 1:2; 3:2, 3; 4:11) were large cities. Likewise, the cities examined by the spies (Num 13:28), which Israel was to possess (Deut 9:1), were said

to be great. The size of numerous geographical features are described as gadél: hammidbar haggadol, the great wilderness of the Sinai (Deut 1:19; 2:7; 8:15), hannahar 824

553(#1540) haggadol, the Euphrates (Gen 15:18; Deut 1:7; Josh 1:4) and Tigris Rivers (Dan 10:4), and hayyam haggadél, the Great or Mediterranean Sea (Num 34:6; over 11x). The size of groups of people is described as great: hayil gadél, a great army (2 Kgs 7:6; +4x), or qahal gadol, a great assembly (1 Kgs 8:65, +5x), whereas their number is normally characterized by rab, many. The outer court of the temple is described as gadél, (1 Kgs 7:9, 12; 2 Chron 4:9), as was the holy place (2 Chron 3:5). It is of note that the temple itself is not commonly characterized as gadél though it is frequently referred to by the word hékal, from the Sumerian é-gal, great house (see 2 Chron 2:5[4], 9[8]). Stone,

‘eben, is the most common object whose size is modified by gadél (Gen 29:2; +17x).

(a) gaddl is used with abstract terms in an additional 100+ instances. gadél occurs with dabar, thing (Deut 4:32; 1 Sam 12:16), and substantively in the fem. pl., g°dolét, in the Psalms (71:19; 106:21) and Job (5:9; 9:10; 37:5) to indicate the magni-

tude of the works of God, who does great things that we cannot comprehend (37:5). In contrast, great things spoken or done by human beings are a sign of the proud or haughty (Ps 12:3[4]; 131:1). God’s marvelous actions are further specified as great ¥patim, judgments (Exod 6:6; 7:4), mop*tim, wonders (Deut 6:22; 29:3[2]), ’dt6t, signs (Deut 6:22; 29:3[2]; Josh 24:17), or a great r°52‘G, deliverance (Judg 15:18; 1 Sam 19:5; 2 Sam 23:10, 12; 1 Chron 11:14; cf. Gen 45:7; 1 Sam 14:45). Indeed, the promise given to Abraham to make Israel a significant nation (Gen 12:2; 18:18; 46:3; Exod 32:10; Num 14:12) is the very centerpiece of God’s works (Deut 4:6, 7, 8; 26:5; 2 Chron 1:10). God is thus spoken of as having a great Sém, name (Josh 7:9; 1 Sam 12:22; 1 Kgs 8:42; 2 Chron 6:32; Ps 76:1[2]; 99:3; Jer 10:6; 44:26; Ezek 36:23; Mal

1:11). Humanity’s

(Israel’s) works in contrast are described as committing great

h“ta’a, sin (Exod 32:21, 30, 31; 1 Sam 2:17, 2 Kgs 17:21), t6‘@bét, abominations (Ezek 8:6, 13, 15), and n°’asdt, blasphemies (Neh 9:18, 26), causing great ’aSmd, guilt (Ezra 9:7, 13). God’s judgment is viewed as a great ra‘, evil or catastrophe (Jer 16:10; 32:42; Dan 9:12). The great y6m, day (Jer 30:7; Hos 1:11[2:2]; Joel 2:11, 31[3:4];

Zeph 1:14; Mal 4:5[3:23]) attests to God’s final judgment and is to be understood as that which is termed elsewhere (Isa 2:12-21; Amos 5:18-20) the Day of the Lord. (b) Nearly 100x gadél describes a position of prominence or importance of certain men as well as standing as a frequent characterization of God. Arba (Josh 14:15), Barzillai (2 Sam 19:32[33]), Naaman (2 Kgs 5:1), Job (Job 1:3), and Mordecai (Esth 9:4) are characterized as great men. The most common occurrence of gad6l describing men in this fashion is in a merism, a figure that pairs antithetical terms and indicates a

totality. “Do not fight with anyone, small or great, except the king of Israel” (1 Kgs 22:31; over 26x). In eight cases, ’@/, God, is described 10:17; Neh 1:5; 9:32; Ps 77:13[14]; 95:3; Jer 32:18; ’€lohim, God, is characterized as gadél (2 Chron 2:5[4]; yhwh, the Lord, is said to be great (Exod 18:11; 1 Chron

as being gadd] (Deut 7:21; Dan 9:4). In two instances, Neh 8:6). And in eight cases, 16:25; Ps 48:1[2]; 96:4; 99:2;

135:5; 145:3; Jer 10:6). In three additional occurrences, gadé6l qualifies q°dés yisra’él, the Holy One of Israel (Isa 12:6), ’attd, you (Ps 86:10), and ’“donay, Lord (Ps 147:5). gadél is used to describe a human king in eight instances (2 Kgs 18:19) and God as King in three (Ps 47:2[3]; 95:3; Mal 1:14). Although the single word hakkohén, the priest, is frequently used to designate the high priest, haggado6l qualifies hakkohén 21x (Lev 21:10; Num 35:25; Josh 20:6; 2 Kgs 12:10[11]; 2 Chron 34:9; Neh 3:1; Hag 1:1;

Zech 3:1 are representative; cf. kohén haro’S).

825

55(# 1540) (c) Approximately 90x gaddl describes the intensity of an emotion or other phenomenon, often of God. By manifestation of his great power, koah gadol, the Lord brought Israel out of Egypt (Exod 32:11; Deut 4:37; 9:29; 2 Kgs 17:36), created the earth (Jer 27:5; 32:17), and redeemed his people (Neh 1:10). Both God’s loving-kindness, hesed (1 Kgs 3:6; 2 Chron 1:8; Ps 57:10[11]; 86:13; 108:4[5]; 145:8), and his

wrath, gesep (Deut 29:28[27]; 2 Kgs 3:27; Jer 21:5; 32:37; Zech 1:15; 7:12) or hema (2 Kgs 22:13;

2 Chron

34:21;

Prov

19:19;

Jer 36:7; Dan

11:44;. Zech

8:2), are

described as great. (d) The loudness or intensity of sound is described with gadél (35x). With qél,

voice (25x), gadél denotes the supposed sin to the household gol gadél from the mountain (1 Sam 7:10), a plaintiff cry (2

scream with which Potiphar’s wife announces Joseph’s (Gen 39:14). Moses reports that the Lord spoke with a (Deut 5:22). g6l gadél elsewhere describes thunder Sam 19:4[5]), an urgent prayer (Ezek 11:13), and praise

to God (2 Chron 20:19). With ¢°ri‘G, shout, g°d6/a denotes a sound that lays the walls of Jericho flat (Josh 6:5, 20), announces the coming of the ark into the camp (1 Sam 4:5-6), and celebrates the foundation of the temple (Ezra 3:11, 13). g°d6la with s° ‘aga

or 2° ‘aqd (5x), cry, describes the response of the Egyptians to the death of their firstborn (Exod 11:6; 12:30), Esau’s cry at the loss of blessing (Gen 27:34), and Mordecai’s reaction to the king’s command to kill all the Jews (Esth 4:1). (e) Some 30x the extent of a phenomenon, often connected with the devastation of war, is described by gadél. Prophesied destruction, Seber, as the result of warfare is described as great (Jer 4:6; over 7x). Great slaughter or victory, makka g°ddld, is dealt by Israel upon its enemies (Josh 10:10, 20; Judg 11:33; 15:8; 1 Sam 19:8; 23:5; 1 Kgs

20:21). God likewise judges the disobedience of his people (Deut 28:58-59) with makké g°déla (1 Sam 4:10; 6:19; 2 Chron 28:5). (f) At least 13x (Gen 10:21; 27:1; 29:16; 44:12; 1 Sam 17:13, 14, 28; 18:17; 1 Kgs 2:22; 2 Kgs 3:27; Ezek 16:46; 16:61; 23:4), gad6l is used substantively as older,

in the context of sibling relationship: “Now Laban had two daughters; the name of the older was Leah” (Gen 29:16). 3. The nom. g“diilld denotes the great acts of God in 2 Sam 7:21, 23 and the parallel passages of 1 Chron 17:19, 21. (a) The greatness of God is expressed by g“diilld (Ps 145:3, 6; 1 Chron 29:11) as well as the greatness of Xerxes (Esth 1:4) and Mor-

decai (10:2). Ps 71:21 asserts that God will increase the psalmist’s greatness that he might be comforted in his trouble. (b) At Esth 6:3 g°dalld, in conjunction with honor (y°qar), refers to the accolade that is ironically conferred upon Mordecai. 4. The adj. gadél occurs 4x, in three cases following the vb. hlk (go, come), which serves to denote the continuance of gadél (Gen 26:13; 1 Sam 2:26; 2 Chron 17:12; GKC §113u). Men are described as being great or rich in Gen 26:13 (Isaac) and

2 Chron 17:12 (Jehoshaphat). (a) The maturing process with children is expressed at 1 Sam 2:26 (Samuel). (b) The expression “large of flesh” (gidlé basar) with the contextual meaning of lustful occurs at Ezek 16:26. 5. Of the thirteen occurrences of gédel, seven refer to the greatness of God, especially the greatness of God in redeeming his people from bondage in Egypt (Num 14:19; Deut 3:24[21]; 5:24; 9:26; 11:2; 32:3). Ps 79:11 likely has this picture in mind,

as the psalmist, in Babylonian exile, prays that God will turn his anger and deliver his people. Ps 150, a final doxology, praises God for his “surpassing greatness” (Ps 150:2).

826

S713(# 1544) In reference to humankind, gédel is used negatively to denote human arrogance. The northern kingdom of Israel rejected God’s word, claiming that they could rebuild and be stronger than before (Isa 9:9[8]). Assyria (10:12; Ezek 31:7), as well as Egypt, are accountable for their (Ezek 31:2, 18) “greatness” before God.

P-B_ The OT nuances of the root are also found in the RL and DSS. Thus, the vb. continues to be used in the same sense in the Qumran texts (21x). The adj. gadé/ continues in the same sense and frequency in the Qumran manuscripts (over 130x). The high priest is modified by gadé/ only in the Temple Scroll (11QTemple 15:15; 23:9; 25:16; 26:3; 31:5; 58:18).

The nom. g“dillda is used twice at Qumran in fragmentary passages (4Q400 3 i

5; 4Q504 6 21). The majority of the usage at Qumran refers to the greatness of God (1QM 1:8). In the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, gédel in conjunction with r°hilld specifies a particular type of psalm, a psalm of greatness (4Q403 1 i 8). Great: > gdlI (grow up, become great, make great, boast, # 1540); > rbb I (become numerous, much, great, # 8045); > rbh I (become numerous, multiply, increase, # 8049); > sg’/Sgh (grow great, increase, exalt, # 8434/8436) Growth, greatness, luxuriance, ripening, sprouting: > bqq II (grow luxuriantly, #1328); > gdl I (grow up, become great, make great, boast, # 1540); > nwb (grow, prosper, flourish, # 5649); > sahis (what grows on its own accord, # 6084); > sapiah I (what grows on its own accord, #6206); — smh (sprout, spring up, grow, prosper, make grow, #7541); > r‘n (be luxuriant, green, # 8315); > Sg’/sgh (grow great, increase, exalt, # 8434/8436) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 2:390-416; THAT 1:402-9; TWAT 1:927-56; A. M. Honeyman, “Merismus in Biblical Hebrew,” JBL 71, 1952, 11-18; E. Jenni, Das hebrdische Pi’ el, 1968, 33-36, 275.

M. G. Abegg, Jr.

1541 (gadél, great), > # 1540 1542 (géddel, greatness, great deeds), > # 1540

:

ae

7

77

torah (gadil), nom.

(# 1544).

tassel, chain-like decoration

ANE Whereas the Heb. vb. gd, be great, and its derivatives are likely related to the Ugar. gdl, gadil is more likely derived from a second root represented by the AKkk. gidlu, string (of onions). See Arab. jadala, twist tight, braid, Aram. g“dila’, Syr. edilta’, twisted work, cord, rope. The word g@dil, meaning twisted or braided, occurs at Deut 22:12 in reference OT to the braided threads or tassels attached to the four corners of a cloak, so that the

wearer might remember all the commandments of the Lord (cf. Num 15:38-40). At 1 Kgs 7:17, the chainwork for the capitals atop the temple columns was to be twisted.

The nom. is used in RL of twisted threads such as fringes on a tablecloth, while P-B the expression ma “sé gadil Sapa’, a border of plaited work, describes the outside edge

827

D711(# 1548) of a soldier’s shield (1QM 5:5) and decoration on the socket of his lance (1QM 5:8). At

4Q405 15 ii-16 1 it likely describes hangings in the celestial tabernacle.

Cord, rope: ~ gddil (tassel, # 1544); > hebel II (cord, rope, land, region, # 2475); > n° ‘oret (tow, #5861); — nigpd (cord, rope, #5940); > “bot (twisted cord, #6310); > gaw I (measuring cord, # 7742)

M. G. Abegg, Jr.

= BA

D711 (gd‘), q. cut short, annul; ni. to be cut off, shattered; pi. cut through; pu. to be cut down

(# 1548). OT The root gd‘ involves violent cutting, ripping, shattering, removal, or destruction. For example, the word is used to describe Israel’s demolishing of the items used in the Canaanite cult (cf. Deut 7:5; 12:3; 2 Chron 14:2) and to describe Yahweh’s revo-

cation of his covenant with his shepherd in Zechariah’s prophecy (Zech 11:10, 14). Cutting, destruction, extermination, shearing, trimming: > bs‘ (cut away, get gain, cut off, break up, #1298); > br’ III (clear out trees, cut, destroy, #1345); — btr (cut into pieces, # 1439); > gd‘ (cut short, #1548); > gzh (bring forth, #1602); > gzz (cut, shear, # 1605);

> gzrI (cut, take away, # 1615); > grz (be cut off, # 1746); > gr‘ I (cut out, reduce, # 1757); ~ hip II (cut through, pierce, # 2737); > ksh (cut, cut down, #4065); > krsm (make cropped, trimmed off, #4155); — krt (cut, cut off, exterminate, cut a covenant, circumcise, #4162); > melqahayim (snuffers for trimming/cleaning of lights/lamps, #4920); > ngp I (cut/chop down, destroy, #5937); > nth (cut in pieces, #5983); (hew into pieces, #9119); > tzz (cut away, # 9372)

> gsb (cut off, shear, #7892);

> Ssp

Eugene Carpenter

1549 (gid‘6n, Gideon), ~ Gideon

1552

oar

(# 1526); MBIT (g°dipd), nom. insults (hapleg.; # 1528).

an (gdp), pi. revile, blaspheme (# 1552); ale. (giddiip), nom. taunts, revilings, reviling words taunt (hapleg.; #1527); M473 (giddipa), nom.

ANE The vb. is attested in Aram. gaddép and Syr. gadep, revile. The Heb. vb. may be a loanword, possibly related to Arab. gaddafa, to throw, cast, cut off (see TDOT 2:416; HALAT 172). In Aram., the root gdp means fly (the derivative gdp means wing), in Syr. to row, and in Mandean to throw (rocks, allegations). The vb. acquires the figurative sense to throw accusations, hence to revile, blaspheme (see TDOT 2:417), and even to cut or to wound (TWOT 1:152).

OT 1. The vb. carries profound negative connotations. It affirms the power of words to inflict emotional and spiritual pain, to ruin relationships, and to displease—even to anger—God. It also implies the inappropriateness of such talk among God’s covenant people and the culpability of any who cast aspersions their way or who make light of God and his standards by their words or deeds. The vb. gdp occurs 7x in the OT. The vb. combined with several related concepts describes the pain of a defeated nation struggling to make sense of their

828

F711 (# 1552) vanquished, pathetic plight (Ps 44:16[17]). The part. is used in the midst of a lament. NIV translates: “My disgrace is before me all day long, and my face is covered with shame at the taunts of those who reproach and revile me.” The impact of verbal abuse

is devastating, and all the more so as the psalmist struggles to understand God’s purpose in allowing calamity to befall his people. Their situation is desperate, and now the caustic criticism of their enemies adds insult to injury. In spite of it all, they affirm their love for God and their loyalty to his covenant (cf. Ps 44:22[23] with Rom 8:36-37). 2. When directed toward God, revilings become blasphemy. The classic example appears in the parallel passages in 2 Kgs 19:6 | Isa 37:6 and 2 Kgs 19:22 |! Isa 37:23. The field commander of Assyrian King Sennacherib addresses the people of Jerusalem in Heb. and delivers a scathing message of intimidation, belittling King Hezekiah, berating faith in God, promising peace and prosperity upon surrender, and even claiming Yahweh’s sanction upon Sennacherib’s invasion (2 Kgs 18:19-37 |! Isa 36:4-22). The blasphemous nature of this derision is clear in the divine response through Isaiah: “This is what the LORD says: Do not be afraid of what you have heard—those words with which the underlings of the king of Assyria have blasphemed me” (2 Kgs 19:6 II Isa 37:6).

Openly and intentionally to oppose the people, the promises, or the person of God is to engage in blasphemy. The Assyrian message maligned the trustworthiness, and hence the character, of Yahweh. To claim his favor flippantly and unjustly is not only foolish but fatal. Yahweh’s pronouncement through Isaiah goes on to predict Sennacherib’s withdrawal, demise, and eventual death (2 Kgs 19:5-7 || Isa 37:5-7). This underscores the intensity of his opposition to Yahweh and evokes another divine pronouncement: “Who is it you have insulted and blasphemed? Against whom have you raised your voice and lifted your eyes in pride? Against the Holy One of Israel!” (2 Kgs 19:22 || Isa 37:23). The parallelism equates blasphemy with raising the voice and lifting the eyes in pride against Yahweh. The pronouncement goes on to provide God’s verbal response to Sennacherib’s blasphemy (2 Kgs 19:20-34 || Isa 37:21-35). Yahweh’s answer came when the angel of the Lord destroyed Sennacherib’s army in a single night, forcing the Assyrian king to retreat to Nineveh, where he was soon assassinated by his own sons in the temple of his god Nisroch (2 Kgs 19:35-37 Il Isa

37:36-38). 3. The vb. gdp is also used of blasphemous works. The part. in Num 15:30 castigates the person who sins defiantly. Such an individual “blasphemes the LORD, and that person must be cut off from his people. Because he has despised the LORD’s word and broken his commands, that person must surely be cut off; his guilt remains on him” (Num 15:30b-31). Ezek 20:27 indicts Israel for forgetfulness and idolatry: “In this also your fathers blasphemed me by forsaking me.” 4. The nom. giddiip/giddipa occurs only in the pl. In the poetic structure of Isa 43:28, the severity of “reviling words” is conveyed with great clarity. God says: “I will consign Jacob to destruction (hérem, > 3051), Israel to scorn” (giddiipim). The term hérem refers to the total destruction of peoples and places as an act of religious devotion (cf. Josh 6:17). To be subjected to “reviling words” is to experience something similar to the hérem. But this powerful divine warning is assuaged by God’s promised comfort in Isa 51:7: “Hear me, you who know what is right, you people who have my law in your hearts: Do not fear the reproach (herpat) of men or be terrified by their

829

VTA# 1553) insults (giddipa).” God promises to judge nations that cast “taunts” at his people (Zeph 2:8). Such nations will be reduced to places of weeds and salt pits, wastelands forever—just like Sodom and Gomorrah (2:9).

5. The nom. g“diipd occurs only in Ezek 5:15 and is rendered “taunt” in NIV. The context symbolizes the siege of Jerusalem as an expression of God’s wrath provoked by the vile nature of the people of Israel. Yahweh’s judgment falls in the form of famine, plague, and sword. The few who survive are driven away from Jerusalem and

scattered to the winds (5:12). The depths to which the Israelites are reduced is captured in Yahweh’s prediction of cannibalism among his people (5:10). The severity of the punishment comes because Israel defiled the Lord’s sanctuary with vile images and detestable practices (5:11). Because she sank to depths lower than the nations around her (5:7), Israel serves as testimony to the power and the justice of Yahweh: “You will

be a reproach and a taunt, a warning and an object of horror to the nations around you when I inflict punishment on you in anger and in wrath and with stinging rebuke” (5:15). To endure the taunts of the nations is to be reduced to the lowest possible level,

a level brought on by faithlessness and the consequent judgment of Yahweh. P-B Sir 48:18, recounting Sennacherib’s attack on Jerusalem, says the Assyrian king “shook his fist at Zion and blasphemed God in his pride” (P. W. Skehan and A. A. Di Lella, “The Wisdom of Ben Sira,” AB 39, 1987, 536). LXX translates with mega-

lauché hyperéphania, to make arrogants boasts. In CD A 5:11-12 and 1QS 4:11 a l°56n giddipim (reviling/blaspheming tongue) describes one of the ways people inflict disgrace on God. Pesh. uses forms of gdp in Matt 26:25; Mark 3:29; and Rom 14:16. Mocking, ridicule, scoffing, stammering: ~ gdp (revile, blaspheme, # 1552); > htl (deceive, mock, #2252); — hrp II (taunt, mock, insult, defy, #3070); — lys (scorn, talk big, mock, ridicule, #4329); > I‘b Gest, play, #4351); > I‘g (stutter, mock, deride, #4352); > Iss (rebel, scoff, # 4372); > mwg (mock, scoff, deride, # 4610); > qls (disdain, scoff, jeer, #7840); > shq (laugh, mock, rejoice, celebrate, dance, #8471); > tll (deceive, mock, trifle, #9438); > rt“ (mock, deceive, # 9506); > ta ‘tu ‘im (errors, mockery, #9511) BIBLIOGRAPHY

NIDNTT 3:341-42; TDNT 1:621-25; 5:630-36; TDOT 2:416-18; TWOT 1:152; S. H. Blank, “The Curse, Blasphemy, the Spell and the Oath,’ HUCA 23, 1950-51, 73-95. Tim Powell

1553

V1) (gdr) q. erect a wall (of field stones), block up a way with a wall of field stones (# 1553); Va (gadér), wall made of field stones (# 1555); M1) (9°déra I), stone pen, city-wall (# 1556); T11(g“deret), wall (# 1560). ANE

35

Cognates occur in Arab., Phoen., Pun., and Ugar.

OT 1. The vb. gdr occurs in the HB 10x in q. only; in post-BH, pi., pu., hi., ho., and hitp. forms developed. The q. act. part. refers to repairers of walls, stone masons (2 Kgs 12:12[13]; Isa 58:12), a worthy activity. The builder of stone fences and walls erected barriers for security and control, an activity in which the Lord engaged, metaphorically speaking. Job complained that God had walled up his way, preventing him from

830

mm3# 1564) attaining justice (19:8). The poet lamented similar treatment under the rod of God’s wrath (Lam 3:7, 9). Conversely, the Lord God could list the errors of the leaders of

Judah to his prophet; he sought for any of them to (metaphorically) repair the wall and stand in the breach opposite God, so that he would desist from destroying Jerusalem,

but he could find none (Ezek 22:30). All were extorters, robbers, and oppressors of the poor and defenseless. 2. Balaam’s ass, when confronted by the angel of the Lord, pressed Balaam’s foot against the gadér separating the vineyards through which the way passed (Num 22:24). The word signifies a defensive wall in Ezek 13:5. In Hos 2:6[8], God sets up a

wall to prevent the unfaithful Israel from pursuing her lovers. The protective feature of a wall is emphasized in both instances. 3. The related fem. (g°dérd) refers to a pen for sheep and goats with walls constructed of field stones; however, in Ps 89:40[41] it signifies defensive walls destroyed by Yahweh in anger against his anointed (king). Even the most trustworthy of human defenses falls before the Lord. 4. g°deret, likely a byform of g°dérd, is an hapleg. in the vision of the new temple (Ezek 42:12). 5. The various forms of gadér appear across the spectrum of the HB—particularly in the Law and Prophets, but seldom in the Writings. Wall, heap of stones: ~ gdr (erect a wall, #1553); > hémd (wall, #2570); > hayis (flimsy wall, #2666); > tira (row of stones, #3227); — kotel (wall, #4185); — néd (heap, wall, #5603); > gir (wall, #7815); > SarI (wall, # 8803) Keith N. Schoville

1555 (gadér, wall), > # 1553

1556 (g°déra I, stone pen), > # 1553 1560 (g°deret, wall),

1564

> # 1553

on

ra (ghh), q. heal (# 1564); 12) (géha), healing

‘ith

(#1565).

Both

words

are

considered

as

“non-absolute hapleg” (Greenspahn, 188). ANE. The lexeme is attested in Syr., become free in Aphael causative (HALAT 174b). It is attested in Eth. vb., gahgeha, stop (cf. LLA, 1138b), and in Arab. vb., tagahgaha, refrain from.

ghh occurs only once in the OT: Hos 5:13 (with conj. reading in BHS) which is OT parallel with rp’. géhd occurs only in Prov 17:22 (see textual var. there and in Nah 3:19 in BHS).

The LXX renders ghh as diapaud, rest or cease, and géhd is rendered by euekP-B. ted, be in good condition. None of these G words occur in the NT. Healing, health, healthful: > ghh (heal, #1564); > rp’ (heal, make healthy, drinkable, # 8324); > salém (peace, friendship, happiness, prosperity, health, salvation, # 8934)

831

“WIA (# 1566) Nene eee

eee

ee eee eee ee eee eee eee ee ee eee

BIBLIOGRAPHY

THAT 2:805; F. E. Greenspahn, Hapaxlegomena in Biblical Hebrew, 1984. Alan Kam-Yau Chan

1565 (géhd, healing), > # 1564

1566 ANE

Wa

“M3 (ghr), g. bow down, bend over (# 1566).

The root also occurs in Aram.

OT The rare root ghr occurs 3x, in the impf., in 1 Kgs 18:42 (for the worship of Yahweh) and 2 Kgs 4:34-35 (a gesture of the prophet Elisha in a healing). Worship, bow down, serve: > ghr (down, bend over, # 1566); > hwh II (worship, bow, make obeisance, # 2556); > kpp (bow down, bow oneself down, #4104); > kr‘ (bend, #4156); > sgd (bow down, # 6032); > ‘bd (work, serve, worship, # 6268); > gdd (bow down, kneel down, # 7702); > srt (wait on, be an attendant, serve, minister, # 9250) Terence E. Fretheim

1567

ia

‘2 (gaw

I), back

(#1567);

13 (géw I), back

(# 1568).

OT _ 1. Both words refer to the back of a person, from the shoulders to the buttocks. The term gaw occurs in the OT only in a metaphorical sense in the expression “to put someone or something behind one’s back.” The phrase indicates a willful act of rejection by putting the object out of sight where one will not be bothered again. Israel was accused of rejecting God and his law in this fashion (1 Kgs 14:9; Neh 9:26; Ezek

23°39; See also 4QpHos? 2:4). Idol worship constituted an act of rebellion against the covenant God, Yahweh, and showed the indifference of his people to his law. 2. The term géw is used both in a literal and a metaphorical sense. The “back” is the place where punishment is applied (Prov 10:13; 19:29; 26:23) and is used in the description of the servant who, without any rebellion, offers his “back” to those who

think they are punishing a criminal or wicked man (Isa 50:6). This demonstrates his willingness to suffer voluntarily and obediently: “He either voluntarily yielded himself to flogging, or he offered himself thereto” (E.

J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, 1972,

3:300). When King Hezekiah thanks God for healing him, he also thanks God by saying, “you have put all my sins behind your back” (Isa 38:17), that is, “You have made them as if they had not happened” (HAHAT'® 204). This is a beautiful picture of forgiveness. The righteous and holy God turns his back and is indifferent to that which he hates. Back: ~ gab I (back, #1461); > mipsa‘a (buttocks, #5156)

> gibbén (hunchbacked,

#1492);

> gaw

(back, # 1567);

BIBLIOGRAPHY

David Wolfers, “What Is a gab?” JBQ 20, 1991-92, 17-23. Cleon L. Rogers, Jr.

1568 (géw I, back), > # 1567

832

‘Th (# 1569)

1569 ANE

:

|

1 (géw ID, nom. community, fellow human beings, society, settled life, comrades (# 1569).

OSA gw; Aram. gw(’) (?), Ugar. g(?), Phoen. gw, corporeality, corporation.

OT This word is found only in Job 30:5 in the HB. Certain persons whom Job would have despised before his calamity now mock him (30:1). They were unfortunates or undesirables of human society who lived on or beyond the parameters of acceptable, normal society (30:1-4). Hence they had been driven/forced (gr¥) “from

géw,” clearly indicating their undesirableness. In fact they were “hounded upon” as thieves. The géw indicates some type of social group or structure (“suburbs?” given the context). They were not allowed to infiltrate society, at least regularly. It is possibly related to gdy, nation, people, but note also the suggestions above, especially Aram./Syr. gawa’, inner part, belly (cf. conjecture gaw II [Job 20:25] HALAT 1:174) = metaphorically, body of people, community. The issue remains open. Congregation, community, society: > géw II (community, society, #1569); > yhd (join, # 3479); > y‘d (determine, designate, appoint, assemble, #3585); > s°gulld (property, treasured possession, # 6035); > ‘éda I (community, gathering, band, # 6337); > ghl (assemble, summon, # 7735) BIBLIOGRAPHY

J. Hartley, The Book of Job, NICOT, 1988, 396-97; M. Pope, Job, AB, 1965; M. Dahood, “Some

Northwest-Semitic Words in Job,” Bib 38, 1957, 318-19; J. Payne Smith, ACompendious Syriac Dictionary, 62. Eugene Carpenter

1573 (g6g, Gog), > Gog 1574 (gwd, attack, raid), > # 1518

1575 (géwa I, pride), > # 1448

1577.

3

TA (gwz), q. pass by, fly away (only in Num LEST?

Ps

90:10;

for *conjs see-HALAT

°175)

(# 1577). OT This vb. only occurs twice in the OT with a meaning similar to ’br. Once it describes the wind that brought the quails (Num 11:31), and the other reference is to the life of the aged passing away (Ps 90:10). In Ps 90:10 the meaning of the vb. overlaps that of pws, rush, dart (> # 8132): “The length of our days is seventy years—or

eighty, if we have the strength; yet their span is but trouble and sorrow, for they quickly pass (gwz), and we fly away (tws).” The text of Numbers speaks of the miraculous provision of the quail, “Now a wind went out from the LORD and drove (gwz) quail in from the sea” (11:31, NIV accepts the conj. hi., see P. J. Budd, Numbers, WBC, 1984, 123-24). Flying, wing: ~ ’br (fly, #87); > gwz (fly away, pass, #1577); > d’h (fly swiftly, # 1797); ~ tw8 (rush, dart, #3216); > kanap (wing, skirt, outermost edge, # 4053); > mr’ (spring, fly?, # 5257); > nosd (feathers, # 5681); > ‘wp I (fly, fly about, fly away, # 6414)

833

Orin (# 1578) a Birds, flying creatures: ~ ’br (fly, #87); > bésd (egg, # 1070); > barbur (species of fowl, # 1350); > gdzal (young bird, # 1578); > dgr (hatch eggs, # 1842); > h®sidd (stork, # 2884); + yénd I (dove, # 3433); > ya‘“nd (ostrich, eagle-owl?, #3613); > kanap (wing, skirt, outermost edge, # 4053); > neXer/n°Sar (vulture [eagle], #5979); > ‘dp (flying creatures, # 6416); ~ ‘ayit (birds of prey [collective], #6514); > ‘dréb I (raven, #6854); > sippdr I (birds, #7606); > gore’ I (partridge, # 7926); > slaw (quails, # 8513)

George Klein/Allan M. Harman

1578 ANE

ori

St43(gdzal), young bird (# 1578).

Its cognates are found in Arab. gauzal and Syr. ziigalla’.

OT In the OT it is a general term meaning a young bird. It only appears twice, in Gen 15:9 and Deut 32:11. In Gen 15:9 the bird refers to a turtledove and was one of the sacrifices for covenant-making. In Deut 32:11, the nom. refers to the young of an eagle. P-B_

In BTalm Pesahim 49a the term refers figuratively to young children. In Matt

23:37 (nossion) and Luke 13:34 (nossia) the city Jerusalem is likened to a brood that

could have been protected under the wing of the hen (cf. neossos in Deut 32:11 [LXX]). Birds, flying creatures: ~ ’br (fly, #87); > bésd (egg, # 1070); > barbur (species of fowl, # 1350); > gdzal (young bird, # 1578); > dgr (hatch eggs, # 1842); > h°sidd (stork, # 2884); > yond I (dove, #3433);

> ya“nd (ostrich, eagle-owl?, # 3613); > kanap (wing, skirt, outer-

most edge, # 4053); > neSer/n°Sar (vulture [eagle], #5979);

> ‘dp (flying creatures, # 6416); > ‘ayit (birds of prey [collective], #6514); > ‘oréb I (raven, #6854); > sippér I (birds, # 7606); > gore’ I (partridge, #7926); > §*law (quails, # 8513) BIBLIOGRAPHY

P. Craigie, Deuteronomy, NICOT,

1976; P. D. Miller, Deuteronomy, Interp, 1990; N. Sarna,

Genesis, 1989.

N. Kiuchi

1580 (gdy, people: pagan peoples), > Nations

1581

mbar

1714 (¢*wiyya), nom. body; corpse (# 1581).

OT Although in some contexts the term g°wiyyd refers to a human corpse (1 Sam 31:10, 12 [2x]; Ps 110:6; Nah 3:3) or an animal carcass (Judg 14:8, 9), it denotes almost as frequently a body, either human or celestial, that is alive (Gen 47:18; Ezek

1:11, 23; Dan 10:6; Neh 9:37). In this regard it differs significantly from the terms n°beld and peger, which always refer to a lifeless body. Consequently, g°wiyyd should be translated “body” rather than “corpse.” There may be the additional nuance of personal detachment. When referring to living human beings, their bodies are like instruments or slaves (Gen 47:18; Neh 9:37). The word is a negative synonym for basar, flesh (> # 1414); the latter is found in a more positive context. 834

D3 (# 1588) P-B

In postbiblical Heb. and Jewish Aram. g°wiyyd designates a “body.”

Body: ~ basar (meat, food, flesh, # 1414); > g°wiyyd (body, corpse, # 1581); > gid (sinew, tendon, # 1630); > gap II (body, # 1727); > hdb (bosom, # 2460); > hég (lap, chest, # 2668); > kabéd Il (liver, # 3879); — kilyd (kidney, #4000); > [*hiim (entrails?, # 4302); > mé‘eh (body, bowels, #5055); > mipsa‘d (buttocks, #5156); — ‘esem I (bone, skin, body, self, # 6795); > qereb (inner organs, # 7931) T. Desmond Alexander

1583 (g6ld, exile, exiles), > # 1655

1588

pia

D1 (gw‘), q. die, succumb (# 1588).

OT This vb. occurs 24x in the OT, 11x in the Pent. (only Gen and Num), 7x in Job, 2x in Ps, and only 4x in the remainder of the OT. In the Flood narrative it describes the

death of those drowned in the watery judgment (Gen 6:17; 7:21), but it refers also to natural death as in the case of Abraham (Gen 25:8), Ishmael (25:17), Isaac (35:29), Jacob (49:33), and Aaron (Num 20:29). Usually, however, the suggestion is that of violent and/or untimely death. Thus, the Israelites fear that they will perish because of their contesting Aaron’s priestly leadership (Num 17:12, 13[27, 28], || ’bd; cf. Num

20:3). Achan’s judgment is described by this vb. (Josh 22:20), as is the eschatological judgment of God’s people (Zech 13:8). Job employs the lexeme to speak of stillbirth (3:11;

10:18)

or death

occasioned

by the withdrawal

of God’s

presence

(13:19;

34:14-15). Fundamentally, gw‘ is synonymous with mwt, bearing no meaning significantly different (cf. Gen 25:8, 17; 35:29). Death: #141);

> ’bd I (perish, #6); > ’*damd (ground, piece of land, soil, earth, realm of the dead, > ’Gsén (mortal accident, #656); > gw‘ (expire, die, #1588); > Arg (kill, murder, # 2222); > zrm I (put an end to life, #2441); > hedel (realm of the dead, #2535); > hat II (embalm, embalming, # 2846); > mwt (die, kill, execute, # 4637); > qtl (murder, slay, # 7779);

> r°pa’im I (shades, departed spirits, # 8327); > 5°’61 (sheol, netherworld, #8619); > Sahat (pit, grave, # 8846) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT, 2:438-39; TWOT, 1:155; E. Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job, 515; G. R. Driver, “The Resurrection of Marine and Terrestrial Creatures,” JSS 7, 1962, 12-22;

N. Tromp, Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether World in the Old Testament, 150. Eugene H. Merrill

1589

OT

an

F)'1) (gwp I), hi. shut, close (hapleg.) (# 1589).

The only occurrence of this root is in reference to the shutting and barring of the

doors in Nehemiah’s new city walls of Jerusalem (Neh 7:3). Closing, shutting: > ’tm (stopped up, #357); > ’tr (close [mouth], #358); > gwp I (shut, close, # 1589); > thh (besmeared, stuck, shut, # 3220); > tmh (stopped up, # 3241); > n‘TI (tie, lock, #5835); > sgrI (shut, close, deliver up, # 6037); > stm (stop up, #6258); > ‘sh I (shut,

835

B12(#1590) # 6781); > ‘sm II (shut one’s eyes, #6794); > srr I (bind, shut up, be narrow, in straits, distress, # 7674); > gps I (draw together, shut, # 7890); > 5° I (smear, smooth, shut, # 9129) Bill T. Arnold

1590

nb

M513 (gépda), nom. corpse (Aramaism) (# 1590).

“All their valiant men went and took the bodies of Saul and his sons (lit. th OT body of Saul and the bodies of his sons) and brought them to Jabesh. Then they buried their bones under the great tree in Jabesh, and they fasted seven days” (1 Chron 10:12). The parallel account in 1 Sam 31:12 has g°wiyyd in place of giipd. Corpse:

~ g°wiyyd (body, corpse, #1581);

> giépda (corpse, #1590);

> mappelet (carcass,

#5147); > n°béld (carcass, corpse, #5577); > peger (carcass, corpse, # 7007)

T. D. Alexander

1591

=)

“\2 (gwr I) q. dwell as a stranger, become a refugee; hitpol. stay or stop as a stranger (# 1591); 72 (gér), nom. sojourner, alien (# 1731); 1173 (gériit), nom. hospitality (# 1745); V13f2 (mago6r II), nom. place of residence, home (# 4472).

ANE _ The root g(w)r in the sense of living as a resident alien is not certain outside of northwest Semitic. The Akk. gurru, settle, (CAD, G, 140b) may be a Sem. loanword

from the root gwr II. In 3 Aghat the expression “stranger in the house of Ilu” (KTU 1.19 iii 49) seems to refer to the inhabitants seeking asylum in the temple (de Moor, 259), but it could also refer to Aqhat as one dedicated to the service of the temple (Gibson, 119). In a text of ritual offerings to protect the city gr may refer to a foreign resident (UT, # 567). Other Ugar. occurrences are uncertain in meaning. The vb. gwr may be found once in the Aram. inscription of Sefire ii C 8, but this interpretation is doubtful as the word does not otherwise mean deport but live as an alien (KAI 2:263). The nom. gr is found in the Moabite inscription in a list of captured peoples. It is found twice in a Phoen. inscription from Cyprus, where it may refer to a foreigner or a temple prostitute. OT 1. The vb. gwr occurs 81x in the MT, but some of these instances are uncertain. Many emendations have been proposed for Job 28:4; Gordis suggests the word gar here refers to a crater, which he defends on the basis of a possible Arab. parallel (305). The G has an alternate reading for Isa 5:17_in parallel with lambs, but Wildberger thinks the word is a gloss on the text (178). The vb. occurs as hitpol. in 1 Kgs 17:20 in reference to Elijah dwelling with the widow; it has also been proposed for Jer 5:7 on the basis of LXX (as a hitpol.), but this is a lectio facilior (Holladay, 180); the instance of Jer 30:23 is dubious (30:23-24a repeats 23:19-20); Hos 7:14 should probably be emended to “lacerate” (Andersen and Freedman, 474). The vb. gwr occurs in various

formulae. The most common is gwr b®, with the meaning of dwelling in the midst of a people or tribe; gwr b°t6k (12x) has the nuance of subordination (Exod 12:49: Lev 16:29, etc.); gwr ’ittd (7x) has the sense of with or among (Exod 12:48; Lev 19:33), as does gwr ‘im (4x; cf. Lev 25:6, 45). The formula gwr /° is found only in Isa 33:14 (2x) for those “among us.” 836

772 (# 1591) The vb. gwr is used in the simple sense of dwell, several times in parallel with ySb (> #3782), both in narrative contexts (e.g., Gen 20:1) and in poetic parallel (e.g., Jer 49:18, 33; 50:40). It is used in the sense of abide in Judg 5:17, and metaphorically

in Isa 33:14 to speak of living in a devasted land as living “with the consuming fire.” The vb. is also used in reference to dwelling in the presence of God at the temple in Ps 15:1. It is parallel in this reference to skn (> #8905), the common word for the description of the divine presence. Ps 5:4[5] says that evil may not dwell with God. The most frequent uses of the vb. are to dwell as a sojourner, one who is distinguished from the native citizen. It is often used to describe the journeys of the patriarchs (Gen 12:10; 32:4[5]; 47:4) and is found frequently in Jeremiah 42-44 concerning the intent of the exiles to go to Egypt. Another important and common use is to indicate the incorporation of the sojourner into the life and faith of Israel (Exod 16:29; 17:8, 10, 12; 19:33-34, etc.).

12:48-49; Lev

2. The nom. gér occurs 92x in the OT, always in the sense of a sojourner or alien. In four references it is a metaphor for the native Israelite in the presence of God (Lev 25:23; 1 Chron 29:15; Ps 39:12[13]; 119:19). It often occurs as a synonym with toSab (Gen 23:4; Lev 25:35, 47, etc.); in Ps 39:12[13] it is a poetic parallel. The alien

also appears together with the orphan and the widow as deserving of justice and charity (Deut 24:17; 26:13; Jer 7:6; Mal 3:5). The nom. gériit occurs once in Jer 41:17 as a place of residence, the name indicating a caravansary or khan (Holladay, 298). The nom. magor II is found 11x in the MT, but two of these are textually questionable. In Ps 55:15[16] the MT says “evils are in their habitation, in their midst,” but this is not a good parallel to Sheol of the previous line. It is possible the text should be emended to say “go in terror to their graves”; another solution proposed in KBL based on Arab. is to suggest a third root (mag6r III) meaning corn pit or storehouse as a parallel to Sheol. The text of Lam 2:22 should probably read “those who attack me on every side” (> gwr Il, # 1593). Jacob speaks of the time of his life as a sojourning (Gen 47:9), a sentiment not far removed from that of Ps 119:54, which speaks of life as a place of sojourning. This is the word used to describe the land of the patriarchs given as a promise to their descendants (Gen 17:8; 28:4; Exod 6:4), a motif that lends itself as a metaphor for the pilgrimage of life. The word is used in the general sense of a place of residence that is not a native home (Job 18:19; Ezek 20:38). 3. The sojourner is distinguished from the foreigner in that he has settled in the land for some time and is recognized as having a special status. As individuals or a group they have abandoned their homeland for political or economic reasons and sought refuge in another community, as Abraham in Hebron (Gen 23:4), Moses in Midian (Exod 2:22), Elimelech and his family in Moab (Ruth 1:1), or the Israelites in Egypt (Exod 22:20). The sojourner in Israel does not possess land and is generally in the service of an Israelite who is his master and protector (Deut 24:14). He is usually poor, but as a resident enjoys the rights of assistance, protection, and religious participation. He has the right of gleaning (Lev 19:10; 23:22), participation in the tithe (Deut 14:29), the Sabbath year (Lev 25:6), and the cities of refuge (Num 35:15). His participation in religious feasts assumes the acceptance of circumcision (Exod 12:48; cf. Deut 16:11, 14). He may bring offerings and is obligated to the regulations of purity (Lev 17:8-16). There is legislation for religious offenses (Lev 24:22), such as blasphemy of the name

837

VA # 1591)

of Yahweh (Lev 24:16) or idolatrous practice (Lev 20:2). The sojourner is under divine protection (10:18; Ps 146:9); Israelites must love the alien as themselves (Deut 10:19),

for that is what they themselves were. In daily life there was to be no barrier between the alien and the Israelite.

Theologically, the life of Israel in the land is described as that of the resident

alien. The right of property is to be safeguarded because the Israelites themselves are aliens and sojourners before Yahweh (Lev 25:23). The psalmist recognizes that he is a sojourner as were his forefathers (Ps 39:12[13]), in need of mercy and deliverance.

This exact expression is used by David in his prayer of praise for the temple provisions (1 Chron 29:15). The precepts of Yahweh are necessary, for we are aliens in the earth (Ps 119:19).

P-B_ The logical translation of the nom. gér in the LXX is prosélytos, since the G word has the sense of one who has arrived or a sojourner. The term is used especially in those texts referring to the inclusion of the resident alien as a full participatory member in the religious community (ca. 70x), giving it the nuance of the later, more technical meaning of a convert. When this sense is excluded, the term paroikos is used (Gen 15:13; 23:4; Exod 2:22; 1 Chron 29:15; Ps 39:12[13], etc.), which has more the sense

of living near or among others. The vb. gwr is usually translated by paroikein as most often it is in reference to the act of sojourning (ca. 35x). However, other vbs. may be found prudent with reference to the prosélytos, such as proserchesthai in Num 9:14 or proskeisthai (not in NT) in Exod 12:49; Lev 16:29, etc. (12x). In other contexts different words are found, such as diatribein in Jer 42:7 (Heb 35:7) or katoikein in 1 Kgs 17:20 (4x); Jer 50:2 (Heb 43:2). For the nom. gér is xenos in Job 31:32; geiton in Job 19:15; and geioras (not in NT) in Exod 12:19 and Isa 14:1. In postbiblical Heb. and Aram. the vb. gwr most often refers to converting (becoming a proselyte), though it does not lose the sense of sojourning or being a neighbor. This meaning is also found in Arab., Eth., and Tigre. Palestinian and later Aram., Syr., and Mandean use gwr as a euphemism for adultery, but this may be a separate root (Jastrow). In all later Sem. languages the nom. gr most commonly means proselyte (DSO, Jastrow), but is also used in middle Aram. for the resident alien. The nom. is found in 4QFlor | in the context of the foreigner and half breed. In a completely different sense the nom. is found in CD 6.21 in the context of the poor. NT The NT uses the word prosélytos in the full technical sense, but none of these have any direct relation to LXX usage (Matt 23:15; Acts 2:11; 6:5; 13:43). Paul, however, fully identifies the OT sense of the foreigner adopted into the faith in speaking of the reconciliation of Gentiles and Jews in Eph 2:19, speaking of the Gentiles as xenoi

and paroikoi. Peter also adopts the latter term to describe life on this earth as a pilgrimage (1 Peter 1:17, 2:11), a sentiment that fully continues that of the OT (Ps 39:12[13], 119:19). Alien, foreigner, stranger: > gwr I (dwell as a stranger, # 1591); > zar (foreign, surprising, # 2424); > nékar (foreign, foreigner, # 5797); > t65ab (alien, settler, # 9369) Dwelling: ~ bayit I (house, dwelling, building, family, dynasty, #1074); > ySb (dwell, # 3782); > ma‘6n II (den, dwelling, #5061); > magém (place, town, site, dwelling place, holy place, # 5226)

838

“Va (# 1593) i

en

BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDNT 6:727-45; TDOT 2:439-49; THAT 1:409-12; F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Hosea,

1980, 475; J. C. de Moor, An Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit, 1987, 259; J. C. L. Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 1977, 119; R. Gordis, The Book of Job, 1978, 305; M. Gérg, “Der Freunde: ein Freundwort im Alten Testament?” Biblische Notizen 25, 1984, 10-13; P. Gre-

lot, “La derniére étape de la rédaction sacerdotale,” VT 6, 1956, 177-78; W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah I, 1986, 184; idem, Jeremiah 2, 1989, 298; Th. M. Horner, “Changing Concepts of the

‘Stranger’ in the OT,” ATR 42, 1960, 49-53; J. Milgrom, Numbers, 1990, 398-402; P. D. Miller, “Studies in Hebrew Word Patterns,” HTR 73, 1980, 79-89; E. Neufeld, “The Prohibitions Against Loans at Interest in Ancient Hebrew Laws,” HUCA 26, 1955, 391-94; R. de Vaux, Anclsr I, 1965, 74-76; H. Wildberger, Jesaja, 1972, 178; idem, “Israel und sein Land,” EvT 16,

1956, 404-22. A. H. Konkel

1593

=5)

V2 (gwr III), q. be afraid of, dread, stand in awe

(# 1593); Ward (magér I), nom. (# 4471); Tard (m’gdéra), nom. horror (# 4475).

terror, horror

OT The verbal form of gwr III occurs 10x in the OT. It is a likely byform of ygr, fear, dread, terror (> # 3336). It occurs 7x with the complex preposition mipné, from before, in the causal sense meaning because of, introducing the reason or object of such

fear. This vb. can express both the fear associated with terror and the fear associated with the reverence and awe of worship. 1. To depict the fear or terror caused by a person or group of people is one aspect of this vb. Moab feared the threat of Israel’s great number (Num 22:3). Similarly, the provocation of any enemy can induce such terror (Deut 32:27). The fear of Saul with reference to David and his increasing popularity is also described in such terms (1 Sam 18:15). On two occasions, however, a prohibition against such fear exists. In the first case, such a prohibition exists in order that fair and impartial judgments would prevail (Deut 1:17); in the second, the scheming words of a false prophet are not to be feared (Deut 18:22). The wrath of Yahweh’s judgment can evoke fear: “You should fear the sword yourselves; for wrath will bring punishment by the sword, and then you will know that

there is judgment” (Job 19:29). In Job such terror is the sure result of an encounter with the mighty leviathan (41:17[25]). 2. In the book of Psalms, gwr III is used to depict the fear, reverence, and awe associated with the worship of Yahweh, “Let all the earth fear [yr’] the LORD; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe [gwr III] of him” (Ps 33:8, NASB; cf.

22:23[24]). A difficult text, however, appears in Hos 10:5: “The people who live in Samaria fear for the calf-idol of Beth Aven.” The question becomes, does gwr III depict the fear associated with terror or the reverence associated with worship? The context of idolatry points to the reverence associated with worship as the more likely option. Wolff’s translation aptly characterizes this option: “Samaria’s inhabitants worship the calf idol of Beth-aven” (Wolff, 177). It is possible, however, that Hosea intends both senses. Thus, the “worship” of the idolatrous calf-idol will result in the

“terror” of Yahweh’s judgment of wrath.

839

ST 1598) 3. The nom. masc. form of this root, m&gér, terror, horror, occurs 9x; once in

Ps, once in Isa, 6x in Jer, and once in Lam. In 7x this nom. appears in the expression magor missabib, terror on every side. Such an expression depicts a hopeless state of terror where survival itself is threatened: ‘““As you [Yahweh] summon to a feast day, so you summoned against me terrors on every side. In the day of the LORD’s anger no one escaped or survived; those I cared for and reared, my enemy has destroyed” (Lam 2:22). In this way it is applied to Assyria (Isa 31:9), Egypt (Jer 46:5), Kedar and Hazor (Jer 49:29), and even Judah (Jer 6:25) to express the inevitability of their coming destruction. Since it is such a negative expression, it is not surprising that this phrase would be used for mockery and slander, “For I hear the slander of many; there is terror on every side” (Ps 31:13[14]; also Jer 20:10). 4. The nom. fem. form of this root, m°g6rd, terror, horror, occurs only 3x. This

form is used to express the terror of Yahweh’s recompense: “I also will choose harsh treatment for them and will bring upon them what they dread” (Isa 66:4). The righteous will be spared such terrors (Ps 34:4[5]), but the wicked will surely experience this dread (Prov 10:24). Fear, dread, terror:

~ ’aGydm (terrible, awesome, majestic, #398); > ’émd (terror, dread, # 399); > bhi (be dismayed, terrified, dismay, terrify, hasten, hurry, # 987); > b‘t (overtaken by sudden terror, stupefied, be terrified, assail, # 1286); > gwr III (be afraid of, dread, stand in awe, # 1593); > d’g (be anxious, concerned, fear, dread, # 1793); > zhl II (fear, be afraid, # 2324); > hrd (tremble, shudder, startle, # 3006); > htt (be shattered, dismayed, terrified, scare, terrify, #3169); > ygr (fear, dread, terror, #3336); > yr’ I (fear, be afraid, held in honor, # 3707); > yrh (be afraid, terrified, paralyzed with fright, # 3724); > ‘rs (be alarmed, terrified, dreadful, dreadful, be in terror, # 6907); > phd I (tremble, be in dread, # 7064); > qws I (feel disgust, frighten, cause dread, #7762)

BIBLIOGRAPHY H. W. Wolff, Hosea, Hermeneia, 1974. M. V. Van Pelt/W. C. Kaiser, Jr.

1594 (gir I, lion cub), > # 787 1596 (gér, lion cub), > #787

.

bb soho 1598 tas ig a

574 (g6ral), > nom. . lot;> that which falls byy lot: & ot;

allotted (# 1598).

ANE The term is probably related to Arab. garwal, pebble (cf. Arab. garila, “to be stony”; garal, “stony ground”). OT 1. In its most basic meaning, géral (which occurs 77x) apparently refers to stones (HALAT 178a) or other objects (no description exists) utilized in lot casting. For the most part there is no information with respect to the technique used. The vocabulary associated with casting lots is rather varied (nin, q., Lev 16:8; yrh, q., Josh 18:6; Sik, hi., Josh 18:8; npl, hi., 1 Chron 24:31; ydd, q., Joel 3:3[4:3]; twl, ho., Prov 16:33).

Of the terms mentioned, ydd, q., is used only of lot casting by non-Israelites (Joel

3:3[4:3]; Obad 11; Nah 3:10). The lot can fall (ys’, q., Num 33:54; npl, q., 1 Chron 26:14); fall on ‘lh ‘I, q., Lev 16:9,10), come out (ys’, q., Josh 19:1; ‘Ih, q., Josh 19:10), and be for someone (hyh I, q., Josh 21:10).

840

S757 (# 1598) 2. Through the use of lots, Yahweh himself gave direction (Prov 16:33, cf. 18:18) in what were often critically important matters. Not surprisingly, therefore, the

casting of lots for the division of Canaan (cf. Num 26:55-56) took place “in Shiloh in

the presence of the LORD” (Josh 18:8-10), and prayer could accompany lot casting

(1 Sam 14:41). Samuel spoke in Yahweh’s name before lots were cast for Israel’s first king (1 Sam 10:18-19; cf. 8:7, 22). Such lot casting is often equated with the use of the

Urim and Thummim, although this is by no means certain. Through the lot Yahweh also provided for matters pertaining to worship: the designation of the two goats on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:8-10), the reorganization of the Levites (1 Chron 24-26 passim), and the wood supply for the temple (Neh 10:34[35]). Inhabitants for postexilic Jerusalem were also recruited by lot (Neh 11:1). 3. Lot casting and its use was widespread and varied. It put an end to disputes (Prov 18:18) and was used to divide booty (Ps 22:18[19]; cf. John 19:24). It was also employed by non-Israelites to settle difficult matters such as determining guilt (Jon 1:7), setting a date (Esth 3:7 [par. piir]), or dividing property (i.e., thus defeated Israelites were regarded! cf. Joel 3:3[4:3]; Obad 11; Nah 3:10). 4. Since the identity of the Urim and Thummim as a lot oracle is often suggested, it may be beneficial to note similarities and differences between the Urim and Thummim and the lot oracle. Both were a means of divine revelation (resp., Num 27:21 and Prov 16:33), and both were involved in important national affairs (resp.

Num 27:21; and the division of the land by lot, Josh 14:1-2; 18:8-10). With respect to differences, the lot oracle could be regularly employed in regular liturgical decision making (e.g., Lev 16:8-10) and in recurring or everyday situations where a decision from Yahweh was desired (e.g., Prov 18:18). The Urim and Thummim, on the other hand, were an official means of revelation given to the high priest (Exod 28:30; Lev 8:8), which was to be used when more revelation was needed for God’s people (Num 27:21). Such a revelation was not restricted to a yes or no answer (cf. e.g., the use of the Urim and Thummim in 2 Sam 5:23-24). (See further C. Van Dam, The Urim and Thummim, 1986, 118-22.) 5. The word g6éral also denotes the land that has been acquired by the use of lot and thus connotes inheritance (Num 36:2-3; Josh 14:2; 15:1). Each Israelite could thus be sure that his portion had come from Yahweh (Prov 16:33). This gave a solid juridical basis for the ownership of land and must have given a sense of belonging and identity to each of the tribes and their respective families. God himself had directed what part was to be theirs. So their position was uncontested, and God would keep the rod of the wicked off the possession (gérdal) of the righteous (Ps 125:3). 6. Figuratively, gdral can denote one’s portion or destiny over which one may think to have control (Prov 1:14). More usually, one’s lot or destiny is something that God himself has assigned. Yahweh metes out terror and destruction to those who plunder Judah (Isa 17:14, par. héleq). Those of his people who turn against him are also assigned horrid judgments (Isa 57:6, par. héleq; Jer 13:25, par mnt). Yahweh maintains the lot (g6ral) of those who consider Yahweh the portion (mnat) of their inheritance (héleq) (Ps 16:5). This lot can refer to one’s possession in the land, but given the context of the entire psalm, need not be restricted to that. It can refer to all the riches, including spiritual, of those who put their trust in him (cf. H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 1-59, 1988 [1961-1978], 237-38). In Dan 12:13, Daniel is

841

wan (# 1599) assured that at the end of the days he would rise to receive his allotted inheritance (gdral). Only the eternal covenant God is able to give that assurance. The term has a wider range of meanings in DSS. It can designate lot P-B. (11QTemple 26:4), but also a decision (1QS 5:3), duty or office granted by a decision (1QSa 1:9, 20), the community in which a decision is binding (1QS 2:2), and possibly a military unit (1QM 13:12). Of special interest is the meaning “category” to distinguish the destiny of the righteous from the evil (1QM 1:5; 13:9). Lots, division, Urim/Thummim: ~ ’drim (Urim, #242); > gdral (lot, #1598); > hig I (divide, obtain one’s share, # 2745); > ydd I (cast, #3341); > pir (lot, #7052); > tummim (Thummim, # 9460) BIBLIOGRAPHY

NIDNTT 2:295-99; TDOT 2:450-56; THAT 1:412-15; Joh. Lindblom, “Lot-casting in the OT,” VT 12, 1962, 164-78; F. Noétscher, Zur theologischen Terminologie der Qumran-Texte, 1956, 169-73; K. H. Rengstorf, “The Concept GORAL O79 in the DSS [Hebrew],” Tarbiz 35, 1965,

108-21 (Eng. summary, pp. II-III); Y. Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness, 1962, 256. C. Van Dam

1599 ANE

wad

W13 (¢a5), nom., crust, clod, lump (# 1599).

Aram. giiSa (BDB, 159); Arab. gas’, clods (HALAT 178).

OT Found only in Job 7:5, where Job’s body is clothed with worms and “scabs” (dirt, NRSV). Dust, clay, dirt, loose soil: > ’abdaq (dust, # 85); > ’éper (ashes, loose soil, # 709); > homer II (mud, clay, mortar, # 2817); > tit (mud, mire, clay, #3226); > tmp (dirty, # 3245); > ‘pr (dust, # 6759); > roba‘ II (dust, rubbish, # 8066); > regeb (clods of earth, # 8073); > S°hér (soot, blackness, # 8818); > Sahag (dust, clouds of dust, # 8836)

Roy E. Hayden

1600 (géz, mown field), ~ # 1605

1601 ANE Late

The

Vesa Semitic

Babylonian

“aT (gizbar), treasurer (# 1601).

cognates—Aram. ganzabaru

[CAD,

gizbara/gizzabra’,;

Syr. ge(j)zabra/ganzibra;

G,

loanwords

43])—are

all

from

Persian

ganza-bara, “Master of the Treasure.” OT A hapleg. in Ezra 1:8, this word describes a high ranking Dees among financial officers in the court of Cyrus. Leaders: ~ ’Gdén (lord, master, # 123); > ’allip II (tribal chief, #477); > ’asil IL (eminent, noble, # 722); > zaqén (elder, # 2418); > hdr I, free man, freeborn, # 2985); > maptéah (badge of office, #5158); > nagid (prince, ruler, leader, #5592); > nasi’ I (chief, king, #5954); > saris (eunuch, court official, #6247); > seren II (Philistine prince, #6249); > ‘attid (he-goat, leader, #6966); > pehd (governor, #7068); > pagid (officer, #7224); > gasin (commander, leader, #7903); > rab II (captain, chief, # 8042); > rzn (rule, # 8142); > 6a‘ I (noble, # 8777)

842

rita (# 1602) BIBLIOGRAPHY

F.C. Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah,

NICOT, 1982, 46. Victor P. Hamilton

1602

m4

MTA (gzh), q. bring forth (#1602); nom. Fth

(gGzit), dressed stone (> # 1607).

OT 1. The vb. means “brought...forth” in Psalms 71:6, as in the process of birth. The idea of cutting refers to being separated from the womb. 2. The nom. gdzit means dressed/hewn stones, often for use in altars, temples, or palaces (1 Kgs 7:9, 11-12), but not permitted in an altar built to Yahweh (Exod 20:25), for the stones were defiled if a workman’s instrument (hereb) was used on them. It can also refer metaphorically to barriers, such as those Yahweh cast up to hem in the lamenter (Lam 3:9). Cutting, destruction, extermination, shearing, trimming: > bs‘ (cut away, get gain, cut off, break up, #1298); > br’ III (clear out trees, cut, destroy, #1345); > btr (cut into pieces, # 1439); > gd‘ (cut short, # 1548); > gzh (bring forth, # 1602); > gzz (cut, shear, # 1605);

> gzrI (cut, take away, # 1615); > grz (be cut off, # 1746); > gr‘ I (cut out, reduce, # 1757); > hip Il (cut through, pierce, # 2737); > ksh (cut, cut down, # 4065); > krsm (make cropped, trimmed off, #4155); ~ krt (cut, cut off, exterminate, cut a covenant, circumcise, # 4162);

> melqahayim (snuffers for trimming/cleaning of lights/lamps, #4920); > ngp I (cut/chop > qsb (cut off, shear, #7892); > Ssp

down, destroy, #5937); > nth (cut in pieces, #5983); (hew into pieces, #9119); > tzz (cut away, # 9372)

Eugene Carpenter

1603 (gizzd, fleece),

1605

> # 1605

1

TT] (gzz), q. cut, shear, remove; ni. be shorn (# 1605); T2 (géz), mown field, shearing, fleece (# 1600); 13 (gizza), nom. fleece (# 1603). ANE The root géz is related to Akk. gizzu(m) (shearing) and gaz@zu(m), shear (AHw, 284a). OT 1. The vb. is used for shearing sheep (Gen 31:19; 38:12). The firstborn may not be sheared (Deut 15:19). It also describes the cutting of human hair (Jer 7:29; Mic

1:16). Isaiah uses the vb. to describe the suffering servant submitting to his oppressors, “as a sheep before her shearers” (Isa 53:7; cf. gzr [> # 1615], v. 8). 2. By metonymy géz, fleece, is used for a mown field in Ps 72:6, where the righ-

teous king is compared to rain falling on newly mown fields; the benefit envisioned is probably that the newly mown fields will be able to produce a second crop, as can be implied from Amos 7:1 (see below on lege). Also by metonymy, gé@z is used in Amos 7:1 in reference to the portion of the crop mown/harvested for the king, that escaped the locust invasion. 3. The nom. gizzd, fleece, appears in the story of Gideon to describe the test fleece he employed (Judg 6:37).

843

mt} (# 1607) Cutting, destruction, extermination, shearing, trimming: > bs‘ (cut away, get gain, cut off, break up, #1298); > br’ III (clear out trees, cut, destroy, #1345); > btr (cut into pieces, # 1439); > gd‘ (cut short, # 1548); > gzh (bring forth, # 1602); > gzz (cut, shear, # 1605);

+ gzrI (cut, take away, # 1615); > grz (be cut off, # 1746); > gr‘ I (cut out, reduce, # 1757); ~ hip Il (cut through, pierce, #2737); > ksh (cut, cut down, #4065); > krsm (make cropped, trimmed off, #4155); — krt (cut, cut off, exterminate, cut a covenant, circumcise, #4162);

+ melgahayim (snuffers for trimming/cleaning of lights/lamps, #4920); > ngp I (cut/chop down, destroy, #5937); > nth (cut in pieces, #5983); > gsb (cut off, shear, #7892); > Ssp (hew into pieces, #9119); > tzz (cut away, # 9372) Eugene Carpenter/Mark D. Futato

1607

mn

MT] (gdazit), nom. stone (# 1607).

ashlar stone; dressed stone;

OT This word indicates a particular type of dressed stone that was considered to be building material of the highest quality and of pleasing appearance (Isa 9:10[9]; Amos 5:11). It was used in the foundation (ysd; > #3569) of the temple. In Ezekiel’s vision of the temple, dressed stone was used for the four tables for burnt offerings (Ezek 40:42). It was evidently used elsewhere in Solomon’s temple as well (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:9-11; 1 Chron 22:2).

This type of stone is expressly forbidden as material for the altar mentioned in Exod 20:25, which was to be made of field stones untouched by human tools. The use

of ashlar stone defiled the altar (cf. Josh 8:31). The nom. is used metaphorically in Lam 3:9 to describe Yahweh’s opposition and harsh treatment of the community in exile of Israel. Bricks, stone:

~ gdzit (ashlar stone, # 1607); > hsb I (break, dig, quarry, hew out, #2933);

> Ibn II (make, produce, mold bricks, # 4236); > massa‘ (quarry [stones], #5024); > ngr (pick out, hew out, dig out, #5941)

Eugene Carpenter/Michael A. Grisanti

1608

br

Or (gzl), q. steal, rob, tear away, plunder; ni. be

robbed (#1608); 713 (gézel), nom. robbery (# 1609); TA (gazél), nom. robbery (# 1610); mon (g°zéla), nom. robbery, plunder, stolen object (# 1611). ANE _ Cognates with the same meaning include the Syr. gelaz and the Arab. gazala. OT

1. Incontrast to gnb (# 1704), which emphasizes stealth, gz/ carries the sense of

taking something by force (2 Sam 23:21; Job 24:9; Mic 3:2) and may refer to kidnapping (Gen 31:31), the theft of flocks (Job 24:2), or loss of property (20:19). 2. In the Pent. gz/ refers to the literal taking of possessions by force. So the servants of Abimelech seize a well (Gen 21:25). Jacob (31:31) is afraid that his father-in-law may reclaim (NIV seize) his two wives (in contrast to Jacob and Rachel’s theft by deceit; vv. 26, 32 > gnb, # 1704). In legal texts gz/ may mean either to steal (Lev 6:2[5:21]) or to take by extortion (6:4[5:23]), and details about restitution are set.

Notably, to defraud and to rob someone may be used in parallel (19:13), indicating the severity of the former.

844

513 (# 1608) 3. In the historical books, we read of the Benjaminites taking wives for themselves by force (Judg 21:23). The people of Shechem (9:25) ambush and rob (gz/) travelers from their hilltop hideouts. The vb. gz/ can also mean “snatch,” as in the case of one of David’s men, who snatches the spear of his Egyptian opponent during a fight (2 Sam 23:21). The physical violence of gz/ is apparent in all three instances cited here. 4. In the prophetic books, gz/ can mean tear away, referring either to skin (Mic 3:2) or to a limb (Mal 1:13). The sense of physical violence is unmistakable here. gz/ may also refer to a more abstract form of violence, namely, that of the structural violence of a society. Such a situation is well known to the prophets, Micah understood oppression as a form of violent robbery (Mic 2:2), as the rich first coveted and then seized (gz/) the fields of others. Isaiah spoke of the rich (Isa 10:2) as those who wrench away by force (NIV, deprive, lacks the sense of the violence implicit in gz/) the rights of the poor, and rob (Sil, # 8964) the oppressed of justice. But God is a God of compassion, and he orders a society where justice is administered so as to rescue from their oppressors the one who has been robbed (gz/) (Jer 21:12). This strong connection between oppression and robbery reinforces the OT idea that poverty and oppression go hand in hand. 5. In the Wisdom literature, Prov 22:22 warns against robbing the poor, for God is their protector. In a social context where each person was defined by their family and tribe, the role of the family or tribal head assumed great importance (see Gottwald, 139-93). Such a person was the judge and protector of all who fell within his/her domain. The poor, by reason of natural conditions (famine, war) or economic conditions (poor farming, taxes, the spiral of debt), found themselves progressively pushed to the outskirts of society (in sociological terms, marginalized). As such they had no societal protection and so were open to all kinds of abuse. Concerning such people, God warns not to rob them, for he is their protector, “You rescue the poor from those too strong for them, the poor and needy from those who rob them” (Ps 35:10b). P-B In the Talm. (Baba Qamma 10:5) gz/ means variously to tear away, rob, or to take illegitimately, which latter meaning is that found in Tg. Lev 5:23.

NT The NT was atime of social banditry, but also a time of oppression by the high priestly aristocracy. Jesus challenged this latter situation by his cleaning of the temple, quoting Jer 7:11 and describing the priests as social bandits (Mark 11:12-18). Plunder, spoil, robbing, stealing: > bzz (plunder, spoil, # 1024); > gai (steal, rob, # 1608); > gnb (steal, rob, # 1704); > paris II (burglar, robber, # 7265); > pereq (crossroad?, plunder, #7294); > SII II (take plunder, seize, # 8964); > Ssh (plunder, loot, # 9115) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 2:456-58; TWOT 1:157-58; J. J. Glueck, “The Verb PRS in the Bible and in the Qumran Literature” RevO 5, 123-27; N. K. Gottwald, The Tribes of Yahweh, 1979; R. A. Horsley and J. S. Hanson, Bandits, Prophets and Messiahs, 1985; B. S. Jackson, Theft in Early Jewish Law, 1972; A. Phillips, Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law, 1970.

W. R. Domeris

1609 (gézel, robbery), > # 1608

1610 (gazél, robbery), > # 1608 845

UTA# 1614) 1611 (g°zéld, robbery), > # 1608 1612 (gazam, locust swarm), > # 746

1614

P|

DT (géza‘), shoot, stump (# 1614).

ANE. This term lacks clear cognates in the ancient Sem. languages (Akk. and Ugar.). Questionable comparison has been made with three different modern Arab. roots, plus OSA gz‘. Comparison has been made with Heb. gzz, shear (sheep), and reference is made to the Ugar. guild of shearers (gzzm) mentioned in PRU 2, 207. Cf. Akk. gazazu, shear. The Sem. root gd‘ has been mentioned but without good reasons except for its use “to cut down trees” (Isa 9:10[9]); 10:33), which is then connected with the cut “stump” left behind. But this is contrived and lacks good linguistic basis.

OT

The nom. géza‘, found only 3x in the OT—twice in Isa (11:1; 40:24) and once

in Job 14:8. It is always in context with S6reS, root

(> # 9247), and refers either to the

stump, the rootstock, or to the shoot from a stump. The NIV translates it “stump” or leaves it untranslated (Isa 40:24). Job 14:8-9 states that in contrast to mortals, there is at least hope for a tree: “Its

roots (S6res, # 9247) may grow old in the ground and its stump (géza‘) die in the soil, yet at the scent of water it will bud and put forth shoots (qasir II; # 7908) like a plant.” The parallel term S6reS, root (# 9247), suggests the meaning of “stump” here for géza‘ (see also NRSV, REB, and NJPSV).

In Isa 40:24, as a metaphor for the descendants of the rulers of this world, the word refers to the “shoot” sprouting from a stump: “No sooner are they planted (nt‘; # 5749), no sooner are they sown (zr‘; # 2445), no sooner do they [lit., “their stump”’] (géza‘) take root (575; # 9245) in the ground ...” (NIV). The NRSV, NAB, and NJPSV

rendered here “their stem.” Note again (as in Job 14:8-9) the use together of stump (géza‘) and root (S6res) in the same sentence. In Isa 11:1 the word is used as a metaphor for the Messiah: “A shoot (hdter; # 2643) will come from the stump (géza‘) of Jesse; from his roots (S6rex) a Branch

(néser; #5916) will bear fruit.” In the immediately preceding verses (10:33-34) the prophet has just described the forests being cut down, but from a remaining stump will sprout a Branch. Again, stump is used in the same sentence with root (S6res); similar imagery is found in Jer 23:5; 33:15; Zech 3:8. This prophecy reaches behind David to Jesse, just as Mic 5:2[1] reaches behind Jerusalem to Bethlehem, possibly to note the

Messiah’s humble and obscure earthly origin (cf. Luke 2:7). The forestry imagery is picked up from Isa 10:33-34 and illuminates the cut back statues of the reign of Ahaz and the reduced area controlled by Judah. All people will rally around the “shoot from the stump of Jesse.” The messianic understanding of this passage was already reflected in the ancient Targum on Isa 11:1: “And a king shall come forth from the sons of Jesse” (B. D. Chilton, The Isaiah Targum, 1987, 2:28). NT

Rev 5:5 also refers to the “root of David” and Rev 22:16 combines “Root” and

“Offspring” of David.

846

7T1(# 1615) Shoot, bud, growth, sprig, sprout, tendril: > ’éb (shoot, # 4); > géza‘ (shoot, stump,# 1614); > zalzal (shoot of vine, #2360); > héter (rod, shoot, #2643); > ydneget (shoot, stripling, # 3438); > n°tiX6t (tendrils, shoots, #5746); > néser (sprout, shoot, #5916); > smh (sprout, spring up, grow, prosper, make grow, # 7541) Larry Walker

1615

“Wa

“WA (gzr D), q. cut, take away, divide, apportion, : chew up, remove; ni. to be removed, be decreed,

to be excluded; Aram. pe. part. astrologer; hitpe. be cut out (# 1615); nom. 1} (gezer I), piece, shattered pieces (# 1617); IT) (gizra), courtyard (> # 1619); TTI (magzera), axe (> # 4477); 13) (g°zéra), nom. decree (# 10141). OT

1. The meaning of this word group is wide ranging. It describes Isaiah’s servant

(Isa 53:8), who was “cut off’ from the land of the living (cf. gzz [> # 1605], Isa 53:7), and the removal of righteous persons from life or God’s care (Ps 88:6; Lam 3:54).

2. The nom. gezer describes the pieces of divided animals in a covenantal ritual (Gen 15:17). 3. Whereas the verbal forms have a primary (“cut”) and a secondary sense (“decide,” see Palache, 19; TDOT 2:459), the Aram. nom. g°zérd occurs only in the

secondary meaning, decree. Dan 4:17[14]—“the sentence (pitgam) is by the decree (g°zérd) of the watchers” (NIV the decision is announced by the messengers)—may give the impression that the angels make independent decrees. On closer reading, the angelic decree of Nebuchadnezzar’s vision is further identified as a divine decree, “This is the interpretation, O king, and this is the decree (g°zérd) the Most High has

issued against my lord the king” (Dan 4:24[21]). Whatever may be angels’ capacity to make decisions, any celestial decree must ultimately be that of the Most High (so Goldingay, Daniel, WBC, 88). Cutting, destruction, extermination, shearing, trimming: ~ bs‘ (cut away, get gain, cut off, break up, #1298); > br’ III (clear out trees, cut, destroy, # 1345); — btr (cut into pieces, # 1439); > gd‘ (cut short, # 1548); > gzh (bring forth, #1602); > gzz (cut, shear, # 1605); > gzrI (cut, take away, # 1615); > grz (be cut off, # 1746); > gr‘ I (cut out, reduce, # 1757); > hlp I (cut through, pierce, #2737); > ksh (cut, cut down, #4065); > krsm (make cropped, trimmed off, #4155); — krt (cut, cut off, exterminate, cut a covenant, circumcise, #4162); ~> melqahayim (snuffers for trimming/cleaning of lights/lamps, #4920); > ngp I (cut/chop down, destroy, #5937); > nth (cut in pieces, #5983); — gsb (cut off, shear, #7892); > Ssp (hew into pieces, # 9119); > tzz (cut away, # 9372) Decree, decision: > hdq (portion, obligation, boundary, law, order, #2976); > hrs I (cut, decree, determine, be determined, # 3076); > htk (be decreed, #3155); > ta‘am (taste, disposition, discernment, decree, # 3248); > pitgam (decree, #7330) BIBLIOGRAPHY

G. Cameron, “Persepolis Treasury Tablets Old and New,” JNES 17, 1958, 161-76; R. R. Cook,

‘Divine Foreknowledge: Some Philosophical Issues,” VE 20, 1990, 57-72; H. Goedicke, “Early References to Fatalistic Concepts in Egypt,” JNES 22, 1963, 187-90; C. F. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, 1983, 6:76-89; O. Kaiser, Der Mensch unter dem Schicksal, BLAW 161, 1985; A. Lacocque, Daniel et son temps,

1983,

108-12; F. Notscher,

“Schicksalglaube

im

847

“WT (# 1616) Qumran und Umwelt,” BZ 3, 1959, 205-34; 4, 1960, 98-121; idem, “Himmliche Schicksalglaube in Qumran,” Rev@ 1, 1959, 405-11.

Biicher und

Eugene Carpenter/Emile Nicole

“3 (gzr Il), cut, slaughter; tear, prey (upon)(?) tol A (hapleg.; # 1616; HALAT 180a). Given the widespread attestation among the Sem. languages of a root gzr I, cut, slaughter, and its semantic proximity to the alleged Heb. root gzr II, cut off, destroy, one may concur with those who have expressed doubts as to whether gzr II ought to be distinguished as separate from gzr I. Thus, the ANE, OT, and postbiblical philological data for these are combined here as representing various uses of the same lemma. ANE. Ugar. ‘agzrt (with prosthetic ’ a-) appears in the expression ‘agzrt ym, psec: may be a nom. pouting. carving, image (of Yam)” & “figure, ” in G. R. Driver, CML! 121, 134 after Syr. g°zar, cut out a shape;= “image,” in WUS, #643; cf. Gordon, Ugaritic Handbook, 52, 61-64; UT, §8.40, 59-60 and # 570) or part. “who delimit (the

day)” (= “cut off,” in Gray, Legacy, 98 n. 7). The Ancient and Imperial Aram. vb. g°zar may mean “cut; conclude; (idiomatically) command(?),” and the q. pass., “be castrated” (DISO 49). The vb. appears also in Arab. gazara, cut; slaughter; be gluttonous, greedy (Wehr 123a); and in Eth. gazara, circumcise, and its reflex gazama, cut down, fell (a tree); cut, hew (wood) (Lambdin, 403). Nom. forms are attested in Arab. gazr, slaughter, butchering; gazrd, (blood) sacrifice; the nomen opificii Zazzar, butcher; gazira/guzur, island; magzara, massacre (Wehr 123a-b); and Tigre gezrat, circumcision (TigrWb 595b).

OT Several lexicographers have suggested that gzr II ought not to be distinguished from gzr I (# 1615) as a separate lemma, since the latter has the basic sense “to cut,” which may extend to the derived sense “to cut off, destroy” (Gorg, TDOT, 2:459, 460;

cf. “devour” in Delekat, 13 n. 3 [comparing Syr. gezra’, prey (of a lion)]; “cut off” in Gray, 98 n. 7), or even “tear, prey (upon)” (cf. Syr. below), which would better suit the context of the alleged OT hapleg. of gzr II in Isa 9:20[19]. Note how, in Isa 9:20[19], the A-word yigzdr (1QIs* *yigzar < gzr 1, Wernberg-Mller) || the B-word yo’kal: “He [a brother]/it [fire] will slaughter/tear (prey) on the right, but be hungry; // he/it will consume on the left, but not be satisfied” (author tr.). In this context, the tribes of Israel (Ephraim, Manasseh, and Judah) are described as hostile brothers who, intent on con-

suming one another, are an insatiable internecine fire (Isa 9:18-21[17-20]; cf. Prov 30:15). This portrayal joins a number of other OT figures for destruction conveyed by the image of consuming. P-B_ Mish. Heb. has the vb. gzr, cut, cut off; (idiomatically) decree (a prohibition); and nom. forms gazar, (juridical) sentence, decree; gezer/gazir, piece (of wood), log, club; gizrd, enclosure, balcony, hewn (stone) block; and s*zerd, precipice, prohibition,

category (Jastrow, 231b, 232a,b); Jewish Aram. has the vb. gzar, cut, split; circumcise; (idiomatically) decree (a prohibition); and nom. forms gizra’, piece, club, guard; and *g°zara’é, persecutors (Jastrow, 232a). A similar array is witnessed by the Syr. vb. g°zar, cut, hew (stone), tear (prey), circumcise; (idiomatically) decree (a judgment);

848

M713(#1619) and nom. forms gazdra’, circumciser; gezra’, a cut, notch, slit, prey; g°zara’, surgery;

gazarta’, island (Payne Smith, 67b-68a). Eating, food, sustenance, taste: > ’k/ (eat, consume, devour, # 430); > brh I (eat portions,

take rations, # 1356); > basar (meat, food, flesh, # 1414); > gzr II (cut, slaughter, tear, prey, # 1616); > zwn (provide, supply, #2315); > t‘m (taste, test, sense, discern, # 3247); > krh II (serve, banquet, offer up, #4127); — Jht II (devour, #4266); > lhm (thing to be swallowed, choice morsel, delicacy, #4269); > lhk (lick up, # 4308); > /hm II (feed on, eat, #4310); > It (swallow, make/let swallow, # 4358) Tearing, prey: ~ gzr II (cut, slaughter, tear, prey, # 1616); > hth (take, fetch, # 3149); > trp (tear in pieces, #3271); > mlh I (be torn in pieces, dissipate, # 4872); > nsh (tear down, tear

away, #5815); > ns‘ (tear out, #5825); > nts (tear down, #5997); > ntq (tear away, # 5998); > ph (pluck, pull, leave fallow, #7318); > qws II (tear apart, # 7763); > gr‘ (tear up, # 7973); > §s‘ (tear, divide, #9117)

BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 2:459-61; TWAT 1:1001-4; TWOT 1:158; L. Delekat, ““Zum hebradischen Worterbuch,” VT

14, 1964, (7-66) 11-13 (on grz); C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Handbook, 1947; J. Gray, The Legacy of Canaan, VTSup 5, 2d ed., 1965; T. O. Lambdin, /ntroduction to Classical Ethiopic [Ge ‘ez], HSS 24, 1978; J. L. Palache, Semantic Notes on the Hebrew Lexicon, 1959, 19; J. Payne Smith, A

Compendious Syriac Dictionary, 1903; P. Wernberg-Meller, “Studies in the Defective Spellings in the Isaiah-Scroll of St. Mark’s Monastery,” JSS 3, 1958, (244-64) 251. Robert H. O’Connell

1617 (gezer I, piece), > #1615

i divide;

apportion,

chew

M1] (gizra), cutting, separation, separate room, forecourt (# 1619); < TWA (gzr I), q. take away; up, remove;

ni. be removed,

be decreed,

be excluded

(> #1615). ANE

The root gzr, meaning “to cut,” is quite common in Sem. languages.

OT

All but one of the occurrences of gizrd in the OT are in Ezekiel, where the word

refers to a section of Ezekiel’s temple and is translated “courtyard” in NIV (41:12, 13, 14, 15; 42:1, 10, 13). It refers to a “separate place” or “restricted area” (HALAT 180). In each of the contexts the nom. hdsér, “court,” occurs, and it is apparent that the two

noms. are to be distinguished, “courtyard” as opposed to “court.” The only other occurrence of the word is in Lam 4:7, where it appears to have an exceptional meaning, perhaps something “polished” or “cut.” The NIV translates the term “sapphires.”

Though the NT does not draw attention to the courts of the temple, the courts as NT we have seen are often viewed as synonymous with the temple, the special place of God’s presence. The special place of God’s presence, according to the NT, is now in believers’ lives, who make up the church (1 Cor 6:19; Heb 3:6). Court, enclosure: > gizrd (cutting, separate room, forecourt, #1619); — hasér (enclosure, court, settlement, village, # 2958); > ‘“zard (border, court, # 6478); > parbar (court, # 7232) Mark F. Rooker

849

“1 # 1620)

oe) ANE

“It (gazér), nom.

ma

16:22, # 1620).

infertile land (hapleg., Lev

Arab. azara, to cut (off), IV, to be infertile; Zazar, infertile soil; Eth. gdzdrd,

to cut; Ugar. gzr, to cut, cut straight.

OT

The parent vb. of this nom., gzr, ranges in meaning from a literal cutting/divid-

ing, exclusion from some thing or place, to establishing a decree (like Heb. krt). The

nom. gdzér describes the intended destination of the scapegoat during the Day of Atonement. In this climax of the day’s ceremonies, the high priest placed both his hands on the head of the goat (chosen by lot) and confessed all the nation’s sins (Lev 16:21). He then sent the goat away into the wilderness (midba@r). An appointed person released the goat in the desert and the goat, representatively, carried Israel’s sin to “a

solitary place” (NIV, ’eres 9°zérd, 16:22). Scholars have argued that this goat was “cut off’ from the Israelite camp by topographical barriers to prevent its return (Wenham, 233) or possibly taken to a place where its life was cut off. Although in the earlier period of Israel’s history it appears that the goat wandered around the wilderness until death, the Mishnah (Yoma 6:6) records that the appointed person led the goat to a precipice about twelve miles away from Jerusalem, where he pushed the goat off the edge to its death. Reymond (71) suggests that ’eres g°zérd signifies an area cut off from water, consequently an infertile land (HALAT 180). In Akk., certain terms for wilderness (e.g., séru) also connote the netherworld (Milgrom, 1046). Demons, who are denizens of the underworld, are prone

to take residence in the wilderness (Tallqvist, 17-22). Hartley (241) conjectures that since the ancients believed that the ’eres g°zérd was the abode of demons or evil spirits, the goat took the sins of Israel back to their place of origin, breaking their binding and oppressive power. Since the representative role of the goat as Israel’s sin-bearer required that it depart from the camp of Israel (and bear the nation’s sin with it), the idea of perpetual physical separation is obvious. The precise manner in which that occurred is not made clear by the biblical context. P-B This nom. occurs in later Heb. literature with four shades of meaning: a secluded and narrow place, precipice; a decree or edict; a rabbinical enactment issued as a guard; and a category of comparison (Jastrow, 1:232). Field, ground, rural area: > ’adam IV (ground, #135); > bar IV (wild, open country, # 1340); > gazér (infertile land, #1620); > hiisdt (open fields, #2575a); > yagéb (field, # 3321); > m*léhd (barren land, salt-plain, #4877); > mimSsaq (ground overrun with weeds, #4940); > m® ‘ara II (bare field, #5118); > nir II (ground newly broken & cleared, # 5776); > ‘aqob (ground [uneven and bumpy], crafty heart, #6815); > p*razdn (fertile field, # 7251); > rekes (rugged ground, # 8221); > sadeh (open country, open field, fields, domain, # 8441);

~ §“démd (terrace, # 8727);

> ‘aman (fertile field, # 9044)

BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 2:459-61; TWOT 1:158; J. Hartley, Leviticus, 1992; J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, AB, 1991; P. Reymond, L’eau, sa vie et sa signification dans l’Ancien Testament, SVT 6, 1958;

850

mia # 1622) SS ee

ee

K. Tallqvist, “Sumerisch-akkadische Namen der Totenwelt,” in Studia Orientalia, G. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT, 1979.

eee

1934, 1-47;

Michael A. Grisanti

1622 OT

MAA (ghh), q. draw out (from womb); a hapleg.

an

in Ps 22:9[10] (# 1622).

Both the meaning and etymology of the root are uncertain. HALAT connects the

vb. with an Arab. vb. Zhw, which means in its eighth stem “root out, eradicate,” and

with another Arab. vb. gahha, “draw, pull, drag, haul” (180). Birth, conception, pregnancy: conceive,

#2225);

> ghh (draw out [from womb], # 1622); > hrh (be pregnant,

> hbi IV (be pregnant,

travail, #2473);

# 2655); > hsp II (bring to premature birth, # 3107); > yhm (conceive,

#3501);

> hyl I (be in labor, tremble,

> ph II (bear healthy children, # 3254);

— yld (bear, bring forth, be born, #3528);

> t’m (bear twins,

# 9298); > Adoption: Theology; > Genealogy: Theology Victor Hamilton

1623

yina

11N3 (gahon), belly (of a reptile) (# 1623).

OT This word is used twice in the OT and refers to a reptile crawling on its “belly.” In Gen 3:14 it is found in the curse of God on the serpent, which may mean that the serpent must bow down in the dirt as an acknowledgement of God’s authority (see B. Jacob, Genesis, 1934, 112-13; G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, WBC,

1987, 79). The

term occurs in Lev 11:42, where an animal that moves “on its belly” is included among those that Israel must not eat. These prohibitions are designed to show that Israel was a special people, holy and separate from other nations (G. J. Wenham, Leviticus, NICOT, 1979, 180). Abdomen, belly: ~ ‘il (belly, body, #214); > beten I (belly, # 1061); > gahén (belly [of a reptile], # 1623); > homes II (belly, # 2824); > karés (belly [of an animal], #4160); > mé‘eh (body, bowels, #5055); > géba (belly, maw, # 7687); > Sor (navel, umbilical cord, # 9219) BIBLIOGRAPHY

:

J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, AB, 1991, 718-36; A. Murtonen, Hebrew in Its West Semitic Setting, Part one: A Comparative Lexicon, Section Ba: Root System: Hebrew Material, 1988. Cleon L. Rogers, Jr.

1625

noni

nmi (gahelet), nom. burning charcoal (# 1625).

OT 1. The nom. refers to live coals from the wood of the broom tree (Ps 120:4) that were used as fuel to bake bread (Isa 44:19), to warm oneself (Isa 47:14) and to refine metal (Ezek 24:11). It also refers to burning coals on the altar (Lev 16:12) and to lightning (2 Sam 22:13; Ps 18:12[13]).

2. The dying out of a family is compared to the putting out of the only burning coal (2 Sam 14:7). To express an attitude of returning good for evil the idiom to heap burning coals on an enemy’s head is utilized (Prov 25:22). 851

N71 (# 1628) Fire, flame: ~ ’id (log, burning stick, # 202); > ’@s I (fire, # 836); > b‘r I(burn, blaze up, be consumed, #1277); > gahelet (burning charcoal, # 1625); > goprit (sulphur, # 1730); > yst (kindle, burn, set on fire, #3675); > ygd (burn, be burning, kindled, # 3678); > kidéd (spark,

# 3958); #4265); #7073); (burn, be

> lbb II (bake cakes, # 4221); ~ lahab (flame, blade, #4258); ~ /ht I (glow, burn, > lappid (torch, lightning, #4365); > nisds (spark, #5773); > peham (charcoal, — resep I (live coal, #8363); > reSep I (flame, glow, arrow, plague, # 8404); > Srp burnt, # 8596); > Sabib (flame, # 8663) Jackie A. Naudé

1628

87)

N72 (gay’), valley (# 1628).

OT There is no clear etymological derivation of the word gay’, a word that occurs some 60x in the OT. In about 42 percent of the time it is found in the construct with other noms. and the word pairs serve as names of specific valleys. These include the Valleys of Ben Hinnom (Josh 15:8; 18:16; 2 Kgs 23:10; 2 Chron 28:3; 33:6; Neh 11:30; Jer 7:31, 32; 19:2, 6), Salt (2 Sam 8:13; 2 Kgs 14:17; 1 Chron 18:12; Ps 60:superscription[2]), Iphtah El (Josh 19:14, 27), Hamon Gog (Ezek 39:11, 15), the Craftsmen/Ge Harashim (Neh 11:35; 1 Chron 4:14), Zeboim (1 Sam 13:18), and Zephathah (2 Chron 14:10[9]). Of these, only one, the Valley of Ben Hinnom, can be

identified with certainty, and it is the southern boundary of the OT city of Jerusalem—located in the hill country of Judah. It does appear that all of these valleys were located in Israel and that they were either in, or in the foothills of, the hill country of

Israel. In addition, the following passages in which gay’ occurs places the valleys in the hills usually of Israel: Num 21:20; Deut 3:29; 34:6; Josh 8:11; 2 Kgs 2:16; Neh 2:13, 15;.3:15:Ps.23:4¢ Isa, 2231) 5328;1,4; A0-4»Jer.2:233 Ezek 6:339: 16:31 512:.32:5:;

35:8; 36:4, 6; Mic 1:6; and Zech 14:4, 5. Only in a few isolated instances could gay’ be use of depressions that were located in the foothills (1 Sam 17:3, 52; possibly 1 Chron 4:39), In some instances a gay’ serves as a geographical marker (ca. 11x), while in others it is associated with battles (1 Sam 13:18; 17:3, 52; 2 Sam 8:13; 2 Kgs 14:7; Ps 60:superscription[2]; 1 Chron 18:12; 2 Chron 14:10[9]; 25:11), judgments (Isa 22:1, 5; 28:1, 4; Jer 7:31; 19:2, 6s Ezek 6:3: 716; SET2 532-5; 55:8; Joel, toa vile WO) atcenor

(Ps 23:4), and blessing/deliverance (Isa 40:4; Ezek 36:4, 6). In many instances, especially in the case of the Valley of Ben Hinnom, a gay’ is associated with illicit, detestable pagan cult practices (ca. 9x). Valley: > big‘a (valley, # 1326); > gay’ (valley, # 1628); > nahal I (stream-bed, wadi, stream, tunnel, #5707); > ‘émeg (valley, #6677) Carl Rasmussen

1630

ara

“1? (gid), sinew, tendon (# 1630).

ANE Aram. gida’, Syr. g°yada’, sinew/tendon, nerve; Arab. gid, neck; Akk. gidu, sinew; cf. Ugar. gyd, sinew (from buffalo in 2 Aght vi:21). OT

In describing

how

God

created him, Job declared

that the Lord knit him

together with “bones and sinews” (Job 10:11). Ezek 37:6, 8 describes how God will

852

2 (# 1631)

restore exiled Israel by picturing him joining tendons with flesh and skin and breathing life into the lifeless body. In Isa 48:4 the Lord pictures stubborn and spiritually insensitive Israel as having neck sinews of iron and a forehead of bronze. Because God touched Jacob’s hip tendon, the Israelites refused to eat the corresponding tendon of animals (Gen 32:32[33]). Body: ~ basar (meat, food, flesh, # 1414); > g°wiyyd (body, corpse, #1581); > gid (sinew, tendon, # 1630); > gap II (body, # 1727); > hdb (bosom, # 2460); > hég (lap, chest, # 2668); > kabéd Il (liver, #3879); > kilyd (kidney, #4000); > [°hiim (entrails?, #4302); > mé‘eh (body, bowels, #5055); > mipsa‘a (buttocks, #5156); > ‘esem I (bone, skin, body, self, # 6795); > qereb (inner organs, # 7931) Robert B. Chisholm

1631 ANE

m7)

Fi?) (gyh), q. burst forth (# 1631).

Aram. giah, giiah, peal, to break forth; aphel, ithpaal, to fight; Syr. gwh, to gush

out, pour forth; Eth. gdha, to break (of the day); Arab. jaha, to burst forth. OT

The word occurs

6x in the OT, all in the q. One of these occurrences

(Ps

22:9[10]) is likely from the root ghh rather than the hollow root gyh. Either way, the word here describes Yahweh’s providential care in bringing forth an infant (viz., the psalmist) from the womb. In a literal sense the word can suggest the sudden movement of troops springing to the attack (Judg 20:33) or the rushing of river waters against the mouth of behemoth (Job 40:23). Figuratively, it can describe the creation of the sea as it bursts forth from the womb, so to speak (Job 38:8), or Pharaoh as he thrashes about

in his streams like a denizen of the deep (Ezek 32:2). In Mic 4:10 the word appears with uncertain meaning in a context describing the sorrowful birthpangs of daughter Zion as she faces captivity. If the text is correct here, this may be a pregnant use of the verb with the sense burst forth (into weeping). Driver suggests the translation “heave” for this passage, which he sees as consistent with the basic sense of the root, viz., to strain to the point of bursting (G. R. Driver, 172). Some scholars emend gdhi here to g° i, scream. Micah’s metaphor may intend the coming captivity, which like childbirth may be the painful means of the nation’s new birth (Waltke, 694-96). P-B The word occurs in the Targumim and in the Talmud. In the peal it has the meaning of break forth, stir up, or low (of cattle). In the aphel and ithpaal it means to attack or fight. For example, Niddah 65b refers to a marriage contract over which the parties fought before coming to agreement. The word also occurs in the DSS. In 11QTJob 30.6 the haphel infinitive construct of gwh has reference to the breaking forth of the sea from the womb of the abyss. The word also occurs in 1QH 3:9. There is no uniformity of rendering for this word in LXX; each of its occurrences is translated by a different G word. Breaking [through], breach: > gyh (burst forth, #1631); > htr (break through, #3168); ~ prs I (break through, burst out, #7287); > rss (crush, mash, break, # 8368); > SbrI (break, shatter, # 8689)

853

599 (# 1635) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 2:466-68; TWAT 1:1008-11; TWOT 1:159; G. R. Driver, “Hebrew Notes on Prophets and Proverbs,” JTS 41, 1940, 162-75, esp. 172; B. K. Waltke, “Micah,” in The Minor Prophets, 1993,

2:591-767.

Richard A. Taylor

# 1638).

Mee

ah

59 (gyl), q. exult (# 1635); 972 (gil ID, nom.

rejoicing (#1637);

M92 (gilda), rejoicing

ANE. The only clear cognate of gy/ occurs in Ugar. (1.16:1:15; I[:37), where it is par. to smh (see # 8523). OT The vb. gyl (which occurs only in q.) and its derivatives (gil I—Job 3:22; Ps 45:15[16]; 65:12[13]; Prov 23:24; Isa 16:10; Jer 48:33; Hos 9:1; Joel 1:16; gila—Isa 35:2; 65:18) are limited almost exclusively to the Psalms (22x) and Prophets (25x) (Prov, 6x; 1 Chron, S of Songs, Job, 1x each). Human beings predominate as subjects for gyl (e.g., individuals—Ps 9:14[15]; 13:5[6]; Isa 61:10; Hab 3:18; people/peoples—Ps 14:7 = 53:6[7]; Isa 25:9; the enemy—Ps 13:5[6]; the righteous—Ps 32:11; the humble—Isa 29:19), as well as nature (earth—Isa 49:13; Ps 96:11 = 1 Chron 16:31; wilderness—Isa 35:1-2) and God himself (Isa 65:19; Zeph 3:17). 1. Non-theological usage. The vb. gy! can denote the joy of wedding festivities (Ps 45:15[16]), rejoicing over the love of a man and a woman (S of Songs 1:4) or the growth of a child in righteousness (Prov 23:24-25), and the joy of release that death offers those in misery (Job 3:22 [see below]). It can also signify malicious joy, i.e., gloating over the misfortune of another (Prov 2:14; 24:17; Hab 1:15).

2. Theological usage. Whether gyl carries a volitional nuance (exhorting s.o. to rejoice [see below]) or simply describes a person’s expression of jubilation, the ground for this rejoicing is fundamentally (34x of 46x) God and his works on people’s behalf (esp. Israel). The prepositions b® (21x), ‘al (2x), and /°ma‘an (2x) often precede the explicit cause or object of rejoicing, some of which are divine activities (salvation—Ps 9:14[15]; 13:5[6]; 21:1[2]; Isa 25:9; divine judgments—Ps 48:11[12]; 97:8; what God will bring into existence—Isa 65:18; God’s steadfast love [hesed|—Ps 31:7[8]), divine functions/titles (Yahweh—32:11; 35:9; Isa 41:16; Joel 2:23; Zech 10:7; his “name”—Ps 89:16[17]; God as king—149:2; the Holy One of Israel—Isa 29:19; Savior—Hab 3:18; God—Isa 61:10), and the holy city (Isa 65:19; 66:10). In a less explicit

sense, this rejoicing grounds itself in God’s rulership (1 Chron 16:31 = Ps 96:11; Ps 97:1; Zech 9:9), God’s restoration of Israel’s fortunes (Ps 14:7 = 53:6[7]), divine deliverance (118:24; Isa 61:10; Joel 2:21), Yahweh’s compassion (Isa 49:13), and divine provision of rain (Joel 2:23).

God’s intervention on Israel’s behalf, restoring their abundant blessings, occasions a rejoicing that is likened to the joyfulness of victorious soldiers dividing an abundant plunder (Isa 9:3[2]). The fact that God himself will rejoice over Israel indicates his intention to accomplish deliverance on their behalf (65:19; Zeph 3:17).

Conversely, the prophet Joel (1:16) laments the absence of rejoicing that normally accompanies the ingathering of the harvest (cf. Isa 16:10; Jer 48:33). The heavy silence 854

599 (# 1635) rather than the enthusiastic jubilation at an abundant harvest graphically depicts the sobering, tangible impact of God’s wrath upon an offending nation. gyl (like smh) denotes a spontaneous, vocal outburst of rejoicing, as seen esp. in Isa 49:13, which juxtaposes gyl with rnn, shout for joy, and psh, burst into song (cf. Isa 35:2). As with smh, the juxtaposition of /éb, heart (Ps 13:5[6]; Prov 24:17; Zech 10:7), and nepeS, soul (Ps 35:9; Isa 61:10) with gy/ indicates the depth of this rejoicing. 3. Distinction from other synonyms. Criisemann (48) suggests that the vbs. gyl, ‘Iz, psh, rnn, Sw$, and $mh denote manifestations of joy without spoken or sung words, distinguishing them from Syr, hil, zmr, etc., which clearly involve spoken language. However, a spontaneous/planned contrast, rather than Criisemann’s unspoken/spoken contrast, seems more valid.

The vb. §mh and its derivatives stand in par. with gy/ and its derivatives 35x, with smh occuring in the first poetic line in most instances (gyl also stands par. with §w§ [7x] and rnn [4x]). As Wildberger (396) suggests, gyl is a much more specific term than smh. Along with its derivatives, gyl serves primarily as a technical term within the

language of the cult and refers esp. to joy before God. Proportionally, the instances of gy/ carry a volitional nuance (emphasizing the intent of the speaker) at least twice as often as smh, whether it be through imperatival calls to praise (“rejoice, O earth”—Isa 49:13; cf. Ps 2:11; 32:11; Isa 65:18; 66:10; Joel

2:21, 23; Zech 9:9), through jussive forms (e.g., “let Israel rejoice in their Maker”—Ps 149:2; cf. 14:7 = 53:6[7]; 35:9; 96:11 = 1 Chron 16:31; 97:1; 118:24; Prov 23:25; 24:17; Isa 35:1-2), or cohortative forms (“let us rejoice ... in his salvation” —Isa 25:9;

cf. Ps 9:4[5]; 13:4-5[5-6]; 31:7[8]; 51:8[10]; Hab 3:18). 4. Contested passages. Scholars have contested the correct reading of several instances of gyl, five of which receive an overview below. (a) Ps 2:11. Following Bertholet (58-59), several scholars (e.g., Anderson, 1:69-70; Kraus, 125; TDOT 2:471; cf. Olofsson and Vang for a recent update on the

interpretation of this crux) emend the last two words of Ps 2:11 and the initial two words of 2:12, “and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the son (gili bir® ‘ada naS°qii bar)....,” to read, “and with trembling, kiss his feet....” (bir® ‘ada nax°qi' b°raglayw). They suggest this by disregarding the mater lectionis, the vocalization, and word division of the MT (Kraus, 125). This emendation strongly emphasizes the submission motif (kissing another’s feet is a well-known act of homage in the ANE; cf. Ps 72:9; Isa 49:23; Mic

7:17; cf. ANET, 287; see Luke 7:38). The odd presence of bar in 2:12 provides the primary motivation for this suggestion. Nevertheless, this usage of an Aramaism may be intentionally directed to the foreign nations (Craigie, 64). The last strophe of Ps 2 does not address itself to Israel’s congregation but to non-Israelite rulers. The psalmist deliberately chose a well-known Aram. term to stress his message that the Gentile rulers of neighboring peoples must submit to Yahweh and his installed king as lord (Vang, 181). The structure of the psalm also supports the MT reading. The first three strophes have different names for God’s representative in Zion: maSiah (v. 2), melek (v. 6), and bén (v. 7). The symmetry of the psalm demands that a fourth variant of these three epithets occur in v. 12 (Vang, 180-81; cf. Barnes, 28). Consequently, the suggested emendation is unnecessary. MacIntosh (2-8) suggests that Heb. gy/ has an Arab. cognate gal/gwi and that root denotes emotional or mental excitement. Rejoicing and fear are the Sem. this

855

595 (# 1635) bipolar alternatives for this common root, and the fear nuance is present in Ps 2:11. However, the etymological cognates that MacIntosh (and others) suggest are not accepted by most recent theological dictionaries (TDOT 2:470-71; THAT 1:415). (b) Psalm 43:4. A slight emendation from the nom. gil?, my joy, to the vb. ‘agila, I will rejoice, is possible in order to produce balanced poetic lines (2 lines of 3 + 2 metre; cf. LXX, Syr.). (c) Job 3:22. A number of scholars (Pope, 32; Fohrer, 112; Houlscher, 17; Torc-

zyner, 65-66) read gal, heap (“who rejoice over the grave”) instead of the MT’s nom. gil IL, rejoicing (lit., “who will rejoice exceedingly”) in light of the mention of grave (geber) in the second colon. However, gal by itself is not normally a synonym for grave (gal “banim refers to a heap of stones placed over a corpse—Josh 7:26; 8:29; 2 Sam 18:17; cf. Grabbe, 38-41). Also, the words that precede gyl II (smh ’el) do not signify “to rejoice over” but “to rejoice against” (cf. Ezek 25:6). Consequently, the common parallelism of ‘mh and gyl supports the MT reading. Gordis (39; cf. Guillaume, 110) contends that although gy/ II signifies rejoicing, on a secondary level it belongs to a wordplay with geber in the next line. (d) Hos 9:1. Several scholars either redivide and revocalize the MT’s ’el gil, to

the point of exultation, to ’al gil®ka, do not shout for joy (reading gil°ka as an inf. abs. used as a juss.; see Andersen and Freedman, 522; Stuart, 140) or they emend the MT

reading to ’al tagél, do not rejoice (Wolff, 149). Although the latter suggestion does enhance the parallelism within the verse, it entails the alteration of the consonantal text

and Masoretic pointing. Both suggestions appear unlikely since ’el gil (cf. Job 3:22) nicely heightens the idea of rejoicing presented by smh in the preceding line (McComiskey, 136).

(e) Hos 10:5. In this passage the prophet describes the worshipers who will mourn the loss of their calf-idol to the invading army. The line preceding yagili depicts the mourning (’b/) of the worshipers while the following line presents the sorrowful cause of this mourning, making the nuance of “rejoicing” unlikely in the present context. Some scholars (BHS; Nowack, 64; TDOT 2:471) replace gyl with yll, to howl, or with hyl, to tremble (Robinson, 38). Others who retain gy/ contend that this vb. must connote trembling here (as they also find in Ps 2:11; Andersen and Freedman, 556-57; McComiskey,

166-67; KD 1:130). The devotees tremble as a tangible indica-

tion of their distress and sorrow over the loss of this significant religious symbol. As Andersen and Freedman (556) suggest, “It is an irony that the same gyrations of the worshipers could express extreme delight or extreme distress.” There are two other ways to explain the presence of gy/ in Hos 10:5. On the one hand, the prophet could be contrasting the priests’ customary religious conduct with their present state of mourning: i.e., the priests who normally raise their voices in cultic rejoicing now shriek in mourning (a past/present contrast; cf. Stuart, 161-62; Wolff,

175; NIV). On the other hand, the vbs. ’b/, mourn, and gy/, shout for joy, might both describe the vocal response of the idolatrous priests as they anticipate the loss of their treasured religious object. If so, the vocal nature of gyl receives the emphasis, and the contrast between mourning and rejoicing (the normal meaning of gy/) provides an ironic twist to the prophet’s description of these idolatrous priests.

P-B

The vb. occurs at least 6x in the DSS. Unlike the OT, gyl appears in the hi. in

two instances (1QM 12:13; 19:5; 1QH 15:15 [Qimron, 127-28, identifies this reading

856

593 (# 1636) as wlhgyl]). However, like the OT, gy/ only carries an intransitive meaning. In all but one instance, gy/ points to the future and serves as a call to rejoicing or a description of rejoicing in the anticipated day of restoration (1QM 12:13; 13:13; 17:8; 19:5; 1QH 12:22). As in Zeph 3:17, God will rejoice over the righteous (1QH 15:15). In one passage (1QH 9:35), gyl describes God’s ongoing care of his children, like the compassion of a mother for her child. LXX renders gy/ with three different G words and their derivatives, agalliaomai, chairo, euphraino.

Happiness, joy, rejoicing: > ‘sr II (be fortunate, # 887); > blg (be cheerful, happy, # 1158); > gad II (luck, fortune, # 1513); > gyl (exult, # 1635); > hdh (gladden, rejoice, make happy, #2525); > ‘Iz (exult, #6600); > ‘ls (enjoy, appear glad, #6632); > ‘Is (rejoice, # 6636); > §w8 (rejoice, # 8464); > smh (rejoice, make glad, # 8523)

BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 2:469-75; THAT 1:415-18; TWOT 1:159; A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms, NCBC, 1972; F. Andersen and D. Freedman, Hosea, AB, 1980; W. Barnes, “The Text of Psalm 2 12,” JTS 18, 1917, 24-29; A. Bertholet, “Eine crux interpretum,” ZA W 28, 1908, 58-59; D. Clines, Job 1-20, 1989; P. Craigie, Psalms 1-50, WBC, 1983; F. Criisemann, Studien zur Formgeschichte

von Hymnus und Danklied in Israel, 1969; E. Dhorme, Job, 1967; G. Fohrer, Das Buch Hiob, 1963; R. Gordis, The Book of Job, 1978; L. Grabbe, Comparative Philology and the Text of Job: A Study in Methodology, 1977; A. Guillaume, “The Arabic Background of the Book of Job,” in Promise and Fulfillment: Essays Presented to Professor S. H. Hooke, 1963, 106-27; J. Hartley, The Book of Job, NICOT, 1988; G. Houlscher, Das Buch Hiob, 1952; H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 1-59, 1988; A. MacIntosh, “A Consideration of the Problems Presented by Psalm II.11 and 12,” JTS 27, 1976, 1-14; T. McComiskey, “Hosea,” The Minor Prophets, 1:1-237; W. Nowack,

Die Kleinen Propheten, 1903; S. Olofsson, “The Crux Interpretum in Ps 2,12,” SJOT 9, 1995, 185-99; M. Pope, Job, AB, 1965; E. Qimron, “A New Reading in 1QH XV 15 and the Root GYL in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” RevO 14, 1989, 127-28; T. Robinson and F. Horst, Die Zwolf Kleinen

Propheten, 1938; H. Rowley, Job, NCBC, 1970; D. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, WBC, 1987; H. Torczyner, The Book of Job, 1957; C. Vang, “Ps 2,11-12—A New Look at an Old Crux Interpretum,” SJOT 9, 1995, 163-84; W. A. VanGemeren, “Psalms,” EBC 5, 1991, 1-880; H. Wildberger, Jsaiah 1-12, 1991; H. Wolff, Hosea, Hermeneia, 1974. Michael A. Grisanti

boy 1636

6 (gil I), nom. stage of life (# 1636). Derivation is uncertain.

ANE In Arab., Zi] denotes an association of individuals of the same age. OSA gy/ and gwim, meaning together, are also likely cognates.

The nom. occurs with certainty only in Dan 1:10, where an administrator OT expresses reluctance about allowing Daniel and his friends to eat their traditional diet, since they might as a result look worse than those similar to their age (k°gilkem). The display of their superior health vis-a-vis their peers demonstrated that adherence to the Jewish law had not only spiritual benefits, but earthly benefits as well.

P-B__In Mish. Heb., the nom. refers to an association of individuals of similar age, as in Arab.

857

53 (# 1643) #7); > ’dpen (right time, #698); > gil I (stage of life, # 1636); Time: > ’dbéd (ever after, ~ zmn (be appointed, # 2374); > ‘dlam (long time or duration, # 6409); > ‘et (time, # 6961);

> pa‘am (foot, step, time, #7193); unceasingness, regular offering, # 9458)

(instant,

> peta‘

#7353);

~ tamid

(continuance,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

J. Barr, Biblical Words for Time, 1962; W. Lee Humphreys, “A Lifestyle for the Diaspora: A Study of the Tales of Esther and Daniel,” JBL 92, 1973, 211-23; J. Goldingay, Daniel, WBC, 1989, 19-20; J. Collins, Daniel, Hermeneia, 1994, 143. Anthony Tomasino

1637 (gil II, rejoicing), > # 1635 1638 (gild, rejoicing), > # 1635

1643

O3

53 (gal I), nom. heap, pile (# 1643).

ANE ssgal probably is unconnected with the Heb. vb. g/l, roll, turn, and therefore with

cognates in the other Semitic languages. While the Akkadian galalu means “a pebble” and the Aramaic gelal a stone, yet there is no direct parallel with gal in the sense of a (stone) heap. OT

1. In Gen 31 there is a description of the formation of a gal. Stones are gathered

and used to make a gal, and it is there that Jacob and Esau share a sacred meal (Gen

31:46). 2. The expression gal “banim, heap of stones, is particularly connected with the mound that is set up over the body of someone who has been put to death (Jos 7:26; 8:29; 2 Sam 18:17). In Job 3:22 the sing. is used in the sense of “grave,” if the conj.

reading gal be accepted for MT gil, exaltation (cf. Syriac). 3. Often gal is used in passages dealing with destruction of cities. After a city was destroyed, what remained was termed a gal (Isa 25:2; Jer 9:11[10]; 51:37). Through the Lord’s permission foreign kings like Sennacherib could turn fortified cities in Judah into gallim (2 Kgs 19:25; Isa 37:26). Hosea prophesied against Gilead and Gilgal that their altars would become like gallim in a ploughed field (Hos 12:11[12], with a play on both place names in this threat. Heap, mound, pile: > gal I (heap, pile, # 1643); > h“mdr II (heap, # 2790); > m°diré (pile, # 4509); > néd (heap, #5603); ~ sil (heap, pile up, esteem highly, resist, # 6148); > ‘rm I (be dammed up, # 6890); > sbr (pile up, # 7392)

x

BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 3:20-23; TWOT 1:163; M. H. Pope, Job, AB, 1965. Allan M. Harman

ANE Attempts have been made to relate the nom. gal II to the gil vb. in Sem. languages (Halper, 105-7). However, gal II is most likely a primary nom., which has nothing to do with “rolling” (g/l). Whereas Akk. gillu/gallu (waving; AHw, 275) might

858

353(# 1647) be relevant, Jewish Aram., Christian-Pal. Aram., Sam. Pent., Syr., and Mand.

have

clear cognate forms. OT 1. The nom. gal I (# 1643) signifies a pile of rocks (Job 8:17) while gal II connotes a pile of water (waves). The meaning of waves occurs only with a pl. form of gal II. Yahweh alone causes and stills wave activity (Ps 65:7[8]; 89:9[10]; 107:25, 29; Isa 51:15; Jer 31:35) and sets the boundaries for oceans (and waves) (Job 38:11; Jer

5:22). The perpetual movement of waves serves as a metaphor for the driving agony of affliction (Ps 42:7[8]). In juxtaposition with two parallel constructions (peace like a river [na@har], descendants like sand [h6/]), waves in Isa 48:18 (righteousness like waves [gal]) connote the potential consistent (and abundant) nature of Israel’s righ-

teousness if they would only conform to God’s expectations. The beating of waves also depicts the destructive power of divine judgment (Tyre; Ezek 26:3). Finally, Yahweh’s stilling of the waves is reminiscent of his dividing the waters at the Red Sea when Israel departed from their “exile” in Egypt and describes Yahweh’s promised regathering of his covenant people from a worldwide exile (Zech 10:11). 2. In the second clause of S of Songs 4:12 about 50 Heb. MSS, LXX, Pesh., and Vg. read gan, garden, for gal, producing a two-word repetitive parallelism (gan na ‘il ... gan na‘iil) that is characteristic in S of Songs and esp. in this section (Deere, 157-58, n. 3; see Pope, 488-89 for the suggested reading “pool’’). P-B___In addition to signifying a heap of waves, in Mish. Heb. gal can signify a revolving door or a tortoise (Jastrow 1:243). Sea and large bodies

of water:

~ gal II (wave, #1644);

> h®ripét (cj. grains of sand, #3041);

> hdl I (mud, sand, #2567);

> yam (sea, seas, #3542);

> m°sdla/m®sila (deep,

depths, #5185); > garqa‘ I (floor, bottom of sea, #7977); > t*hdm (Primeval ocean, deeps of the sea, subterranean water, deep, # 9333)

BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 3:20-23; TWOT 1:163; J. Deere, The Meaning of the Song of Songs: An Historical and Exegetical Inquiry, 1986; B. Halper, “The Participial Formation of the Geminate Verbs,” ZAW 30, 1910, 99-126; O. Kaiser, Die Mythische Bedeutung des Meeres in Agypten, Ugarit, und Israel, 1959; M. Pope, Song of Songs, 1977. Michael A. Grisanti

1645 (gél, dung), > # 1671

1647

aa

253 (gallab), nom. barber (# 1647).

ANE

A cognate in Ugar. glbm is instanced in PRU 2, 207.

OT

The word only occurs in the “razor’s knife” (ta‘ar haggallabim) in Ezek 5:1

(> ta‘ar, razor, penknife, # 9509). Arts, crafts, professions: > ’omman (craftsman, #588); ~ ’dpeh (baker, #685); > goder — gallab (barber, #1647); ~~ dayyag (fisherman, #1900); — hoseb (mason, #1553); (stonecutter, #2935); — haraX (craftsman, #3093); — hoxéb (weaver, #3110); — tabbah (butcher, #3184); > ydsér (potter, #3450); > yagas (fowler, # 3687); > kbs (wash, # 3891); + korem (vinedresser, #4144); > maXgeh (butler, #5482); > ndgéd (shepherd?, #5924);

859

m'99°72 (# 1653) + sayyad 1 (hunter, #7475);

> sdrép (goldsmith,

#7671);

~ ro‘eh

(shepherd,

# 8286a);

> rogéah (ointment-mixer, # 8382)

I. Cornelius

1648 (gilbéa’, gilboa), > Gilboa 1651 (gilgal I, cartwheel), > # 8206

1652 (gilgal Il, Gilgal), > Gilgal

1653

m3?)

233 (gulgolet), skull (# 1653).

ANE In Akk. the words gulgullatu and gulgullu appear, with the meaning skull. The word also appears in Late Heb. and Aram. OT With the meaning of skull the word appears in Judg 9:53, where the upper millstone was dropped on Abimelech’s head and his skull cracked. The skull was one of the few parts left of Jezebel after being devoured by the dogs (2 Kgs 9:35; cf. also 1 Chron 10:10). In Exod 16:16 the word is used metonymically for persons (per head = per person) (cf. also Exod 38:26; Num 3:47). The word is also used with relation to a poll or

census (Num 1:2, 18, 20, 22; 1 Chron 23:3, 24). NT _ Reference is made to Golgotha, “The Place of the Skull” (Matt 27:33), where Jesus was crucified, the G word transliterating gilgilta’, the Aram. equivalent of the Heb. gulgélet (skull). Luke 23:33 refers only to “the place called the Skull” (kranion; Matt 27:33; Mark 15:22; John 19:17). Why the place received this name is uncertain. Perhaps it was because it was skull-shaped, or formerly a place of execution, with skulls laying around, or an account of an old tradition that Adam’s skull was found there. Head: ~ ‘ap (face, anger, # 678); > gulgdlet (scull, # 1653); > I°hiI cheek, # 4305); > mésah (forehead, #5195); > m°tall°‘6t jawbone, visible, assault, #7156); > pot (front, forehead, #7327); > godqdd > ro’s1 (head, chief, beginning, # 8031); > raqqd (temple [of head],

(eye, nose, jawbone, chin, #5506); > panim (face, (crown of head, #7721); # 8377) Harry F. van Rooy

1654

a5)

753 (géled), or (geled), (1x), nom. skin (# 1654).

ANE AKkk. gil(a)du, hide, but likely an Aram. loanword; Arab. Zild, Zildat, hide, leather; Official Aram. g/d’, hide, skin; Tg. Aram. gilda’, plate, covering, skin, leather,

scab; Geez gallada, cover with hide/leather (probably denominative of the Arab. cognate); Palmyrenean g/dy’, pl. emphatic hide; Syr. gelda’, skin, hide, fur. OT Asa result of his sorrow, Job states that he has sewn sackcloth over his skin (Job 16:15). P-B

The Heb. word is attested referring to skin, coating, and scab.

Skin, leather: > ’Gdam II (leather, # 133); > ’ah“bd II (leather, # 174); > ’6b I (crinnde skin #199); > géled (skin, # 1654); > hémet (waterskin, # 2827); > no’d (bottle, scroll, # 5532);

860

m59(# 1655) > ‘Or (skin, hide, #6425); — shi II (shine [of healthy skin], # 9389); > taha¥ I (leather?, # 9391)

#7413); > tahra@’ (leather collar?,

BIBLIOGRAPHY D. J. A. Clines, Job 1-20, WBC 17, 1989, 385-86; L. DeVries, “Skin,” JSBE 4:535-36. Gary Alan Long

1655

=

mes (glh), g. uncover, reveal; be/go away (into exile); ni. be revealed,

removed;

pi. uncover,

reveal; pu. be uncovered, revealed; hi. send/take into exile; ho. be sent/taken into exile; hitp. uncover oneself (# 1655); nom. mig (g6l4), exile, exiles (# 1583); midy (galit), exile, exiles (# 1661); 7753 (gillay6n), scroll (> # 1663).

ANE The vb. of glh (or gly) is found twice in Phoen. and 6x in Ugar. In Phoen. it means to uncover; in Ugar. its precise nuance is unclear: it means either leave (Gordon, UT # 579) or arrive at, enter, etc. (WUS # 652). In either case, however, it denotes motion. The vb. also occurs (in various forms) in Egyp. Aram., Judean Aram., Syr., Mand., Arab., Eth., and Akk., in two basic meanings: (1) open, make clear, or (2) emi-

grate, go into exile. (See Zobel, TDOT 2:476-77; HALAT 183-84.) OT

1. The vb. of glh occurs some 187x in BH. It also has two distinct meanings:

(1) to uncover, to reveal, and (2) to be/go away, to go/send into exile. The two mean-

ings are kept fairly well separated in the verbal system, in that the former is found only in the q. (22x), ni., pi., pu., and hitp., whereas the latter is limited to q. (28x), hi., and

ho.; the only overlap, then, is in the q. (although there is one case of the ni. meaning be removed: Isa 38:12).

There is no need to postulate two homologous roots for these two meanings, however, since “emigration or exile can be understood as an uncovering of the land, and thus revealing, uncovering, could be the original meaning of glh” (Zobel, TDOT 2:478; so also Westermann-Albertz, THAT 1:418-19), and a people uncovers the land by emigrating or being sent into exile. Conversely, the root may be understood as originally a vb. of motion (cf. Ugar. usage), with the meaning “uncovering” derived from it. The former explanation seems more likely. The Aram. cognates to Heb. glh are gi’, reveal (7x, all peal [=Heb. pi.]), and glh, to take into exile (2x, both haphel [=Heb. hi.]; Ezra 4:10; 5:12).

In this article, the second meaning of glh, be/go away, go/send into exile, is the relevant one. It occurs 74 of the 187x glh is found in BH. 2. The root glh occurs some 5Ox in the q., but only 28x with the meaning of to be/go away (into exile). Sometimes the word simply means to go away, as in Isa 24:11: “all gaiety is banished from the earth” (parallel to ‘rbh kl-smhh, “all joy turns to gloom’), or in 1 Sam 4:21-22: “the glory has departed (g/h) from (min) Israel.” The subject of the vb. here varies widely from gaiety (Isa 24:11) to glory (1 Sam 4:21-22), even to grass (Prov 27:25). Usually (ca. 20x), g/h in q. means go away into exile, such as in Amos 7:11, 17: “Israel will surely go into exile, away from (mé‘al) their native land,” or in Isa 5:13, “my people go into exile.” Here, the subject is usually God’s people.

861

53(# 1655) Most commonly, g/h means send/take into exile (hi., 38x, with God as subject and people as object) or to be sent/taken into exile (ho., 7x). Examples include 2 Kgs 17:11: “the nations whom the LorD had driven out before them” and Jer 40:7: “[peo-

ple] who had not been carried into exile to Babylon.” In all cases but ca. four (2 Kgs 16:9; 17:11; Amos 1:5, 6), the reference is to the exiles of Israel and Judah (cf. Zobel, TDOT 2:479). God is the one who sends into exile 7x (2 Kgs 17:11; 1 Chron 6:15[5:41]; Jer 29:4, 7, 14; Ezek 39:28; Amos 5:27; cf. Lam 4:22); more commonly, it

is an Assyrian or Babylonian king (Tiglath-Pileser, Nebuchadnezzar, etc.). The most references are in 2 Kgs (12x) and Jer (13x). The nom. gé/d occurs ca. 42x, referring to exile itself (roughly two-fifths of the occurrences; e.g., 2 Kgs 24:15, 16; Ezra 6:21; Jer 29:16), as well as to people who are exiled, i.e., exiles, referred to collectively in a singular form (roughly three-fifths of the occurrences; e.g., Esth 2:6; Jer 29:1, 4, 20; Ezek 1:1; 3:11). It almost always refers to

the Babylonian captivity (although not always: cf. Jer 48:11: Moab; Amos 1:15: the Ammonite king; Nah 3:10: Thebes), and it is found most often in Ezra (12x) and Jer (ca. 9x), Ezek (11x).

3. The corresponding Aram. nom. is gai, exile, found only in the phrase b°né galiita’, sons of the exile (i.e., exiles). It occurs 4x: Ezra 6:16; Dan 2:25; 5:13; 6:14.

The corresponding Heb. phrase is b°né hagg6ld, sons of the exile (found 6x in Ezra). All of these refer to the Babylonian exile. 4. Like géld, the nom. galiit also means “exile” (5x out of 15). However, in this meaning, galit refers in each case to a period of time (it is always found in a dating formula, such as “in the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin” [2 Kgs 25:27] or “in the twelfth year of our exile” [Ezek 33:21]), whereas g6/d is never used in such a way; it means more generally, a state of exile. 5. galiit also means exiles (10x). Like g6/d, it too is a sing. nom., used collec-

tively, referring roughly half of the time to the Babylonian exile (cf. esp. the phrase galit yhiidd, the exiles of Judah: Jer 24:5; 28:4; 29:22; 40:1). We should note that

galit is always used with a following genitive: the exiles of Judah, the exile of Jehoiachin, the exiles of Ethiopia (Isa 20:4), etc. Also, the range of genres in which gait occurs is more limited than that of g6/d: it occurs all but one time in the prophets. 6. Theological Reflection. (a) The ideas of captivity and exile are expressed by two primary lexemes in Heb.: glh and Sbh (> #8647). The former specifically denotes exile, i.e., forcible

removal of individuals or nations to a foreign land, while the latter is broader, denoting capture of various types, ranging from an individual’s seizure of another person or an army’s taking of booty to a nation’s capture of another nation. Several other roots overlap the semantic fields of these lexemes in minor ways as well. For Israel and Judah, exile away from the land God had given them was a great trauma, a punishment for their disobedience. The land was God’s gift, freely given to Abraham and his descendants (Gen 12:7; 13:14-17; Deut 9:4-6; Josh 1:2-4). However,

this gift could be revoked, depending on Israel’s response of faithfulness to God (Deut 11:31-32; 28:36, 63-68; 30:19-20). (b) The history of Israel and Judah was an almost unbroken one of violation of the covenant God had made with them (although there were notable exceptions in Judah). The prophets were sent to warn the nations about this and to reiterate the threat 862

59 (# 1655) of destruction and exile in case of disobedience. Hosea and Amos explicitly prophesied this about Israel (Hos 5:14 [the vb. here is nS’, carry off]; Amos 5:27; 7:11, 17), and other prophets called Judah to repentance. The specific threat to Judah concerning exile or captivity was somewhat rare, however (limited to Jer 13:17, 19; 15:2; 20:4, 6;

Ezek 12:11)—although it was an implicit motif behind many of the prophets’ messages and is stated in the curses of Deuteronomy. When the time finally came that Israel, the northern kingdom, was indeed taken into exile, the reason given was religious: because Israel broke the covenant and did not obey Yahweh (2 Kgs 17:7-23; 18:9-12). We read of two deportations to Assyria, one in 734 BC under Tiglath-Pileser III (2 Kgs 15:29; 1 Chron 5:16), and the second in 722 BC under Shalmaneser V (and/or Sargon II), when the capital city, Samaria, was

totally destroyed (2 Kgs 17:1-6; 18:9-12). The Israelite captives were deported to Nineveh and other areas throughout Assyria’s empire—Halah, Gozan, and Media—and they lost any strong sense of ethnic or religious identity (although the book of Tobit tells of a faithful group of Israelites in exile). Judah’s captivity came almost a century and a half later, at the hands of the Babylonians. This too came because of Judah’s sin, especially under the reign of Manasseh (697-642 BC) (2 Kgs 23:26-27; 24:1-4, 20; 2 Chron 36:15-21; Jer 52:3), and it was clearly at God’s behest: “the LORD sent Judah and Jerusalem into exile by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar” (1 Chron 6:15[5:41]; cf. Jer 29:4, 7, 14; Ezek 39:28). A series of deportations was thus begun by Nebuchadnezzar (605-562 BC): the first was in 605 BC (Dan 1:1), the second in 597 BC (2 Kgs 24:10-17), and the third in 586 BC, at which time Jerusalem also was destroyed (2 Kgs 25:8-21). The captives were resettled in groups in and around Babylon and other major cities, which allowed them to retain a sense of ethnic and religious identity. This exile lasted until Cyrus, king of Persia, toppled the Babylonians and issued his famous decree allowing the Jews and others to return (539-538 BC). The period of exile was the most traumatic in the nation’s history (cf. Ps 137). The people could not quite believe that they—God’s chosen people—were actually now being punished in this way. (> Exile: Theology) But Jeremiah’s instructions were to make the best of the situation and to live well while in Babylon (Jer 29:4-14). We see pictures of the exiles doing just that: they settled in communities together (Ezek 3:15), were married (Ezek 24:18), lived in their own homes (Ezek 8:1), and some even prospered (Zech 6:10-11). The exilic experience made Judah more conscious of its spiritual heritage, and it began to focus more upon the reading of the word of God. Gone were the material elements of its heritage: the land, the temple and its trappings, and the cult with its elaborate sacrificial system. Judah’s king still remained (albeit in prison; 2 Kgs 25:27-30), providing a glimmer of hope of a restoration of the monarchy, but only a glimmer. The people realized (for the first time?) that they truly had angered God and wondered, “How then can we live?” (Ezek 33:10). The answer given spoke of the necessity of repentance. There was also a new (or renewed) emphasis on individual responsibility for sin (Jer 31:29-30; Ezek 18).

The exile was not to be a permanent thing, however. Jeremiah prophesied that it would last only seventy years (Jer 29:10), and Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and others

863

n5153(# 1658) =e

all spoke of a restoration of Judah’s (and even Israel’s!) fortunes (> Restoration:

Theology). P-B

The most common terms in the LXX for the words related to glh (in its second

meaning, relating to exile) are aichmalotizo, to capture and metoikiz6, to deport, reset-

tle, and their cognates (see Zobel, TDOT 2:477 for full data). The nom. g6/@ occurs twice in Qumran Heb., and galiit occurs once (TDOT 2:477). The only specific reference in the NT to the Babylonian exile is in Matt 1:11-12, 17, where the term used is

metoikesia. Captivity, driving out, exile, persecution: > brh II (drive away, injure, # 1369); > glh (uncover, reveal, be/go away, exile, #1655); > dbr I (turn/drive away, #1818); > rdp (be behind, pursue, persecute, # 8103); > Sbh (take captive, be taken captive, #8647); > Exile: Theology BIBLIOGRAPHY

P. R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration,

1968; J. Bright, A History of Israel, 3rd ed., 1981;

E. H. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel, 1987; P. D. Miller, Jr., “The Gift of God: The Deuteronomic Theology of the Land,” Jnt 23, 1969, 451-65. David M. Howard, Jr.

1657 (gulld, basin), > # 3998

20°535xgilldlim), pejorative term for images, idols pee

(“dung-idols,” so Preuss, TDOT 3:2; # 1658).

ANE The nom.’s uncertain etymology has occasioned several suggestions: (a) from gll, roll < galdl (cf. Aram. g“lal, Ezra 5:8; 6:4), pointed with the vowels of Siggiis, loathsome thing = sacred stones; (b) from g//, dung, manure (cf. Ezek 4:12, where human feces are to be used for cooking, so defiling [f#m’] the bread; cf. Job 20:7); (c)

from Arab. galil, worthy of worship. Meaning (b) would fit the rather prurient vocabulary of Ezekiel, but meaning (a) might well be in his mind (cf. the pillars [massébét], often in association with high places). OT

1. In Ezekiel the term occurs 39x, especially in chs. 6, 14, 20, 23. The context is

one of priestly abhorrence of (ritual) impurity. Ezek 6:4-7, 13 and the curse in Lev 26:30 refer to dead bodies that would be piled on the (dead bodies of) gilliilim—double impurity; Ezek 20:31 describes Israel as being (ritually) defiled by the gillilim (“filth”). Only Ezek uses “defile” in the context of gillilim (18:15; 20:7,

18, 31;

22:3-4; 23:7, 30; 36:18, 25; 37:23). 2. Ezekiel is also fond of using sexual imagery (prostitution) with respect to this “filth.” Ezekiel asserts that throughout the land there were high places with altars, incense altars, and gillilim. Are these to be seen as actual images? If the pillars are

phallic symbols, or could be so construed, Ezekiel’s reaction and association with sexual images would be understandable. So too if there are ’“Sérim. It is curious that in Ezek there is such revulsion for visual representations, when there is so much verbal

description of heavenly things, even of Yahweh (cf. the anthropomorphism of Ezek 1:28, though distanced as “appearance of [mar’éh] the likeness of [d°miit] the glory of

864

ida 1659) [k*béd] the LorD’”’). The deut. history does not suggest that there were images at the high places, just altars and pillars and poles. Ezekiel does not mention Baal, Asherah, or Astarte, the *“Sérim (cultic poles), or the massébér (pillars); everything is just “filth.” It is in the nature of polemic to put one’s opponents’ behavior in the worst possible light, and iconographic controversies are always bitter. Ezekiel is mounting a polemic for the Babylonian orthodoxy (that of the Zadokites of 44:15?) against the Palestinian views (of the Levites, 44:107). 3. The term gillulim is Ezekiel’s frequent pejorative term for idols. The difference between Ezek and the “idol parodies” (see ps/, #7181) is that while for the satirists the worship of idols is silly, for Ezek it is a sin (and filthy). (> Ezekiel: Theology) 4. In the prose of Ezek particularly, Jerusalem’s most detestable act is to perform ceremonies and have objects in the temple that run counter to his sense of orthodoxy. In some parts of Ezek, esp. in the poetry, the prophetic emphasis on morality remains (e.g., Ezek 7:23; 33:15, though often mixed with cleanliness taboos; cf. chs.

18; 22). In 7:20 the riches (silver and gold) of v. 19 is glossed as “idols.” Note that “gillulé misrayim” (Ezek 20:7-8) does not mean “visual representations of Egypt” but “idols belonging to the Egyptians.” These are the same as the Siqqisim of their eyes. 5. The anti-image stance of deut. historian (cf. ps/, #7181) is similar to that of

Ezekiel. gillilim represents denunciation of what is seen as the greatest sins, often in context with Sigqis, mipleset, or to‘ebd (for Jer 50:2 see ‘sb, #6773). Ahab (1 Kgs 21:26) and Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:11) are compared in their abomination to the Amorites, the previous inhabitants of the land, whose “idols” are said to be worshiped and revered (2 Kgs 17:12; 21:21). No god (or demon) is recognized as being behind these images. P-B___

This word is not found outside of Jewish literature. It is found in Sir 30:19 and

is a favorite word in DSS, as might be expected with the emphasis on purity: 1QS 2:11, 17; 4:5; 1QH 4:15, 19; CD 20:9; 4QFlor 1:16-17; 4QBer 10 2,9 (restored); translations may be “idols” or “ordure” (Milik DJD, 1QDM 1:7). (> Idolatry: Theology) Idolatry:

> ’“/il (Nothing, #496);

> ’“%érd (wooden

cult-object, pole, goddess, # 895);

~ gillilim (images, idols, # 1658); > dagdn (Dagon, # 1837); > k*mds (Chemosh [god of the Moabites], #4019); — mdlek (Molech, #4891); > massékd I (cast statuette, #5011);

> mipleset (terrible thing, dreadful object, #5145); > semel (image, #6166); ~ ‘asab (god-image, #6773); ~ ‘astoret (Astarte, #6956); — pesel (cultic image, statue of a god, #7181);

— tomer II (scarecrow, #9473);

— t’rapim (figurines, mask, #9572);

— Idolatry:

Theology BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 3:1-5; M. I. Gruber, “Gillulim,” DDD, cols 655-58; W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 1979. Judith M. Hadley

1659

pid;

pidy (g°l6m), nom. garment (# 1659).

This nom. occurs only in Ezek 27:24, and the vb. g/m occurs only in 2 Kgs 2:8, OT meaning wrap. There are, however, cognates in Aram., Syr., Arab., and Persian that help identify this as a large garment. In Ezek it appears in an inventory of goods marketed in Tyre.

865

m53(# 1662) Clothing, garment: ~ beged II (clothes, garment, #955); > g“l6m (garment, # 1659); > hob (fold of garment, # 2460); > hdsen (fold of garment, #2950); > k°tonet (garment, # 4189); ~ Ib¥ (put on, clothe, wear, # 4252); > mad (garment, clothes, # 4496); > madeweh I (garment, #4504); > mah“lasot (festive garments, #4711); > meltahad (wardrobe, #4921); > mes? (costly garments, #5429); > sadin (costly garments, #6041); > sut (garment, #6078), > p°tigil (fine clothing, # 7345); > seba‘ (colorful garments, #7389); > Simla (garment, cloth, # 8529); > SObel (flowing skirt, # 8670); > Sit (garment, attire, # 8884) Robert L. Alden

1661 (galit, exile, exiles), > # 1655

1662

m3

nda (glh), pi. shave; pu. be shaved; hitp. have

0.8. shaved (# 1662).

OT 1. Eighteen of the 23 occurrences of shave are in the pi., and most are found in the regulations on shaving the hair of the head in the case of certain diseases (Lev 13:33; 14:8-9; 21:5), Nazirite to mark the 16:17, 19, 22), or to nation, and religion,

to ensure cleanness and the removal of all uncleanness of the end of a vow (Num 6:9, 18-19; cf. the case of Samson in Judg symbolize for the captive woman her removal from her family, and her entrance into Israel (see P. C. Craigie, Deuteronomy,

NICOT, 1976, 281; Deut 21:12). 2. Shaving was also a sign of mourning. For example, Jeremiah records how eighty men shaved their beards, tore their clothes, and presented themselves before the Lord (41:5). Not to shave the head was one of the many Aaronic priestly stipulations transferred to the Zadokite priests to ensure that they were holy and fit servants in the new temple of God (Ezek 44:20). 3. Oppressors humiliated their prisoners of war by shaving off the hair. The humiliation by the Assyrians is the subject of Isa 7:20, “In that day the Lord will use a razor hired from beyond the River—the king of Assyria—to shave (glh) your head and the hair (sé ‘ar) of your legs, and to take off your beards (zaqdn) also.” The reference to the hair of the head and of the legs could express totality (Oswalt, Isaiah: Chapters 1-39, 215) or, possibly, was a euphemism for pubic hair (Watts, Isaiah 1-33, 105). Hair: ~> zdgdan (beard, #2417); > mah“lapa (braid, #4710); > migxeh (well-dressed hair, #5250); > pr‘ (untie hair, #7277); > sisit (hair, tassel, #7492); > q°wussdt (hair, # 7767); > §‘rI (be appalled, # 8547); > sapam (moustache, # 8559) Shaving, trimming: > g/h (shave, # 1662); > ksm (trim hair, # 4080)

BIBLIOGRAPHY ISBE 2:596-99; TDOT 3:5-20; THAT 2:50-53; F. C. Fensham, “The Shaving of Samson: A Note

on Judges 16:19,” EvQ 31, 1959, 97ff.; O. Margalith, “Samson’s Riddle and Samson’s Magic Locks,” VT 36, 1986, 225-34; H. Trav, N. Rubin, S. Vargon, “Symbolic Significance of Hair in the Biblical Narrative and the Law,” Koroth 9, 1988, 173-79; Z. Weisman, “The Biblical Nazirite, Its Types and Roots,” Tarbiz 36, 1967, 207-20.

Robert L. Alden

1663 (gillayén, scroll), > Writing 1664 (gaiil I, turnable door, rollers), > # 1670

866

m'9°53(# 1666) 1666 ANE

m9°9)

7'9°9(g°lild), circle, region, Galilee (# 1666).

Aram. g“/ila’ and galila’, district or Galilee, and West Sem. gl(1), circuit, round.

As in Heb., a Ugar. gil form occurs as a place name, URU ga-li-li-tu-ki-ia (PRU VI 78.9; Sivan, 218). OT 1. Whether or not g“/ild did at one time refer to cultic stone circles (Martinez, 122-23), its association with the memorial mounds of stones (gal; > # 1643) seems clear (Gen 31:46; Josh 7:26; 8:29; 18:17; 2 Sam 18:17; TDOT 3:22). Occurrences in the Bible refer to regions. It designates areas of Philistia (Josh 13:2; Joel 3:4[4:4]),

Geshur (Josh 13:2), the Jordan Valley (Josh 22:10, 11), and regions east of Jerusalem on the border between Judah and Benjamin (Josh 18:17; perhaps Ezek 47:8, which has

the only occurrence of g“/ild in the sing.). 2. The Jordan Valley references and the wordplay of Hos identification with the cult site of Gilgal, whose name may be a (Martinez, 123-24). Some translations render this g“lilét as a (NIV). More obvious is the identification of g“/ild with gdlil, the

12:11[12] suggest an variant of the gil root place name, Geliloth Galilee.

P-B_In the Qumran War Scroll a gly/ occurs in a description of the battle line of the faithful drawn up against their enemy (1QM IX:10). District, region: > ’elep III (clan, tribe, region, #548); > g®/ild (circle, region, Galilee, # 1666); > hebel II (cord, rope, land, region, #2475); > kikkar (region, environs, # 3971);

> mdind (province, district, # 4519); > p*laggd (district, stream, #7106); > pelek II (region, district, # 7135) BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 3:20-23; Y. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography,

19792: G. B. Mar-

tinez, “Origen y significacion primera del nombre Galilea,” EstBib 40, 1982, 119-26; D. Sivan, Grammatical Analysis and Glossary of the Northwest Semitic Vocables in Akkadian Texts of the 15th-13th C.B.C. from Canaan and Syria, 1984. Richard S. Hess

£070

bb;

bd) (g/l I), q. roll, rqll away; flow down; drag;

wallow (#1670); 5 (galil 1), nom. turnable

door, rollers (# 1664). ANE

The vb. g// is common

in later Aram. and Heb., Syr., Mand., Eth., and Arab.

(gwl IV). The nom. galalu, meaning stone or specially prepared stone, is known in Akk. (CAD 5:11), but an etymological connection to gil is doubtful. The Akk. nom. gulgullu, skull, is common (cf. Heb. gulgdlet, # 1653 < gil). The related nom. galgal, meaning wheel, is known in Phoen., Can., and old Aram.

OT

1. The vb. gil occurs 16x. In physical motion it refers to the rolling of a stone

(Gen 29:3, 8, 10; Josh 10:18; 1 Sam 14:33). The image of a stone rolling back is used

to describe the self-destructive ways of the deceitful (Prov 26:27). The vb. is also used to describe a slain soldier wallowing in blood (2 Sam 20:12) or the bloodied garments of war (Isa 9:5[4]). Isaiah describes the destruction of the heavens as the rolling up of a

867

553(# 1671) scroll (34:4). Other occurrences are metaphorical without any sense of a physical rolling. It is used once to describe retribution, when the brothers of Joseph fear a reprisal (Gen 43:18). The psalmist asks that his reproach be rolled away (Ps 119:22; the vb. should probably be impv., cf. G), similarly Josh 5:9. Amos asks that justice flow like rushing water (Amos 5:24). Three times gil is used as a metaphor for trust; in Ps 37:5 it is parallel with the common word for trust (bth, # 1053); Prov 16:3 is virtually identical in thought; in Ps 22:8[9] gil describes the attitude of the sufferer (taken as Dts ci Gy

This is a beautiful mental image of what it means to commit oneself to God. 2. The nom. gdiil is used 4x. In 1 Kgs 6:34 it occurs twice to refer to some type of hinge mechanism for double doors to swing open, but the sense of folding is not compatible with the root (Dahood, 542). In Esth 1:6 it refers to a silver rod or rings on which curtains were hung. In S of Songs 5:14 it refers to the arms of a lover described as gold, or possibly to bracelets so large that the arm appears as gold (Dahood, 542-43). P-B_

The nom. gly/ is found at Qumran to describe a semicircle with towers (1QM

9.10), and a nom. gelilta’ is found in the Talm. for a folding couch. Rolling: > gil I (roll, roll away, flow down, drag, wallow, # 1670); > glm (roll up [mantle], # 1676); > pls (roll, #7147); > gpd (roll up, # 7886) BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 3:20-23; TWOT 1:162-65; M. Dahood, Song of Songs, 1977, 542-43. A. H. Konkel

er denom. from

ae:

553 (gil Il), pu., hitp. befoul, dirty o.s. (# 1671);

possibly identical with gil I, roll (> #1670) or ? 3 (galal I), nom. dung (# 1672); 53 (gél), nom. dung (# 1645).

ANE

Arab. galal, s.t. small (HALAT 186); gillat, dried dung for fuel (HALAT 182).

OT

1. The vb. gil occurs in 2 Sam 20:12 (“wallowing in his blood”) and in Isa

9:5[4] (‘rolled in blood”).

2. The nom. galal, dung, is found twice in passages dealing with judgment. The house of Jeroboam will be burned as one burns dung (1 Kgs 14:10). On the great day of the Lord the entrails of the people will be poured out like “filth” (Zeph 1:17). 3. Words such as dung and urine normally indicate both animal and human excrement and occur in the figurative language of judgment to describe the final end of the sinner as refuse. Sinners will be like dung on the ground (Isa 5:25), or their entrails

will be poured out like filth (Zeph 1:17). The disobedient priest will have offal spread on his face and be carried away like any unclean thing (Mal 2:3). In time of siege, people were often driven to an extremity where they ate their own excrement and drank their own urine (2 Kgs 18:27; Isa 36:12).

4. The nom. gé/ occurs in two passages with the meaning “human excrement.” Ezekiel is told to bake his bread using human

“excrement”

for fuel, but when he

objects violently to such a breach of priestly defilement, God substitutes cow’s dung (Ezek 4:12, 15). A passage in Job 20:7 (“he will perish forever, like his own dung”) 868

053 (# 1676) may employ this term, though Delitzsch proposes cattle dung. Animal dung was, and is, collected and formed into flat cakes for fuel in many parts of the world. 5. The priests were responsible for the bull of the sin offering, together with its offal, which was to be burned outside the camp (Exod 29:14). The community was instructed to cover up all human excrement so that it would not be an offence to God (Deut 23:13). A gate of the city of Jerusalem was called the Dung Gate because it was the one used for the disposal of unclean matter (Neh 2:13). Dung, excrement, refuse, urine: > ’a5pdt (ash-heap, refuse-heap, dung-hill, # 883); > g/l Il (befoul, dirty 0.s., #1671); > ddmen (dung, manure, #1961); > h°ra’im (dung, #2989); > yeSah (filth, diarrhea, # 3803); - madménd I (dung pit, #4523); > siihd (offal, # 6054); > peres I (offal, contents of stomach, #7302); > sé’é (filth, human excrement, # 7362); > sapia‘ (dung [of cattle], #7616); > sig (excrement, # 8485); > Syn (urinate, # 8874) BIBLIOGRAPHY

IDB 1:402; ISBE 1:996; TWOT 1:162-65. Roy E. Hayden

1672 (galal I, dung),

676

> # 1671

ids

ary (glm), q. roll up (mantle) (# IS{OsRir8 (g‘l6m),

wrappings

(> #1659);

023 (gdlem),

embryo (> # 1677). ANE _ The Arab. galama means to cut off. OT The vb. is a hapleg. at 2 Kgs 2:8, speaking of Elijah’s rolling up his mantle. The unshapen bundle of Elijah’s mantle becomes the means for the parting of the waters of the Jordan. P-B The vb. is known in later Heb., where it means to be wrapped up, to be roughly shaped. It is also a denom. of gdlem (a shapeless mass), the vb. coming to mean to calculate in a lump or fix an arbitrary price (Jastrow, 1:250). Rolling: ~ gil I (roll, roll away, flow down, drag, wallow, # 1670); > g/m (roll up [mantle], # 1676); > pls (roll, # 7147); > gpd (roll up, # 7886) BIBLIOGRAPHY

H. R. Cohen, Biblical Hapax. Legomena in the Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic, 1978, 48, 93n. D3) A. H. Konkel

05} (golem), nom. embryo, fetus (# 1677); hap_

ard

leg. in Ps

139:16.

NIV:

“unformed

body”;

Dahood: “my lifestages” (Psalms III, AB, 1970, 284, 295); Kraus: “the primeval state” (Psalms 60-150, 1989, 510). Child: > gdlem (embryo, # 1677); > tap I (children, # 3251); > yonéq (young child, # 3437);

+ yld (bear, bring forth, be born, #3528);

> yat6m (orphan, #3846);

> mamzér (bastard,

869

737934 1678) #4927);

> na‘ar

#5853);

(boy,

~ ‘dlél

(child,

#6402);

> ’m

(bear

twins,

#9298);

> Adoption: Theology Victor Hamilton

1678 OT

=993

=131953(galmiid), barren (# 1678).

The adj. occurs 4x (Job 3:7; 15:34; 30:3; Isa 49:21). The word always carries

negative overtones, ranging from the wish that one had never been born (Job 3:7), to a description of the godless (Job 15:34), to a symbol of exiled life in Babylon (Isa 49:21). Barren, childless, miscarriage: > galmiid (barren, # 1678); > népel (still-born child, miscarriage, #5878); > ‘agar (barren, childless, #6829); > “*riri (childless, # 6884); — Skl (be bereaved, bereavement, miscarry, # 8897) BIBLIOGRAPHY

O. Babb, “Barrenness,” JDB 1:359.

Victor P. Hamilton

1679

pos

poy (gl‘), hitp.

disclose

oneself,

break

out

(# 1679).

ANE There is uncertainty about the meaning of this word that occurs only 3x in the OT, all in Prov and only in the hitp. The closest cognates are found in Syr. and Arab., though even here it is not clear if the meaning is “to show one’s teeth” (hence, quarrel) or “to break forth in hostilities” (see Toy, Proverbs, ICC, 1916, 344-45; BDB, 167).

OT All three proverbs are admonitions against strife and quarreling (Prov 17:14; 18:1; 20:3). In 17:14 and 20:3, g/‘ is used in conjunction with nominal forms of ryb. Contention, strife, struggle: #1741); > nsh I (struggle, (longing, striving, #8296);

> g/‘ (break out in a dispute, # 1679);

> grh (stir up strife,

#5897); > ryb (strive, # 8189); > rib (strife, # 8190); > r° ‘at IL > raydn (longing, striving, # 8301); > srh I (contend, struggle,

# 8575) John M. Bracke

1680 (gil ‘ad, Gilead),

1683 ANE

> Gilead

wD)

w5) (2/3), q. skip, jump, stream (# 1683).

Ugar. git(?), Aistleitner (WUS # 657) suggests ice; Arab. Zalasa, sit down.

OT The meaning of this term, which occurs twice in the same phrase (S of Songs 4:1; 6:5), is far from certain. M. Pope (Song of Songs, AB, 1977, 458-60) finds that the context prefers a meaning of movement, as “stream” or “descend.” The depiction of goats’ skipping found in an Egyptian text may shed light on this passage. Some rabbis have understood this word to mean “thin out” that which grows too thick, like hair or

feathers; this view has led to the translation “shorn” or “made smooth.” In RH this term

870

NID3(# 1686) is used for boiling water and for luxuriant tresses (R. Gordis, The Song of Songs and Lamentations, 1974, 86).

Jumping, leaping, skipping: ~ g/X (skip, jump, # 1683); > dws (dance, # 1881); > dig (leap, #1925); > znq I Gump before, #2397); > ner II (start, spring, # 6001); > s/d (jump, spring, # 6134); > pws (skip, leap, # 7055); > pzz II (be quick, agile, hop, # 7060); > rqd (skip, leap,

# 8376); > Sqq (run about, jump, # 9212) John E. Hartley ‘1685 (gam, also), > Particles

1686

NM)

N7(gm’), pi. swallow (# 1686).

OT gm’ occurs once as a vb. in the pi. in the sense of swallowing liquids, i.e., in Job 39:24, where it is employed, in a figurative sense, of an excited war horse (one of God’s wondrous creatures), which in its frenzied gallop “eats (swallows) up the ground.” According to the New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Lexicon (1979) this vb. (y°gamme’) may possibly be related to the nom. giimma’, found in Mish. Heb. and in Aram. and Syr. with the meaning pit, hollow, hence referring here to a war horse who makes (paws or stamps) hollows in the earth. However, the first meaning, swallow, seems the more likely one.

The only other occurrence of gm’ is in Gen 24:17 (hi. impv.), where it clearly has the straightforward meaning of swallowing a liquid (water): lit., “Please let me swallow a little water from your jar.” One intuitively seems to sense that in both instances the connotation is not of ordinary drinking (note the ordinary word for drinking, sth, is not employed here) but of swallowing in the sense of vigorous gulping (contra HALAT, sip). This is especially the case in Gen 24:17, which probably indicates a big thirst after a long journey. The fact that the term for the highly absorbent marshy Papyrus cyperus, gome’ (# 1687), is related to this root seems to confirm this probability (> qaneh, reed, cane, measuring reed, stalk, scales, # 7866). Drinking, drawing water, drenching:

~ gr‘ II (draw up [drops of water], #1758);

— dlh I

(draw water, # 1926); > yrh II (give to drink, #3722); > 1“ II (drink noisily, # 4363); > lgq (lick, lap, # 4379); > mss (drink, quaff, #5209); > rwh (drink one’s fill, drench, # 8115); > 5’b (draw [water], # 8612); > Sgh (drink, refreshment, #9197); > Sth II (drinking, # 9272).

Swallowing: — bi‘ I (swallow, gulp down, swallow up, # 1180); > gm’ (swallow up, # 1681) ld ede Sal

1688

93

93 (gomed), # 1688).

nom.

2/3

cubit

(?) (hapleg.;

For a discussion on measurements of length, see ‘amma I, cubit, ell, forearm (# 564).

1691 (g°miil, deed act; recompense; requital),

> # 1694

1692 (g°miild, acts, deeds; recompenses), > # 1694 4 1694

i

pap (gml), accomplish, commit, achieve, finish; to ripen; to demonstrate, injure, inflict; to show,

871

S19 (# 1694) prove; ni. to become weaned (# 1694); O33 (g°miil), nom. deed act; recompense, child; requital (# 1691); mow} (g°miild), acts, deeds; recompenses (tagmil), rewards, benefits (# 9326).

(# 1692);

WAN

1. The vb. is found 37x in the OT. The use of the vb. in the Pent. in the q. basiOT cally means to commit an act of sin against God or a human being. Joseph’s brother had

committed/accomplished

evil (ra‘@)

against

Joseph

(Gen

50:15,

17). Israel

acts/responds as a senseless and unwise people toward the Lord (Deut 32:6). In Gen 21:8 (ni.) it designates the weaning/completing of the infanthood of Isaac. In Num 17:8[23] it is used to describe the putting forth of almonds by Aaron’s rod to designate him as high priest. The word has the sense of completion/production in all of these passages. The action is good/bad depending on the context, not the intrinsic meaning of the root gml. “To pass through” (a stage) is in the semantic field as well. 2. In the so-called Deuteronomistic

history, the word is found with the same

meanings. Samuel remains with Hannah until weaned (ni. 1 Sam 1:22-23). David shows/acted “good” (t6b) toward Saul, sparing his life (1 Sam 24:17[18]), and David rewarded/recompensed (gml) Barzillai (2 Sam 19:36[37]) for his faithfulness to him. 1 Kgs 11:20 uses the vb. to designate the entire growth and development of a child in the palace of Pharaoh. 3. In Psalms and Proverbs the word is used with several senses. The good wife effects/brings to her husband good (¢6b), not evil (ra@‘G) all her life (Prov 31:12). A man who is kind benefits his own self (soul, nepes) (Prov 11:17). The righteous man does not bring (gml) evil (ra‘) upon friend or foe without cause (Ps 7:4[5]); the Lord’s salvation is made effective (‘al) to the wise and he sings (Syr) to the Lord about it (13:6). The Lord deals with (gml) and rewards (Swb) the righteous person (18:20[21]) according to his righteousness, but he does not ultimately deal with or repay his rebellious people according to their sins/iniquities (‘Sh || gml, 103:10). The psalmist benefits from the Lord’s beneficence (g°mil) to his servant (103:2) and keeps the Lord’s word (dabar, 119:17). The q. pass. part. part. (g“miil) refers to a weaned child (Ps 131:2), a quieted and developed child, which then serves as part of a simile referring to a person who finds satisfaction in the Lord (vv. 2-3). In Ps 137:8 evil Babylon is repaid (gm) for what she did to Israel. 4. The following uses are found in the prophets: a child/weaned child/young child (Isa 11:8) will not fear the viper in the image of restoration. Isaiah’s prayer rehearses the benefits the Lord has done for his people (Isa 63:7) by which they have been renewed in the past. In Isa 18:5 the part. is used in comparing the ripening process of grapes with a speedy judgment of the Lord on Cush. Evildoers in Israel bring evil upon themselves (Isa 3:9). Similar usages are found in Hos 1:8; Joel 3:4[4:4]. In Hosea Lo-Ruhamah, not loved (NIV), is weaned. Joel uses the q. pass. part. to refer to some kind of “recompense, payment,” which will in turn result in speedy judgment. 5. “To do good” to someone is the dominate perspective of the vb. from God’s side and from the perspective of the righteous person. “To do evil” is God’s perspective when he acts in judgment on the wicked. The unjust/evil person invariably does evil. God’s “evil actions” toward the wicked are, in fact, acts of righteous judgment, while the evil person can do nothing but produce (gm) evil (cf. Gen 6:5; Exod 34:5-7).

6. The noms. follow closely upon the vb. in meaning. g°miil (19x) refers often to recompenses. Judg 9:16 describes treating someone “as he deserves,” that is, with 872

O13 (# 1695) respect to Gideon’s actions in delivering Israel. The Lord deals with people in accordance with their acts. They get what they justly deserve (cf. Prov 12:14; Obad 15: > Retribution: Theology). The g°miil of God comes with him, indicating his proper recompense for the redeemed/punishment for the wicked (Isa 35:4). None of his benefits are to be forgotten (Ps 103:2). Pride in Hezekiah’s heart kept him from responding (wb; cf. zkr), remembering Yahweh’s goodness (gml) to him, although he later repented (2 Chron 32:25-26). 7. The noms. g“miild (3x)/tagmil (1x) have comparable significance/meaning. In particular, God is the God of recompense or retribution (’@ g°milét), who indeed makes payment appropriately (Isa 59:18; Jer 51:56). Praising God, calling upon his name, fulfilling ones vows to him—all these are attempts to repay him for all of his good benefits provided to those who serve him (Ps 116:12).

P-B_ The LXX uses antapodidomi, repay, render, give in turn, most often to render the term gm, but many other paraphrastic statements as well. In Mish. Heb. the root is found in verbal form, gml, meaning “‘to do to; inflict,”

as is the nom. g°miil. The word usually means “to do something to someone,” especially good (Gen Rabbah s. 38:36). For refs. see WTM 1:340; g°miil meaning “reward, recompense,’ is found, but with the meaning “the behavior, action that one person practices against another” (WTM 1:340). Deed, act, misdeed, work: ~ gm (accomplish, commit, achieve, ripen, # 1694); > m®la’ka (work, duties, task, #4856); — ‘Il I (act, wipe out, deal with, harm, glean, #6618); > ‘sh I (make, do, prepare, create, work, service, #6913); > p‘l (do, make, produce, practice, accomplish, perform, #7188) BIBLIOGRAPHY

THAT 1:426-28; TWOT 1:166-67. Eugene Carpenter

1695

ona

193 (gamal), camel (# 1695).

ANE It is attested in other Sem. languages such as Phoen. gamal, Syr. gamlda, Arab. gamal, Eth. gamdl, Akk. gammalu. OT

1. Young cow camel (bikrd, # 1149, NIV she camel, only in Jer 2:23; Isa 60:6)

and young bull camel (béker, # 1145, NIV young camels) are also considered as kinds of camels. Camels appear in the OT 54x without distinction between one-humped camels (dabbeSet I, hump, # 1832) and two-humped camels. 2. It has been often argued that the mention of camels in Genesis (12:16; 30:43; 31:17; 32:7, 15[8,16]; 37:25; and most extensively in ch. 24) is anachronistic, since the

camels did not appear as common animals until the end of the second millennium. However, alongside that view it has been observed that “the camel was in a limited use at an early period (like horses), but required centuries before it ceased to be a luxury” (Speiser). N. Sarna has commented that in Gen the camel is in use only for providing a ride for women. But Gen 24, as well as some other passages in Gen, indicates a variety of usages of the camel already existing in the patriarchal period (see below). 3. Camels are mentioned in the OT basically as the animals for transportation, particularly for long distances (1 Kgs 10:2; 1 Chron 12:40; Isa 60:6) and as part of

873

“19(# 1698) one’s wealth (Gen 12:16; 30:43; Job 1:3), and in times of war they were both booty (1 Sam 27:9; 1 Chron 5:21; 2 Chron 14:15[14]; Jer 49:29, 32) and vehicles for soldiers, being fast-running (1 Sam 30:17).

4. In the law camels are said to be unclean, on the ground that though it chews the cud, it does not have a divided hoof (Lev 11:4; Deut 14:7). However, some exe-

getes argue that actually camels are cloven-hoofed, and the law is factually inexact. Others argue that the camel referred to here belongs to a different type from that of the modern day. But Milgrom comments; “The feet have cushion-like soles enveloped in hardened skin. Each foot is cleft into two toes, but it has no hoof” (cf. JPSV and Houston, 36 no.1). 5. In Gen 24, camels are mentioned 18x (one third of the total occurrence in the

OT), was then with

where they have a significant role in the flow of the narrative. Abraham’s servant entrusted by his lord to find a wife from the home-country in Mesopotamia. He took ten camels from Abraham’s possessions (v. 10), apparently being loaded gifts for the bride and her family (v. 53). These camels are the first means to

ascertain the Lord’s guidance in finding Isaac’s wife (cf. v. 14 with v. 19), who was

asked to water ten camels This was a laborious task and served as a touchstone to test Rebecca’s character. The result was more than the servant had expected. Furthermore,

the camels helped the servant to give Laban’s family the impression that Abraham was greatly blessed by God, thereby persuading Laban to proceed in the negotiations (vv. 30-49). When

the would-be bride consented

to go with the servant, those ten

camels served as vehicles for carrying attendants and all things needed for a new life. P-B.

LXX renders gamal by kamélos. The latter term occurs in 1 Esd 5:43; Jth 2:17;

Tob 9:2 as well. Camel’s hair is mentioned in Mish. Kil’ayim 9,1; Nega‘im 11:2. Animals:

> b°hémd (quadrupeds, #989); > zanab (tail, #2387); > h%zir (pig, #2614); > hayyd I (animal, # 2651); > keleb (dog, #3978); > ‘akbar (mouse, # 6572); > s“pardéa‘ (frog, #7630); > gippod (hedgehog/owl?, #7887); > rms (creep, swarm, #8253); > srs (swarm, teem, #9237); > tan (jackal, #9478); > Reptiles: Theology; see the Index for Birds; Camel; Deer; Donkey; Dove; Flock; Gazelle; Insects; Lion; Maggot; Snake, etc. BIBLIOGRAPHY

EMigr 2:129, 520-24; IBD

1:228-30; TWOT 1:166-67; W. Houston, Purity and Monotheism: Clean and Unclean Animals in Biblical Law, 1993; J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 1991; A. Pieper, Isaiah II, 1979; N. Sarna, Genesis, 1989; E. A. Speiser, Genesis, AB, 1964; G. J. Wenham, The

Book of Leviticus, 1979.

N. Kiuchi

1698

mer

“WA (gmr), q. be at an end, cease, fail (# 1698).

ANE The root gmr occurs in Aram., bring to a close; in Ugar. gmr I, be complete (KTU 4:187); and in Akk. gamaru, bring to an end. OT 1. The vb. is found only in Psalms and occurs in parallel construction with ’ps, “end,” in Ps 77:8[9], an individual lament in which the poet bewails the affliction of God’s people, assuming that the Lord has abandoned his chosen ones and that his covenant love has ceased. He recognizes that should God’s mercy and grace end, Israel would surely be without hope.

874

12 # 1703) The root gmr also has the meaning end or cease in Ps 12:1[2]. Here the psalmist laments the disappearance of the righteous, who have been swallowed up by the ungodly. Like Elijah (1 Kgs 19:9-10), he had assumed that the righteous of the land had come to an end because of rampant ungodliness and wickedness. Some scholars emend passi in this verse to ‘apassi on the basis of Ps 77:8[9] and read gmr in parallel construction with ’ps (e.g., M. Dahood, Psalms 1-50, AB, 1965, 73).

2. The root gmr has the derived meaning “requite” in antithetical parallelism in Ps 7:9[10], where the poet bids God to “bring to an end” to the evil of the wicked and to establish the word of the righteous. The two remaining OT texts that employ the word prove problematic. M. Dahood understood the q. part. gomér as a divine epithet (“Avenger” in Ps 57:3 [Psalms 51-100, AB, 1968, 51]). Following Dahood (Psalms 101-150, AB, 1970, 281-82), L. C. Allen translates Ps 138:8, “Yahweh acts as avenger

(gmr) on my behalf.” He argues that the meaning “wreak vengeance” is justified by both the understanding of Ugar. gmr and the LXX (Psalms 101-150, WBC, 1983, 244-45). The major Eng. versions all read “accomplish/fulfill his purposes” in both Ps 57:2[3]; and 138:8 (so JB, NEB, NIV, RSV). End, cessation, outcome:

> ’ah“rit (end, outcome, # 344);

> ’ps (cease, come

to an end,

#699); > btl (cease working, # 1060); > gmr (be at an end, cease, fail, # 1698); > hdl I (end, stop, #2532); > swp (come to an end, # 6066); > sara I (stopping, # 6239); > gés (end, limit,

boundary, # 7891); > qsh I (bring about the.end, shorten, # 7894) Vengeance: ~ gmr (cease, fail, requite, # 1698); > nqm (avenge, revenge, avenge o.s., # 5933) BIBLIOGRAPHY

ISBE 2:79; M:. Dahood,

“The Root GMR

in the Psalms,”

7S 14, 1953, 595-97; R. Gordis,

“Studies in Hebrew Roots of Contrasted Meanings,” JOR 27, 1936, 33-58. Andrew E. Hill

1700 (gdmer, Gomer),

1703

(> #1713).

~ Gomer

; iE

{2 / 1123 (gan/ganna), grove (#1703/1708);

nom. garden, < 773 gnn,

orchard, enclose

ANE In Neo-Babylonian Akk. the (Aramaic?) loanword gannatu (or gannu II) occurs (AHw, 280b; CAD, G, 41). gn is common to Northwest Sem. inscriptions (DISO, 51-52), e.g., APFC, 81:41. In Ugar. literature (KTU 4.219:3 and 6.62) the phrase rsp gn (garden of the god Reshef?) is used (see below on divine and cultic gardens). Metaphorically gn is used of the goddess Anat, who ploughs her breast like a garden (KTU 1.6:1:4-5) as a gesture of grief when she hears of Baal’s death.

The garden was in some cases some kind of a park, with trees providing shade, pools, fountains, etc. An Assyrian relief from the palace of Ashurbanipal depicts a terraced garden with an aqueduct, water channels, large trees, and even a small temple with a stela and an altar (Keel, 169, Fig. 100) (cf. OT 3). Nebuchadnezzar built the “hanging gardens” for his Persian queen, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world (D. J. Wiseman, 1983, 139-41; 1984, 38-43). The garden was a common phenomenon in the ANE and had both a practical

and symbolic function. This was true of all the elements in the garden. The vegetation 875

13 # 1703) (trees, flowers, and vegetables) and water served a practical function as nourishment

and as protection against the heat. Water and vegetation also represented life, including new life. The loss of the garden and being excluded from the garden meant infertility and death. In the ANE, gardens were connected with the king (e.g., in the Ammonite inscription from Tell Siran [line 4; cf. E. J. Smit, JSS 1, 1989, 112-113]) and the temple (royal and cultic gardens). Many depictions of gardens are known, especially fro

Egypt.

The ANE garden was closely related to the concept of paradise (> pardés).

According to J. C. de Moor (ZAW 100, 1988, 111-15), there is evidence for a Canaanite

paradise tale, related to the biblical version of paradise in Gen 2-3. In the OT the garden is specified as the garden of Eden (or Eden alone), also called the garden of God/Y ahweh (Isa 51:3; Ezek 28:13). Theologically the garden of Eden represented the blissful state lost by humankind (Gen 3), but the prophetic hope saw a time when Israel would again become like a garden and when paradise would be regained. In this way, the garden in the Bible is the setting of the history of salvation. OT 1.A garden (gan) is an enclosed area containing a variety of plants, water sources (streams and ponds), and animals. It was protected (vb. gnn) by a wall or hedge/fence and entered by way of a gate. 2. Gen 2-3. The garden plays a prominent role as the setting of the creation/fall narratives (Gen 2-3). After man was formed by God, he was placed in a garden planted by God (2:8). The garden was located geographically in the east, in Eden (> ‘éden, # 6359). The river watering the garden also flowed from Eden (v. 10). In other texts, this garden is further specified as the garden of Eden (gan ‘éden), related to Eden, or Eden alone. In the garden there were all kinds of trees, both aesthetical and practical,

that were “pleasing to the eye and good for food” (Gen 2:9), the fruits of which the man was allowed to enjoy (v. 16). In the center of the garden were the tree of life (‘és hahayyim) and the tree of all (lit. good and evil) knowledge (‘és hadda‘at t6b wara‘). The fruit of this last tree was forbidden (Gen 2:17). Gen 3 describes the next episode of human history in the garden—the dialogue between the serpent and Eve (Gen 3:1-3) and the question, “to eat or not to eat” (Walsh, JBL 96, 1977, 165). Eventually, seduced

by the shrewd talking serpent, Eve and her husband enjoyed the forbidden fruit. When God strolled in the garden in the cool of day, they tried to hide from God among the trees of the garden (Gen 3:8, 10). 3. Divine and cultic garden. In some texts the phrases “garden of God” (Ezek 28:13; 31:8-9: gan [ha]’“lohim) and “garden of the LoRD” (Gen 13:10; Isa 51:3: gan yhwh) are used. These phrases do not occur in Gen 2-3. The garden of Gen 2 was created for the human race (vv. 8, 15), not for God, although he strolled through it (3:8). The Ezekiel text may indicate another tradition (Canaanite?) dealing with the divine garden. For example, the garden of Ezek 28 was situated on a mountain (v. 14), which is not the case with Gen 2-3. In light of the close relationship between deity and garden in the ANE, gardens were places of cultic rituals, a practice attested to in the OT. Isa 1:29-30 describes the pagan cults practiced under trees (cf. H. Wildberger, BKAT X/1, 1980, 71-72), i.e., in cultic gardens. Iconographic material from the ANE connects gardens and temples, e.g., in Keel (1994, Figs. 100 and 101). Keel (Fig. 100) contains a temple and altar (cf. a temple and altar between trees on a relief of Sargon II in P. E. Botta, Monument de Ninive, 2, 1972, Pl. 114). In such gardens the Israelites sacrificed

876

12 # 1703) to other deities (Isa 65:3), but as a result they will be disgraced, being like a waterless garden (1:29-30). In the same way that Adam and Eve were driven out of the garden and lost paradise, the idolatrous Israelites will become like a garden without water, ice., infertile and dead. 4. Royal gardens. In the ANE royal gardens were common phenomena (Oppenheim, 238-333; Wiseman, “Palace and Temple Gardens,” 37-40). The king of Eccl 2:5 boasts about his achievements, i.e., that he built gardens and orchards (~ pardés). The

OT refers to the gan hammelek “king’s garden” (2 Kgs 25:4 [according to J. Gray, I & II Kings, 1977, 765 melek may refer to the deity Melech/Molech, i.e., denoting a cultic garden as in Isa 1:29-30; 65:3, but “king’s garden” makes perfect sense in the context]; Jer 39:4; 52:7; Neh 3:15). In the cited texts, the king’s garden forms part of

the architecture of Jerusalem and is used as a geographical indicator. Xerxes of Persia (OT Ahasuerus) gave a banquet in the ginnat bitan hammelek “garden of the king’s palace” (Esth 1:5; cf. 7:7-8). Ahab craved Naboth’s vineyard to make a vegetable garden of it because of its proximity to his palace (1 Kgs 21:2). Royal tombs were situated in gardens (2 Kgs 21:18, 26). In Egypt the necropolis garden was well known (Sinuhe was given a house and garden and he was buried in a tomb with a garden, cf. M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 1, 1975, 233). In other instances, the term “gar-

den” is used metaphorically and eschatologically. 5. Countries or areas compared to a garden in the Pent. The Jordan valley is compared to the “garden of the LORD,” like Egypt (Gen 13:10). The land of Israel is contrasted to Egypt. Whereas Egypt was irrigated as in a vegetable garden (gan yaraq, also in 1 Kgs 21:2), referring to the inundation of the Nile, life in Israel was dependent on rain water. In the oracles of Balaam (Num 24:6), Israel is blessed and her dwellings

are compared to gardens beside a river. Cf. also Isa 51:3; 58:11; Jer 31:12 (Israel); Lam 2:6; Ezek 28:13 (Tyre; TWOT 2:647 proposes representing Satan); 31:8-9 (Assyria). 6. Eschatology. When the Lord brings Israel back (Swb) to their land, the cities will be rebuilt, vineyards will be planted, and gardens will be made providing fruit (Amos 9:14). The restoration of Israel and her people is described in garden terms (Isa 51:3 [parallelism with Eden]; 58:11; 61:11; Jer 31:12). The garden will be well watered (Isa 58:11; Jer 31:12; note the contrast with Isa 1:29-30) like the garden of Gen 2, but init will be found righteousness (s“daq4), joy (Sas6n), gladness (simhd), thanksgiving (t6dd), praise (t*hilla), and singing (Isa 51:3; 58:11). Yahweh has laid Israel waste like a garden (Lam 2:6), but in the future there will be no more sorrow (Jer 31:12). Hos 14:7[8] could be read k°gan, “like a garden,” instead of dagan (cf. Cornelius, JNSL 14, 1988, 46, n. 25), referring to the restored Israel.

7. Beloved. In S of Songs the beloved is often described as a garden. This usage was common in the ANE, esp. known from Egyptian love songs (M. V. Fox, The Song of Songs and the Egyptian Love Songs, 1985, 283-87). The beloved is a locked garden with a locked pool and sealed fountain, both of which are important elements of the oriental garden (4:12; compare 4:13; pardes,

> #7236). This describes her inaccessi-

bility. She is a garden fountain (v. 15). The garden is the setting of love, but there are cases where the beloved is identified with the garden. S of Songs 4:16; 5:1, where the garden is entered, may even refer to the sexual act. In the OT “enter” can have a definite sexual connotation (e.g., Gen 6:4; Deut 22:13; Ezek 23:44), It is, however, not

clear that the beloved is in all cases identifiable with the garden. The garden is clearly 877

ad. (# 1704)

the place of love as in 4:16; 5:1; 6:2 (cf. v. 11, where ginnat ’°g6z is translated in NIV by “grove of nut trees”); and 8:13. Egyptian iconography depicts the royal couple in a garden (I. Cornelius, JSS 1/2, 1989, fig. 12). (~ Song of Songs: Theology) 8. In stark contrast to these “positive” comparisons, the godless are also compared with a garden in Job 8:16, but they will be destroyed. 9. It functions as a place name, bét-haggan, in 2 Kgs 9:27 (NIV note: “by way of the garden house’’). , P-B

LXX translates the Heb. with paradeisos (and Vg. by paradisus).

NT _ The garden of Gethsemane (an olive grove or orchard > NIDNTT 2:713) on the Mount of Olives functions prominently in the history of Jesus, esp. during his last days on earth (Matt 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-51; John 18:1-14), where he prayed and was arrested. He was buried in a garden tomb as well (John 19:41), from which he eventu-

ally rose (John 20). Could this imply a return to paradise after it was lost in Gen 3? The garden in S of Songs is interpreted allegorically by some Jewish and Christian traditions. The Targums compare the beloved described as a garden with “the garden of Eden,” and some Christian traditions identify the beloved with the church and Mary

(M. Pope, Song of Songs, 1977, 489). Garden, orchard: ~ gan/gannd (garden, orchard, # 1703/1708); > karmel I (orchard, # 4149); > [gan] ‘éden Il ({garden of] Eden, # 6359); > ‘“rigd (garden bed, terrace, # 6870); > pardés (park, forest, # 7236) BIBLIOGRAPHY

ISBE 2:16-17; TDOT 3:34-39; ZPEB 2:652-53; W. Berg, “Israels Land, der Garten Gottes. Der

Garten als Bild des Heiles im Alten Testament,” BZ 32/1, 1988, 35-51; I. Cornelius, “Paradise Motifs in the ‘Eschatology’ of the Minor Prophets and the Iconography of the ANE,” JNSL 14, 1988, 41-83; idem, “The Garden in the Iconography of the ANE: A Study of Selected Material from Egypt,” JSS 1/2, 1989, 204-28; E. Ebeling, “Garten,” RLA 3, 147-50; L. M. Gallery, “The Garden of Ancient Egypt,’ D. Schmandt-Besserat (ed.), Immortal Egypt, 1978, 43-49; J.-C. Hugonot, Le jardin dans l’Egypte ancienne, 1989; O. Keel, The Song of Songs, 1994, 167-82; M. F. Moens, “The Ancient Egyptian Garden in the New Kingdom: A Study of Representations,” OLP 15, 1984, 11-53; E. Moynihan, Paradise as a Garden in Persia and Moghul

India, 1979; A. L. Oppenheim, “On Royal Gardens in Mesopotamia,” JNES 24, 1965, 238-333; D. B. Thompson, “Parks and Gardens of the Ancient Empires,” Archaeology 3 (2), 101-6; H.N. Wallace, The Eden Narrative, 1985, 70-89; C. Westermann BKAT I/1, 284-87; D. Wildung, “Garten,” LexAg 2, 376-78; D. J. Wiseman, “Mesopotamian Gardens,” Anatolian Studies

33, 1983, 137-44; idem, “Palace and Temple Gardens in the Ancient Near East,” Monarchies and Socio-Religious Traditions in the Ancient Near East (ed. T. Mikasa), 1984, 37-43. I. Cornelius

1704

39)

23) (gnb), q. steal, rob, kidnap; ni. pu. be stolen;

pi. hithp. steal away

(#1704); 2333 (gannab),

nom. thief, kidnapper (# 1705); 1333 (g°néba), nom. stolen object (# 1706).

ANE Cognates occur in almost all Sem. languages (DISO, 51, so HALAT 190). Stealing was punished by severe penalties in all ANE codes (see TDOT 3:39-40). In the

878

22] (# 1704) Code of Hammurabi, kidnapping or stealing from a king or temple was a capital crime, as was the inability to pay restitution (restitution was set at ten to thirty times the value of the goods). Assyrian punishments included death, mutilation, and forced labor, but after the eighth century mainly fines. In Egypt (New Kingdom) the fine was two or three times the value of the goods. Stealing temple property incurred one hundred lashes and a hundred times restitution, and the robbing of tombs led to death by impalement. OT _ 1. The OT offers, on the whole, a more lenient system of punishments than its ANE counterparts, perhaps because the origins of Israel made her more sensitive to the rigors of poverty. Nevertheless, the action of stealing, as opposed to plunder in times of war, was still considered a crime against the community and a threat to its very stability. Skillfully, the OT laws use the action of shaming one as a punishment (see Bechtel, 47-76). 2. Within the semantic field of stealing or robbing, gnb carries the sense of secretive stealing and cheating (e.g., Gen 31:27; 2 Sam 19:3[4]), as opposed to taking something by force (see gz/ [# 1608]). In the Pent., gnb is found 8x in Gen 31:19-32,

the account of Jacob’s escape from Laban. Rachel had stolen (gnb) the household gods of her father (v. 19), while Jacob had deceived Laban by leaving secretly (lit., stole away, a figurative use of gnb). Jacob tried to justify his deceit (v. 31) by revealing his fear that Laban might have taken back his daughters by force (gz/, # 1608). The deceit implicit in gnb is fully revealed here in contrast to the open violence of gzl. gannab or gnb is also found in legal texts, particularly within the Covenant Code (esp. Exod 22). The laws cover the stealing of livestock with a restitution of between two and five times the value, depending on the type of animal and whether it is alive or not (Exod 22:1[21:37], 4[3]). A thief unable to make restitution may be sold into debt slavery (22:3b[2b]). A person may take the life of a thief at night in the protection of his/her property but not in daylight hours (22:2[1]). In contrast to the rest of the ANE, here the OT protects the life of a thief! (see further Schweinhorst-Schoenberger, 181).

The Holiness Code (Lev 19) lays out the basic rules for consecrated living. All aspects of life are important to God and, as such, must contribute to the daily consecration of God’s people to their Lord, whether harvesting a field or showing respect for the elderly. In Lev 19:11 the eighth commandment is quoted (Exod 20:15), followed by free versions of the ninth and the fourth commandment (Exod 20:7, 16). In v. 13 there is a commandment against robbery (gz/). The difference between stealing and robbery is shown in the different subcontexts as identified by G. J. Wenham (Leviticus, 1979, 267-68). The overall context is that of treatment of one’s neighbor. Stealing (v. 11) is in the subcontext of honesty, while robbery (v. 13) is in the subcontext of exploitation of the weak.

3. The Ten Commandments prohibit stealing with a simple apodeictic formula (Exod 20:15; Deut 5:19[17]). The command lacks an object, which led the rabbis to argue that this was a prohibition against kidnapping (see Jackson, 148-49). More likely the command is a general dictum against the taking of anything that belongs to someone else or to the community at large. We might extend this to the protection of the natural resources of this world and the dignity and reputation of people. (> Decalogue: Theology)

879

123 # 1709) 4. The prophets use gnb (both q. and nom.) in a literal sense (Jer 7:9; Hos 4:2, paralleled with, killing) and the pi. in a figurative sense (2 Sam 15:6, of Absalom steal-

ing the loyalties of the people of Israel; Jer 23:30, of false prophets stealing oracles). Jer 2:26 compares the shame of a thief caught in the act with that of Israel’s shame arising from her worship of false gods. She has been caught redhanded and so deserves the sanction of shame (Bechtel, 47-76). Jeremiah wishes to shame the civil and oe leaders into a proper response of repentance (Jer 3:14). 5. The Wisdom literature recognizes another side to stealing. Poor people may be forced to steal just to stay alive (Prov 6:30; cf. 30:9). Stealing may also be a temptation to the rich people to satisfy their greed (Job 24:14). P-B 1. The LXX renders gnb and its derivatives by means of klepto, kleptés emphasizing stealth, following the classical G. usage. In the Qumran scrolls, CD 9:11-12 speaks about the practice of pronouncing a curse on the thief when something is stolen from the community. Presumably the thief would also be a member of the community, and the threat of the curse would lead him to own up to his crime. 2. In the legal regulations of the Talm., gnb may refer to kidnapping (Sanhedrin 86a) or normal theft of property (Baba Qamma 7:2), where the law adds that two witnesses are required. gnb may also mean to create a false impression or to delude (Hullin, 94a). Interestingly, PTalm Sanhedrin 26b distinguishes theft from robbery. If the crime takes place in the sight of the owner it is robbery. If it takes place in the sight of other witnesses, but not the owner, then it is theft. Thus robbery is seen to include the loss of dignity inflicted on the owner, a personal sense of affront. By contrast, theft is a devious action conducted out of sight of the one robbed. NT _ Jesus cites the commands against theft (Matt 19:16-22), and Judas is perceived to be a thief (John 12:6). Jesus speaks about his second coming as a thief in night (Matt 24:42-44; cf. Rev 3:3). Plunder, spoil, robbing, stealing: > bzz (plunder, spoil, # 1024); > gzi (steal, rob, # 1608); > gnb (steal, rob, #1704); > paris II (burglar, robber, # 7265); > pereg (crossroad?, plunder, #7294); > SII II (take plunder, seize, # 8964); > Ssh (plunder, loot, #9115)

BIBLIOGRAPHY NIDNTT 3:377-81; TDNT 3:754-56; TDOT 3:39-45; TWOT 1:168; L. M. Bechtel, “Shame as a Sanction of Social Control in Biblical Israel: Judicial, Political, and Social Shaming,” JSOT 49, 1991, 47-76; B. S. Jackson, Theft in Early Jewish Law, 1972; A. Phillips, Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law, 1970; L. Schweinhorst-Schoenberger, Das Bundesbuch (Exod 20, 22-23, 33), BZAW,

1989. W. R. Domeris 1705 (gannab, thief), > # 1704

1706 (g°nébG, stolen objects), > # 1704 1708 (gannda, garden, orchard), > # 1703

1709

880

PP

1] (genez I), treasury (# 1709).

“123# 1711) ANE The root is cognate with Arab. Sanaza and kanaza, hide; and kanz, treasury; Aram. and Syr. gazza, hide, Eth. gnz, wrap oneself in something; and Late Babylonian kanazu, store, put in storage (CAD K:148). 1. The word Genizah, literally “storing,” refers to a room attached to a synagogue where books and ritual objects that have become unusable were stored. Because they bear the holy name of God, they cannot be destroyed. Hence, they must be stored, hidden from sight. Cf. EncJud 7:404-7. 2. The Sem. roots referred to above are all borrowed from Persian ginzakh, trea-

sury. It appears that the native Heb. word for treasury is ’6sar, treasure (> # 732), while genez I and n°kot, treasure house (> #5800) are loanwords from Persian and Akkad. respectively.

OT In Esth 3:9 and 4:7 the term refers to the Persian king’s “royal treasury” into which Haman was prepared to deposit a vast amount of money in return for a promise from the king that he will issue a decree ordering the execution of the Jews. Haman believes apparently that his king will be sufficiently lured by the size of the promised financial donation (‘58-68% of the annual revenue of the empire,” Fox, 523) that he

will sign his name to anything. Storehouse, treasure:

> ’Gsam (stores, #662); > ’Gsdp (store, #667); > ’sr (accumulate, amass, store up, #732); > gizbar (treasurer, # 1601); > genez I (treasury, #1709); > ganzak (treasury, #1711); > hsn (be stored up, #2889); > kms (stored up, #4022); — matmén (treasure

[hidden], #4759);

> misk®ndt

(stores, #5016);

— n°kdt (treasure house, #5800);

> niskd (storeroom[s], cell, room, # 5969); > pigqadoén (deposit, # 7214); > spn (hide, hidden,

# 7621) BIBLIOGRAPHY

EncJud 7:404-7; M. V. Fox, Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther, 1991. Victor P. Hamilton

1710 (genez Il, rugs), > #4059 1711 ANE.

123

123 (ganzak), treasury (hapleg.; # 1711; HALAT

This quadriliteral nom. is aloanword from Aram. (Wagner, # 60).

OT The nom., meaning treasury or vault, appears only in 1 Chron 28:11 in reference to the storerooms of the pre-exilic temple. Since it is known that the Solomonic temple was of Syrian design (i.e., a bit hilani type temple), it shouild not be surprising that the designations for certain of its components were technical terms of Syrian provenance. P-B

See Jastrow, 258.

Storehouse, treasure: > ’Gsam (stores, #662); > ’dsdp (store, #667); > ’sr (accumulate, amass, store up, # 732); > gizbar (treasurer, # 1601); > genez I (treasury, #1709); > ganzak #1711); > Asn (be stored up, #2889); > kms (stored up, #4022); > matmén (treasury, (treasure [hidden], #4759); > misk®ndt (stores, #5016); > n°kot (treasure house, #5800); + nixkd (storeroom[s], cell, room, # 5969); > piggadén (deposit, # 7214); > spn (hide, hidden,

# 7621)

881

722# 1713) BIBLIOGRAPHY

M.

Die

Wagner,

lexikalischen

und

grammatikalischen

Aramaismen

im

alttestamentlichen

Hebraisch, BZAW 96, 1966. Robert H. O’Connell

Lake

33

1

73 (gnn), q. enclose, protect, defend (# 1713); 7a

(gan), garden (> # 1703); 7133 (ganna), garden

(> #1708); Tia (gat 1), winepress (> # 1780); 72a (magen I), shield (> # 4482). ANE The vb. is found widely with the basic meaning “enclose” (HAHAT'® DDS HALAT 191). Nominal derivatives meaning garden (an enclosed space) (> # 1703, # 1708) and shield (enclosing and protecting the body; > #4482) are found in both

Heb. and Ugar.

OT The vb. always describes God’s protection of Jerusalem and his people, as a bird protects its brood (Isa 31:5, reversing the boast of 10:14) or a shield protects from slingstones (Zech 9:15). The promise to Hezekiah to protect Jerusalem against an Assyrian attack is linked with the theme of the inviolability of Jerusalem and the special relationship with David (Isa 37:35=2 Kgs 19:34; Isa 38:6=2 Kgs 20:6). The oracle often extends from defense to a promise to deliver and save (2 Kgs 19:35; Zech 12:8). Enclosure:

> gnn (enclose, protect, #1713);

> hdr I (surround, enclose, #2539);

> sahar

(round enclosure, # 6044); > swrI (besiege, enclose, # 7443); > swk (hedge, shut in, # 8455) P. P. Jenson

1716

ANE.

mya

mY (g‘h), q. bellow, low (cattle) (# 1716).

Ugar. g‘t; Arab. Za‘a‘a; Aram. g°‘a’.

OT The word is used in 1 Sam 6:12 to describe the bellowing/lowing of the cows as they left their own penned up calves and went to Beth Shemesh, thus proving to the Philistines (>) that Yahweh had stricken them with tumors (6:1-18). In Job 6:5 it refers to the bellowing of an ox that has no fodder and illustrates Job’s present plight.

P-B_

The LXX translates the vb. in 1 Sam 6:12 with kopiad, work hard; grow weary,

but it does not translate the vb. in Job 6:5, since it does not mention an ox in the latter

part of the verse. Animal sounds: ~ g‘h (bellow, low [cattle], # 1716); > hgh I (groan, moan, sigh, meditate, muse, chirp, mutter, # 2047); > nbh (bark [dogs], #5560); > nhq (bray [ass], shriek, # 5640); > nhr (snort, #5723); > ‘yt (yell, shriek, swoop down [w. shrieks], #6512); > shi I (neigh, shout, #7412) Eugene Carpenter

1718

bys

by) (g‘l), q. abhor; (# 1718);

(hapleg., Ezek 16:5, # 1719).

882

ni. be defiled; hi. fail

Sy3 (gd‘al), nom.

aversion,

neglect

S19(# 1718) ANE Middle Heb. g‘/, be covered with impurity, be loathsome; Jewish Aram. g‘J, to make dirty; Arab. ga‘ara, to drop manure. Johnson (72) incorrectly posits a common Sem. root for g‘/ and g’/ (cf. Blau, 244). OT

1. The vb g‘/ occurs 10x (5x in Lev 6), while the nom. g0‘al is a hapleg. (Ezek

16:5). In each of the eight occurrences of the g. form (Lev 26:11, 15, 30, 43, 44; Jer 14:19; Ezek 16:45 [2x]), g‘I signifies the transitive nuance, to consider someone or

something as dung and filth (TDOT 3:47). It occurs 4x with m’s, reject (> # 4415; Lev 26:15, 43, 44; Jer 14:19). Levine (“Epilogue,” 14) contends that the primary image of g‘l seems to be “physical spoilage or filth.” The juxtaposition of g‘I with nepex (Lev 26:11, 15, 30, 43; Jer 14:19) connotes the depth of this loathing.

gl delineates a sad chapter in Israel’s covenantal relationship with Yahweh. The heart of that covenantal relationship revolved around God’s intent to be Israel’s God (protector and benefactor) and his expectation that Israel would be his people (Lev 26:12), manifesting his character to the surrounding world (Exod 19:4-6). Yahweh promised to bless abundantly their obedience (Lev 26:1-13; Deut 28:1-14), but also to

curse severely their rebellion (Lev 26:14-35; Deut 28:15-68). Part of that promised blessing was Yahweh’s promise to put his dwelling place among them and the assurance that he would not abhor them (g‘/, Lev 26:11).

Making that objective a reality depended on Israel’s heartfelt obedience of Yahweh’s decrees. Unfortunately, Yahweh indicts his chosen people for treating his statutes like dirt (g‘/, Lev 26:15, 43), causing their experience of the covenant curses

(26:16, 43). As part of these curses and as an appropriate response to their loathing his decrees, Yahweh would treat his elect nation as filth (26:30), although not to the point that he would utterly destroy his chosen people (26:44). God’s rejection of his elect nation would not be permanent, i.e., cursing Israel did not necessitate total destruction. Redemption was still possible (26:45).

Israel’s experience of covenant curses envisioned in Lev 26 finds its fulfillment during the time of the prophet Jeremiah’s ministry. On behalf of Israel, Jeremiah asks the question occasioned by the reality of Israel’s condition, “Do you despise Zion” (Jer 14:19)? The prophet seems to be asking, “Are we beyond the point of no return, can we not avert destruction and exile?” (cf. Levine, Leviticus, 280). 2. As part of his lament over Saul’s death (2 Sam 1:21), David curses Mount Gilboa for having been the stage for the death of Saul and Jonathan. He grounds his curse on the fact that “the shield of the mighty was defiled (g¢‘/), the shield of Saul—no

longer rubbed with oil.” Scholars debate whether g‘/ denotes the manner in which the shield was treated (transitive nuance) or the shield’s condition (intransitive nuance). Shea (142) contends that the Israelites treated Saul’s shield (g‘/) as they had treated

Goliath’s armor and sword (1 Sam 17:54; 21:9). This comparison appears flawed since the Israelites preserved Goliath’s weaponry and Saul’s shield lay exposed to the elements. Driver (236-37) prefers the transitive translation, to reject with loathing, to describe Israel’s contempt for Saul. Accepting an intransitive meaning, Mauchline (200) contends that Saul’s shield became defiled by the blood of the Philistines. More accurately, McCarter (76) suggests “begrimed” as the meaning of g‘/ in light of rabbinic Heb. nitpa‘el, be soiled, and Aram. hitpe‘el, be polluted, soiled (cf. Jastrow, 261).

The following phrase, “not rubbed with oil,” suggests that Saul’s shield was not oiled and ready for action. Instead, it is covered with grime because of neglect. Millard (70)

883

WD(# 1721) points out that throughout the ANE shields were made of leather and were oiled to keep them ready for use. 3. As acity founded by pagans (Amorites and Hittites) and despised from birth (gd‘al, Ezek 16:5), Ezekiel (16:45) compares the city of Jerusalem with Samaria and

Sodom (cities characterized by godlessness). Jerusalem followed her familial pattern of loathing all those important to her. In her case, Jerusalem (representative of the entire nation) directs her loathing against Yahweh by participating in the detestable practices (16 ‘ébd, # 9359) of the surrounding pagan nations (16:47).

P-B_ The vb. g’/ is found in conjunction with g‘/ in Qumran texts (1QM 9:8; CD 12:16). In Mish. Heb., the hi. and ni. forms signify the removal of impurity by means of boiling or hot water (Jastrow, 261). Contempt,

disdain,

disgust,

loathing:

> bwz

(show

contempt

for, #996);

~ bzh

(be

contemptible, think lightly of, despise, # 1022); > bhi (become tired of, disdain, # 1041); > g‘l (abhor, be defiled, fail, # 1718); > zhm (make s.t. loathsome, # 2299); > zwr III (be offensive, # 2320); — zil I (be frivolous, be despised, #2361); > znh II (feel a dislike for, #2389);

> zara’ (sickness, nausea, #2426); > hnn II (be stinking, loathsome, #2859); > yq‘ (turn aside, # 3697); > nq‘ (disengage, # 5936); > qwt (feel disgust, #7752); > gil (be slight, swift, appear trifling, treat with contempt, # 7837); > swt II (slight, despise, # 8764); > Sqs (make o.s. detestable, #9210); > t‘b (be detestable, be loathed, loathe, abhor, # 9493) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 3:45-48; TWOT 1:169-70; J. Blau, “Uber Homonyme und Angeblich Homonyme Wurzeln,” VT 6, 1956, 242-48; S. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel, 1913; A. Guillaume, Hebrew and Arabic Lexicography: A Comparative Study, 1965;

A. Johnson, “The Primary Meaning of ON” SVT 1, 1953, 67-77; B. Levine, “The Epilogue to the Holiness Code: A Priestly Statement on the Destiny of Israel,’ Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel, eds., B. Levine, E. Freriches, 1987, 9-34; idem, Leviticus, 1989; J. Mauchline, I and 2 Samuel, 1971; P. McCarter, Jr., 2 Samuel, 1984; A. Millard, “Saul’s Shield Not Anointed

With Oil,” BASOR 230, 1978, 70; W. Shea, “David’s Lament,” BASOR 221, 1976, 141-44. Michael A. Grisanti

1719 (gd‘al, aversion),

1721

> #1718

=p)

“WA (g‘r), q. roar, shout, bellow, cry out, rebuke, reprimand (# 1721); 17M (g° ara), nom. shout,

outcry, rebuke, reprimand, threat (# 1722); NYA" (mig ‘eret), nom. fierce anger, frustration (hapleg.; # 4486).

ANE Ugar. g‘r, vb. roar, shout, rebuke; Aram. and Syr. g‘ar, vb. chide, rebuke; g arta’, nom. groaning, lament; Eth. ga‘ara sigh, cry out; Arab. 8a ‘ara, vb. pass excrement, cry out, scream.

OT — g‘r basically means “a loud rumbling sound,” particularly a sound that conveys anger or disgust (cf. Macintosh, 472-73); there is an onomatopoeic dimension to this word. In support of this basic meaning is its use in Ugar. for the wheezing sound made by a sick horse (UT, 56, 23). However, in 137:24, 68:27-32, and RS 24.256, 1.14 it is

used for a loud utterance made by a deity.

884

W(# 1721) Out of 14 occurrences the vb. governs the preposition b® 10x; 4x it is transitive (Ps 9:5 [6]; 68:30 [31]; 119:21; Mal 2:3). This root is predominately used with Yahweh, who is the subject of the vb. 10x, and of the 15 occurrences of the nom. Yahweh

or a pronoun for him stands as a subject genitive 9x. 1. The meaning “give forth a loud, angry blast” is supported by the nom.’s standing parallel to g6l ra‘am, rumble of thunder, in Ps 104:7. Such a loud shout arouses fear in the one addressed, leading that force or person to cease a particular action. According to Isa 30:17, g° ‘ard of one puts a thousand to flight. Some interpret g° ‘Gra to be a “threat” (NIV), but it most likely means “a loud shout” let out by a troop. Ruth, a poor, young widow, sought to glean wheat in the fields of Boaz. When Boaz learned about her past hardships, he instructed his workers not to rebuff her, i.e., to shout inhibiting phrases at her, for taking any bundles that had been left in the field (Ruth 2:16).

Several texts speak of God’s letting out a loud blast that struck fear into any person or force in hearing range. Such a loud sound is an expression of God’s wrath, for g‘r stands in close connection with terms for wrath: “the wrath of the LORD” (hémd, Isa 51:20), “anger” (qsp, Isa 54:9), and “his anger in fury” (hémd + ’ap, Isa 66:15). In one text “your rebuke” stands in apposition to “blast of breath from your nostrils” = “the turbulence of a storm stirred by your anger” (n°’amd+riiah+’ap, Ps 18:15[16] = 2 Sam 22:16). God’s angry blast is so loud that it is louder than the roar of the nations, that is, as loud as the roaring of mighty waters (Isa 17:13). It follows, then, that the

great powers flee in terror from God’s manifestation. Often God delivers a loud blast by means of a storm, either a sharp clap of thunder (Ps 104:7), or strokes of lightning, i.e., flames of fire (Isa 66:15), or a mighty gust of wind (Ps 18:15[16]; Isa 50:2). Whenever God manifests his presence with a loud blast, every hostile force quickly submits to his coming. At creation God drove the great, turbulent waters of the deep to their rightful place with a loud foreboding clap of thunder (Ps 104:6-7); the retreat of the waters enabled the dry land to appear (104:8-9). According to one theophanic tradition, when God reveals his presence, a strong wind drives back the channels of the sea, laying bare the foundations on which the earth stands (Ps 18:15[16]; cf. Job 26:11). God’s controlling the hostile forces of the deep

with a loud shout becomes a vivid way of speaking about his marvelous, unchallengeable power (cf. Nah 1:4). At this point it may be noted that the blast or outcry is an integral part of the natural force that works destruction; in that light the outcry cannot be abstracted from the natural force. Thus, the outcry is itself seen as a manifestation of

God’s marvelous power. Consequently, g‘r stands parallel to ’bd, destroy, and mhh, wipe out (> #4681; Ps 9:5[6]; cf. #3). The pictures describing God’s mastery over primordial waters are employed to depict his victory at the Reed Sea. When Israel, fleeing from Egypt, was stopped before the Reed Sea, God sent forth a strong wind that opened a dry path through which the Israelites escaped from Pharaoh’s advancing army (Ps 106:9-10). Then he stunned the Egyptian corps with a mighty display of his anger (Ps 76:6 [7]). It is in this light that the description of those slain in battle as being overwhelmed by an outburst of God’s wrath may be understood (Isa 51:20). Furthermore, the God who mastered both the sea and the Egyptians by his outcry also masters the powerful nations (Isa 17:13; Ps 68:30[31]). That the Israelites made this connection between sea and great

885

"2 (# 1721) nations becomes intelligible in that they used mighty waters as a metaphor for strong nations (e.g., Isa 8:7-8).

Ps 80:16[17] has evoked a variety of interpretations (cf. Tate, Psalms 51-100, WBC, 307-8); certainly the troubling phrase migga “rat panéka, “at your threatening (angry) look,” carries enormous rhetorical force. Because an enemy has set God’s vine, Israel, aflame, the psalmist petitions God to destroy that enemy with a display of his presence in anger. In that God’s angry outburst can be manifested in flames of fire, it is possible that the psalmist wants God to destroy that enemy in a way similar to that used to harm Israel. In a call to repentance God challenged the people to put him to a test (Mal 3:6-12). If they would show their commitment to him by bringing the tithe to the storehouse, he promised to bless them with abundance by putting an end with an angry outburst to the locusts that were consuming all the produce (3:11). Conversely, in a word of encouragement Isaiah forcefully proclaims that God’s loyal love (hesed; > # 2876) curtails him from angrily giving forth a terrorizing shout against his people (Isa 54:9-10). On a more individualistic note one psalmist entreats God to shout angrily at, i.e., curtail the power of, the insolent ones (zédim; — #2294) who deride him and try to ensnare him (Ps 119:21; cf. vv. 51, 69, 78, 85, 122).

2. When standing for the results that God’s angry blast produces, the vb. means “overwhelm” (Ps 9:5[6]).

3. This tain. McKane person, unlike ing g° ‘ara as

root also stands for “threat.” The use of the nom. in Prov 13:8 is uncer(Proverbs, OTL, 1970, 458) interprets the proverb to assert that a poor one who is rich, never has to pay blackmail. He bases this view on taka technical legal term for “menaces” or “threats” (cf. Seely and NIV).

Several emend the text of Mal 2:3, changing g‘r to gd‘, “cut off,” with support of LXX;

but if g‘r is read, the context favors its meaning “to threaten.” God seeks to correct wayward priests by threatening their offspring with gross defilement and exile if they do not begin to honor God’s name. Such defilement would prevent them from ever functioning again as priests. 4. This root came to mean “reprimand, rebuke,” i.e., a sharp, loud word aimed

at putting an end to undesirable activity. Even though Jacob loved Joseph intensely, he felt compelled to rebuke him sternly for his outlandish dreams of eventually ruling all members of the family (Gen 37:10). The use of this vb. conveys the severity of Jacob’s reprimand (TDOT 3:50). Shemaiah, a prophet among the Babylonian exiles, wrote and inquired if Zephaniah, the priest in Jerusalem, had rebuked the prophet Jeremiah; that is, he wanted Zephaniah to address Jeremiah in such a stern way that Jeremiah would cease prophesying (Jer 29:27). Yahweh spoke sharply at Satan in order to have him cease making accusations against Joshua, the high priest (Zech 3:2). The meaning “rebuke” for the nom. is dominant in the Wisdom tradition. A rebuke was a powerful tool of discipline for a teacher. A responsive student accepts a teacher’s rebuke, mindful that it is designed either to deter from harm or to sharpen

skills. A discerning person is thus more affected by a single rebuke than is a fool by a hundred blows, for the rebuke goes deep into the conscience and motivates that one to improve his conduct (Prov 17:10). Another proverb asserts that receiving a rebuke from a wise person is better than listening to the song of fools designed to produce an 886

wya(# 1723) upbeat feeling (Eccl 7:5). By contrast, a scoffer is so hardened and self-centered that such a one pays no attention to a rebuke (Prov 13:1). 5. The nom. mig ‘eret occurs only in Deut 28:20 along with hamm® érd, cursing, and hamm*hiimé, confusion. These are curses sent by God against his disobedient people. In this context mig ‘eret may be translated “frustration” for the effect God’s anger causes in the people (cf. A. D. H. Mays, Deuteronomy, NCB, 1979, 354). P-B This root occurs a few times in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The vb. appears in 1QH 9:11 for God’s not reprimanding a person; it stands parallel to “‘spurn, renounce” (znh). The nom. comes in 1QH 10:18 to note that when God does not rebuke, there is no stumbling. The object of the vb. with God as subject in 1QM 14:10 is “spirits of (destruction).” Rebuke, reproof, shame, threat: > g‘r (roar, shout, bellow, cry out, rebuke, reprimand, #1721); > htt (overwhelm with reproach, #2254); > zhr II (be warned, warn, # 2302); > hrp

II (taunt, mock, insult, defy, #3070);

— ykh (dispute, reason together, prove, judge, rule,

reprove, # 3519); > khh II (rebuke, # 3909)

Anger, rage, wrath: ~ np (be angry, #647); > z‘m (curse, be angry, # 2406); > z‘p I (rage, # 2406); > hémd (rage, # 2779); > hrh I (be hot, become angry, # 3013); > k‘s (be irritated, angry, # 4087); — ‘br II (show anger, #6297); > qsp I (become angry, #7911); > rgz (shake, agitate, # 8074); > Anger: Theology BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 3:49-53; THAT 1:429-31; P. Jotion, “Notes de lexicographie hébraique,” Bib 6, 1925, 318-21; A. Macintosh, “A Consideration of Hebrew 123,” VT 19, 1969, 471-79; S. Reif, “A Note on WY” VT 21, 1971, 241-44; F. Seely, “Note on G‘RH with Especial Reference to Proverbs 13:8,” BT 10, 1959, 20-21; P. van Zijl, “A Discussion of the Root ga ‘ar (rebuke),” Biblical Essays: Proceedings of the 12th Meeting of “Die Ou-Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika,” 1969, 56-63. John E. Hartley

1722 (g° ‘ard, shout, outcry, rebuke, threat), > #1721

1723 ;

m9

WY) (¢‘5), q. rise and fall noisily; hitp. rise and fall noisily, swell, surge; hitpol. send up a roar,

vomit (# 1723).

OT This Heb. vb. occurs only 10x in the OT. It appears predominantly in the hitp. form, which denotes the repetitive back-and-forth action of the vb. The earth and its foundations shake at the theophanic presence of Yahweh (2 Sam 22:8; Ps 18:7[8]).

This vb. is also used to depict both the perpetual crashing of the waves at the border of the sea and the surging of the Nile banks (Jer 5:22; 46:7). The staggering locomotion of a drunken person is one more possible use of this word (Jer 25:16). This vb. also depicts a violent and sudden death (Job 34:20). Shaking, terror, trembling: > g‘¥ (rise and fall noisily, swell, surge, # 1723); > zw‘ (tremble, quake, be afraid, #2316); — zil II (shake, quake, tremble, # 2362); — halhald (shaking, trembling, anguish, #2714); > Arg (come out trembling, #3004); > hrd (tremble, shudder, startle, # 3006); > yr‘ (tremble, be fainthearted, # 3760); > mwt (waver, reel, stagger, shake,

887

3 (# 1727) TEETER

reel, #4572); > m‘d (slip, slide, shake, totter, #5048); > nwd (shake, totter, waiver, wander, mourn, flee, #5653); > nwt (shake, quake, #5667); > nw‘ (shake, tremble, stagger, totter, wave, #5675); > n‘r Il (shake, shake off, # 5850); > smr (shudder, have goose-bumps, bristle,

# 6169); > ‘iw‘im (distortion, stagger, dizzy, #6413); > pwgq I (stagger, wobble, reel, totter, #7048); > phd I (tremble, be in dread, #7064); > pls (shudder, shake, tremble, #7145); + qws I(feel disgust, frighten, cause dread, #7762); > rgz (agitate, quiver, shake, excite, rouse up, agitate, # 8074); > rnh I (rattle, # 8261); > r‘d (tremble, shake, tremble, # 8283); > rl I (brandish, make to quiver, # 8302); > r‘¥ I (quake, shake, leap, # 8321); > rpp (shake, quake, rock, # 8344); > rtét (terror, panic, trembling, # 8417); > §‘r I (be afraid, terrified, bristle with horror, # 8547)

_M. V. Van Pelt/W. C. Kaiser, Jr. >

;

1727

ab

aF. (gap II), body (only in Exod 21:3-4, in the idiom

“come/go

in one’s

body,”

i.e., alone)

(# 1727). Body: > basar (meat, food, flesh, # 1414); > g°wiyyd (body, corpse, # 1581); > gid (sinew, tendon, # 1630); > gap II (body, # 1727); > hdb (bosom, # 2460); > hégq (lap, chest, # 2668);

~ kabéd II (liver, #3879); > kilyd (kidney, # 4000); > /°hiim (entrails?, #4302); > mé‘eh (body, bowels, #5055); > mipsa‘a (buttocks, #5156); — ‘esem I (bone, skin, body, self, # 6795); > gereb (inner organs, # 7931) Robert B. Chisholm

1728

123 |

14 (gepen), nom. vine(s), grapevine(s) (# 1728).

ANE This root and word are found in several Sem. languages, including Ugar. gpn. (UT 52:9); Akk. (WestSem. loanword) gapnu/gupnu; Aram. gpn; Syr. gupna(’); Arab.

gafn. OT The vine, as the ultimate source for all of the good fruits and joys of the vineyard, became a symbol of life and fertility. Wine caused both gods and kings to be merry (Judg 9:13). It is used as a simile to describe the fruitful wife of the godly man (Ps 128:3). It was a mainstay of the art of the skilled writer.

Mainly positive ideas surround it, and it symbolizes prosperity, restoration, and national shalom along with other figures of speech taken from the vineyard (Gen 40:9-10). A healthy Israel in history (1 Kgs 4:25[5:5]) and a restored and blessed eschatological nation featured the presence and ownership of vines (Mal 3:11). But it is also a ready metaphor or simile to describe the source of pagel ee and pollution among the pagan nations (Deut 32:32). Israel, although Yahweh had taken her from Egypt and planted her as a choice vine (Isa 5:2; sorégq, > #8603), produced only wild grapes and thus became a wild vine (Jer 2:21b), that is, useless, stinking productions of the vine (gepen). The allegory/parable in Ezek 17 depicts Israel/Jerusalem in Zedekiah’s reign as a vine (vv. 6-7) that was vainly seeking sustenance from Egypt and was eventually cut off (vv. 11-31). God’s wrath and his judgments cause the vine to dry up (Joel 1:11-12) in foreign nations as well as inIsrael (Isa 16:8).

The nom. s*réqd, parallel to gepen, but further defining a specific kind of plant, indicates some kind of choice (cf. Isa 5:2) vine to which the coming ruler (Messiah?)

888

m°753(# 1730) would tether his donkey, and the parallel words in the verse indicate that the entire picture is one of a future utopian prosperity and abundance (Gen 49:11). This verse is developed in Isa 63:2; Rev 14:17-20; 19:13, among other passages. In these later references the picture changes to one in which the imagery is of judgment by one who treads the winepress of judgment for the nations. P-B. The LXX uses ampelos most often to render the Heb. word, though omphax is also thus attested. Grapes—viticulture:

> bsr I(gather grapes, tread down, vine-dresser, # 1305); > gepen (vine,

grapevine, # 1728); > kerem I (vineyard, #4142); > qss (strip away, pick, # 7878); > Sarig (branch, tendril, climber, # 8585); > s6réq II (choice vine, # 8603); > s°réga (vine with the best grapes, # 8605) BIBLIOGRAPHY

HBD 1112-13; IDB 4:784-86; ISBE 4:986-87; NIDNTT 3:918-21; TDOT 3:53-61; TWOT 1:170; TWAT 2:55-66; E. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah-Scrolls, 1959: Eugene Carpenter

1729 (godper, unknown wood), > #6770

1730 ANE

OT

iar

15a (goprit), nom. sulphur (# 1730).

AKK. kupritu, sulphur.

1. The nom. denotes an inflammable material of which lightning was held to

consist (Ezek 38:23[22]).

2. The use of sulphur was a means of divine retribution against Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19:24), the apostate and the wicked (Ps 11:6), the king of Assyria (Isa 30:33), and Edom (34:9). 3. The nom. is used as a symbol of desolation (Deut 29:23[22]). Fire, flame: ~ ’id (log, burning stick, #202); > ’é5I (fire, #836); > b‘r I (burn, blaze up, be consumed, #1277); > gahelet (burning charcoal, # 1625); > goprit (sulphur, # 1730); > yst (kindle, burn, set on fire, # 3675); ~ yqd (burn, be burning, kindled, # 3678); > kiddd (spark, # 3958); > lbb II (bake cakes, #4221); > lahab (flame, blade, #4258); > lht I (glow, burn, #4265); > lappid (torch, lightning, #4365); > nisds (spark, #5773); > peham (charcoal, # 7073); > resep I (live coal, #8363); > resep I (flame, glow, arrow, plague, # 8404); > Srp

(burn, be burnt, # 8596); > Sabib (flame, # 8663) Jackie A. Naudé

1731 (gér, sojourner), > # 1591

1732

a

“lA (gir), chalk (# 1732).

Used only once in BH in Isa 27:9, where Judah’s pagan altars are to be made OT chalk stones that are easily ground to powder. It appears in Dan 5:5 (Aram.) to soft like denote “plaster.” Layard (246) speaks of several coats of plaster, each ornamented, covering the walls of one of the buildings in Nineveh. Excavations at Babylon by

889

373(#1734) Koldewey, however, suggest that the walls of the palace were covered in white plaster, against which any dark object would stand out sharply (Young, 120). For etymologies, see BDB, 162 and HALAT 193. Lime, chalk, plaster: > gir (chalk, # 1732);

> twh (plaster, coat, overlay, paint, # 3212); > tpl > Sayis

(smear, plaster, # 3260); > Syd (plaster, whitewash, # 8486); > fered (chalk, #8574);

(alabaster, # 8880); > tapél II (mud-plaster, whitewash, # 9521) BIBLIOGRAPHY

R. H. Charles,

A

Critical

H. A. Layard, Nineveh

and

Exegetical

and Its Remains,

Commentary

1849; repr.

Daniel, 1973; E. J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel:

on

the Book

1970; Leon

of Daniel,

Wood,

1929,

A Commentary

on

A Commentary, 1949. William C. Williams

1734

274 (garab), festering eruption (only in Lev

373

21:20; 22:22; Deut 28:27) (# 1734).

OT This is an inflamed or eruptive cutaneous demica, an acute contagious disease accompanied that prove fatal, or else Impetigo herpetiformis, often has a fatal termination. The NIV “festering “discharge.”

condition, perhaps Dermatitis epiby severe constitutional symptoms an inflammatory eruption that also sores” is conjectural, as is the NEB

Disease—blister, boil, skin disease, scar, wound: > ““ba ‘bu ‘Ot (blisters, # 81); > bohag (skin condition, # 993); > baheret (white patch on skin, # 994); > garab (festering eruption, # 1734); > zrr I (press out [wounds], #2452); > heres | (itch, #3063); > yabbelet (wart?, #3301);

> yallepet (skin disease, #3539);

— y°raqraq

#3918);

> mazdr

> m’r

(be sore,

#4421);

> mispahat (skin eruption, #5030); #5999); # 6932);

(discoloration, I (boil, #4649);

> mrh (rub, polish, #5302);

#3768);

— k°wiyya

— makka

(blow,

(scar,

#4804);

> neteqg (scalp infection,

> sappahat (hair disease, #6204); > ‘dpel I (abscesses, #6754); > ‘as II (pus, > sapd (pus?, #7597); > sarebet (scar, #7648); > sr‘ (suffer from skin disease,

#7665); > $°’ét II (swelling, # 8421); > Str (break out [tumor], # 8609); > Shin (boil, # 8825). For related entries > hlh I (become weak, tired, ill, # 2703)

BIBLIOGRAPHY ISBE 1:532, 953-60; 3:103-6; G. J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT, 1979, 189-214. R. K. Harrison

1737

273

“A1a (gargér), ripe olive (# 1737).

ANE §gargér is related to Arab. gargar (ripe olive) and Akk. gurgurru (plant), see HALAT 194.

OT — gargér occurs only in Isa 17:6 in a metaphor: the remnant that survives God’s judgment is like the few ripe olives (Dalman, 4:166) that survive the beating of the tree at harvest time. Olive:

> gargér (ripe olive, #1737),

# 3658); > Semen (olive oil, # 9043)

890

— zayit (olive tree, olive, #2339);

> yishar I (oil,

7) (# 1740) Sa

st

BIBLIOGRAPHY

G. Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte, 1928-42; A. Goor and M. Nurdock, The Fruits of the Holy Land, 1968; J. Klotz, “The Vine, the Fig Tree, and the Olive: A Study in Biblical Symbolism,” Concordia Journal 6, 1980, 256-60. Mark D. Futato

1738 (gargarét, neck), > #7418

1740

mien?

“T) (grd), hitp. scrape o.s. (hapleg.; # 1740).

ANE Aram. g‘rad means scrape, as does Arab. Zarrada. In Phoen., mgrdm (probably pi.) occurs in the sense of “(flesh-)scrapers” (CIS 338.4).

OT “Job took a piece of broken pottery and scraped himself with it (/°hitgaréd bd) as he sat among the ashes” (Job 2:8). At the very least Job scraped his itching skin as a counterirritant. It is also possible, however, that in addition he did so to lance pustules

(so LXX) and/or to mutilate his body as a sign of grief—although the latter was a pagan custom (cf. Lev 19:28; 21:5; Deut 14:1; Jer 16:6; 41:5; 47:5; 48:37). Scraping: ~ grd (scrape oneself, #1740); > mill IV (scrape, #4911); > shh (scrape away, # 6081); > gsh I (trim off, maim, shorten, scrape off, #7894); > qs‘ I (scrape off, #7909); > rdh I (scrape out, # 8098) BIBLIOGRAPHY

F. E. Greenspahn, Hapaxlegomena in Biblical Hebrew, 1984. Ronald Youngblood

1741

mes

11) (grh), pi. stir up strife; hitp., engage in strife (# 1741); 73M (tigra), nom. contention, strife,

hostility (# 9327). OT 1. All three uses of the pi. are in Prov (15:18; 28:25; 29:22); in each instance the object of the vb. is the nom. madén (#4506), so, “stir up dissention” (NIV). The behavior is condemned as that of a hot-tempered person (15:18), a greedy person (28:25), and an angry person (29:22). 2. The most notable occurrences of the hitp. are Deut 2:5, 9, 19, 24. In this Deuteronomic recounting of Israel’s wilderness wanderings, the hitp. form of grh is used in

the first three instances to admonish Israel not “to provoke” a group of people to war because God was not giving Israel their land; in the final instances Israel is given permission to engage in battle against King Sihon of Heshbon and take possession of the land Yahweh is giving to Israel. 3. The nom. tigrd is used only in Ps 39:10[11] to speak of Yahweh’s judgment on the psalmist. While the phrase is literally “the hostility of your (i.e., Yahweh’s) hand,” the NIV and NRSV both translate “the blow of your hand.” Contention, strife, struggle: > gl‘ (break out in a dispute, #1679); > grh (stir up strife, #1741); > nsh I (struggle, #5897); — ptl (twist, be wily, shrewd, #7349); > ryb (strive, # 8189); > r* ‘at II (longing, striving, # 8296); > srh I (contend, struggle, # 8575) John M. Bracke

891

T73 (# 1743) EEE

1742 (gérd, cud), > #2651

1743 OT

73 (gérd IL), nom. smallest weight, 1/20 shekel

m3

The word occurs

(# 1743). only 5x: Exod

30:13; Lev 27:25; Num

3:47; 18:16; Ezek

45:12. For a discussion on weights > Sql, weigh, weigh out, pay, # 9202. Jerry E. Shepherd

1744 (garé6n, throat, neck), > #7418 1745 (gériit, hospitality), > #1591

1746

m7

Tt) (grz), ni. be cut off (# 1746).

OT The word is found 1x in the OT with a figurative use (Ps 31:22[23]). The psalmist is at first fearful that his dire circumstances are a result of his being rejected (“cut off’). It is a temporary issue, for in his cry for mercy he is aware that God knew of his plight all along (cf. Jon 2:4[5]; grs).

P-B

The LXX renders the vb. with aporipto, reject, cast off (2x).

Cutting, destruction, extermination, shearing, trimming: > bs‘ (cut away, get gain, cut off, break up, #1298); > br’ III (clear out trees, cut, destroy, #1345); > btr (cut into pieces,

# 1439); > gd‘ (cut short, #1548); > gzh (bring forth, #1602); > gzz (cut, shear, # 1605); > gzrI (cut, take away, # 1615); > grz (be cut off, # 1746); > gr‘ I (cut out, reduce, # 1757); > hip II (cut through, pierce, # 2737); > ksh (cut, cut down, #4065); > krsm (make cropped, trimmed off, #4155);

> krt (cut, cut off, exterminate,

cut a covenant,

circumcise,

# 4162);

> melqahayim (snuffers for trimming/cleaning of lights/lamps, #4920); > ngp I (cut/chop down, destroy, #5937); > nth (cut in pieces, #5983); — gsb (cut off, shear, #7892); > ssp (hew into pieces, #9119); > tzz (cut away, # 9372) Eugene Carpenter

1748 (°rizzim, Gerizzim), > Ebal 1749 (garzen, axe, chisel), > #7935 1751 (grm, gnaw), > #1752

1759

o-3

D3 (gerem), bone (# 1752); O73 (grm), gnaw

ma 23:34; Zeph 3:3 (# 1751).

(?) (possibly a denom. vb.; cf. Num 24:8; Ezek

ANE

Aram. garma’, bone, self (cf. Bib. Aram. g°ram, bone, in Dan. 6:25); Arab.

girm, essence.

OT Referring to the physical effects of discouragement and anxiety, Prov 17:22 states, “a crushed spirit dries up the bones.” Prov 25:15 declares that “a gentle tongue can break a bone,” emphasizing the powerful effect of the spoken word. In both cases, the bones are viewed as the seat of physical strength and vitality. Gen 49:14 likens

892

373 # 1755) Issachar to a “rawboned” donkey, perhaps suggesting he will be forced to do hard labor for others. (However, some prefer a different reading here. See Feigin and Gevirtz.) Bone: > gerem (bone, # 1752); > ‘esem I (bone, skin, body, self, # 6795) BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Johnson, The Vitality of the Individual in the Thought of Ancient Israel, 1964, 68, n.9; C. M. Carmichael, “Some Sayings in Genesis 49,” JBL 88, 1969, 437-38; S. I. Feigin, “hamér garim, ‘Castrated Ass’,” JNES 5, 1946, 230-33; S. Gevirtz, “The Issachar Oracle in the Testament of Jacob,” Erlsr 12, 1975, 104-12. Robert B. Chisholm

1/55

ae

73 (g6ren), threshing floor (# 1755).

ANE goren is related to Ugar. grn (threshing floor), Arab. %i/urn (threshing floor), and Akk. g/garanu (heap up), see HALAT, 195. OT 1. goren refers to a flat, outdoor area, usually on a hill, where grain was gathered (Job 39:12) for threshing and winnowing. While some threshing floors may have been community property, others were privately owned, as indicated by “the threshing floor of Nacon/Kidon” (2 Sam 6:6 // 1 Chron 13:9) and “the threshing floor of Araunah/Ornan” (2 Sam 24:16 // 1 Chron 21:18). During the harvest, an owner would spend the night near the heap of threshed and winnowed grain (Ruth 3:7[6]) for various reasons, one being to protect the grain from looters (see | Sam 23:1). By metonymy, goren refers to the supply of grain coming from the threshing floor. Some of this supply was to be given to the slave who was set free (Deut 15:14). goren is used with yegeb (press) in a merism for the entire harvest. A poor harvest is indicated by “Threshing floors and winepresses will not feed the people” (Hos 9:2). Conversely, “The threshing floors will be filled with grain; the presses will overflow with new wine and oil’ (Joel 2:24) indicates a bumper crop. Such a harvest was from the Lord, so a special offering “from the threshing floor” was given to him (Num 15:20). 2. Israel was “crushed on the threshing floor” (Isa 21:10), having experienced the judgment of God at the hands of the nations. But as grain is gathered to the threshing floor, so the nations would be unwittingly gathered to the threshing floor of divine judgment (Mic 4:11-13). Babylon was “like a threshing floor at the time it is trampled” (Jer 51:33). This trampling refers to the process of compacting the soil to provide a hard and flat surface for threshing (Feliks, “Implements”’). As threshing followed this trampling, so Babylon’s judgment was imminent. 3. The connection between threshing and judgment is also seen in the threshing floor being a place of official transactions. In 1 Kgs 22:10 Ahab and Jehoshaphat are sitting on their thrones at a threshing floor near the city gate to seek prophetic advice on the feasibility of going to battle. 2 Aqht V, 3-8 (ANET, 151a) provides a striking parallel: Danel is sitting at a threshing floor near a city gate, judging the cause of the fatherless and widow (see DeVries, 267). 4. Some scholars maintain that there is no warrant for connecting threshing floors cultic sites (e.g., TDOT 3:64-65), but this position seems to go beyond the evidence. Evidence for such a connection is tantalizing, even if inconclusive: (1) Cultic

893

O73 (# 1756) prostitution seems to have taken place at threshing floors (Hos 9:1; see Andersen, 515); (2) the place where Uzza touched the ark and was judged was a threshing floor (2 Sam 6:6 //1 Chron 13:9); (3) the site selected for the temple was a threshing floor (2 Sam 24

// 1 Chron 21). If this connection exists, perhaps the rationale was the connection between worship (cult) and agricultural blessing (threshing floor; see Lev 26:1-5). Threshing:

> gdren (threshing floor, # 1755); > dw¥ (trample, thresh, #1889); > haras Il (threshing-sledge, # 3023); > mérag (threshing-sledge, # 4617) Grain, barley, millet, rice, etc.: > ’abib (ears of grain, #26); > bisqgalén (fresh stalks [cj.], # 1303);

> bar III (grain, corn, # 1339);

> gadi¥ I (stack of grain, # 1538);

> geres (grits,

# 1762); > dagan (grain, # 1841); > dohan (sorghum, millet, # 1893); > hittd (wheat, # 2636); > kussemet (emmer-wheat, # 4081); > karmel IV (grain, fresh, newly ripened grain, # 4152); > m‘lild (grain, grains, #4884); — minnit (rice, #4976); > mods (chaff, #5161); > sdlet

(wheat flour, # 6159); > panndg (parched? grain, meal or flour, # 7154); > sebet (grain, bundle of grain, #7395); > sanum (hard, barren [ears of grain], #7568); ~ gali (parched grain, #7833); > gamé (crops, grain, standing grain, #7850); > sdrd (millet, # 8463); > s° ‘ora (barley, # 8555); > sibbdletI (ear of grain, # 8672); > Seber II (grain, # 8692) BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABD 1:95-98; TDOT 2:62-65; F. Andersen and N. Freedman, Hosea, 1980; S. DeVries, / Kings, 1985; J. Feliks, “Agricultural Implements in Ancient Eres Israel,’ EncJud, 1971, 2:378; W.

Gage, “Ruth upon the Threshing Floor and the Sin of Gibeah: A Biblical-Theological Study,” WTJ, 1989, 369-75; J. Gray, “The Goren at the City Gate: Justice and the Royal Office in the Ugaritic Text “AQHT,” PEQ 84, 1953, 118-23; S. Paul and W. Dever, Biblical Archaeology, 1974; S. Smith, “The Threshing Floor at the City Gate,” PEQ 78, 1946, 5-14. Mark D. Futato

1756

Ons

O73 (grs), q. waste away, consumed; hi. make

grind (# 1756).

ANE The vb. is found in Mish. Heb. q. and pi., Arab. garaSa, Egyp. Aram., to crush, and Syr. g°risa’, crushed (DISO 54; HAHAT 1:230; HALOT 1:203).

OT Ps 119:20 uses the vb. with “soul” as subject to provide a metaphorical reference to being worn down, being consumed. This forms part of the gimel strophe, which contains a strong element of complaint (Allen, 142). The object of the consuming longing is the laws of God, which probably refers to a knowledge of the will of God or to God’s help by means of a judgment (Mays, 3-12; Andersen, 814). In Lam 3:16 the hi. of the vb. is used to indicate the grinding/gnashing/breaking of the teeth with gravel. This violent figure of speech might be interpreted as the consumption of unpleasant things, being continued from v. 15, or it might refer to debasement (Brandscheidt, 40-41, 56-57; Provan, 88; Huey, 472).

P-B_ 1. LXX. The vb. is tr. with epipothed, long for, in Ps 119:20, and ekballd, break, in Lam 3:16. 2. RL. The pi. of the vb. is used in the Tosefta T’bul Yom II to indicate that figs have not yet been “crushed” before baking (Jastrow 1:270).

894

D7 (# 1757) NT _ epipothed, desire, demand is used 9x (never in the Gospels or Acts) in reference to congregations and their leaders (2 Cor 9:14; Phil 1:8; 2:26) or to indicate how God

“yearns jealously” over the spirit (James 4:5; EDNT 2:33). Longing: > ‘wh (regard as beautiful, want, crave, # 203); > hmd (desire, crave, long for, covet, treasure, #2773); > hps I (want, desire, wish, care, #2911); > hxq I (desire, longing, lust, # 3137); > y’b (long for, yearn, desire, #3277); > kaleh (longing, # 3985); > kmh (long after, lust for, # 4014); > ksp II (desire, yearn for, # 4083); > méras II (wish, desire, #4626); > ‘rg (long after, pant after, # 6864); > r° ‘at II (longing, striving,#8296); > srh I (contend, struggle, # 8575); > 5° (ask, request, wish, # 8626); > t’b I (desire, long after, # 9289); > 1°Siigd (desire, longing, appetite, # 9592) BIBLIOGRAPHY DCH 2:376; EDNT 2:33; TDNT 1:448; L. C. Allen, Psalm 101-150, WBC,

1983; A. A. Ander-

son, The Book of Psalms, 1992; R. Brandscheidt, Gotteszorn und Menschenleid: Die Gerichtsklage des leidenden Gerechten in Klgl 3, 1983; F. B. Huey, Jeremiah. Lamentations, NBC,

1993; J. L. Mays, “The Place of the Torah-Psalms in the Psalter,” JBL 106, 1987, 3-12; I. W. Provan, Lamentations, 1991. Hendrik L. Bosman

1757

=

D712 (gr‘ I), q. cut out, reduce, hinder; ni. be reduced, be held back, be last (#1757); D722

(migra‘), ledge (> # 4492).

ANE In Aram. and Syr. the root has the meaning “cut”; cf. Arab. gara‘a, have one’s head shaved.

OT 1. The basic meaning of gr‘ is the opposite of ysp, add to, continue (> # 3578; Num 36:3-4; Deut 13:1). The word is found in a variety of settings in the q. It is used of God’s cutting off (gr‘) his people in judgment (Ezek 5:11) and refers to the “sheared head” (gr‘) in Moab as a result of mourning because of God’s judgments on Moab (Isa 15:3; Jer 48:37). God also reduces or holds back (gr‘) the territory of his people in judgment. A woman who had been rejected as a wife could not have her dowry, etc., reduced (gr‘; Exod 21:10). Job is accused of hindering (gr‘) communication with God. Especially solemn is the use of the word to indicate that nothing must be added (ysp) to God’s covenantal words, commandments, or works/wonders in general (Deut 4:2; 13:1; Jer 26:2; Eccl 3:14) nor taken away (gr‘). 2. The basic meaning of the q. continues in the ni. Land given to the Lord after the Jubilee year was to be appropriately reduced (gr‘) in value (Lev 27:18). The inheritance of fathers who had only daughters could not be reduced (gr‘); special laws were established to be sure this did not happen (Num 27:4; 36:3-4). The vb. is used to indicate the total disappearance of a man’s name from Israel (27:4). The flexibility of the word is shown in 9:7, where those who are ceremonially unclean must refrain from (gr‘) from celebrating the Passover.

3. The hapleg. migra‘ refers to certain architectural features of the temple (1 Kgs 6:6). Cutting, destruction, extermination, shearing, trimming: ~ bs‘ (cut away, get gain, cut off, break up, #1298);

> br’ III (clear out trees, cut, destroy, # 1345);

— btr (cut into pieces,

895

YO)(# 1758) aa

> gd‘ (cut short, # 1548); > gzh (bring forth, #1602); > gzz (cut, shear, # 1605); > gzrI (cut, take away, #1615); > grz (be cut off, #1746); > gr‘ I (cut out, reduce, # WEIDER > hip II (cut through, pierce, # 2737); > ksh (cut, cut down, # 4065); > krsm (make cropped,

# 1439);

trimmed off, #4155);

— krt (cut, cut off, exterminate, cut a covenant,

> melgahayim (snuffers for trimming/cleaning of lights/lamps, #4920); down, destroy, #5937); > nth (cut in pieces, #5983); (hew into pieces, #9119); > tzz (cut away, # 9372)

circumcise, # 4162);

> ngp I (cut/chop

> gsb (cut off, shear, # 7892);

— Ssp

BIBLIOGRAPHY TWAT 2:70-72.

Eugene Carpenter

1758

=

2). disdisD7) (gr‘ ‘ ID, pi.i form globules/droplets(?), till(?); make withdrawn/drawn up(?) (of drops of

water; so NIV, NRSV, REB) (hapleg.; # 1758; HALAT 196a). ANE Some suggest that a cognate may be found in Arab. gara‘a or gari‘a “gulp, sip, slurp; pour down” (of liquids) (Wehr, 120b; cf. Jacob, 287; HALAT). OT

In Job 36:27, a part of Elihu’s portrayal of how God’s power and benevolence

appear in each season (autumn, 36:27-33; winter, 37:1-13; spring-summer, 37:14-22),

gr’ IL is used to signify evaporation as part of the rain cycle: “for he forms into droplets (gr‘) the beads of water; they distill as rain for his inundation” (author tr.) (here, gr“ II ll zqq “filter, strain; distill”; so Vg stillas, BHS gr‘ = stillare; for Heb. ’éd, innundation,

cf. Akk. edi “onrush of water, high water,” CAD, E, 35b-36a; Speiser). The proposal of BHS to emend the A colon to, “for he distills drops from the sea,” is possible, but

unnecessary. P-B___Postbiblical Heb. attests a denominative vb. (pi. or hi.) gr‘ II, meaning either “to form a globule/pip” or “to form an ovule containing moisture,” which is used to describe an early stage in the development of the grape (Mish. Shebi‘it 4:10 [pi.]; Jastrow, 271b). PTalm Shebi ‘it 4:35c miSSeyagri‘t (hi.) is explained mSyzhlw mym, “from when they flow with water,” referring to Job 36:27 (cf. BTalm Berakot 63b, Pesahim 52b); however, elsewhere the nom. (pl.) gar‘in, globule, designates pips or stones of fruit (Jastrow, 27 1b). Rain, dew, drizzle, hail, showers: > ’égel (drop [of dew], #103); > brd I (hail, # 1351); > gim (make rain, #1772); > zrm II ({clouds] pour out [water], # 2442); > h°namal (sleet, hail?, # 2857); > tal (dew, light rain, drizzle, #3228); > yrh II (give drink, cause rain, # 3722); > mtr (make rain, #4763); > malgds (late rain, #4919); > sagrir (downpour, # 6039); > sapiah II (violent storm, # 6207); > r°bibim (showers, # 8053); > rasts (dew drop, # 8268); > r'p (drip, flow, rain, # 8319); > sa‘ir IV (heavy rain, # 8540); > Sikbd (layer of dew, emis-

sion/ discharge of seed, # 8887)

BIBLIOGRAPHY B. Jacob, “Erklarung einiger Hiob-Stellen,” ZAW 32, 1912, 278-87; H. Ringgren, TWAT 2:70-72; ET: TDOT 3:66-67; E. A. Speiser, “ ’Ed in the Story of Creation,” in J. Finkelstein and M. Greenberg, eds., Oriental and Biblical Studies, 1967, 19-22. Robert H. O’Connell

896

73 (# 1759) 1759

an

ane (grp),

wash

away

(hapleg.;

Judg

5:21,

| #1759); F) ad (migrap), shovel ? (> #4493).

ANE

This hapleg. occurs in the Targumic and Galilean traditions of Jewish Aram. (to

shovel away [ashes]), Arab. (to sweep away), and Syr. and Eth. (to wash away).

OT The context of Judg 5:21 (a poetic description of the conflict between the Israelites and the Canaanites from Hazor) demonstrates that grp depicts the waters of the Kishon overflowing its banks and sweeping away the Canaanite chariots and their riders. Flood, deluge, torrent: > bz’ (wash away, #1021); > grp (wash away, # 1759); > mabbiil (heavenly ocean, deluge, #4429); > niggeret (torrent, #5600); > swp (flood, rise up, make float, #7429); > Sibbdlet II (torrent, undulation, # 8673); — S6t II ({[sudden] flood, # 8766); > Stp (wash away, flood, overflow, # 8851); > Sesep (flooding, # 9192) Michael A. Grisanti

1760

3 (grr), q. drag, drag away; ni. chew cud, ruminate (Lev 11:7 eae cogn. acc. gérd, but perhaps read as q.; a HALAT); poal to be sawn, with cogn. m°gérd; hitp. to gash oneself (but text doubtful: perhaps ytgwddw; cf. 1 Kgs 18:28); hitpo. sweep forcefully about, Jer 30:23 (perhaps hitpo. gir) (# 1760). ANE.

=3)

The root appears in Late Heb. and in Aram. (cf. g°rar; Syr. gar); Arab. garra.

OT 1. This vb. appears 6x, of which three are questionable on textual grounds. In Hab 1:15, the fierce Chaldean is compared to a fisherman who drags his catch of fish out of the sea in a net. The vb. is locked in parallelism with bringing up with a hook and gathering in a fishnet. All represent movement toward the principal actor. Prov 21:7 warns that the violence of the wicked will sweep them away. This time, the action is away from the speaker’s sphere of reference. In Lev 11:7, the ni. (but see above) reports that the pig—not being a ruminant—does not chew (or perhaps draw up) the cud. It is difficult to identify the exact nature of the action: whether regurgitation, the sound of cud-chewing, or the slow, methodical rhythm of rumination.

2. In 1 Kgs 7:9, Solomon’s construction projects employ costly stones, which were trimmed with a saw. In this case the movement is reciprocal and described in the poal conjugation. Nevertheless, the complement “back and front,” which immediately follows, probably refers to the two sides of the stone that the workmen finished, not to the sawing motion itself. The same reciprocal cutting motion is probably to be observed in the hitp. occurrence at Hos 7:14, where rebellious Ephraimites gash themselves (but see above) for grain and wine. Conceivably, there is an element of satirical hyperbole in this description of senseless rebels who call upon Egypt, go to Assyria, and saw away at themselves. Finally, the vb. in Jer 30:23 may be hitpo. (or hitpol. of gwr). It is occasionally emended towards Jer 23:19, mithdlél, on broader redactional grounds (so BHS). However, the text is defensible as it stands, hailing as it does the vengeful storm of the Lord that sweeps forcefully about. Here, the idea is not sweeping away from, toward, or back and forth, but round and round.

897

wai # 1762) In light of the variety of directions that the contexts set for this verbal motion, it seems that the word’s essential meaning refers to a dragging, drawing, or sweeping that requires or involves significant force. Other contextual elements then fix the direction and nature of this movement. Dragging, pulling out: > gil I (roll, roll away, flow down, drag, wallow, # 1670); > grr (drag #5406); > msk (seize, drag off, delay, #5432); > shb (drag off, pull away, #6079); > SII (pull out, # 8963)

out, ruminate, sawn up, # 1760); > mSh (pull out [of water],

D. A. Baer

1762

vn}

WA (geres), grits (# 1762).

OT This word occurs only twice (Lev 2:14, 16), and its etymology is uncertain; but the Arab. vb., Zara¥a, grind or crush, may be related to it, suggesting that the Heb. word refers to some type of crushed grain. The LXX uses the words pephrugmena, ground, along with eriktos, pounded barley, or chidra, unripened wheat kernels, to translate this word, and later Heb. (g°ris, pounded beans or grain), Syr. (gr[w/]s’, ear of

wheat), and later Aram. (girsa’, @°riis°ya’, grits) have forms derived from this word. In Lev 2:14 geres karmel appears to be used epexegetically to describe further the phrase ‘abib qaliiy ba’ és, heads of grain roasted with fire; since the word karmel appears to mean “fresh or newly ripened grain,” it is plausible that geres means “heads of grain roasted in the fire.” Grain, barley, millet, rice, etc.: > ’abib (ears of grain, # 26); > bisqal6n (fresh stalks [cj.], # 1303); > bar II (grain, corn, # 1339); > gadis I (stack of grain, # 1538); > geres (grits, # 1762); > dagan (grain, # 1841); > dohan (sorghum, millet, # 1893); > hittad (wheat, # 2636); > kussemet (emmer-wheat, # 4081); > karmel IV (grain, fresh, newly ripened grain, # 4152); > mlild (grain, grains, #4884); > minnit (rice, #4976); > mds (chaff, #5161); > sdlet (wheat flour, #6159); > panndag (parched? grain, meal or flour, #7154); > sebet (grain, bundle of grain, #7395); > sanum (hard, barren [ears of grain], #7568); > qali (parched grain, # 7833); — gama (crops, grain, standing grain, #7850); > s6rda (millet, # 8463); > §° ‘ora (barley, # 8555); > SibboletI (ear of grain, # 8672); > Seber II (grain, # 8692) BIBLIOGRAPHY

J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, AB, 1991, 194.

Paul D. Wegner

1763

v9

wa (gr¥ I), banish, divorce, drive out (# 1763);

MW) (¢°rusa), expropriation (# 1766). ANE

Cognates occur in Ugar. (gr); Moab. (Mesha Inscription: 19, wygrh); Syr.

drive out; in Judaeo-Aram. and post-BH, cast out (a wife).

OT

gr I occurs 46x and functions as follows: 1. In the q., to drive out/dislodge a nation (Exod 34:11); to put away/cast out/divorce a wife (pass. voice) (Lev 21:7, 14; 22:13; Num 30:9[10]; Ezek 44:22: another root used for divorce is S/h pi., Deut 21:14; cf. HALAT); to cast up (the sea mire) (Isa 57:20).

898

wr (# 1764) 2. In the ni., be driven away from the presence of Yahweh (Jon 2:4[5]), be driven, tossed, as the Nile (Amos 8:8), like the sea (Isa 57:20). 3. The majority of instances of gr§ occur in the pi. formation, primarily in the

Hexateuch, all expressing to drive out, drive away. Examples include: Adam driven from the garden (Gen 3:24; cf. Cain 4:14); David (men, subj.; 1 Sam 26:19); Hagar (Abraham, subj; Gen 21:10); daughter of Reuel (shepherds, subj.; Exod 2:17); Moses and Aaron driven from Pharoah’s presence (Exod 10:11); Gaal and his brothers (Judg

9:41); Jephthah (11:2, 7); Abiathar (Solomon, subj.; 1 Kgs 2:27); wicked ones from the temple (Yahweh, subj.; Hos 9:15); and women from houses (nobles, subj.; Mic 2:9).

gers (pi.) is often used of Canaanites being driven out with subjects as follows: hornet (Exod 23:28); Israel (Josh 24:12; Exod 23:31); Yahweh (Exod 23:29, 30; 33:2; Deut 33:27; Josh 24:18; Judg 2:3; 6:9; 1 Chron 17:21; Ps 78:55; 80:8[9]). Additional

instances include Israel driven out from Egypt by Pharoah (Exod 6:1; 11:1); Israel to be driven from the land of Moab (Num 22:6, 11); Judah driven from Canaan (subj. Moab and Ammon; 2 Chron 20:11); and Egypt driven from her land (subj. Yahweh; Ezek 31:11). 4. gr§ occurs only twice in the pu., be driven away: subj. Israelites (Exod 12:39); subj. despised and miserable outcasts (Job 30:5). 5. The nom. (fem.) occurs only once in the pl.: your acts of expulsion (Ezek 45:9; NIV dispossessing).

6. Theologically, the term functions with God as the agent in driving out the populations of Canaan in preparation for Israel’s occupation of the Promised Land, which he has given for their possession (Ps 78:55) and inheritance (2 Chron 20:11).

Israel’s participation in the removal of the Canaanite peoples is expected, however (Exod 23:30; 33:2; Deut 33:27). As a testimony to God’s role, there is acknowledgment also of God’s exclusive claim to Israel’s worship (Josh 24:18; Judg 6:8-9). Divorce: > gr I (banish, drive out, divorce, # 1763); > k°ritiit (divorce, # 4135) Scattering, dispersion: > bzr (scatter, # 1029); — zrh I (scatter, sprinkle, spread, # 2430); > zr‘ (sow, scatter seed, #2445); > zrq I (sprinkle, scatter, #2450); > ndh I (banish, be scattered, be cast out, seduce, #5615); > ndp (blow away, scatter, #5622); > nps II (spread out, scatter, be dispersed, # 5880); > pws (scatter, disperse, be spread, # 7046); > pzr (scatter, spread, # 7061) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 3:68-69; TWOT 1:173-74; M. Weinfeld, “The Ban on the Canaanites in the Biblical Codes and Its Historical Development,” in History and Tradition of Early Israeli Studies Presented to Eduard Nielsen, SVT 50, 1993, 142-60.

PATE JASe EES

L764

ons

wr (gr¥ ID, toss up, throw out (#1764); W732

geres, yield (hapleg. in Deut 33:14; # 1765).

C_AYA 66. ANE The vb. is cognate with Sam. g°riiSd, “waves,” and may be connected with Arab. Sagara, “churn/stir up (water)” and bahr “undulating sea.”

OT

Both the q. and ni. of the vb. appear in Isa 57:20, “But the wicked are like the

tossing (nigras, ni.) sea... whose waves/waters cast up (wayyigr’Sa q.) mire and mud.”

899

Ow (# 1772) (For the pairing of vbs. from the same root but in different conjugations, cf. Berlin, 36-40, esp. 39.) Further connection of this root with water and seas is found in Amos 8:8, a commentary on the cosmic results of Israel’s sin, “Will not the land/earth tremble for this, and all who live in it mourn? The whole land will rise (‘al®td) like the Nile;

it will be stirred up (nigr®Sa) and then sink (nixq°hd@) like the river of Egypt.” The pic-

ture of the waters in upheaval (swelling, surging, and sinking) is comparable to the rising and falling of the earth’s surface during an earthquake. See also Ezek 27:28 (in a =xXA lament over Tyre), “The shorelands (migréS6t) will quake when your seamen cry out.” P-B_ The use of gr¥ II with the stirring up of waters is also found in the Hodayoth Psalms (1QH 2:13; 3:32; 8:15) and in RH (Sipre Deut., 39). Stirring, tossing: > gri II (toss up, # 1764);

> Amr II (foam, surge, # 2812);

> swk I (stir up,

# 6056); > ‘wr II (stir oneself, # 6424); > rhs (be stirred up, # 8180) BIBLIOGRAPHY

a

A. Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism, 1985; J. Blau, “Uber homonyme und angeblich

homonyme Wurzeln,” VT 6, 1956, 245-46; S. Paul, Amos, Hermeneia, 1991, 260-61. Victor P. Hamilton

1765 (geres, yield), > # 1764

1766 (g°rusd, expropriation), > # 1763

1772 ANE

pick

0/3 (gsm), hi. make rain fall (# 1772); nom. DW}

(gexem 1), rain (# 1773).

gesem is related to Ugar. gm

(rain) and Arab. sagama

HALAT 197.

([tears] flow), see

‘

OT 1. No rain, no life. It was just that simple in OT times in the Promised Land. Unlike Egypt and Mesopotamia, where agriculture was based on irrigation from rivers filled by rains that fell miles away, the Promised Land was “a land of mountains and valleys that drinks rain from heaven. It is a land the LORD your God cares for; the eyes of the LORD your God are continually on it from the beginning of the year to its end” (Deut 11:11-12). So the epitome of blessing for covenantal faithfulness was: “I will send rain on your land in its season, both autumn and spring rains, so that you may gather in your grain, new wine and oil” (11:14). Conversely, curse for covenantal dis-

loyalty was that “the LORD’s anger will burn against you, and he will shut up the heavens so that it will not rain and the ground will yield no produce, and you will soon perish from the good land” (11:17). (~ Deuteronomy: Theology) 2. The Israelite year was divided into two seasons, the dry season and the rainy

season. The rainy season was divided into three periods: the early rains (from Oct. through Noy.), the winter rains (from Dec. through Feb.), and the late rains (from Mar.

through Apr.). While the majority of rain fell in the middle period, the early rains and late rains were likewise vital for successful agriculture (Baly, 52).

3. The right amount of rain at the right time was crucial for life in the Promised Land

900

(Baly, 50). Too

little rain meant

drought and death; too much

rain meant

Owa(# 1772) destruction and death. Delay in the onset of the rains or rains falling too late and so interrupting the harvest could also be devastating for crops. 4. Most of the rains are from cyclonic storms traveling the length of the Mediterranean from the Atlantic; when the moist air moves over the land, it is forced to rise

rapidly, producing heavy thunderstorms (Baly, 48-49; > brd, thunder, # 1351). The frequency of thunderstorms and their local character explain texts like, “I sent rain on one town, but withheld it from another. One field had rain; another had none and dried

up” (Amos 4:7), and the multiplicity of terms for severe rains (see below). 5. Who controls the rain? This was the question underlying the perpetual conflict between the Lord God of Israel and Baal (> # 1252), the storm god of Canaanite religion (see | Kgs 17-18). A major component of Baalism’s seductive power lay in Israel’s absolute need for rain. Not an idol but the true and living God sends rain, so Israel must be loyal to him (Jer 14:22).

6. Owing to the centrality of rain, the OT has a rich vocabulary for precipitation, with terms spanning a continuum from torrential rain to rain to drizzle to dew. There are two general terms for rain (gesem and matar), specialized terms for early rains (y/m6reh) and late rains (malq65), as well as terms for light rains (7“bibim and tal) and severe rains (zerem, sagrir, sapiah, and $a ‘r). (a) geSem and matar are the two most frequent terms for rain, occurring 35x and 38x, respectively. mtr occurs

in verbal forms

17x, whereas verbal forms of gesem

occur only 2x. (b) The modern reader can discern no difference between gesem and matar, as the following indicate: (i) the reverse construct chains m*tar-ge’em (Zech 10:1) and gesem matar (Job 37:6); (ii) the use of geSem with the hi. of mtr (Amos 4:7); (iii) the use of both words as generic terms for rain, further specified by “early rains” and “late rains” (Deut 11:14 [matar]; Jer 5:24 and Joel 2:23 [gesem]); (iv) they are interchangeable in 1 Kings 17-18 (“there will be neither dew nor mdatar...except at my word” [17:1]; “there was a gesem gadol” [18:45]); (v) their use in similar stock phrases, e.g.,

w’ett*nad matar ‘al-p*né ha’“dama (“T will send rain on the land” [1 Kgs 18:1]) and ‘ad yom tét-yhwh gexem ‘al-p°né-ha’“damé (“until the day the LORD gives rain on the land” [1 Kgs 17:14]).

(c) The Lord God of Israel, not Baal or any other idol of the nations (see Jer 14:22), sends rain upon the earth (1 Kgs 17:14 [geSem]; Job 5:10 [matar]), and he sends it at just the right time (Lev 26:4 and Ezek 34:26 [geSem]; Deut 11:14 and 28:12 [matar]). The Lord sends rain to bless his people by enabling their land to yield its produce (Lev 26:4 and Ezek 34:26 [geSem]; Ps 147:8 [matar]). But the Lord can also

judge his people by sending too much rain (Ezek 13:11, 13; 38:22 [gesem Sotép = “torrential rain” that destroys a wall]; see Prov 28:3 [matar sohép w°’én lahem = “a driving rain that leaves no crops’’]), by sending rain at the wrong time (1 Sam 12:17 [matar]; see Prov 28:3) or by withholding the rain (Amos 4:7 [geSem]; Isa 5:6 [mafar]). Zech

14:17 describes eschatological judgment in these simple but devastating terms, w°/d’ “léhem yihyeh haggesem (“they will have no rain’). (d) geXem and mafar are used in a variety of figures (see Prov 25:23; Eccl 11:3; 12:2). A man who boasts about gifts he never actually gives is like clouds without gexem (Prov 25:14). A ruler who oppresses his people is like a driving mafar that

901

ww (# 1779) destroys the crops in the field (28:3). Moses’ teaching, however, is like life-giving matar (Deut 32:1). Rain, dew, drizzle, hail, showers: > ’égel (drop [of dew], # 103); > brd I (hail, #1351); ~ 98m (make rain, #1772); > zrm II ({clouds] pour out [water], # 2442): > h*namal (sleet, hail?, # 2857); > tal (dew, light rain, drizzle, # 3228); > yrh II (give drink, cause rain, # 3722); + mtr (make rain, #4763); > malgds (late rain, #4919); > sagrir (downpour, #6039); ~ sapiah II (violent storm, #6207); > r°bibim (showers, # 8053); > rasis (dew drop, # 8268); > r‘p (drip, flow, rain, # 8319); > sa‘ir IV (heavy rain, # 8540); > Sikbd (layer of dew, emis-

sion/ discharge of seed, # 8887) BIBLIOGRAPHY

D. Baly, Geography of the Bible, 1957; G. Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte, 1928-42; J. Katsnelson, “Rain,” EncJud, 1971; K. Nash, “The Palestinian Agricultural Year and the Book of Joel,” diss. The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., 1989; E. Orni and E. Efrat, Geography of Israel, 1971; P. Reymond, L’eau, sa vie, et sa signification dans l’AT, 1958; R. Scott, “Meteo-

rological Phenomena and Terminology of the OT,” ZAW 64, 1952, 11-25. Mark D. Futato

1773 (geSem, rain), > #1772

1779

wea

Ww (255), q. touch, feel; pi. feel around (with the hand), grope about; hi. feel out, investigate

(# 1779).

ANE 1. The vb. is attested in West and South Sem.: Arab. gassa, feel, touch, spy out; gassa, feel, touch; gaSasa, stroke, touch; Eth. gasasa, feel, touch; gajaja, feel, touch; gasaSa, touch, stroke; Syr. g&¥ and gs, feel, touch; Mand. ks¥, feel, touch; Aram. g°¥a¥,

touch, feel, grope; Emp. Aram. g55, spy on; Egyp. Aram. g55, spy out; Sam. Aram. g5¥ and gS, feel, touch; Jew. Aram. g5¥, feel, touch.

2. The vb. has a broad range of meanings: (a) the physical action of touching, feeling, or handling an object with the hand; (b) groping to feel one’s way around without benefit of light or sight; and (c) feeling something with the hand or looking at it with the eye to test, examine, or investigate it. Examples: “The physician felt him to learn whether he was hot or cold” (Lane, 422), and “My own son spies (haph. hgSS) on my house” (Ahigar, 139).

OT The vb. gS¥ occurs only in Isa 59:10 (twice) and exclusively in the pi. In both cases, it depicts blind persons groping around, trying to feel their way along a wall with their hands. This pathetic image pictures the spiritual blindness of Israel and its futile quest for peace and safety while it is under the covenant discipline of God (59:9-10): Justice is far from us, and righteousness does not reach us. We look for light, but all is darkness;

for brightness, but we walk in deep shadows. Like the blind we grope along (n°gas®X@) the wall, feeling our way (n° gasSéSa) like men without eyes. At midday we stumble along as if it were twilight; among the strong, we are like the dead.

902

Da (# 1780) P-B_ 1. The root gs¥ is better attested in this period: g“sa¥ and g°Sas, touch, feel, grope; touch the bottom of the sea; to scout, spy out; g“%65, plummet, boat rudder; g°X65a, feeler, antenna, tentacle; g“sf¥, joint, seam; gestd, feeling, perception. The verbal stems have a full range: pe. feel, touch; pa. grope, feel about; ha. feel out, spy out; pilpel beat, strike, hit, punch, smite; hitp. wrestle, struggle, grapple against someone (Dalman, 89; Jastrow, 274; WTM, 1:367; Sokoloff, 137; Klein, 111).

2. A metaphor similar to Isa 59:10 appears in RL: “You will be groping (pa. mgssyn) at noon” (Tg. Neofiti, Deut 28:29) [Note: MT reads mmx]. The root 255 does not appear in Qumran; the form g5w in 3 Q8 2 1:1 is probably a form of ng. 3. A new nom. appears in Mish. Heb.: g°5?754, nom. groping, fumbling; tangible

ing; exploring (by touch), scouting, exploration, reconnoitering; feeling one’s way along; g°56¥, nom.

mine-detection;

sounding pole, sounder, calipers; wiper, brush;

gass“Siit, nom. tracking, scouting, reconnaissance scout, reconnoiterer (military).

(military); gass“¥, nom.

tracker,

NT LXxX translates g“Sas with psélaphan, grope, which is not used in NT. However, the action of groping about is depicted by periagé, grope, in reference to Paul groping about after he was temporarily blinded and had to be led about by the hand (Acts 13:11). BIBLIOGRAPHY TWOT 1:174; G. H. Dalman, Aramdischneuhebrdisches Worterbuch zu Targum, Talmud und Midrasch, 1922; E. Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language, 1987, 111; E. W. Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicom, 8 vols., 1863-93; M. Sokoloff, ADictionary of Jewish

Palestinian Aramaic

of the Byzantine Period,

1990; H. Yalon,

“Mitteilungen:

4.

WI WW” ZAW 44, 1926, 322-23. Gordon H. Johnston

1780

na

1) (gat I), nom. winepress (# 1780).

ANE The word is found often in Ugar. ritual texts and in names (e.g., UT 1008:7; # 627). OT This nom. occurs with literal and figurative meanings. Both uses have theological significance in their contexts. 1. The metaphorical usage is dominant. In the agricultural community of Israel and in the ANE the winepress served as a ready metaphor and a concrete image for Israel’s writers and prophets. The vision of God treading the winepress became a powerful image of God’s wrath. The winepress of God/God’s anger is full of the nations to be “trampled upon” and judged in the eschatological vision of Joel in the Valley of Jehoshaphat (Joel 3:13[4:13]); his garments are stained with blood from treading the winepress of Edom in judgment (Isa 63:2), one of Israel’s perpetual enemies. Jerusalem’s fall in 586/587 BC to Babylon is described in Lam 1:15 as the Lord’s winepress, which he trampled. 2. Neh 13:15 condemns those who tread the winepress on the Sabbath, desecrating the Lord’s day.

903

mm}(# 1787) The word continued in use in Mish. Heb., usually in a literal sense. For the P-B midrashim/talmudim see WTM 1:368. The word also continued to be used in its OT usage into late Heb. For refs. see Jastrow 1:274-75, but little or no theological significance is tied to its use given there.

NT _ Inthe NT echoes of Isaiah’s vineyard are found in Jesus’ parable of the tenants (Matt 21:33-41; Mark 12:1-9), and the winepress as the place of God’s judgment on the wicked is featured in Rev 14:19-20; 19:15. Grapes—juice, wine: > gat I (wine press, #1780); > dema‘ (juice from wine vat, # 1964); > homes (vinegar, wine, beer, # 2810); > hemer (wine, foaming wine, # 2815); > yayin (wine,

# 3516); > yegeb (wine vat/trough, winepress, #3676); — yrs II (tread the wine press/grapes, # 3770);

> mhl (adulterated wine, # 4543); > mezeg (spiced/blended/mixed wine, # 4641); > mixrd (juice, #5489); > ‘asis (grape juice, #6747); > sht (squeeze, to press out grapes, # 8469); > SemerI (dregs, aged wine, # 9069); — tirds (fresh wine, # 9408) BIBLIOGRAPHY

HBD 1112-13; ISBE 4:1068-72; M. Hettzer, “Dimtu-gt-pyrgos. An Essay About the Non-etymological Sense of These Terms,” JNSL 7, 1979, 31-35.

Eugene Carpenter

1781 (gat II, Gath), > Gath

1787

—

7 presser (3x; # 1787; HALAT 198b).

TM) (gittit), fem. gentilic adj., Gathite musical instrument(?)

or

melody(?);

(female)

wine-

ANE A connection with either the Akk. song-type gangittu (Sum. Gl(qan)-gid-da, long reed > Akk. malilu, reed flute) or Egyp. instrument gngnti, lute(?) is unlikely. OT The term occurs only in psalm postscripts (Ps 7, 80, 83—the putative superscriptions of Ps 8; 81; 84; cf. Waltke) in the phrase ‘al haggittit and may be related to the masc. gentilic adj. gitt?, Gathite (BDB 388a): “Upon the Gathitess (instrument)’/“According to “The Gathitess (melody)’”; so Tg. “the lyre that David brought from Gath” (cf. Gunkel-Begrich, 456). On the other hand, LXX (hyper ton léndn), Symm., and Vg. (pro torcularibus) translate “for the winepresses” (< *haggittot, cf. Delekat). Since Ps 81:3[4] alludes to the celebrations of the month Tishri (September-October), on whose first day was the Feast of Trumpets (Num 29:1-2; Lev 23:24) and on whose fifteenth day was the Feast of Tabernacles/Ingathering (of the vintage) (Lev 23:34, 39-43), and since Ps 84:6[7]

mentions the “autumn rains,” likewise associated with the Feast of Tabernacles/Ingathering (cf. Deut 11:14; Joel 2:23-24), it is possible that ‘al haggittit indicates, “According to “The (female) Winepresser’ (melody),” implicitly dedicating these psalms for the vine harvest associated with the Feast of Tabernacles/Ingathering (Joel 3:13[4:13]; cf. Kirkpatrick, xxvi).

P-B Musical #2166);

904

In Rabbinic Aram., gittit signifies a female wine-vat treader (Jastrow, 275). instruments/terms: ~ gittit (musical instrument?, # 1787); > hemyd (sound, din, > hil (make the pipe played, #2727); > hssr (make the trumpet sound, #2955);

nha (# 1787) > ydbél (ram, # 3413); > kinndr (lyre, # 4036); > mén (string, #4944); > m®na ‘an ‘im (rattle,

# 4983); > nébel II (unstringed instrument, #5575);

> ngn (play the lyre, #5594); > ‘agab

(flute?, # 6385); > prt (improvise, # 7260); > sil I (ring, quiver, # 7509); > Sépar (ram’s horn, # 8795); > Salis Il (musical instrument, # 8956); > Sema‘ I (sound, # 9049); > tpp (drum, beat,

# 9528); > tq‘ (drive, thrust, clap one’s hands, blow trumpet, pledge, # 9546) BIBLIOGRAPHY

R. H. Alexander and H. Wolf, TWOT 1:361b; L. Delekat, ‘““Probleme der Psalmeniiberschriften,”’ ZAW 76, 1964, 291, 293-94; D. A. Foxvog and A. D. Kilmer, “Music,” JSBE 3:448b; H. Gunkel and J. Begrich, Einleitung in die Psalmen, 1933; A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms, 1902, Xxy-xxvi; S. H. Langdon, “Babylonian and Hebrew Musical Terms,” Journal of the Royal Asi-

atic Society, 1921, 177 n. 1; C. Sachs, History of Musical Instruments,

1940, 124-26; B. K.

Waltke, “Superscripts, Postscripts, or Both,’ JBL 110, 1991, 583-96; E. Werner, “Music,” DB 3:460a. Robert H. O’Connell

905

INT (# 1790)

1790 ANE.

aN7

287

(a’b), sorrow

dismay (# 1791).

(#1790);

MAN

(d’’ aba),

The Arab. dwb means to dissolve, daub refers to a bad circumstance. In Mand.

it means to waste away. OT The vb. a’b occurs in the q. in the hope section of Jeremiah, where the prophet promises that God’s people will never again languish (Jer 31:12) and that God will fill the desires of everyone fainting from hunger (31:25). In the latter reference it is parallel with fainting or weariness. In Ps 88:9[10] the eye looks feebly in misfortune. The nom. d°’abdé appears in Job 41:22[14] as a description of the neck of the Leviathan. It appears to be an error of metathesis for db’h, found in Ugar. with the meaning strength (Cross, 163-64). This change is supported by the Qumran Tg. ‘lmw (vigor) and by the parallel ‘z (strength) in the passage. This is preferable to going back to the root d’b meaning languish, unless it refers to the dismay or dread that Leviathan inspires in others. The Syr. has dis, meaning dance or leap, so the line could be translated as dread dancing before his face. P-B In later Heb. and Aram. d’b means to flow or dissolve. In Sir:1 it means to languish; similar to Ps 88:9[10], it asks that the wise not cheat the poor and keep the needy eyes waiting. Sorrow, affliction, grief: > d’b (sorrow, # 1790); > ygh I (sorrow, grief, #3324); > miisaq (distress, affliction, grief, trial, #4608); > srr I (bind, shut up, be narrow, in straits, distress, # 7674) , BIBLIOGRAPHY

F. M. Cross, “Ugaritic aB’AT and Hebrew Cognates,” VT 2, 1952, 163-64; N. C. Habel, The Book of Job, OTL, 1985, 556. A. H. Konkel

1793

906

a

AN (d’g), q. be anxious, concerned, fear, dread (# 1793); nom. MIN (d°’aga), anxiety, concern (# 1796).

TN(# 1797) OT

For etymology and cognates see HALAT 199, and BDB, 178. Of minor theolog-

ical importance, the vb. (7x) and nom. (6x) refer to the inward emotional response to threat, real or potential, or to the source of threat. The concrete causes of anxiety/fear (associated with this root) include famine (Jer 42:16), drought (Jer 17:8), siege warfare (Ezek 4:16), threatened physical violence (Jer 38:19), unspecified harm (1 Sam 9:5), and the consequences of sin (Ps 38:18[19]). As an emotional state it produced depression (Prov 12:25). Within the framework of a traditional curse and blessing formulary, the promise for those who trust God is the confidence of continued well-being even in

the context of severe hardships and, thus, freedom from anxiety (Jer 17:5-8). Though a synonym of yr’, fear, d’g is never used in connection with the religious concept of the “fear of God.” Concern, business, occupation, trouble: > d’g (be anxious, concerned, fear, dread, # 1793); > ‘nh Ill (be troubled, busy with, #6701); > srrI (bind, shut up, be narrow, in straits, distress, # 7674); > syh, complain, muse, study, talk, meditate, # 8488) Fear, dread, terror: ~ ‘Gym (terrible, awesome, majestic, #398); > ’émd (terror, dread, # 399); > bhl (be dismayed, terrified, dismay, terrify, hasten, hurry, # 987); > b‘t (overtaken by

sudden terror, stupefied, be terrified, assail, # 1286); > gwr III (be afraid of, dread, stand in awe, # 1593); > d’g (be anxious, concerned, fear, dread, # 1793); > zhl II (fear, be afraid, #2324); > hrd (tremble, shudder, startle, # 3006); > htt (be shattered, dismayed, terrified, scare, terrify, # 3169); > yer (fear, dread, terror, #3336); > yr’ I (fear, be afraid, held in honor, #3707);

— yrh (be afraid, terrified, paralyzed with fright, dreadful, be in terror, #6907); frighten, cause dread, # 7762)

#3724); > ‘rs (be alarmed, terrified, dreadful,

> phd I (tremble, be in dread, # 7064);

> qws I (feel disgust,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

W. Brueggemann, Israel’s Praise: Doxology, Idolatry and Ideology, 1988; idem, Abiding Astonishment: Psalms, Modernity, and the Making of History, 1991. A. R. Pete Diamond

1794 (da’g, fish), > # 1899 1796 (d°’agd, anxiety, concern), ~ # 1793

= 395 1797

m8 (d’h), q. fly swiftly, dart through the air (# 1797); TS (da’a), nom. bird of prey (possi-

bly kite; # 1798).

ANE _ In Ugar. d’y means “to fly.” 1. The verbal forms occur only 4x, three OT (“eagle/vulture”; Deut 28:49; Jer 48:40; 49:22).

of them

with

the word

neSer

2. In the Deuteronomic blessings/curses resulting from obedience/disobedience to the Mosaic covenant, an eagle’s swift flight becomes a simile for the speed with which Israel’s foes would descend on her if she disobeyed (Deut 28:49). A similar metaphorical use is found in Jeremiah. The prophet proclaims the impending doom of Moab (Jer 48:40) and of Edom, “Look! An eagle will soar and swoop down, spreading its wings over Bozrah. In that day the hearts of Edom’s warriors will be like the heart of a woman in labor’ (49:22).

907

N25 (# 1801) ESSERE

3. The preterite (wayyéde’) in Ps 18:10[11] portrays the sudden theophany of Yahweh “on the wings of the wind.” “He (Yahweh) mounted (rkb) the cherubim and flew (‘wp); he soared (d’h) on the wings of the wind” (Ps 18:10[11] = 2 Sam 22:11).

The poetic language has parallels with Canaanite literature, which leads P. C. Craigie to conclude that the psalmist adapted the language to express “the Lord’s deliverance of his human servant” (Psalms 1-50, WBC,

1983, 173).

4. The nominal form (da’d) refers to a bird of prey that, according to dietary law, cannot be eaten (Lev 11:14; cf. Deut 14:13). P-B

In the postbiblical Heb. literature da’d also means “‘to float, fly.”

Flying, wing: > ’br (fly, #87); > gwz (fly away, pass, #1577); > a’h (fly swiftly, # 1797); ~ twé (rush, dart, # 3216); > kanap (wing, skirt, outermost edge, # 4053); > mr’ (spring, fly?, # 5257); > nosd (feathers, # 5681); > ‘wp I (fly, fly about, fly away, # 6414) Birds, flying creatures: > ’br (fly, #87); > bésd (egg, # 1070); > barbur (species of fowl, # 1350); > gdzal (young bird, # 1578); > dgr (hatch eggs, # 1842); > h*sida (stork, #2884); > yond I (dove, # 3433); > ya“nd (ostrich, eagle-owl?, #3613); > kanap (wing, skirt, outermost edge, # 4053); > neer/n‘Sar (vulture [eagle], #5979); > “dp (flying creatures, # 6416); > ‘ayit (birds of prey [collective], #6514); > ‘dréb I (raven, #6854); > sippdér I (birds, # 7606); > goré’ I (partridge, # 7926); > s*law (quails, # 8513)

George Klein

1798 (da’d, bird of prey, red kite), > # 1797

1800 (dob, bear), > #989 1801 OT

sat

N37 (ddbe’), nom., strength (hapleg. # 1801).

_Deathbed blessings, which were believed to be extremely powerful in shaping

the future (Robinson, 338; von Rad, 205; Blair, 80; Phillips, 227; Thompson, 306; Nelson, 234; cf. Watts, 292; Payne, 189), are found in several places in the OT (Gen 48:8-20; 49:1-28; Deut 33:1-29; Josh 23). In his final blessing to the tribes of Israel,

Moses states, promises, or requests that Asher will be strong and prosperous (Deut 33:25). As Gen 49:20 and Judg 5:17 testify, Asher’s position on the coastlands bordering Phoenician territory provided both riches and strength (Watts, 295). Doubtless, the fertile area in which the tribe settled would have been envied by aggressive neighbors (Blair, 82; Phillips, 229) and was vulnerable to attacks from those invading Palestine (Thompson, 316). The word dob’eka and the phrase in which it occurs, ak*yameyka dob’ eka, in Deut 33:25b are variously translated: “‘and as your days, so shall your strength be” (RSV; cf. NRSV); “and your strength last as long as you live” (NEB; REB); “and your strength will equal your days” (NIV); “and your security as lasting as your days” (JB); “And may he always live secure” (TEV). There is equal division among commentators as to whether the word means strength (so, Sam., LXX, Tg.) or security (Dummelow, 139). Both meanings fit the context well, providing a good parallel to the words of v. 25a, barzel tin‘hoset min‘aleyka, your bars/bolts will be (or: may your bars/bolts be) iron and bronze. According to Driver (415), although strength yields an excellent sense, it has no philological justification. However, Gordon (40, n. 5), Cross (cf. Cross and Freedman, 209, n. 80), Gray (259), Mayes (409) and Craigie (401) argue that the

908

M37 1805) meaning strength is supported by the cognate Ugar. term db’at (Cross, 163, sees additional support for the translation strength in Job 41:22[14], where, he argues, the MT

d®’ abd, which parallels ‘6z [strength], is probably the result of the scribal error of metathesis; the original, he conjectures, was db’h—the precise phonetic equivalent of Ugar. db’at—rather than d’bh.) On this reading, the reference would be to Asher being blessed with the strength to live to the fullest for the duration of its life, undiminished by old age and well defended against encroachment and invasion. The blessing of Moses portrays the results of Yahweh’s vindication of Israel, which was promised in the song of Moses in Deut 31:30-32:47 (Nelson, 234). P-B_ The vb. daba’, drip, overflow occurs in Sifré Deut 42 (ref. to Deut 33:25) (Jastrow 1:276). BIBLIOGRAPHY E. P. Blair, Deuteronomy, Joshua, LBC, 1965; P. C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, NICOT, 1983; F. M. Cross, “Ugaritic DB’AT and Hebrew Cognates,” VT 2, 1952, 162-64; F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman, “The Blessing of Moses,” JBL 67, 1948, 191-210; S. R. Driver,A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy, ICC, 3d ed., 1965; J. R.Dummelow, ed., ACom-

mentary on the Holy Bible, 1909; C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Handbook, 1, 1947; J. Gray, The Legacy of Canaan, 2d ed., 1965; A. D. H. Mayes, Deuteronomy, NCBC, 1979; R. D. Nelson, “Deuteronomy,” in HBC, 1988, 209-34; D. F. Payne, Deuteronomy, DSB, 1985; A. Phillips, Deuteronomy, CBC, 1973; G. von Rad, Deuteronomy: A Commentary, OTL, 1966; H. W. Robinson, Deuteronomy and Joshua, CB, 1907; J. A. Thompson, Deuteronomy: Introduction and

Commentary, TOTC, 1974; J. D. W. Watts, “Deuteronomy,” in BBC, 1971, 2:175-296. Robin Wakely

Jan ile I

he ANE

Mish.

Heb.

d*bérd,

MVN37 (dbora I), nom. bee(s), wasp(s), swarm of bees/wasps (# 1805).

Old Aram.,

dbrh; Jewish

Aram.

dbryt’/zbwrh/zbwryt;

Christian Pal. Aram. dbryt’, Syr. debboru’/debborta’/debborita’; Mand. zi/am/nbira; Arab. dabbiir; Eth. zanabir; Sam. dibérem, bee, wasp.

OT The nom., used only 4x in the OT, refers literally to honeybees (Judg 14:8). Samson’s find of a swarm of (honey) bees (“dat d’bérim) with honey in the carcass of a lion he had slain was the basis of a riddle (14:12, 14, 18). The other three uses are fig-

urative. The Amorites before whom the Israelites fled are likened to a swarm of bees (Deut 1:44). Isaiah prophesied that the Assyrians would swarm like bees against his unbelieving people (Isa 7:18, d’béra || z‘bib, fly = Egypt). The psalmist speaks of an attack by his enemies as that of bees swarming around him, rejoicing in God’s power that delivered him from his adversaries (Ps 118:12).

P-B The author of Sirach sees a moral lesson in the delightfully sweet produce of the bee compared to its tiny size (Sir 11:3). In LH the bee is a subject of a proverb: “As the bee is followed by the young, so are the Israelites led by the righteous” (Yalk. Deut 795; see Jastrow 1:276-77 for further refs.). Insects: — d°bérd I (bee, wasp, # 1805); > kén V (mosquito, gnat, louse, #4031); > ‘th Il (delouse, # 6487); ~ ‘agrab (scorpion, #6832); > ‘arob (fly, swarm of flies, flying insects,

909

7371(# 1808) > ‘as I (moth,

# 6856);

#6931);

> sir‘d

(hornet,

destruction,

fear,

terror,

depression,

discouragement, # 7667); > gml (wither, become moldy, musty, infected w. insects, #7857) Eugene Carpenter/Michael A. Grisanti 1806 (d°bérd II, Deborah), - Deborah

1808

eh

"3" (d‘bir I), Most Holy Place (# 1808).

OT The nom. d’bir I, Most Holy Place, occurs 15x or 16x in the OT (1 Kgs 6:5; 2 Chron 3:16 is textually difficult, see the NIV and NRSV footnotes and mé‘éd,

# 4595b) and refers specifically and exclusively to the “back room” of the “house” in the Solomonic temple (1 Kgs 8:6; 2 Chron 5:7; BDB, 184; Anclsr, 313; the etymology of the term is uncertain, Haran, 355). Presumably, this corresponds to the “Holy of

Holies” in the tabernacle (Exod 26:31-35). Many of the modern versions have translated d’bir as inner sanctuary (e.g., RSV, NIV, NRSV; AV “oracle” is based on a possible association with dibber, speak; BDB, 184), because it is essentially another word

for the Most Holy Place (lit., the holy place of holy places; see e.g., 1 Kgs 6:16; 8:6, 8). However, the term itself does not mean sanctuary or holy place even though it occurs in the combination (lit.) “the back room of your holy place” (Ps 28:2). Tabernacle, tent, temple: > ’dhel (tent, tent-dweller, #185); — d*bir I (Most Holy Place, # 1808); > m6‘éd (meeting-place, assembly, tent of meeting, # 4595b); > migdas (sanctuary, #5219); > miskan (sanctuary, #5438); — paroket (curtain in front of Most Holy, #7267); > sukkG (tabernacle, tent, hut, shelter, #6109); ~ Aaron: Theology; ~ Priests and Levites:

Theology BIBLIOGRAPHY M. Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel, 1978.

Richard E. Averbeck

1811 (d*béld, fig cake), > Bread

1815

557

pan (dbq), ae stick, cling, cleave to; pu. be joined together; hi. cause to cling, pursue, reach;

ho. made to cleave to (# 1815); nom. P37] (debeq), welding, soldering, jointed/joined part (# 1817); adj. (P37 (dabéq), cleaving, attached to, holding fast to (# 1816). ANE

The root is also be found in Aram., Arab., and in Mish. Heb. (see HALAT

200b-201a). “Reach” is the most usual meaning of the corresponding Aram. aphel, which occurs frequently in 1QapGen.

OT 1. Though it appears predominantly in Deut (7x) and the so-called Deuteronomic history (19x), the vb. is used both literally and metaphorically in a variety of idioms bone (Jer roof

in most parts of the OT (Num 36:7, 9 are the only uses in P). Literal uses include “clinging” to skin (19:20), hand to sword (2 Sam 23:10), a belt to a man’s waist 13:11), the scales of the crocodile to one another (Job 41:9, 15), the tongue to the of one’s mouth (in thirst, which is also spiritual thirst; Job 29:10; Ps 22:15[16]; cf.

1QH 5:31). The Gospel passion narratives allude several times to Ps 22; although Ps 22:15[16] is widely considered to lie behind the cry of Jesus, “I thirst” (John 19:28),

910

P37(# 1815) there is no reference in the narrative to Jesus’ tongue cleaving to the roof of his mouth. In the hi. the vb. can have the extended meaning of “pursue closely” (Judg 20:45; 1 Sam 14:22) or “overtake,” “reach” (Gen 31:23; Judg 18:22).

2. The vb. is also commonly used metaphorically to express a state of loyalty, affection, or close proximity. Intimacy (perhaps even sexual intimacy) is implied in a man leaving his parents “to cleave” or “to be united” to his wife (Gen 2:14; as also in Matt 19:5; Mark 10:7 [most MSS]; Eph 5:31 [see J. P. Sampley,

‘And the Two Shall

Become One Flesh:’ A Study of Traditions in Ephesians 5:21-33, 1971]) also Ruth 1:14: “Orpah kissed her mother-in-law good-bye, but Ruth clung to her” (cf. R. L. Hubbard,

The Book of Ruth, NICOT,

1988, 113-15). Three times dbq is used

almost synonymously in association with ‘hb, love (> # 170): Gen 34:3; 1 Kgs 11:2; Prov 18:24. Psalm 63 can be considered a meditation on the full spiritual significance of the term, though it is notable that whereas dbg is suitably used of human attachment to God, God’s relationship to humans is expressed rather through hesed (> #2876; see TDOT 3:79-84, esp. 83). 3. In the so-called deut. history dbq is used notably of human attitudes both toward other people and toward God. Singular loyalty is described positively in the men of Judah “staying by” King David (2 Sam 20:2), negatively when Joshua warns against “being allied” with the remnants of the nations (Josh 23:12) and when Jehoram is described as “clinging” to the sins of Jeroboam (2 Kgs 3:3; cf. Ps 101:3). The term is also used of the human relationship with God. In Deut 4:3-4 undeviating loyalty directed towards “the LORD your God” is contrasted with those who “go after” the Baal of Peor. This cleaving to God is a spiritual matter rather than a cultic or legal one, as 10:20 makes clear (cf. Josh 23:6-8). “Relating closely” is the sense of the G kollan (see K. L. Schmidt, TDNT 3:822-23), which commonly renders all forms of dbg in the LXX and is used similarly in the NT (Luke 15:15; Acts 8:29; 17:34 [meaning “discipleship’’]) (see H. Seebass, “Join, Cleave to,” NIDNTT 2:348-50).

4. The nom. debegq occurs only 3x, each with a concrete ironic description of what the craftsman says about his “welding” idol (Isa 41:7); the term seems to refer to a jointed part of Ahab’s breastplate (see BDB, 180), through which he is fatally wounded an explicatory translation; 1 Kgs 22:34 [= 2 Chron 18:33]).

referent. There is an or “soldering” of the armor attached to the (LXX has “lung” as

P-B In the Qumran writings the mixture of literal and metaphorical uses of dbq persists. In 4Q385 (Second Ezekiel) frg. 4, line 10, the paraphrase of the physical description of the wings of the four living creatures of Ezek | uses the verb under the influence of 2 Chron 3:12 (see D. Dimant and J. Strugnell, “The Merkabah Vision in Second Ezekiel,” RevO

14, 1989-90,

341). In 1QS

1:5 the exhortation encourages

members of the community “to cling to” the good (cf. Rom 12:9). In 1QH 16:7 the psalmist swears to “hold fast” to the truth of the covenant, whereas in CD 1:17 the scoffer causes the curses of the covenant “to adhere” to those whom he beguiles into breaking it (cf. 1QS 2:15). The phrase dbqy pl’, wondrous tesserae, occurs in 4Q405 19:5, part of a description of the features of the heavenly Holy of Holies. From the context it might be deduced that here the nom. debeg has the concrete sense of “tile,” something that is joined together in a wonderful tesselated floor (see C. A. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 1985, 294-300).

911

7271(# 1818) Association, cleaving, companionship: ~ dbg (stick, cling, cleave, pursue, # 1815); > hob‘lim (union, #2482); > hbr II (unite, be joined, charm, make an ally, # 2489); > yhd (be united, # 3479); > lwh I (accompany, join, attach oneself, #4277); — sph I (attach, associate, join oneself, #6202); > ‘rb II (associate with, mingle with, be intermixed with, # 6843); > rh IU (associate with, be best man, make friends with, # 8287); > Slb Goined, dovetailed, # 8917) George J. Brooke

1816 (dabégq, cleaving, holding fast to), > # 1815

1817 (debeq, welding, soldering, jointed), > #1815

1818 ANE

7137

"2" (dbr J), pi. turn/drive away, persecute; pu. be persecuted; hi. subjugate (# 1818).

ANE cognates given are Arab. dabara, to be behind, to turn the back; to drive

away; Akk. dab/paru to withdraw, to drive away. OT

According to recent scholarship, a root dbr I exists, with the indicated mean-

ings, occurring

12x (HALAT 201; Plassmann,

119-32; Dahood,

9). Several of the

examples are disputed, but perhaps the clearest Heb. example is in Ps 18:47[48], where the hi. form, to subjugate ([God] “subdues nations under me”’) is in parallel with “saves me,” and where the parallel passage (2 Sam 22:48) has mérid, to bring down (cf. also BDB, 182). Captivity, driving out, exile, persecution:

~ brh II (drive away,

(uncover, reveal, be/go away, exile, #1655);

— dbr I (turn/drive away, #1818);

injure, #1369);

behind, pursue, persecute, # 8103); — Sbh (take captive, be taken captive, #8647); Theology

> glh

> rdp (be

— Exile:

BIBLIOGRAPHY

M. J. Dahood, Psalms I, AB, 1966; T. Plassmann, “Notes on the Stem d-b-r,” CBQ 3, 1941,

119-32. David M. Howard, Jr.

1819

—

37 (dbr Il), speak (#1819); 3% (dabar), nom. masc. word, thing (# 1821); 13" (dibber), word (# 1825); 13" (dabberet), instruction (# 1830). ANE Analogous forms include Akk. dabaabu, speak or plead, dibbu, word or lawsuit (CAD 3:2-14; AHw 146-47); Ugar. dbr, thing (kl dbrm, all things, UT 1022:7); Phoen. dbr, speak, matter (KAI 1:2-3; 2:19); Old Heb. dbr, manner or account (dbr hnqbh, the

manner of boring [the tunnel], Siloam inscr. line 1; DCH, 406; Puech, 197-200); BAram. dibra, matter (‘al dibrat, regarding the matter, Dan 2:30; cf. Lach. 4:5); see further DISO 55. Proposed derivations include behind (Arab. dubr), buzz (onomato-

poeia d/z; cf. d°bdra, bee), and speak (Akk. dbb conflated with ’mr), though the etymology is uncertain (TDOT 3:94-96). OT 1. The vb. dbr occurs over 1140x: usually pi. speak (1100x), but also gq. (40x); ni. speak with one another (Ps 119:23; Ezek 33:30; Mal 3:16); pu. be spoken to (Ps

912

27 (# 1819) 87:3; S of Song 8:8); and hitp. converse (Num 7:89; 2 Sam 14:12-13; Ezek 2:2; 43:6).

The vb. has a considerable range of meanings in the OT. In judicial contexts, it assumes a legal connotation: The aricient Israelite argues before a royal judge (1 Kgs 3:22) and contends with adversaries at the city gate (Ps 127:5), and Yahweh himself pronounces judgment (see especially Ps 51:4[6] and Kselman, 251-53; Jer 1:16). In other contexts, the vb. means ask (Judg 9:2), decree (Jer 51:12), converse (1 Sam 18:1), report (Exod 6:9), recite or sing (Deut 31:30; 32:45), promise (Deut 15:6), lie

(Jer 43:2), and even betroth (S of Song 8:8: “for the day she is spoken for,” or perhaps, if the issue in v. 8 is disreputable behavior, “spoken against” [Pope, 678-79]). For others, see NIVEC 1414-15. In contrast to the synonym ’mr, the vb. dbr can be used absolutely (TWOT 1:179; TDOT 3:98-100; Heller, 173-79).

2. The nom. dabar occurs 1455x and frequently means word (so NIV 567x),

though it often assumes greater specificity in context and refers to a particular genre. In legal contexts, the nom.

22:14, (2 Sam 11:2-3; of the

means

dispute (Exod

18:16,

19; 24:14), accusation

(Deut

17 [NRSV]; Driver, ICC, 254-55), verdict (Deut 17:9; 2 Chron 19:6), claim 15:3), transfer (Ruth 4:7), and provision (Deut 29:1[28:69]; 1 Sam 11:4; Jer 34:18). From sociological and theological perspectives, the legal connotation term presupposes a social world in which there is a perception of right and

wrong, a concept of justice, and a recognized need for it. The nom. in other contexts means request (Gen 19:21; Judg 11:37), decree (Esth 1:19; 4:3), conversation (1 Sam 19:7; Jer 38:24, 27), report (Deut 1:22; Josh 14:7; Esth 2:23), text of a letter (Jer 29:1), lyrics of a song (1 Sam 18:8; Ps 45:1[2]; 137:3), promise (Josh 23:14, 15; 2 Chron 6:10; Jer 29:10), annal (1 Kgs 11:41 [34x in Kgs]; 1 Chron 27:24; cf. the title of Chronicles: dbry hymym, lit., the words [or events] of the days), false account (Gen 39:17, 19; Exod 5:9; Prov 30:8; Isa 59:13), commandment (1 Kgs 18:36; Jer 35:14; cf. the Decalogue, lit., the ten words, Exod 34:28; Deut 4:13; 10:4; see also Braulik, 39-66), whisper (Job 26:14), plan (Gen 41:37; 2 Sam 17:4; 2 Chron 30:4; Esth 2:22; Ps 64:5[6]; Isa 8:10), and even language (Gen 11:1).

The interpretation of Dan 9:25 turns, in part, on the meaning of dabar, which may refer to the word of a prophet (either Jeremiah [Jer 25:1-14 or 29:1-23] or Daniel [Dan 9:20-27]) or to the decree of a king (Cyrus [Ezra 1:2-4], Darius [6:3-12], or Artaxerxes [7:11-26]; Collins, 354-55). The nom. also denotes thing (1 Sam 12:16: “see this great thing the LORD is about to do before your eyes”), matter (Prov 25:2: “it is the glory of God to conceal a matter’’), or event (Gen 22:1, 20: “some time later,” lit.,

after these events), though it is not always clear in a given context whether dabar is best translated as thing or word (cf. Exod 35:1: “these are the things the LORD has commanded;” see also Eccl 12:13). The two meanings support a double entendre in Judg 3:19-21: Ehud delivers to Eglon a secret message, namely, a hidden sword for his assassination (O’Connell, 91-92, n. 52).

Of particular theological significance is the const. phrase d°bar yhwh, the word of the Lord. The d’bar yhwh (along with its counterpart d’bar ’“lohim, the word of God; cf. 2 Sam 7:4 and 1 Chron 17:3) refers to a message from or about God (ABD 6:961; cf. however, its meaning in 1 Chron 26:32: d‘bar ha’‘lohim, an affair of God || d’bar ham-

melek, an affair of the king). The message may take the form of law (tora, Isa 1:10),

command

(miswa, Num

15:31), ordinance (mixpat, Ps 147:19), or statute (hog, Zech

1:1, 6); it may entail an act (ma“seh, 1 Kgs 13:1-11; Ps 33:4) or counsel (‘ésd, Isa

913

31 # 1819) 44:26); and it may come as a vision (hizzay6n, 2 Sam 7:4, 7; mar’ eh, Dan 9:2, 23), dream (h“l6m, Jer 23:9, 28), or prophecy (n°bi’d, 1 Chron 29:29; DCH 2:398-99).

Although the NIV uses the word “revelation” only once in translating dabar (Dan 10:1), belief in divine revelation is implied throughout the OT. Repetition of d’bar yhwh (sing. 242x; pl. 17x) offers clear evidence of an established theological conviction that “Israel’s God is a God who speaks” (ABD 6:962). The phrase d*bar

yhwh frames and punctuates prophetic speeches in recurring formulas, such as “the word of the LORD came to me” (Ezek 22:1) and “hear the word of the LORD” (Jer

22:2), and it appears in the superscriptions of a number of prophetic books (Hos 1:1; Joel 1:1; Jon 1:1; Mic 1:1; Zeph 1:1; Hag 1:1; Zech 1:1; Mal 1:1). The OT character-

izes the word of the Lord as trustworthy and powerful.

Ps 33 calls the righteous to sing a new song to God “for the word of the LORD is right” (Heb. yaar, v. 4) and reminds all people to fear God because “by the word of the LORD were the heavens made” (v. 6). The psalm rehearses two theological themes that are prominent not only in the Psalter but in the entire OT: (a) Yahweh tells the truth, so one can rely upon divine promises with confidence; (b) Yahweh commands the universe, so no one can thwart the divine will (Kraus, 376). In Ps 147:15, Yahweh

dispatches a command to do his bidding, and, like an obedient servant, “his word runs swiftly.” Hypostatization of the divine word is attested in ANE literature (see Moriarty, 345-62), but personification of Yahweh’s word in 147:15 and elsewhere in the OT does not imply a belief in the presence of magical or dynamistic forces (THAT 1:442; contra McKenzie, 205-6). The d*bar yhwh has power only because it is an expression and extension of Yahweh’s knowledge, character, and ability: Yahweh knows the course of human events (Gen 15:3-4; 21:2 [’mr || dbr), seeks justice (2 Sam 12:9), and controls nature (1 Kgs 13:1-5). Similarly, human words reflect human nature and are used for good and evil purposes (Prov 12:6). According to Israel’s wisdom traditions, words should be few (10:19; Eccl 6:11) and should not be spoken in haste (Prov 29:20; Eccl 5:2-3[1-2]). Words cannot replace work (Prov 14:23) or discipline (29:19), but they can cheer (12:25; 15:23), correct (25:11-12), and calm (15:1).

3. Related hapleg. include dabberet, instruction (Deut 33:3-4), which is used in reference to “the law that Moses gave” and appears in parallel lines that juxtapose Israelites bowing down at Yahweh’s feet and Moses lifting up Yahweh’s instruction (for alternative readings, see BHS and DCH 2:412); dibber, word (Jer 5:13; cf. LXX kai

logos kuriou), which in context refers to the word of God and connotes authenticity: Jeremiah equates false prophets with wind because “they have lied about the LORD” (v. 12) and “the [authentic] word is not in them” (v. 13); and dibri (Lev 24:11), a masc. PN for the Danite father of Shelomith, the Israelite woman

whose son cursed Yahweh’s

name and subsequently was put to death. The Lev 24 account makes the point that Yahweh’s law applies equally to citizens and aliens (vv. 13-23) and may refer to the name of the boy’s grandfather for ironic effect because dibri probably means talkative (suggested by Noth, JPN, 240; HALAT, 212). NT _ References to the OT in the NT demonstrate its acceptance by the nascent Christian community (Kibble, 145-55). According to John, Jesus himself was the Word (John 1:1), the embodiment and expression of God. Jesus interpreted the OT law in its truest sense (Matt 5:17-19) and, even in the midst of temptation, reiterated the

914

a7 (# 1822) ancient Israelite ideal: “Man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD” (Deut 8:3; cf. Matt 4:4).

Speech:

~ ’/m I (be bound, speechless, grow silent, #519);

> ’mr I (say, speak, mention,

#606); — bl II (make conveyed, reported, #1181); > dbr II (speak, threaten, promise, command, #1819); > hwh I (make declared, explained, #2555); — ln (slander, # 4387); > mil Ill (speak, say, declare, # 4910); > ngd (make known, disclose, declare, #5583); > rakil (peddler, huckster, deceiver, slanderer, # 8215); > §nn II (make repeated, recounted, # 9112) BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABD 6:961-68; DCH 2:387-412; IBD 4:868-72; RGG* 6:1809-12; TWBB 283-85; TDNT 4:91-100; TDOT 3:84-125; TWAT 1:433-42; TWOT 1:178-81; ZPEB 5:956-62; J. Barr, “Hypostatization of Linguistic Phenomena in Modern Theological Interpretation,” JSS 7, 1962, 85-94; G. Braulik, “Die Ausdriicke fiir ‘Gesetz’ im Buch Deuteronomium,” Bib 51, 1970, 39-66; J. J. Collins, Daniel, Hermeneia, 1993, 344-60; J. Heller, “Sagen (’amar) und Sprechen (dibber) im Alten Testament,’ Communio Viatorum 22, 1979, 173-79; D. G. Kibble, “The Jewish Understanding of the Old Testament as the Word of God,” Ev@Q 51, 1979, 145-55; J. S. Kselman, “Note on Ps 51:6,” CBQ 39, 1977, 251-53; H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 1-59, 1988, 373-80; J. L. McKenzie, “The Word of God in the Old Testament,” TS 21, 1960, 183-206; F. L. Moriarty, “Word As Power in the Ancient Near East,” in A Light unto My Path, 1974, 345-62; R. H. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, SVT 63, 1996, 91-92; M. Pope, Song of Songs, AB 7C, 1977, 678-79; E. Puech, “Inscription du Tunnel de Siloé,” RB 81, 1974, 196-214; R. Rendtorff, “Geschichte und Wort im AT,” EvT 22, 1962, 621-49; G. Schmuttermayr, Studien zur hebrdischen Basis DBR I; Ein Beitrag zum Problem der Homonyme, 1985; A. Thiselton, “The Supposed Power of Words in the Biblical Writings,” JTS 25, 1974, 283-99; R. S. Tomback, A Comparative Semitic Lexicon of the Phoenician and Punic Languages, SBLDS 32, 1978, 69-70; C. Westermann, Elements of Old Testament Theology, 1982, 15-34. Frank Ritchel Ames

1821 (dabar, word, affair), > # 1819

1822

"3" (deber 1), bubonic plague (# 1822); < 737

7

(dbr I), drive away, persecute (> # 1818).

OT The Heb. word is a probable description of bubonic plague, one of antiquity’s most dreaded febrile diseases. It is communicated to people by the rat-flea (Pulex cheopis), and the sufferer becomes ill almost immediately. The symptoms include high fever, shivering, pneumonia, and hemorrhage from mucous membranes. The diagnosis is confirmed when the lymph glands swell to produce the characteristic buboes, about twenty-four hours after infection, after which the person dies. The best description of bubonic plague is in 1 Sam 5-6, where the buboes are perhaps mentioned (1 Sam 5:12), as are also dead rodents (6:5), though rats are usual carriers, not mice. The prospect of bubonic plague (Lev 26:25; Num

14:12) was one of the most serious threats that God

could level against disobedient Israel. ~ fhorim (plague, #3224); ~ deber I (bubonic plague, #1822); Disease—plague: + maggépa (plague, #4487); > nega‘ (plague, affliction, #5596); > reSep I (pestilence, # 8404); > sr‘ (suffer from skin disease, # 7665). For related entries > lh I (become weak, tired, ill, # 2703); > Plagues: Theology

915

a (# 1823) BIBLIOGRAPHY

R. K. Harrison, ISBE, 1:532, 953-60; 3:103-6, with bibliographies; G. J. Wenham, The Book of

Leviticus, NICOT, 1979, 189-214. R. K. Harrison

1823

Ta

“37 (deber II), (thorny) sting (# 1823).

Based on its contexts, the word indicates a type of thorn or sting (HALAT 202). OT It occurs in connection with pah yaqiis, fowler’s trap, and geteb, sting (Ps 91:3, 6). In Hos 13:14, it is used again with geteb in describing the sting of death (cf. 1 Cor 15:55). Thornbush, nettle, sting, thistle, thorn: > ’dtad (thornbush, # 1402); > deber II (thorny sting, # 1823); > dardar (thistle, # ~ héoah I (thorn, # 2560); > m*sikd (thorn hedge, #5004); > stra (thorny bush, #6106); > sillén (thorn, #6141); —

#353); > bargon (thorn, brier, 1998); > hédeg (brier, # 2537); > na“sis (thornbush, #5848); s*neh (thorny shrub, #6174);

> sirpad (stinging nettle, # 6252); > se’‘lim (thorny lotus, # 7365); > s‘ninim (thorns, # 7564), > gos I (thornbush, #7764); > gimmds (weeds, nettles, #7853); — sé@k (thorn, splinter, # 8493); > Samir I (Christ’s thorn, # 9031) Hunting: ~ yqS (lay a trip wire, set a trap, # 3704); > pah I (trap, snare, # 7062); > swd (hunt, # 7421); > reset (net, #8407); > Saha I (pit, # 8757) K. Lawson Younger, Jr.

1824 (dober, remote place, pasture), > # 8286

1825 (dibbér, word of God), > # 1819 1830 (dabberet, pronouncement), > #1819

1831

=

Wan (d’bas), nom. honey (# 1831), refers both

Ba to honey from (wild) bees (d*bérd, -im) and to the sweet syrup produced from grapes, dates, figs, and fruit of the carob tree, called dibs in Arab. (Dalman, 4:354, 382-88; Aharoni, 15; Hopkins, 242; Borowski, 127).

ANE The word appears in a WestSem. inscription in Aram. (DISO, 55), as debs@ and dibsa@’ in Syr. and Jud. Aram. respectively, and as diSpu in Akk. (AHw, 173; CAD, D, 162). In Akk. it refers to a sweet substance made of dates (disip Suluppi). Josephus remarked that in Jericho “honey” of good quality was made of dates (Wars iv, 468). Honey and honey bees were well known in Egypt (Breasted, 2:574), as is evident from several depictions on relief and mural paintings from tombs. In Tomb 101 at Thebes the mural contains food offerings, among which is carried a bow] stacked with honeycombs upon which two bees walk (Neufeld, 226). The tomb of Rekh-mi-Re

depicts a scene of tribute consisting of gourds, grapes, and honeycombs (Neufeld, 235). Two beekeeping scenes are depicted in the tomb of Pa-bu-Sa at Thebes. The well-known story of Sinuhe gives a description of the land of Ja-a: “Figs were in it, and grapes. It had more wine than water. Plentiful was its honey, abundant its olives. Every (kind of) fruit was on its trees” (ANET, 19). There are many Akk. texts indicating the

usage of honey in purification rites and prescribing sacrifices of honey in consecration rites, in connection with the rebuilding of temples, etc. “In these rituals, dispu is often

916

W271(# 1831) mixed with grain (mirsu) and butter” (TDOT 3:130). The frequent occurrence of wine

together with honey in the literature of the ANE suggests that honey was mixed with wine to increase the alcohol content and to produce an intoxicating drink fit for the gods, which contrasts sharply with the food for the Immanuel child (Isa 7:15). OT 1. Honey was the basic source for sweetening (Toperoff, 247) and is consequently praised as a favorite food (Exod 16:31; Prov 24:13; 25:16). It was a highly appreciated gift (Gen 43:11; 2 Sam 17:29; 1 Kgs 14:3; Jer 41:8). As a farming product of the Holy Land (Deut 8:8; 2 Kgs 18:32; Ezek 16:13), honey was exported to Tyre (Ezek 27:17). Honey is frequently used as a metaphor designating something pleasant and abundant (Ps 19:10[11], 119:103; Prov 5:3; S. of Songs 4:11; Ezek 3:3).

Honey occurs c. 48x in the OT, mostly in connection with the expression “a land flowing with milk and honey” (cf. Exod 3:8, 17; 13:5; 33:3; Lev 20:24; Num 13-7) 24:5-416,13-14: Deut.6:3;11:9° 26:9: 27:3: 31:20-.Josh.5:6; Jer 11:5; 32:22;

Ezek 20:6, 15; Sir. 46:8). The expression reflects the wealth and natural fertility of Canaan. Both milk and honey are the best products of a land rich in natural vegetation. Since d‘baS also refers to sweet syrup, i.e., the epitomy of the agricultural yield, and milk that of animal husbandry, it has been argued that the expression represents the different ways in which people subsisted in the Promised Land in contrast to peoples in Egypt and Babylonia (Olivier, 12-13). The expression “a land flowing with milk and honey” forms an integral part of Israel’s credo (OTT, 1:122) and constitutes the symbol of God’s favor, which the eschatological Israel eventually will repossess (Joel 3:18[4:18]). The early Christian church saw the mixture of milk and honey as the drink of eternity (Lurker, 208). 2. Except for Judg 14:8-9, where explicit mention is made of honey from bees,

and perhaps 1 Sam 14:26-27, the OT does not provide anything specific about the nature or origin of “honey” or the domestication of bees (Apis mellifica, var. syriaca). Inferences have unjustifiably been drawn from Deut 32:13 and Ps 81:16(17) that wild honey was collected from rocks, in contrast to the firstfruits from d*ba¥ that were brought to Yahweh. It was forbidden as part of the burnt (meal) offering, because it might ferment (Lev 2:11 [cf. 2 Chron 31:5]) (Hopkins, 242). Honey: > d‘bas I (honey, # 1831); > ya‘ar II (honeycombs, # 3624); > nopet (honey, honey

from the comb, # 5885); > sip, I (virgin honey, # 7430) BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 3:128-31; Y. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography, rev. ed. 1979; O. Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel, 1987; J. H. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, 1962; G. Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Paldstina, IV, repr. 1964; D. C. Hopkins, The Highlands of Canaan, 1985; M. Lurker, Wérterbuch biblischer Bilder und Symbole, 1973; E. Neufeld, “Api-

culture in Ancient Palestine (Early and Middle Iron Age) Within the Framework of the Ancient Near East,” UF 10, 1978, 219-47; H. Olivier, “A Land Flowing with Milk and Honey—Some

Observations on the Modes of Existence in Ancient Israel,’ NGTT 29, 1988, 2-13; S. P. Toperoff, “The Bee in the Bible and Midrash,” Dor le dor 13, 1985, 246-50. J. P. J. Olivier

1832 (dabbeSet I, camel’s hump), > # 1695

1834 (dag, fish), > # 1899 917

rat (# 1835)

ne

a

127 (dgh), q. multiply, increase greatly (only

Gen 48:16) (# 1835).

This unique Heb. vb. has no ANE cognates and occurs in Jacob’s poetic blessOT ing of Joseph and his sons, Ephraim and Manasseh (Gen 48:15-16). Here dgh probably refers to teeming fish (note Speiser, Genesis, AB 1, 1964, 355, teeming multitudes). Theologically, Jacob’s blessing recalls God’s promise to bless Abraham and greatly multiply his descendants (Gen 12:2; 15:5; 17:2). Likewise, God has covenanted with Jacob to make his descendants like the dust of the earth (28:14).

Abundance, multiplication, sufficiency: > dgh (multiply, # 1835); > day (sufficiency, overflowing supply, # 1896); > ysp (add, continue, increase, # 3578); > kbr I (make many, be in abundant supply, #3892); > m°gammd (totality, abundance, #4480); > rbb I (become numerous, much, great, # 8045); > rbh I (become numerous, multiply, increase, # 8049); > r‘5 II, be abundant, # 8322); > Sg’/§gh (grow great, increase, exalt, # 8434/8436); > spq II (suffice, be enough, #8563); > Swq I (overflow, bestow abundantly, #8796); — Sepa‘ (super-abundance, # 9179) BIBLIOGRAPHY

NIDNTT 1:728-44; 2:128-31; 3:136-38; TWOT 1:182; M. Gilbert, “Soyes feconds et multipliez (Gen 1:28),” NRT 96, 1974, 729-42; I. Nowell, “The Narrative Context of Blessing in the Old Testament,” in Blessing and Power, ed. M. Collings and D. Powers, eds., 1988, 3-12. Andrew E. Hill

1836 (dag, fish), > # 1899

1837

sche ma

way (dagén), Dagon (# 1837); see dagan, grain (> # 1841).

ANE A god worshiped in Mesopotamia since at least the third millennium BC, portrayed as a god of fertility, especially of grain. Ugar. dgn; Akk. dagan. Baal was later associated with his functions, and Baal is thus described in Ugar. as “son of Dagan.”

OT Dagon was recognized in OT as the god of the people of the Philistine region (Gaza in Judg 16:23). The ark narrative of 1 Sam 5 presents the conflict between the two symbols of divine presence: the ark of God and Dagon—the image representing the god. Yahweh triumphs in Dagon’s own temple by smashing the image (v. 4). (> Idolatry: Theology) Idolatry: ~ ‘lil (Nothing, #496); > ’“sérdé (wooden cult-object, pole, goddess, #895); > gillilim (images, idols, # 1658); > dagdn (Dagon, # 1837); > k’méX (Chemosh [god of the Moabites], #4019); > mdlek (Molech, #4891); — massékd I (cast statuette, #5011); ~ mipleset (terrible thing, dreadful object, #5145); > semel (image, #6166); > “asab

(god-image, #6773); > ‘astoret (Astarte, #6956); — pesel (cultic image, statue of a god, #7181); > tomer II (scarecrow, #9473); > frapim (figurines, mask, #9572); > Idolatry: Theology

918

5371 # 1839) a

a en

a

BIBLIOGRAPHY J. Gray, Legacy of Canaan, 2d ed., 1965; L. K. Handy, “Dagon (deity),” ABD 2:1-3; J. F. Healey, “Dagon,” DDD, cols 407-13; K. A. Kitchen, “Dagon,” NBD, 287-88; M. H. Pope and W. Rollig, “Dagan,” Woérterbuch der Mythologie, 1965, 1:276-78. Judith M. Hadley

1839

ay

ha (dgl II), q. lift the banner; ni. being under banners (# 1839), denom. vb. < on (degel),

banner, standard; division of a tribe; signboard (?), signal (# 1840).

OT 1. In peacetime banners were used in the organization of large crowds. In the Israelite wilderness camp, upright poles with a banner identified the space where each of the twelve tribes was to rendezvous (Num 2:2). Except for S of Songs the nom. (degel) occurs only in Numbers, for the most part in ch. 2 (e.g., 2:17). When the people were on the march, orderliness was maintained by having each tribe march under its own standard (Num 10:11-25). The banner or signal speaks of organization and orderliness. 2. Whether in war or in peacetime the banner (nés or degel) represented a form of communication. The raising of a banner or the posting of a signboard became, in a sense, “shorthand” to announce or to proclaim a message (cf. Jer 50:2). So when the beloved in the lyrics of the S of Songs states, “His banner (degel) over me is love” (S of Songs 2:4), she is saying that her lover has displayed his love for all to see. While nés (“banner”) could convey both positive and ominous messages, degel (“standard”) as used in the OT never conveys a negative message. Banner: # 5812)

~ dg/ II (lift the banner, being under banners, # 1839);

— nés (banner, standard,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

R. Gordis, “The Root DGL in the Song of Songs,” JBL 88, 1969, 203-4. Elmer A. Martens

in

os

O37 (degel), nom. tribal division; standard(s),

banner (# 1840); > denom. vb. 927 (dgi ID), q.

lift the banner; ni. being under banners (> # 1839).

ANE.

Akk. dagdiu, look; diglu, eyesight.

OT 1. The nom. degel occurs in Num 13x to designate the standards or banners of each of the twelve tribal divisions. Each tribe was gathered around its own banner/standard into camps (Num 1:52; 2:2, 3, 10, 17, 18, 25, 31, 34) when the first census was

taken as well as later when Israel left Sinai (Num 10:14, 18, 22, 25). Although degel originally signified the standard for each tribe’s military force, it clearly served to represent the entire tribe as well in their camping and decamping. Eventually, degel became extended by association to specify exclusively an army unit (Exod Rabbah 5:6; ‘Elephantine Papyrus # 5, line 2 [Cowley, 12]; 1QM 5:3).

919

127G 1841) Although the meaning of degel in Num is relatively uncontested, the meaning of its single occurrence in S of Songs 2:4 has occasioned significant discussion (see Pope, 375-77; Dahood, 96-97, for an overview). The customary translation “banner”

(“his banner over me is love’’) suggests that the king’s love protectively hovers over his lover (KD 6:42-43) or is displayed for all to see. Some scholars regard the military overtones of banner as intrusive to the present context. Gerleman (118) suggest that degel is analogous to an Arab. tradition of hanging a sign outside a house to indicate an ongoing drinking festival. Gordis (81) connects degel with Akk. dagdlu, see, look, and suggests the translation, “his glance upon me was loving.” Pope (376) compares degel to the Akk. cognate diglu, which can signify a wish or intention (cf. CAD 3:136), and translates, “his intention toward me was love.” Gordis (81) posits that the semantic range of degel includes an object looked upon (= banner) and a look or glance. 2. The denom. vb., dgl II, occurs 3x (Ps 20:5[6]; S of Songs 6:4, 10; HALAT 205, posits the existence of dgl I, which derives from Akk. dagdlu rather than the Heb.

nom. degel; cf. S of Songs 5:10). The psalmist (20:5[6]) promises that God’s people will exult in light of Yahweh’s victory over their enemies and will express their confidence by raising the banners. The majesty of the beloved in S of Songs 6:4, 10 is compared to the awe-inspiring sight of troops marching in unison under their military unit’s banner. P-B The LXX translates degel uniformly with tagma, body of soldiers, division, as well as hégemonia (2x), chief command, sovereignty. The vb. eklogizomai, consider, reflect upon, is employed in S of Songs 5:10. The Targ., Syr., and Vg. tend to favor the meaning company or group. Banner: ~ dgl II (lift the banner, being under banners, #1839); > nés (banner, standard, # 5812) Tribe: ~ degel (tribal division; standard(s), banner, # 1840); > matteh (staff, rod, scepter, tribe, #4751); > Sébet (tribe, stick, rod, weapon, scepter, # 8657) BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C., 1923; M. Dahood, “Love and Death at Ebla and Their Biblical Reflections,” in Love and Death in the Ancient Near East, 1987, 93-99; G. Gerleman, Ruth, Das Hohelied, 1965; R. Gordis, The Song of Songs and Lamentations, 1974;

M. Pope, Song of Songs, AB, 1977. Eugene Carpenter/Michael A. Grisanti

1841

Ww

}27] (dagan), grain (# 1841).

OT This is the most commonly occurring word for “grain” in the OT (40x), though its etymology is still uncertain. There are several cognates in other ANE languages (Ugar. dgn, grain; Phoen. dgn, grain; Aram. dagnda’, d’gana’), and the LXX translates

it as siton “grain.” In Later Heb. (dgn) and the Aram. Tg. (dgn’) related words continued to be used with the same meaning. dagdan appears to be a general word for “grain” or “ripe grain” (J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 1991, 194), or even “food” (Ps 78:24), with a similar semantic range as the word Seber, and most often it refers to the bountiful provision of the land of Israel, listed as “grain and new wine” (Gen 27:28, 37: Deut 33:28; Ps 4:7[8]) or even more often as “grain, new wine and oil” (Deut 7:13; Wit4s

920

707 (# 1842) 12:17; etc.). These provisions were promised to those who continued to keep Yahweh’s commandments (7:13; 11:14) and were removed when the people disobeyed (28:51; Hos 2:9[11]; 7:14). A tithe was to be given from these commodities (Deut 12:17; 14:23; 18:4), but the tithe of grain was only to be eaten “before the Lord” (i.e., probably in the temple). The Assyrians pictured their country in terms similar to those used of Israel in order to tempt the people to surrender (2 Kgs 18:32). The prophets - prophesied that in the future age of blessing these crops would be abundant (Jer 31:12; Ezek 36:29; Joel 2:19; Zech 9:17). Grain, barley, millet, rice, etc.: > ’abib (ears of grain, # 26); > bisqalén (fresh stalks [cj.], # 1303); > bar II (grain, corn, # 1339); > gadi¥ I (stack of grain, #1538); > geres (grits, # 1762); > dagan (grain, # 1841); > dohan (sorghum, millet, # 1893); > hittd (wheat, # 2636);

> kussemet (emmer-wheat, # 4081); > karmel IV (grain, fresh, newly ripened grain, # 4152); > mlild (grain, grains, # 4884); > minnit (rice, # 4976); > mds (chaff, #5161); > sdlet (wheat flour, #6159); > pannag (parched? grain, meal or flour, #7154); > sebet (grain, bundle of grain, #7395); > sanum (hard, barren [ears of grain], #7568); > qgdali (parched grain, # 7833); > qam4 (crops, grain, standing grain, #7850); > s6rd (millet, #8463); > Ss ‘dra (barley, # 8555); > SibboletI (ear of grain, # 8672); > Seber Il (grain, # 8692) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 3:139-42; G. Dalman, AuSP, 3:161. Paul D. Wegner

1842

o55

737 (dgr), q. hatch eggs (# 1842).

ANE The root appears in Aram. (Tg.) and Mand., and particularly in the former it appears in the sense of heap up and brood.

OT In the interpretation of Jer 17:11 there has been a debate over the exact meaning of this vb.: “Like a partridge that hatches (dgr) eggs it did not lay (y/d).” Though Rashi took this verb to mean “chirp,” it has been rendered by “collect” (cf. LXX on Isa 34:15), “hatch” (JB, NAB), or “brood” (KJV, Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 497-8). It seems certain from Isa 34:15 that the sense is “to brood” (Holladay, 498). In this case, the phrase in Jer 17:11, wld’ yalad, has the sense of to lay an egg, not to hatch an egg: “Like a partridge that hatches eggs it did not lay” (NIV), but compare “(Like) the partridge (that) broods but does not hatch” (Holladay, 497). The difference in translation has a bearing on the meaning of the proverb. The proverb signifies either the injustice

of the rich of taking what does not belong to them (NIV) or the folly of the rich, who amass wealth unjustly and who will loose everything that they have worked so hard for (Holladay). . Birds, flying creatures:

> ’br (fly, #87);

> bésd (egg, #1070);

> barbur (species of fowl,

# 1350); > gdzal (young bird, # 1578); > dgr (hatch eggs, # 1842); > h*sidd (stork, #2884); ~ yénda I (dove, # 3433); > ya“nd (ostrich, eagle-owl?, # 3613); > kanap (wing, skirt, outermost edge, #4053); > neXer/n*sar (vulture [eagle], #5979); > ‘dp (flying creatures, # 6416); > ‘ayit (birds of prey [collective], #6514); > ‘oréb I (raven, #6854); > sippdr I (birds, #7606); > gore’ I (partridge, # 7926); > s‘law (quails, # 8513)

921

“Tl (# 1843) BIBLIOGRAPHY

W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 1986; W. McKane, Jeremiah, 1986. N. Kiuchi

1843

nba}

"I (dad), breast (# 1843).

ANE

Aram. dadda’; Ugar. dd; Arab. did, daid, teat; Akk. dida, garment.

OT

The only certain occurrences of this word are in Ezek 23:3, 8, 21 (|| Sad in two

cases). The MT of Prov 5:19 reads, “May her breasts (daddeyh@) satisfy you always,” but some prefer to read dddeyha, her love, on the basis of the parallel structure of the verse (cf. “by her love” in the corresponding line), certain G manuscripts, and Prov 7:18 (cf. “let’s drink deep [Heb. rwh, translated “satisfy” in 5:19; > #8115] of love”). Breast: — dad (breast, # 1843); > ziz II (breast, # 2329); — qiSSurim (breast-bands, # 8005); > Sad (breast, # 8716) Robert B. Chisholm

1850 (dhm, be astounded), > #2101

1851 ANE

WT

W771 (dhr), gallop (horse) (# 1851); nom. 1777 (dah*rda), galloping (# 1852).

Egypt. thr, travel by chariot; tuhira, charioteer; Arab. dahara, hurry.

OT _ The vb. occurs only in Nah 3:2; the nom. only in Judg 5:22. Both texts dramatically portray a battle scene where horses frantically charge into the fray (HALOT 214). Horse: > dhr (gallop, #1851); — sis I (horse, #6061); > paras (horseman, rider, horse, # 7304); > reke¥ (team of horses, # 8224); > ra‘md II (mane, # 8310); > S°‘atd (stamping [of hoofs], #9121)

Robert B. Chisholm

1852 (dah*rd, galloping), > #1851

1853

rae

= 17 (dwb), hi. consume, wear away (# 1853).

OT The vb. is rare and is used to describe degenerative ailments (Lev 26:16) of otherwise unspecified nature that the God of Israel would send if his people disobeyed the covenant regulations. In Job 33:19 the “constant distress in his bones” (NIV) may describe rheumatoid arthritis due to immune system depletion. Hartley (Leviticus, WBC,

1992, 454) suggests that it is a variant spelling of d’b, sorrow

(#1793), and

refers to despondency. Disease—fever, illness, infirmity: > ’n I (be in poor health, #653); > dwb (wear away, # 1853); > dalleget (fever, # 1945); > z6b (discharge, # 2308); > hl’ (fall ill, # 2688); > hlhI (become weak, tired, ill, #2703); > harhur (heat of fever, #3031); > madeweh II (disease, # 4504); > psh (spread [of disease], #7313); > gaddahat (fever, # 7707); > Sahepet (illness, # 8831). For related entries > sr‘ (suffer from skin disease, # 7665)

922

37 (# 1856) BIBLIOGRAPHY

ISBE 1:532, 953-60; 3:103-6; G. J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT, 1979, 189-214. R. K. Harrison

1854 (dawwag, fisherman), > # 1900 1855 (digd, fishing), > # 1899

1856

—

bs ba (déd),

(paternal)

uncle,

relative;

beloved (18x; #1856, HALAT

(dédd), (paternal) aunt (3x; # 1860; HALAT 2076).

(royal)

206b); M7I7

ANE The term occurs in Akk. dadu(m), beloved, darling; Ugar. dd, (erotic) lovemaking or (hypocoristic element) beloved; Moabite dwd, beloved; Old South Arab. dwd, paternal uncle; and Nabataean and Palmyrene, paternal uncle, cousin (DISO, 55).

The Akk. nom. da@du(m), beloved, darling, is used as an appellative (not a proper noun) for gods, deceased relatives (“loved ones”), and kings. In Northwest Semitic, the nom. dwd appears most often in names (e.g., Ugar. syllabic: Da-di-ya; alphabetic: ddy; Moabite dwd may be a divine epithet of Yahweh, [KA/ # 181, 11-12]). A maternal counterpart is attested, outside biblical Heb., in Arab. hal (masc.) and Ugar. hal[iJana (masc.; PRU 3:244). OT

1. Heb. déd or déda may designate a male or female (paternal) consanguineous

relative. Masc. déd designates a paternal uncle in Lev 20:20 (father’s brother; cf. 18:14) and in 2 Kgs 24:17 (father’s half brother; cf. 2 Kgs 24:18; 23:36; 1 Chron 3:15-16; Jer 1:3; 37:1), and may do so in Lev 25:49 (cf. 25:48); Esth 2:15, and 1 Sam

14:50b (cf. 14:51). Uses of déd and déda in the genealogies of Lev 10:4 (cf. Exod 6:18, 20; Num 3:19; 1 Chron 6:2, 18) and Exod 6:20, respectively, seem to indicate

consanguineous kinship, but not the degree of familial proximity (i.e., whether a [paternal] uncle/aunt, [paternal] great-uncle’s son/daughter or, generally, [paternal] non-ancestral relative). Fem. déda designates the wife of a paternal uncle in Lev 18:14 (ll “*hi-’ abika...’ist6, the brother of your father...his wife) and, in Lev 20:20, shows how déd or déd4 could be used to designate affinitive (non-consanguineous) relatives,

whose kinship ties were marital only. 2. The expression ben déd may designate a male paternal cousin, as in Lev 25:49 and Jer 32:8-9, 12 (read ben-dédi; cf. 32:7). The daughters of Zelophehad mar-

ried their b°né dodéhen (masc. pl.; Num 36:11), which, despite the preceding injunction of Num 36:6-9 that they should and the following explanation of 36:12 that they did marry within their father’s tribe and clan, seems to indicate that the use of ddd alone was sufficient to convey the notion that their husbands were paternal clanmembers; it remains uncertain, however, whether it indicates that they were true cous-

ins (cf. 1 Sam 14:50b with 14:51). The fem. counterpart, bat déd, is to be found in Esth 2A ACE 2° 135;-9729).

3. Based upon the ideology that kings were beloved of God, it has been proposed that déd in Amos 6:10 serves as a royal appellative, “loved one,” referring to the Judean king Josiah, who would come and cremate the remains of deceased Israelites (so Ahlstrém;

cf. Lev 20:14; 21:9; Josh 7:25). Otherwise,

it may

indicate an

923

TAT(# 1857) unspecified uncle or relative who was responsible for disposing of the remains of his kin (so LXX hoi oikeioi; TDOT 3:150). Family, relative, citizen: > ’ab (father, #3); > ‘ah II (brother, kinsman, relative, countryman, # 278); > ’ém (mother, #562); > bén I (son, grandson, member of a group, # 1201); > bat I (daughter, granddaughter, # 1426); > déd (uncle, # 1856); > ham I (father-in-law, #2767); > hin (become intermarried, become a son-in-law, #3161); > moda‘ (kinsman, relative, # 4530); > miSpahd (clan, kind, #5476); > ‘am I (citizen, kinsman, relative, #6638); > ribbéa‘ (member of fourth generation, # 8067); > sillé¥ (member of sixth generation, # 9000) BIBLIOGRAPHY

G. W. Ahlstrom, “King Josiah and the dwd of Amos vi.10,” JSS 26, 1981, 7-9; W. F. Albright, “Northwest-Semitic Names in a List of Egyptian Slaves from the Eighteenth Century B.C.,” JAOS 74, 1954, 222-33; D. R. Ap-Thomas, ‘Saul’s Uncle’,” VT 11, 1961, 241-45; N. Isaacs and E. D. Isaacs, “Relationships, Family,” JSBE 4:[75a-78a] 76b; J. Pedersen, ILC, 1-2, 74; S. Rat-

tray, “Marriage Rules, Kinship Terms and Family Structure in the Bible,” in SBL Seminar Papers,

26, 1987, (537-44) 539 n. 13; J. Sanmartin-Ascaso, TWAT 2:152-67; ET: TDOT 3:143-56; N. Wyatt, “‘Jedidiah’ and Cognate Forms as a Title of Royal Legitimation,” Bib 66, 1985, 112-25. Robert H. O’Connell

1857

ANE

hic

"11" (did), nom. cooking pot; basket (# 1857).

Cognates are found in Ugar., Akk., Arab., and Egyp. (See HALAT 207).

OT 1. This term denotes a deep two-handled cooking pot, spherical in form, and probably in the shape of a basket (see no. 2 below). It was used in the cult for cooking meat (1 Sam 2:14 [second in the list with kiyyér, gallahat, and pariir]; 2 Chron 35:13 [pl., second in the list with strét, selahét]). In Job 41:20[12] did is used to describe

smoke going out of Leviathan’s nostrils, “as from a boiling pot (k*diid napiiah).” This simile indicates that this type of vessel was in common use. It is difficult to determine whether metal or ceramic is referred to, although metal was preferred for cultic use.

2. The nom. did can also denote a container for carrying figs (used in a vision in Jer 24:2), the heads of Ahab’s sons when Jehu executed God’s wrath on Ahab’s house (2 Kgs 10:7-11), and more general loads like building materials (cf. Ps 81:6[7]).

In such contexts, it is normally tr. basket.

P-B_

The Aram. equivalent has a similar use in Tgs. (e.g., 1 Sam 2:14), but it can also

be a translation of sir, as, e.g., in Exod 16:3;2 Kgs 4:38, and Zech 14:20 (see further Jastrow, 283). Pan, pot: > ’“garfal (bowl, basin, # 113); > did (cooking pot, # 1857); > mahtd (censer, fire pan/tray, #4746); > marheSet (baking pan, #5306); > masrét (baking pan, #5389); > sir (cooking pot, # 6105); > pariir (cooking pot, #7248); > gallahat (pot, # 7831)

Basin, bowl, jug, jar: > ““gartal (bowl, basin, #113);

> gabia‘ (cup, # 1483); > kad (jar,

# 3902); > kds I (cup, goblet, bowl, # 3926); — kl? (vessel, container, receptacle, # 3998) BIBLIOGRAPHY

R. Amiran, Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land, 1970; A. M. Honeyman, “The Pottery Vessels of the Old Testament,” PEQ, 1939, 76-90, esp. 80-81; J. L. Kelso, The Ceramic Vocabulary of the

924

17 # 1864) Old Testament, BASOR, Suppl. Studies, nos. 5-6 (1948), esp. §§ 26, 31, 39 and 83; J. L. Kelso, “Pottery,” IDB 3, 846-53, esp. 850. Cornelis Van Dam

1858 (dawid, David), > David

1860 (dédé, [paternal] aunt), > # 1856

i111 (dwh), vb. q. menstruate (# 1864); M7 at (daweh), nom./adj. sick, faint, menstruating (# 1865); ?1\ (d’way), nom. indisposition, illness, misery (# 1867); 171 (dawway), adj. sick, faint (# 1868). Related terms are: 1] (nidda), nom. menstrual flow, pollution 1864

(#5614), and MY

ANE

fhe

(‘idda), nom. menstrual "period (# 6340).

1. Because of the common d or dd one is tempted to argue that all of these terms

ultimately derive from the same root. This does not, however, seem to be borne out in

etymological investigations. Heb. dwh has several derivatives (cf. also madweh, sickness, # 4504, HALOT 548a, Deut 7:15; 28:60). Akk. has a vb. damii/dawii, meaning be weak, stagger; suffer from convulsions (CAD D, 80, AHw, 166a; the alternation between the m and w is a

common variation between Assyrian and Babylonian, respectively) and the corresponding noms. dawiim, staggerer (AHw, 166a) and dimitu, a disease (CAD D 143). The same root occurs in Ugar. vb. dwy, be sick. For example, in the Keret Epic it stands parallel to the vb. mrs, be ill, referring to the four months that Keret was sick (CML 97, 16 ii 81-82 and 84-85). The root continues to be used in later Jewish and Christian Aram., Syr., and Mand. (HALOT 216a). Arab. has dawd/dawiya, sound, echo, drone; III to treat a patient, treat a disease; VI to treat someone (with medicine), be cured, and various derivatives for sickness, illness as well as medicine, treatment (Cowan, 304b). It also

appears in Eth. dawaya, be sick. 2. According to BDB, 622, Heb. niddd, menstrual flow, pollution (# 5614), derives from ndd I, to retreat, flee, stray, wander, flutter (cf. HALOT 672), but HALOT (671a-673a) takes it from ndd II, which does not occur in Heb. except in the nom. néd, dam, mass of water (HALOT 671a; cf. BDB, 622). The second vb. root might have background in Arab. nadda, urinate, and in Syr. (HALOT 672b) and the nom. in Akk. nidu, cloud formation (AHw 786b, CAD NII 210-11). 3. Both BDB (723) and HALOT (789a and 790b) take ‘idda (#6340) to be

derived from a root ‘dd, which occurs nowhere else in Heb. but has background in Ugar. ‘dd, narrate, recount (D form, CML 71, 5 iv 25) and Arab. ‘adda, count, number (Cowan, 594) as well as Aram. ‘iddan, time, and Eth. (HALOT 790b). 4. Thus, it seems that the first word associates menstruation and pollution with sickness, the second associates it with the flow, and the third with the time period involved.

1. These terms are associated primarily with the menstrual period of women OT and only secondarily with other forms of physical ritual defilement. The vb. dwh occurs only 1x, and that in the comparison of the parturient’s uncleanness with that of

925

1171(# 1864) the menstruant: “A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period” (lit., as the days of the menstrual flow of her menstruating [q. inf.] she shall be unclean; eval),

The derivatives of this root can refer to either menstrual impurity or other kinds of pollution or sickness. The nom./adj. daweh occurs 5x, 3x for menstrual uncleanness: “a woman in her monthly period” (Lev 15:33, NIV; NASB translates “the woman who is ill because of menstrual impurity”; see also 20:18; Isa 30:22). It also occurs 2x in Lam 1:13 and 5:17 for how “faint” the city of Jerusalem and her people were after their desolation. The nom. d’way occurs 2x, both times referring to illness that is not associated with menstruation: “The LorD will sustain him (i.e., the righteous man) on his sickbed (lit., bed of d’way), and restore him from his bed of illness” (Ps 41:3[4]), and “I refuse to touch it (i.e., tasteless food); such food makes me ill” (Job 6:7). The adj. dawway (3x) is most interesting because of its usage as a word for the sickness of the heart in terms of one feeling faint. For example, “Your whole head is injured, your whole heart

afflicted’ (Isa 1:5, NIV; NASB has “the whole heart is faint’; cf. the same expression in Jer 8:18 and Lam 1:22). One should also consider here the nom. madweh, sickness (# 4504, HALOT 548a), which occurs twice in the book of Deut: “The LORD will keep

you free from every disease. He will not inflict on you the horrible diseases (madweh) you knew in Egypt, but he will inflict them on all who hate you” (Deut 7:15; cf. the same expression in 28:60). 2. The nom. ‘iddda occurs only 2x. Isa 64:6(5) says, “All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags” (lit., rags of ‘iddd). Ezek 16:7 is difficult. The NIV renders the line, “You grew up and developed and became the most beautiful of jewels” (cf. “d?, jewelry, #6344, HALOT 791b), but HALOT (790b) and the BHS textual note conjecture two other possible readings associating this with a girl who has “entered into (the time of) menstruation.” This suits the context well. In both passages an association with menstrual impurity seems likely. 3. The nom. niddd, menstrual flow, pollution (# 5614), occurs 30x according to

Even-Shoshan (743), but Lam 1:8a is questionable: “Jerusalem has sinned greatly and so has become unclean (written nidd, #5765, not niddd) (NIV; cf. also NASB and BDB, 622b). HALOT (673a and 696a) proposes that nid@ is the fem. form of the nom. nid, shaking of the head (see the root nid, sway, shake the head, # 5653, HALOT 678). The point would be that the nations were shaking their heads at Jerusalem as a mocking gesture.

This term is used 15x for the menstrual flow of a woman in her period (Lev 15, 9x beginning in v. 19; 12:2, 5; 18:19; Ezek 18:6; 22:10; 36:17; see Milgrom, 902-1009, and Wenham, 219-25). Since the menstrual flow of a woman was impure, and since the

Israelites were to avoid contact with impurity when possible, therefore, intercourse with a menstruating woman was forbidden (see Lev 18:19; Ezek 18:6; 22:10; 36:17). The goal was to avoid the multiplication of impurities and impure people in Israel in light of the warning set forth in Lev 15:31: “You must keep the Israelites separate from

things that make them unclean, so they will not die in their uncleanness for defiling my dwelling place, which is among them” (for the overall issues surrounding the problem of uncleanness, see “Clean and Unclean”; tm’, unclean, # 3237; thr, clean, # 3197).

926

11 # 1864) The semantic range of niddd extends beyond its basic meaning, menstrual flow, to include other kinds of physical ritual impurity. For example, in Num 19:9, 13, 20-21; 31:23 it refers to the “waters of nidda” (NIV the water of cleansing) used in cleansing a person from corpse contamination. 2 Chron 29:5 uses it in the command to “remove all defilement from the sanctuary.” Ezek 7:19-20 uses this term 2x to refer to wicked Israel’s gold and idols as unclean things, and in Ezra 9:11 it occurs 2x referring to the land of Israel as “a land polluted (niddd) by the corruption (niddd) of its peoples” (i.e., the peoples who occupied it while Israel was in exile and were still there upon Israel’s return from exile). Finally, according to Zech 13:1, “On that day a fountain will be opened to the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them

from sin and impurity (nidda).” None of the terms dealt with in this article is ever used metaphorically in the OT (see e.g., tm’, # 3237), although the usages outside of menstrual impurity might be considered to be metaphorical in a sense.

P-B1. The nom. niddda occurs only 5x in the Qumran Temple Scroll. Its breadth of usage seems to compare well with that of the HB. It is used 1x independently for the impurity of forbidden sexual intercourse with the wife of one’s father or brother (11QTS 66:13, Yadin 2:299). One other time it refers to the water of impurity used to purify a person from corpse contamination (11QTS 49:18, Yadin 2:217; cf. Num 19, discussed above). The remaining occurrences are all in const. to uncleanness (see Heb.

tm’, # 3237), referring to the “nidda uncleanness” of a woman’s menstrual uncleanness after giving birth, the parturient (11QTS 48:16, 17, Yadin 2:210), as well as the nocturnal seminal emission of a man (11QTS 45:10, Yadin 2:192).

The expression “niddé uncleanness” is used metaphorically in the Qumran Pesher on Habakkuk for the impurity of the Wicked Priest, who sinfully oppressed the people of God (1QpHab 8:13; Vermes, 287). The War Scroll recites a curse against the spirits of Satan: “may they be execrated for their service of uncleanness” (1QM 13:15; Vermes, 118). Elsewhere the sectarian literature refers literally to the “waters (that cleanse) impurity” (Manual of Discipline; 1QS 3:4, 9; Vermes, 64), and sometimes

metaphorically in association with the “spirit of purification” (ibid., 4:21-22; Vermes 66). The major concern is that people eliminate from their lives unclean idols (ibid. 4:5; Vermes, 67), the service of uncleanness carried on by lewd behavior (ibid., 4:10), and the uncleanness of despising the covenant and the word of God (ibid., 5:19; Vermes, 68), and that they commit themselves to end the uncleanness of their lives (ibid.,

10:24; Vermes, 78). If they do this, God will graciously cleanse them from “the uncleanness of man” and “the sins of the children of men” (ibid., 11:14; Vermes, 79).

The Thanksgiving Hymns speak of oneself as “a ground of shame and a source of pollution” (1QH 1:22; Vermes, 167; cf. 12:25; Vermes, 198), and despite the fact that we all “wallow in uncleanness” (1QH 17:19; Vermes, 205), God has purified man

to bring him to himself “with no abominable uncleanness” or wickedness (1QH 11:11; Vermes, 195). According to the Damascus Rule the reason for God’s current judgment on Israel was that “their deeds were defilement before Him” (CD 2:1; Vermes, 83; cf.

Isa 64:6). Even the remnant wallowed “in ways of uncleanness,” but God was still willing to forgive and cleanse them (CD 3:17; Vermes, 85). It warns that no one should have intercourse in Jerusalem so that they do not “defile the city of the Sanctuary with their uncleanness” (CD 12:2; Vermes, 96; cf. 1QTS 45:10 above).

92h

PY (# 1866) 2. The Mishnah has an entire tractate of its sixth and final division named “Nid-

dah’; it is devoted almost entirely to the issues of the menstruant or parturient woman (Danby, 745-57). For a general outline of the rabbinic system of impurities see tm’, unclean, # 3237, and the literature cited there. 3. The LXX uses several different G words to render niddd, the most important being aphedros, menses (11x; see e.g., Lev 15:19), rhantismos, sprinkling (6x; Num 19:9, 13, 20, 21[2x]; Zech 13:1), and akatharsia, uncleanness, impurity (4x). NT For a discussion of uncleanness in the NT see tm’, unclean, #3237, where the occurrences of akatharsia are covered. aphedros does not occur in the NT. rhantismos,

sprinkling, occurs only 2x in the NT, referring to “the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel” (Heb 12:24) and the “sprinkling by his (i.e., Jesus’) blood” that purifies all who trust in Christ as their Savior (1 Peter 1:2). The background for these usages is in the LXX, which uses this term in Num 19 for the water of impurity used to purify the one contaminated by a corpse (cf. P-B 3 above) and in Zech 13:1, “On that day a fountain will be opened to the house of David and the inhabitants

of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and impurity (rhantismos).” The fountain by which we are cleansed sprinkles not with water but with the blood of Christ. Discharge,

emission,

menstruation:

> zirmd (phallus, emission, #2444);

> dwh

(menstruate,

#1864);

> zwb (flow, #2307);

> n*hdset I (menstruation, lust,

#5734); > sikbd (layer

of dew, emission/ discharge of seed, # 8887) Uncleanness, defilement, pollution: > g’/ II (be defiled, desecrate, stain, # 1458); > hnp I (be godless,

be defiled,

#2866);

— tm’ (be/come

ceremonially

unclean,

defile

o.s., desecrate,

# 3237); > piggil (unclean meat, #7002) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TWAT 5:250-54; P. Bird, “The Place of Women in the Israelite Cultus,” Ancient Israelite Religion, 1987, 397-419; J. M. Cowan, Arabic-English Dictionary, 3d ed., 1976; H. Danby, The Mishnah, 1933; A. Even-Shoshan, A New Concordance of the Bible, 1989; Frymer-Kensky, “Pollution, Purification, and Purgation in Biblical Israel,” The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth,

1983, 399-414; H. K. Harrington, The Impurity Systems of Qumran and the Rabbis, SBLDS 143, 1993; J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, AB, 1991; J. Neusner, Purity in Rabbinic Judaism, South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 95, 1994; G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 3d ed., 1987; G. J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT, 1979; Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll, vols. 1-2, 1983. Richard E. Averbeck

1865 (daweh, sick, menstruating), > # 1864

1866

Pied

M7 (dwh), hi. rinse (# 1866).

OT As with other words describing lustrations (> kbs; > rhs; Stp), the vb. has a routine secular meaning and a figurative meaning. The prime meaning is “to rinse” (e.g., a burnt offering, 2 Chron 4:6; Ezek 40:38). Figuratively, the vb. functions as a metaphor for the removal of sin (Isa 4:4, where dwh is par. with rhs).

928

477 (# 1870) Wash, washing: ~ bdr II (potash, # 1342); > dwh (rinse, # 1866); > tbl I (ammerse, # 3188); > kbs (wash, pound, # 3891); > neter (nitre, # 6003); > rhs (wash, # 8175); > Seleg I (soapwort, # 8921) Elmer A. Martens

1867 (d*way, indisposition, illness, misery), > # 1864 1868 (dawway, sick, faint), > # 1864

1870

yt

17

(dwk),

q. pound

(in mortars)

MD) (m*doka), nom. mortar (# 4521).

(# 1870);

OT _ Both terms are only used of pounding manna in mortars (|| thn; > #3221) in Num 11:8. For the relationship of dwk with dk’, crush, be crushed (> # 1917). Beating, crushing, grinding: > b‘t (kick, # 1246); > dwk (pound, #1870); > dk’ (crush, be crushed, # 1917); — dkh (be crushed, # 1920); > dqq (crush, #1990); > him (beat, # 2150); > hbt (beat from, # 2468); > thn (grind, mill, #3221); > kt¥ (grind down, # 4197); > ktt (beat

fine, pound up, disperse, # 4198); > mhs (beat to pieces, # 4731);

> m‘k (press, squeeze, crush,

# 5080); > ngp (strike, #5597); > nk’ (be whipped out, flogged out, #5777); > nkh (be hit, be battered, ruined, destroyed, #5782); > srr I (bind, tie up, #7674); > r‘s (beat down, # 8320); > rss (crush, mash, break, # 8368); > Swp I (crush, # 8789); > Shq (grind down, # 8835) Cornelis Van Dam

1871 (dikipat, hoopoe), ~ #7606

eS mI (dima 1), nom. silence (# 1872); 1/417 1872 A (dimiyyda), nom. silence, rest (#1875); Bfi7 (dimam), nom. stillness, silence (# 1876).

OT

These noms. occur 9x, all in the Psalms and the Prophets. diimd occurs twice in

the Psalms, where it refers to the silence of death (94:17; 115:17; [see also nwh, Job 3:13; 17:16; Eccl 6:5; Isa 57:2]). dimiyyé refers to a silence or rest that reflects trust in God (Ps 39:2[3]; 62:1[2]) or to a lack of silence that results from God’s apparent inactivity (22:2[3]). Ps 65:1[2] is questionable. NASB translates, “There will be silence

before you and praise in Zion,” but NIV has “praise awaits you” (NRSV praise is due you). Perhaps the sense is that praise rests expectantly for the Lord. (For an example of rest in the sense of wait, see nwh [1 Sam 25:9].) dimam occurs 3x with the sense of “to be dumb.” So a stone is dumb, whether it is labeled as a god or not (Hab 2:19), and Babylon ‘is dumb with shame in her destruction (Isa 47:5), and the Judeans wait

dumbly for their deliverance from the Lord, knowing there is nothing they can say in their own defence (Lam 3:26). Rest, silence: > dimd I (silence, # 1872); > dmh II (come to an end, rest, be dumb, silent, # 1949); > dmm I (stand still, be motionless, silent, # 1957); > hp’ (do s.t. secretly, #2901); ~ hgh (keep silence, command to be silent, #3120); > hr§ II (be deaf, keep still, remain inactive, make silent, # 3087); > smt (silence, # 7551)

929

32971# 1880) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 3:260-65; TWOT 1:185-86. John N. Oswalt

1875 (diimiyyé, silence, rest), > # 1872 1876 (diimam, stillness, silence), > # 1872

1880

pba

33171 (dénag), wax (# 1880).

OT The nom. occurs 4x, always in a simile and always in connection with mss. The mountains melt like wax before the powerful appearance of the Lord as he comes as judge (Ps 97:5; Mic 1:4). Fire melts the wicked like wax as the Lord marches out at the head of his army (Ps 68:2[3]), and the heart of the psalmist turns to wax as his life ebbs

away (22:14[15]). Melting, dissolution:

~ dédnag (wax [metaphor for melting], #1880);

— mwg

waver, lose courage, #4570); > mss (lose courage, melt, become weak, #5022); drench, # 4998); > Syh (melt away, be in despair, # 8863)

(melt, reel, > msh (melt,

Herbert M. Wolf/Robert Holmstedt

1881 ANE OT

Pia

V1 @s), q. dance, (hapleg.; # 1881).

Syr. dws, exalt, leap, or dance for joy; Arab. dys, move back and forth. Leviathan is such a mighty creature that terror leaps before it (Job 41:22[14]).

Jumping, leaping, skipping: > g/s (skip, jump, # 1683); > dws (dance, # 1881); > dlg (leap, # 1925); > znq I Gump before, # 2397); — ntr II (start, spring, #6001); > sld Gump, spring, # 6134); > pws (skip, leap, #7055); > pzz II (be quick, agile, hop, #7060); > rgd (skip, leap, # 8376); > Sqq (run about, jump, # 9212) John E. Hartley

1887 ANE

abel

“17 (dér ID), generation(s) (# 1887).

The Heb. word may be associated with Akk. daru/diru, “duration, a long time,

eternity.” Once daru occurs in Mari as a WestSem. loanword meaning “elderly person” (AHw

164b; CAD, D, 115b). The primary emphasis of the word in East Sem. is on

duration while in WestSem. it is on generation. Ugar. dr refers to the “assembling” (UT, 697) of the gods. Similarly in Phoen. dr refers to the family Kos of the gods (KAI 26A, III, line 19).

OT 1. Albright (BASOR 163:50-51) provided the most convincing explanation of the development of the meaning of dér when he explained it on the basis of older dahru>ddaru>doér, properly, “lap in a race, cycle of time, lifetime.” In the HB the word occurs 166x, 92x by itself and 37x (or 74x) in the double expression dér wadér “forever, from generation to generation.” The pl. of the word is masc. in form 3x (Ps 72:5; 102:25; Isa 51:8) and fem. in form 48x. dér appears most often in the Psalms (59x).

930

wi(# 1889) Gen 15:16 suggests that in an earlier time a generation was roughly equivalent to a century. Only when the iniquity of the Amorites had reached its full measure (i.e., four generations from Abraham) would Abraham’s descendants possess the land promised to him. Such a postponement highlights Joshua’s invasion of Canaan four “generations” later as an act of justice rather than of aggression. 2. Subsequently dér was interpreted as a period of approximately forty years. Thus the whole book of Numbers is structured around the deeds and eventual death of the first generation that came out of Egypt (Num 1:1-25:18) and the prospects for the survival of the second generation (Num 26:1ff.). (- Numbers: Theology) 3. On four occasions Yahweh made a covenant that spanned generations: with Noah (Gen 9:12); with Abraham (17:7, 9); with Israel (Deut 7:9); with David (Ps 89:4[5]). It is not necessary for Yahweh to make a covenant with each new generation. This may explain why the word “covenant” never appears in the OT in the plural. Such transgenerational covenants emphasize the gracious, faithful commitment of Yahweh to his own (> D*rit, # 1382).

4. The reverse side of the above are the reminders in the OT that each generation needs to expedite faithfully its religious obligations. Appropriate celebrations were to be observed by “the generations to come” (Exod 12:17, 42; 16:32; 32:13, 16; Lev 23:14, 21, 31, 41); the same applied to covenant requirements (Gen 17:12; Num

35:29). Neither the celebrations nor the obedience of one generation sufficed for another generation. That each generation engaged in the observance of the same festivals, with little modification or adaptation, provided both continuity between the generations and minimized the possibility of a later generation forgetting its roots and the source of its vitality. Descendant, offspring, seed:

~ ddr II (generation, # 1887); > zr‘ (sow, scatter seed, form seed, #2445); > yld (bear, bring forth, be born, # 3528); > nin (offspring, #5769); > neked (progeny, #5781); > ‘éger (descendant, # 6830); > se’’sa’im (offspring, # 7368); > ribbéa‘ (member of fourth generation, # 8067); > sil/és (member of sixth generation, # 9000); > tarbit (brood, # 9551) Family, relative, citizen: > ab (father, #3); > ’ah II (brother, kinsman, relative, countryman, #278); > ’@m (mother, #562); > bén I (son, grandson, member of a group, #1201); > bat I (daughter, granddaughter, # 1426); > déd (uncle, # 1856); > ham I (father-in-law, #2767); > hin (become intermarried, become a son-in-law, #3161); —~ méda‘ (kinsman, relative, # 4530);

— mixpahd

(clan,

kind,

#5476);

~ ‘am

I (citizen,

kinsman,

relative,

# 6638);

~ ribbéa‘ (member of fourth generation, # 8067); > Sillés (member of sixth generation, # 9000) BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 3:169-81; THAT 1:443-45; TWOT 1:186-87; W. F. Albright, “Abram the Hebrew: A New

Archaeological Interpretation,” BASOR 163, 1961, 50-51; G. S. Ogden, “The Interpretation of dor in Ecclesiastes 1:4,” JSOT 34, 1986, 91-92; W. A. VanGemeren, The Progress of Redemption, 1988, 70-76, 102-3. Victor P. Hamilton

1889

:

ae

wi (dw3), q. trample, thresh; ni. be trampled;

ho. be threshed (#1889); WI (dayi’), nom.

threshing (# 1912); MW3(m%dusa), nom. s.t. threshed (# 4536). 931

ri # 1890) ANE. The Heb. words from the root d#¥ are related to the Arab. root dtt (strike down), see HALAT, 209.

1. Threshing was part of the harvesting process that preceded winnowing (see OT Isa 41:15-16). Threshing took place after the grains were brought in from the fields in April and May. Normally several months passed by before the grape harvest. The epitome of blessing was, therefore, a time when there was so much grain that threshing

could not be completed before it was time to harvest the grapes (Lev 26:5). Grain brought in from the field was spread on the ground, and a board set with stones or metal on the bottom (a threshing-sledge, see Amos 1:3) was dragged over the grain by oxen to separate the kernels from the husks. Alternate methods were to have oxen trample the grain (see Deut 25:4 and Paul, Archaeology, 159) or to beat smaller grain with a stick (Isa 28:27[28]). (For more details see Feliks, “Implements,” 378, and Paul,

Archaeology, 159.) 2. Literal references to threshing are few. Araunah was threshing wheat at the time when David came to purchase his threshing floor (1 Chron 21:20). The farmer was instructed not to muzzle his ox while it was threshing (Deut 25:4). Spiritual lessons were to be drawn from the realia of threshing (Isa 28:23-29; 1 Cor 9:9-10). 3. Accordingly, threshing is used in various figures. Being threshed is a figure for being defeated (Isa 21:10). Threshing is used as a figure for military victory. The king of Aram’s decimation of Judah’s army is likened to the dust made during threshing (2 Kgs 13:7). Damascus’s harsh treatment of Israel is likened to threshing with a sledge having iron teeth (Amos 1:3). Babylon’s delight in destruction is likened to a heifer that frolics while threshing (Jer 50:11). Threshing is also used as a figure for God’s judging the nations (Hab 3:12) and for the victory of his people over the nations (Mic 4:13). Threshing: ~ goren (threshing floor, # 1755); ~ dws (trample, thresh, #1889); (threshing-sledge, # 3023); > mdrag (threshing-sledge, # 4617) Winnow:

~ zrh I (scatter, winnow, # 2430); > ndpd I (sieve, #5864); shovel, # 8181)

> hards I

> rahat (winnowing

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABD 1:95-98; J. Feliks, “Agricultural Implements in Ancient Eres Israel,” EncJud, 1971; S. Paul and W. Dever, Biblical Archaeology, 1974.

Mark D. Futato

1890

—

mM (dhh), q. push, overthrow; ni. be cast down;

pu. be thrust down (# 1890); FAM" (dhh), ni. be thrust down, be cast out (#1891); "N (ahi), nom. stumbling (# 1892); AMA

(midheh), nom. ruin, downfall (# 4510).

|

un

ANE dhhis attested in Punic inscriptions meaning “break, crush” with reference to a clay tablet (KAJ 2:93). On the ostraca found at Yavneh-Yam dhh refers to the casting out of a person (KAI 2:199-201). The vb. is possibly derived from the root ndh or dhh (DISO, 56); cf. also Arab. daha’, spread out. It appears that dhh serves as a variant of dhh in the OT, since the latter one is the predominant root used in the OT. With regard to d*hi cf. the Syr. dehaja’, stumbling. 932

]N7 (# 1893) OT 1. dhh occurs only 7x in the OT and is found exclusively in poetic literature, usually denoting the defeat of the psalmist or his enemies communicated via the imagery of a wall that is pushed so hard that it is falling over (Ps 36:12[13]; 62:3[4]; 118:13; Prov 14:32). The imagery is oriented on ANE warfare and is reminiscent of the practice of pushing the battering ram against the walls of a city during the siege (ABD 6:893-95; BRL’, 37-42, fig. 14). 2. dhh occurs only in the ni. (2 Sam 14:14; Jer 23:12) and follows in meaning the ni. of dhh; consequently, it should be understood as a lexicographical variant of dhh. 3. The nom. d*h? also occurs only in poetic literature, and in both references it

denotes the act of “stumbling” figuratively associated with death. God keeps the psalmist’s feet from stumbling (Ps 56:13[14]; 116:8), i-e., sustains his life and lets him walk in the light. Thus one moves from darkness to light, from death to life, when God prevents the feet from “stumbling” (Keel, 53-68). 4. The nom. midheh occurs once in Prov 26:28, but the meaning is clear from

the context, and the nom. has correctly been translated by the NIV as “ruin” caused by a flattering mouth and a lying tongue. P-B___In Midrashic literature (Gen Rabbah, section 54) the vb. takes on a legal meaning “push aside the law, supersede or suspend the law” (Jastrow, 291). At Qumran in

the Testament of Levi the meaning “cast away” for dhh is found (Beyer, 193). Pushing, goring, thrusting:

> dhh (push, overthrow, be cast down, #1890);

drive hard, knock,

— hdp (push, thrust, #2074);

#1985);

— dpq (push,

> yrt (shove, push, be reckless,

# 3740); > ngh (gore, push, thrust, # 5590); > ‘// I (thrust in, # 6619); > tq‘ (drive, thrust, clap

one’s hands, blow trumpet, pledge, # 9546) BIBLIOGRAPHY ABD 6:893-95; BRL’, 37-42; DISO, 56; KAI 2:93, 199-201; HALAT 209-10; TWOT 1:187-88; K. Beyer, Die aramdischen Texte vom Toten Meer, 1984; O. Keel, Die Welt der altorientalischen

Bildsymbolik und das Alte Testament, 1972. Martin G. Klingbeil

1891 (dhh, be thrust down, be cast out), > # 1890 1892 (d*hi, stumbling), > # 1890

1893 OT

ria

}971 (dohan) sorghum, millet (# 1893).

The origin of this word is uncertain, but there are several cognates in ANE lan-

guages (Arab. dulin; Akk. d/tuhnu, millet). It is translated as kegchron, millet, in the

LXX and appears in Mish. Heb. and Aram. déhina’, duhna’, a species of millet. This word occurs once in the OT (Ezek 4:9) and refers to “millet” or “sorghum,” both of which produce an edible seed that is hard and pulpy, and is generally used for stock feed or a crude kind of bread (M. Zohary, 77). Grain, barley, millet, rice, etc.: > ’abib (ears of grain, # 26); > bisqaldn (fresh stalks [cj.], # 1303); — bar II (grain, corn, #1339); > gadis I (stack of grain, #1538); > geres (grits, # 1762); > dagan (grain, # 1841); > dodhan (sorghum, millet, # 1893); > hitta (wheat, # 2636); > kussemet (emmer-wheat, # 4081); > karmel IV (grain, fresh, newly ripened grain, #4152);

033

FIN(# 1894) ~> mlild (grain, grains, #4884); > minnit (rice, # 4976); > mos (chaff, #5161); > sdlet (wheat flour, #6159); > pannag (parched? grain, meal or flour, #7154); > sebet (grain, bundle of grain, #7395);

> sanum (hard, barren [ears of grain], # 7568); > gali (parched grain, # 7833);

+ gamd (crops, grain, standing grain, #7850); — séra (millet, #8463); # 8555); > SibboletI (ear of grain, # 8672); > Seber Il (grain, # 8692)

> Sora

(barley,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

EncJud 16:480-81; M. Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 1982.

Paul D. Wegner

py

ale

FN

(dhp),

q. hurrying,

(#1894); nom.

ni. hasten

oneself

MEMTA (madhépa), blow

(?, hapleg., #4511).

ANE The vb. appears only in the later books of the BH. It is apparently cognate to Akkad. da’apu, thrust, push, and the Aram. dhp, hasten. The nom. is not attested. OT 1. Unlike other vbs. for hastening, mhr (> # 4554) or hpz (> # 2905), which may describe any act done with alacrity, the vb. dhp is used only to describe people running or moving at a rapid pace. In Esth 3:15, the king’s couriers run quickly to take forth the decree to destroy all the Jews; in 8:14, in a literary reversal of 3:15, the same

couriers hurry to take the decree allowing the Jews to defend themselves. After the king ordered Haman to pay honor to Mordecai, he hurried home to his wife to complain (Esth 6:12). When King Uzziah was struck with leprosy while he was in the temple, he hurried to get out, so as not to pollute its precincts (2 Chron 26:20). 2. The nom. appears only in Ps 140:11[12], a v. whose translation is much in doubt. The problem is with the nom. itself, “May evil hunt him down [’madhépét.” BDB and HALAT understand the term to mean with thrusts or by blows (see Allen), but modern versions usually translate it “speedily” (so NASB, NRSV; NIV leaves the term untranslated). Dahood translates “to exile” primarily on the basis of parallelism with the preceding line (Dahood, 306), but since the psalmist asks that evil be not “established” in the land, the parallelism may suggest instead the idea of “speedily”; i.e., the slanderer is to be destroyed before he can become established in the country. The LXX translation, “to destruction,” may be a guess based on the context. The nom. is therefore obscure, but the meaning of the v. is clear: the psalmist is expressing his desire for God to send misfortune to destroy the person who persecutes the poor and needy (140:12[13]). P-B_ The Heb. text of Sir 33:12 uses the vb. dhp to mean “drive out,” a translation suggested by the Sem. cognates, but not attested in BH. ,

Hurry, speed: > ’ws (urge, #237); > dhp (hurrying, # 1894); > hw¥ (hurry, #2590); > hpz (be in a hurry, # 2905); > ws (rush, dart, #3216); > mhr I (hurry, # 4554); > gal (light, agile, quick, swift, # 7824)

934

Pern aa

Dae

ee

re

# 1895)

se SS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

L. C. Allen, Psalms 101-150, WBC, 1983, 265, 267; E. Berg, The Book of Esther, 1979; M. Dahood, Psalms 101-150, AB, 1970; M. Greenberg, “Two New Hunting Terms in Psalm

140:12,” HAR 1, 1977, 149-53; L. Paton, Esther, ICC, 1908. Anthony Tomasino

1895 ANE

pnt

(117 (dhq), q. oppress, jostle (# 1895).

Arab. dahaqa, drive away.

OT The vb. dhq occurs only in Joel 2:8 and Judg 2:18. The NIV’s translation of dhg in Joel 2:8 with “jostle” suits the context well, since a disciplined army that marches in straight battalions without “jostling” is described. In Judg 2:18 dhq is used along with another vb. in the semantic field of “oppression,” viz., /hs. Here these two words describe the oppression of Israel by her enemies. It may well be that the two words are used here as a hendiadys (-> /hs, #4315). Affliction, oppression: > dhq (oppress, # 1895); > hms I (do violence, # 2803); > hms II (oppress, # 2807); > ynh (oppress, # 3561); > lhs (press, #4315); > masérI (affliction, siege, #5189); > mrr I (be bitter, distraught, afflict, #5352); > nega‘ (plague, affliction, # 5596); > ngs (exact, #5601); > ‘nh II (afflict, humble, afflict one’s soul, fast, oppress, submit, # 6700); > ‘wg I (crush?, # 6421);

> ‘mr II (deal tyrannically with, #6683);

> ‘Sg I (wrong,

# 6943); > swq I (constrain, press in/upon, harass, vex, #7439); > swr II (deal tyrannically with, #7444); — rhb (assail, press, pester, alarm, confuse, #8104); > rss (crush, # 8368); > t6lal (oppressor, # 9354); > tok (oppression, # 9412) BIBLIOGRAPHY

T. D. Hanks, God So Loved the Third World: The Biblical Vocabulary of Oppression, 1983, 3-39; Y. I. Kim, “The Vocabulary of Oppression in the Old Testament,” Ph.D. diss. Drew Uni-

versity, 1981; C. F. Marriottini, “The Problem of Social Oppression in the Eighth-Century Prophets,” Ph.D. diss. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1983; J. Miranda, Communism in the Bible, 1982, 37-39; J. Pons, L’oppression dans l’Ancien Testament, 1981; E. Tamez, Bible of the Oppressed, 1982, 1-30. I. Swart

1896

OT

oa

"| (day), sufficiency, enough, necessary or overflowing supply (# 1896).

1. Heb. has various ways of expressing the concept of sufficiency: day, suffi-

cient, enough, abundant; kbr I, be in abundant supply; rbb I, become numerous, much,

great; r’wayd, overflow, superabundance (# 8122); r‘S II, be abundant (> # 8322); spq Il, suffice, be enough; wg I, overflow, bestow abundantly; Sepa‘, overflow. The roots and their derivatives are as broad in range as the Eng. “abundant.” God is abundant in his grace, forgiveness, and provisions. People may have either a positive sense of abundance and enjoy the rich blessings from the Lord, or in a negative sense people may be full of wickedness and corruption. 2. The word day occurs some 39x in the OT and has no ANE cognates. The term is frequently constructed with prepositions to denote abundance, for example, of

935

a?1 (# 1899) freewill offerings for the construction of the tabernacle (Exod 36:5, 7). In Judg 6:5 the

expression k‘dé ... larob means “as numerous as ... for number.” The comparison here

is to locusts,

acommon hyperbole in the OT (e.g., Judg 7:12; Jer 46:23).

3. According to Isa 40:16, Yahweh’s greatness is incomparable because all of Lebanon could not yield a sufficient supply (or abundance, dé) of trees and animals for an offering worthy of the Lord God. The prophet leads the reader to take his eyes away from human values (forests and animals) to the sovereign and wise Creator (vv. 12-15), to whom alone worship is due. Nothing will suffice because he is the incomparable God (Watts, 91).

4. Malachi promised an outpouring of divine blessing until no more (day) was needed if the people of God would only honor him with the tithe (3:10). So great will God’s blessing be that people will experience their limits quickly, They just cannot store enough of it, nor can they eat it all. The language of blessing points beyond Malachi’s time to the eternity of God’s goodness toward his people (Verhoef, 308). Abundance, multiplication, sufficiency: > dgh (multiply, # 1835); > day (sufficiency, overflowing supply, # 1896); > ysp (add, continue, increase, #3578);

abundant

supply,

#3892);

— m°gammd

(totality,

abundance,

> kbr I (make many, be in

#4480);

> rbb

I (become

numerous, much, great, #8045); > rbh I (become numerous, multiply, increase, # 8049); > r‘s II, be abundant, # 8322); > sg’/Sgh (grow great, increase, exalt, # 8434/8436); > spq Il (suffice,

be enough, # 8563); dance, # 9179)

> swq I (overflow, bestow abundantly, #8796);

> Sepa‘ (super-abun-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

P. A. Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi, NICOT,

1987; J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1-33,

WBC 24, 1985. Andrew E. Hill

1399

=

1°77 (dyg), denom. vb.; q. catch fish (# 1899); 3%, Mat, AN") (dag/daga/da’g), fish (# 1834; 1836; 1794); 319, 2° (dawwag/dayyag), fisherman (#1854; #1900; > #1900); M397 (diigd); fishing (# 1855).

OT 1. During the wilderness period, the ancient Israelites lamented that their diet of manna and quail did not measure up to the quality or quantity of foods enjoyed in Egypt, saying, “We remember the fish we ate in Egypt at no cost” (Num 11:5). This statement, along with the numerous references and illustrations of a wide variety of fishes from pharaonic Egypt, demonstrates that fish were abundant in Egypt and a good source of protein. Once in Sinai and the area covered by the wilderness experience in Num and Deut, fish was not available to the Israelites. When they arrived in the Promised Land, their situation was somewhat better. Through most of the preexilic

period, fish was probably not a significant part of the diet unless one lived close to one of the sources for fish, viz., the Sea of Kinneret or Sea of Galilee, the

Jordan River, and

the Mediterranean. Fish and other marine animals cannot live in the Dead Sea. 2. The Israelites had only limited access to the Mediterranean because the Philistines controlled the coastal region of the southern Levant, while the Phoenicians

dominated the northern reaches of the same. The Sea of Galilee does yield nineteen different species of fish. However, the OT does not identify any species by name,

936

171 (# 1899) simply using the word dag. Even the sea animal that swallowed up Jonah is simply called, dag gad6l, “a great or large fish” (Jon 1:17; 2:1). It may be that the Israelites thought of fish only in two categories, those that were edible and those that were taboo because of the Pentateuchal dietary laws. Leviticus 11:9-12 specifies that fish from streams and seas could be eaten if they had fins and scales, but those that lacked these two features were not to be eaten. Solomon’s wisdom included reference to the king’s understanding in floral and faunal areas, and “fish” are included in his encyclopedic repertoire. This possibly suggests that a taxonomy beyond “clean” and “unclean” was known to the educated class and most likely to the fishermen themselves. 3. While the importance of fish to the diet of the people surrounding the area of

the Sea of Galilee is abundantly clear in the gospels, the OT gives little hint of how widely fish was consumed. In the seventh century BC (Zeph 1:10) and in the postexilic period (Neh 3:3) one of the gates of Jerusalem is called “the Fish Gate.” Nehemiah 13:16 may provide the clue for the unusual name: “Men of Tyre who lived in Jerusalem were bringing in fish and all kinds of merchandise and selling them in Jerusalem on the Sabbath to the people of Judah.” That fish would be transported from Tyre, a major Phoenician city, should not be surprising since fishing was a significant industry there. Ezekiel’s oracle against Tyre (ch. 26) shows it understands the importance of fishing to Tyre when it declares that it would be destroyed and “become a place to spread fishnets” (26:5, 14). Fish transported such distances were most likely salted for preservation. The name for the gate probably owes its origin to the fact that shipments of fish came to Jerusalem for sale at this particular gate. The Fish Gate was situated in the vicinity of the Temple Mount, which led to the Beth-horon road and on to the coastal highway on which the fish was transported from Tyre. 4. The OT does report on different methods of fishing. The net was the most effective since it could catch a large number of fish at a time. OT references suggest that casting nets (reset, # 8407; Hos 7:12; Ezek 12:13; 32:3; Job 18:8) as well as dragnets (hérem II, # 3052; Ezek 26:5, 14; 47:10; Hab 1:15) were used in Israel. These two

types of nets are still employed in the Sea of Galilee. In pharaonic Egypt scenes in tombs depict the use of nets from boats or by fishermen on land. Handheld nets and wicker fish traps are also documented. Egyptian scenes are most instructive on fishing techniques, and it is conceivable that some of these techniques were employed in Israel. Fishing with a hook was also known in the OT world (hakkd, # 2676, Job 41:1; Isa 19:8; Amos 4:2). Egyptian scenes show men fishing with a hook (or multiple hooks) and line as well as the occasional use of the rod. The fishing spear was employed in Israel during the OT period, but apparently on a limited basis (silsal, # 7528; Job 41:7). In Egypt, spear fishing and harpooning were widely known in historic times, but were primarily sports from the second millennium on. There is a religious ritual dimension to harpooning hippopotami in Egypt (T. Save-Sdderbergh, On Egyptian Representations of Hippopotamus Hunting as a Religious Motive, Horae Soedernlomianae III, 1953). 5. Fish and fishing play only a limited theological role in the OT. In Jer 16:16

“fishermen” represent Babylonians who will snare Judaeans. Hence, the fisherman is an agent of divine judgment, as the “great fish” is in the Jonah story. In an eschatological prophecy in Ezek 47:10, the prophet looks to a day when the Dead Sea will be O57

3°71 (# 1900) transformed by the water that comes from the temple in Jerusalem and be a place where there would be as many kinds of fish as found in the Mediterranean. This new creation is reminiscent of God’s creation in Gen, where he created “every living and moving thing with which the water teems” (Gen 1:21). Hunting: > yg (lay a trip wire, set a trap, # 3704); > pah I (trap, snare, # 7062); > swd (hunt, #7421); > reset (net, # 8407); > Saha I (pit, # 8757) BIBLIOGRAPHY

D. J. Brewer, and Renee Friedman, Fish and Fishing in Ancient Egypt, 1989; M. Goren, Fresh

Water Fishes in Israel, 1983; M. Nun, Ancient Jewish Fishery, 1964; E. Firmage, “Zoology,” ABD 6:1146-47.

James K. Hoffmeier

1900 OT

Pia

3°71 (dayyag), nom. fisherman (# 1900).

This term figures in judgment oracles, both in literal terms—Egyptian fisher-

men lament over the Nile (Isa 19:8)—and in figurative terms—fishermen catch Judah

as the punishment of Yahweh (Jer 16:16). In a description of the glorious transformation, Ezekiel rejoices in the prospect of abundant fish and fishermen standing along the shore (Ezek 47:10; read dayyag for dawwag). P-B__In QL fishermen and hunters also refer to agents of justice (1QH 5:8; compare Jer 16:16; cf. E. Lohse, Die Texte aus Qumran, 1971, 292, n. 21). Arts, crafts, professions: > ’omman (craftsman, #588); > ’opeh (baker, #685); > godér (mason, #1553); ~ gallab (barber, #1647); > dayyag (fisherman, #1900); ~ hoséb (stonecutter, #2935); — haras (craftsman, #3093); > hoseb (weaver, #3110); > tabbah (butcher, #3184); > ydsér (potter, #3450); > yaqis (fowler, #3687); > kbs (wash, # 3891); > korem (vinedresser, #4144); > masqeh (butler, #5482); > nogéd (shepherd?, #5924);

> sayyad | (hunter, #7475); > soreép (goldsmith, > rogéah (ointment-mixer, # 8382) Fishing: > dyg (catch fish, # 1899)

#7671);

~ ré‘eh (shepherd,

# 8286a);

BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 3:132-39; D. J. Brewer and R. F. Friedman, Fish and Fishing in Ancient Egypt, 1987. I. Cornelius

1901 (dayyd, falcon), > # 7606

1902 (d’yé, ink), > Writing 1906

11 @rn D), q. judge, contend, govern, administer; ni. argue #1906); }?7 (dyn I), Aram. vb. administer justice (# 10169); 3?" (din II), nom. cause, judgment, justice, case, strife (# 1907); (din Il), Aram. nom. court, judgment (# 10170); }?J (dayyan), nom. judge (# 1908); dayyan, Aram. nom. judge (# 10171); }11%) @nadén I), nom. quarrel, dispute, nagging, dissension (# 4506, also including forms which HALAT distinguishes midyan and m*‘dan, which partly involve K/Q variants); 1’ (m*dina), nom. province (> #4519); m°dind, Aram. nom. province (# 10406).

938

m

17 # 1906) ANE 1. The Sem. root dyn, judge, is attested in Ugar. (dn I, WUS 766; dyn, UT 657), Arab., Aram., Syr., and Akk. (dianum, danu, litigate, administer justice, AHw, 167-68),

primarily with a forensic meaning. In the Aght Epic, King Dan’el is described in the following manner: “He judges the cause of the widow(s), he adjudicates the case of the fatherless,” ydn dn ’lmnt/ytpt tpt ytm (2 Aght 5:4-8). Weinfeld cites an Akk. parallel to the characteristic Heb. phrase: ddnu din enSi habdli, to judge the case of the weak and the oppressed (Social Justice in Ancient Israel, 48). 2. The nom. din is attested in Ugar. (dn IL, WUS, 766, court of justice, judgment, to be the highest standing position; dyn, UT 657, a case); Akk. dinu(m), designates a legal judgment, divine decision, or case (AHw, 171-72, cf. also dittum, 174).

3. In several Aram. dialects (Official Aram., Nab., JAram.) the meaning judge (nom.) is attested for dyn III (DNWSI, 246). In Akk. dayyanu(m) and dayyaniitu(m)

designate judge and office of judge, judgeship, respectively (AHw, 151). 4. Ugar. dnt, quarrel, dissension (WUS, 766) corresponds semantically to Heb. madon. In Akk., Madanu(m) is the name of the Babylonian god of judgment (AHw, 571-72). 5. mdina occurs in several Aram. (Official Aram., Palm.) dialects in addition to

biblical Aram. DNWSI, 597 notes the following usages: jurisdiction, department, province; town; city, state; and, possibly, the citizens.

OT

The Heb. (23x) and Aram. (1x) vb. dyn exhibits extensive semantic overlap

with the more common Spt (# 9149; occurring in poetic parallelism with the latter in Ps 9:8[9] and Prov 31:9) in describing both the broader tasks of establishing and maintain-

ing order (through governing and administering) and the narrower task of restoring order (through judging). In Jer 5:28; 22:16; and 30:13 it occurs with the cognate nom. din as an internal object. Unlike Spt, dyn occurs primarily in poetic and postexilic (Zech, Ezra) rather than in legal and narrative contexts and only in Ezra 7:25 refers to the duties of human judges. The OT proper names Dinah, Abidan, Dan (Gen 30:6; 49:16), and Daniel are derived from the root dyn, cf. also Ugaritic Dan’! of the Agqhat Epic. 1. Human activity. Applied to human activity (11x), dyn occurs frequently in passages concerning those responsible for defending the rights of the weak and easily oppressed members of society, praying (for the Davidic king, Ps 72:2; cf. v. 4), warning (the Davidic king, Jer 21:12; King Lemuel, Prov 31:9), commending (Josiah, Jer 22:16), or condemning (the wicked, Jer 5:28) them. This may refer primarily to adjudicating their cases fairly (Ps 72:2 adds justly, b’sedeq; cf. Prov 31:9): for example, Jer 21:12 speaks of doing this every morning, while Jer 5:28 speaks of “winning” the case of the fatherless (NIV, lit.: and succeeding, w*yaslihii), and Ezra 7:25 clearly refers to the activities of the judges whom Ezra appoints. However, a broader leadership role also can be implied. For example, Dan’s tribal duty of defending his people is compared with a serpent that bites a horse causing its rider to be thrown (a wordplay on the tribal name, cf. Gen 30:6), while for Joshua, the postexilic priest, dyn refers to adminis-

tering the temple (Zech 3:7). To carry out these duties faithfully is not simply commendable; it is the very essence of what it means to know God, who is absolutely just (Jer 22:16). Texts using the word in a nonadministrative sense are 2 Sam 19:9[10] (the only ni., here reflexive, use, of arguing with one another); Eccl 6:10 (of defending one’s

939

1771 # 1906) rights against [‘m, with] one who is stronger, presumably God); and Jer 30:13 (of no one to plead sinful Zion’s cause before God or heal its wound; Thompson’s elimination of this “legal picture” as “out of place” [Jeremiah, NICOT, 1980, 558] in the midst of a description of divine judgment [cf. v. 11] is unwarranted).

2. Divine activity. When applied to divine activity (13x), dyn also refers both to God’s sovereign rule over creation (Job 36:31) and the nations in general (Ps 9:8[9];

96:10) as well as to his specific acts of judging, carrying out punishment (Gen 15:14, the Egyptian oppressors; 1 Sam 2:10, all who oppose him; Isa 3:13, Judah’s leaders; Ps 110:6, the nations and their rulers) and bringing deliverance (Gen 30:6, responding to Rachel’s plea for a son, leading her to name this son Dan; Deut 32:36, restoration of

the nation following judgment). Several of these texts explicitly employ legal imagery, e.g., Ps 50:4-7; Isa 3:13-14: “The LorD takes his place in court (nissab larib); he rises to judge the people. The LORD enters into judgment (b’mispat yabo’) against the elders and leaders of his people.” dyn occurs 7x in the Psalms, both in individual laments (Ps 7; 9; 54) and hymns (Ps 96; 135), psalms that emphasize God’s righteousness (7:9, 11[10, 12]; 9:8[9]; 50:6; 96:13). In 7:8[9], a Davidic psalm, the psalmist calls on God to punish the peoples and save him on the basis of his own righteousness and integrity (k°’sidqi ik’tummi, simi-

larly 54:1[3]). In 135:13-14, probably echoing Deut 32:36, following an historical rehearsal of God’s mighty deeds of judgment on the nations, the psalmist assures Israel that God will continue to express his compassion by defending (dyn) them “through all generations.” The crux yad6n (Gen 6:3) is better derived from the hapleg. dwn, as confirmed by the LXX, Vg. (continue, last) and modern etymological research, contra the AV strive and Symm krinei. 3. The nom. din. The distribution of the Heb. (20x) and Aram. (5x) nom. din is similar to that of the corresponding vb. dyn, occurring primarily in poetic (Ps, Job, Prov [12x]; also 5x in Isa and Jer) and late exilic or postexilic texts (6x in Ezra, Esther, Daniel). din, which occurs exclusively in sing., generally parallels miXpat (with which it occurs 5x) in usage, sometimes being used in construct with a nom. designating the group whose cause is to be defended (Jer 5:28; 22:16; Prov 29:7). However, din refers primarily to the cause or case of the one seeking judgment, while miSpdt refers to one’s rights. It occurs 3x as the object of the corresponding vb. dyn and 2x with ‘sh, execute (# 6913), as well as with negative vbs. such as Snh, change (# 9101; Prov 31:5), and nth [hi.; #5742] min, deprive of (Isa 10:2).

(a) Human activity. In seven of its-fourteen occurrences describing human actions din refers to the legal cause of the weak and easily oppressed members of society whom the king is to defend (Jer 22:16; Prov 31:5, 8) but whom the wicked ignore

(Isa 10:2; Jer 5:28 (2x); Prov 29:7). It is used often in specifically judicial contexts with various nuances: in Deut 17:8 (2x) it designates one category of difficult cases (NIV lawsuits) along with cases concerning bloodshed and assaults; in Ezra 7:26 it refers to punishment swiftly meted out against lawbreakers; in Esth 1:13 it describes experts in legal matters (kol-yod‘é dat wadin); in Prov 20:8 it designates the king’s authority to pass judgment (lit., a king sitting upon a throne of judgment, winnowing with his eyes every evil [one]).

940

1°71 # 1906) In addition, din is used metaphorically in Jer 30:13 to describe Zion’s cause, which is undefended before a punishing God, and more generally in Prov 22:10 to describe the strife that a mocker provokes. (b) Divine activity. din is used 11x in Job, Psalms, and Daniel to describe divine acts of judgment, with various nuances of meaning. In keeping with the prominent use of legal language and imagery in the book of Job, din is used in Job 35:14 to describe Job’s case that God has not yet adjudicated. It also designates the punitive judgment that Job’s verbal tormentors ought to fear (19:29, K) and which Elihu claims Job is experiencing (36:17). In Ps 9:4[5] and 140:12[13], in which din is paired (possibly hendiadys, “my just cause”) or used in parallel with mixpat, respectively, and in 76:8[9], God is praised as the defender of the cause of the weak or needy, although the broader divine governance of the nations is also in view in these passages.

In the Aram. passages in Daniel din occurs in parallel with g°Sdt to describe God’s ways in 4:37[34], warranting the tr. just, while referring to the convening of court in 7:10, 26 (w°dina’ yittib) and, in 7:22, to the authority to pass judgment, given to the saints of the Most High. 4. The nom. dayyan is used 2x in Heb. and 2x in Aram. to designate a judge. In Ezra 4:9 (revocalizing as dayyanayya’; AV Dinaites) it is applied to Persian officials, while in Ezra 7:25 it refers to officials whom Ezra himself is authorized to appoint in order to administer justice in the Trans-Euphrates satrap. Since dayydan [pl.] directly follows a closely related term, Saptin [part. pl.], in Ezra 7:25, it may be an explanatory gloss for this Heb. loanword (so Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, WBC,

1985, 97), or the

two terms may indicate conformity with the Persian system of maintaining two kinds of tribunals (social and royal, so Fensham, Ezra and Nehemiah, NICOT, 1982, 107).

In 1 Sam 24:15[16] and Ps 68:5[6] dayydan refers to the divine judge who defends the needy, the orphan, and the widow. 5. Unlike the semantically related term rib, which is employed often as a legal technical term, mad6n usually designates nonarbitrated domestic disputes and occurs almost exclusively in Proverbs (19x of 22x, in addition to 8x in an alternative K/Q variant form).

Proverbs describes several types of antisocial individuals (e.g., a scoundrel and villain, adam D‘liya‘al ’i§ Gwen, Prov 6:12, 14; the mocker, /és, 22:10) or behavior (e.g., hatred, 10:12) that characteristically stir up (using s/h [pi.; # 8938], grh [# 1741],

or ‘wr II [polel; # 6424]) dissension. madén is used 10x in the sing. and 12x in the pl., the latter indicating the multiplied instances of strife produced, and it occurs 5x in poetic parallelism with rib (# 8190) as well as 1x with din (# 1907) and qalén (# 7830; 22:10) and 1x with siah (# 8490; 23:29). Especially unpleasant is the contentious wife (19:13; 21:9, 19; 25:24; 27:15). Such disputes are detestable to the Lord (6:16-19) but can be mitigated or eliminated through love (10:12) or patience (15:18), by simply dropping the matter (17:14), by casting lots (18:18), or, as a last resort, by expelling the instigator (22:10).

A strife-filled society is deserving of divine judgment (Hab 1:3). Jeremiah’s proclamation that judgment is coming provokes public controversy (mad6n) and cursing (Jer 15:10), while the arrival of such judgment makes Israel an object of the neighboring nations’ contention (madé6n) and mockery, as they strive to outdo each other in

941

pr # 1911) insults (Ps 80:6[7], not implying that they are fighting over Israel’s territory; cf. 44:13-14[14-15]). 6. In BH (53x) and Aram. (11x) usage, the term m‘dind designates a province or administrative or judicial district (from dyn I, judge). The term refers most frequently to the 127 satrapies into which Darius organized the Persian empire (Yamauchi, Persia and the Bible, 178-80), appearing most often in the postexilic historical books (Ezra: Heb. 1x, Aram. 4x; Neh: 3x; Esth: 39x) and Daniel (primarily the districts of the

Neo-Babylonian empire: Heb. 2x, Aram. 7x). However, it also can refer to districts in monarchical Israel (1 Kgs 20:14, 15, 17, 19; Eccl 2:8; 5:8[7]) or to regions in general,

in parallel with “nations” (Lam 1:1; Ezek 19:8). m‘dind usually occurs in the pl. (grammatical pl. or distributive; lit., province and province) to refer to the Persian districts in general, but it may also refer specifically to exilic and postexilic Judah, which Blenkinsopp describes as “‘a semi-autonomous administrative unit in the satrapy first of Babylon, later ... in the separate Trans-Euphrates satrapy” (Ezra-Nehemiah, 84). P-B_ 1. The LXX usually translates dyn vb. by krind. The use of dyn in the Qumran texts parallels that in the OT (cf. 1QH 5:13). The Targumim and the Peshitta render OT Spt by dyn (TDOT 3:189). 2. The LXX usually translates the nom. din by krisis. In the DSS din occurs parallel to mSpt in 1QH 9:9. 3. mad6n (pl.) occurs in the DSS parallel to rib in 1QH 5:22-23, 35. NT

Heb 10:30 quotes Deut 32:36 (= Ps 135:14).

Justice, judgment: law, #5384);

> dyn (judge, contend, govern, administer, # 1906); > mispah (breach of

~ pill I (sit in judgment, arbitrate, expect, #7136);

> sdq (be just, righteous,

justified, #7405); > Spt Gudge, execute judgment, govern, # 9149) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDNT

3:921-46,

TDOT

3:187-94;

THAT

2:445-48;

TWOT

1:188;

J.

Blenkinsopp,

Ezra-Nehemiah, OTL, 1988; H. J. Boecker, Redeformen des Rechtslebens im AT, WMANT 14, 1970’; F. C. Fensham, “Medind in Ezra and Nehemiah,” VT 25, 1975, 795-97: M. Fraenkel, “Mdina,” ZAW 70, 1958, 253-54; idem, “Zur Deutung von M°dina ‘Bezirk, Staat’,’ ZAW 77,

1965, 215; B. Gemser, “The RIB-* or Controversy-Pattern in Hebrew Mentality,” SVT 3, 1955, 120-37; G. Liedke, Gestalt und Bezeichnung alttestamentliche Rechtssdtze, WMANT

39, 1971;

I. L. Seeligmann, “Zur Terminologie fiir das Gerichtsverfahren im Wortschatz des biblischen Hebraisch,” SVT 16, 1967, 251-78; E. A. Speiser, “YDWN, Gen 6°,” JBL 75, 1956, 126-29; M. Weinfeld, Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East, 1995; E. Yamauchi, Persia and the Bible, 1990.

Richard Schultz

1907 (din, legal claim, lawsuit, verdict, dispute),

> # 1906

1908 (dayydan, judge), > # 1906

1911 ANE

(2-1 (dayéq), siege-mound (# 1911).

dayeq is related to Syr. dawga’, lookout,

bulwark, siege wall.

942

Pow

watchtower,

and Akk, dayyiqu

ND (# 1917) OT

The nom. dayég occurs with bnh, build, and sabib, round about, as when Neb-

uchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem by building a siege work against it at strategic points (2 Kings 25:1). Since the other five occurrences are in Jer 52:4 and in Ezek, and since

all refer to siege tactics of the Babylonian monarch, dayéq is apparently a technical term from that era. It may have developed as a loanword in Akk. from Aram., although CAD 3:27 lists the nom. as standard Babylonian. No evidence of the Babylonian siege works remains in Jerusalem; however, the remnant of an Assyrian siege ramp from the time of Hezekiah still exists at Tel Lachish (2 Kings 18:14). Fortification, citadel, siege-mound, stronghold: > ’armén (citadel, # 810); > bird (citadel, acropolis, # 1072); > bsr III (be inaccessible, # 1307); > dayéq (siege-mound, # 1911); > hél (rampart, #2658); — milld’ (terrace, #4864); > misgeret (stronghold, dungeon, rim, table, # 4995); — m’sad (stronghold, #5171); > masdér II (fortification, fortified city, #5190); > sohérd (rampart, # 6089); > sokeék (mantelet, #6116); > s*riah (cellar, vault, pit, stronghold, # 7663); > Sgb (be high, fortified, protect, # 8435); > Fortification: Theology BIBLIOGRAPHY K. N. Schoville, “Fortification,” JSBE 2:346-54; D. Ussishkin, The Conquest of Lachish by Sennacherib, 1982, 51-54; Y. Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands, 1963.

Keith N. Schoville

1912 (dayi§, threshing), > # 1889 1913 (diS6n, antelope, bison?), > # 2651

1916 (dak, oppressed), > # 1917 1917

xO5

N2°1 (dk’), q. crush, be crushed (# 1917); 8D7 (dakka’ I), nom. s.t. contrite, crushed (# 1918), dust (# 1919); SD" (dakka’ II), crushed testicle (hapleg.; #1918 in Deut 23:1[2)). Related forms: "]1"T (dwk), crush (> # 1870); *|1 (dak), adj. oppressed (# 1916); 1971 (dkh), be crushed, contrite (> # 1920).

ANE | 1. The etymology of dk’ is described by TDOT 3:197 as “very problematic and much debated.” The problem lies in the number of terms that are similar enough, in meaning and form, to suggest some connection, but different enough for the precise nature of the connection to be obscure. The variety of suggested ANE cognates further complicates the problem. The forms dakka’, contrite, crushed (# 1918), dwk, crush (> # 1870), and dkh be crushed, contrite (> # 1920) are from the same root dk’, crush

or humble (# 1917, so HALAT 212) and appear to be poetic variants. The adj. dak (# 1916), meaning “oppressed,” comes from the vb. dkk not found in Heb. (so HALAT

212 and TDOT 3:197). Another possible Heb. cognate is the form dqq, “crush,” “break to pieces” (> # 1990), which like dk’ captures the sound of a stone or wooden pestle striking something (like barley) in a stone mortar in order to crush it. Such an onomatopoeic approach removes some of the problems based purely on the spelling of the roots. We have therefore included all these forms in our treatment of dk’. 2. The cognates for dk’ and dkh include the Arab. dkw (crush) and the Ugar. dky (compound). dwk has a cognate in Akk. saku or zaku (CAD 3:43), bearing the meaning of pulverize (as in a mortar). dak is parallel to the Aram. dakdek, meaning “struck

943

NO (# 1917)

down” or “humbled,” and the Eth. dgdg, for “miserable, thin.” Possible cognates for dgqq include Akk. daqqu (CAD 3:190), the Ugar. dgq (CTA 341,15), the Punic dg (KAI 1,76.B.6), and the Arab. daqga, all with the sense of crush or break down (see TDOT 3:197-98). OT

1. The semantic field of poverty includes a number of Heb. words such as

’ebyén, poor, needy (# 36); dal II, weak, poor (# 1924); mwk, be poor (# 4575); miskén, beggar (#5014); ‘ani, poor, humble (# 6714); ‘anaw II, oppressed (# 6705) 3 ‘Sr, be rich; # 6947).

2. dk’ is the strongest root denoting oppression and conveys the sense of oppression as smashing body and spirit, as a boot crushes a moth underfoot (cf. Job 4:19)—a crushing of the image of God (so Hanks, 14). 3. dk’ is found only in poetry and is mainly applied to people. The term is absent from the Pentateuch. In the prophets five of the six references are found in Isaiah. The exception is Jer 44:10 (pu.), where the prophet accuses the people of idolatry and failure “to humble themselves” or show reverence to God by obedience to his law. In Isaiah a much stronger sense is present. God inquires (Isa 3:15), “What do you mean by crushing (pi.) my people and grinding the faces of the poor?” The poetic parallel indicates both a sense of violence and debasement. The psychological effects of oppression are also underlined in 19:10, where the poetic parallel (with v. 9) is between dk’, rendered “dejected” (NIV), and bw

(lit., shame), rendered “despair.” A better

translation of dk’ would be (emotionally) “crushed,” to convey the parallelism with shame (cf. v. 4).

4. Two instances of dk’ are found in the Song of the Servant (Isa 53). In place of the KJV’s rendering of “bruise,” the NIV accurately renders the violence of the Heb. The servant is “crushed for our iniquities” (v. 5), for it was the Lord’s will “to crush

him and cause him to suffer” (v. 10). In this way, the servant is exposed to the violence of oppression (v. 7) so that those oppressed spiritually or physically might be set free. The spiritual and psychological sense of “crushed” occurs also in 57:15, where God is said to live with those who are crushed (NIV, contrite) in spirit and to bring life to them. What is intended here is not necessarily an advocation of spiritual humbleness, but a stress on God’s willingness to step from his place on high into the world of people who are spiritually and psychologically crushed by their society, and to set these people free.

5. The violence of dk’ is emphasized in the Writings. God crushes Rahab (Ps 89:10[11]), the ideal king crushes the oppressor (72:4), the wicked crush God’s people (94:5), and the psalmist’s enemy crushes him to the ground (143:3). Prov 22:22 warns against exploiting the poor and crushing the needy in court (cf. Job 5:4). Job speaks of God’s violence toward him (Job 6:9), and with reference to his friends, uses dk’ meta-

phorically to express the violence of their accusations (19:2; cf. 22:9). Against the false god of the friends, Job’s God will stand: “I know that my Redeemer lives” (19:25). So, too, the poor can claim that God is their refuge and stronghold (Ps 9:9[10]), the defender of orphans (NIV the fatherless) and the oppressed (10:17-18). The psalmist calls on God from within a violent and evil society not to let the oppressed retreat in disgrace (Ps 74:21).

944

NDT(# 1917) 6. The forms dk’, dkh, and dak are all used in a personal sense of injury upon a particular group or individual. So the king crushes (dk’) the oppressor in Ps 72:4. The psalmist speaks of a contrite (dkh) heart in 51:17[19] and of God as the refuge for the

oppressed (dak) in Ps 9:9[10]. These terms are found primarily in the poetry of the Writings. By contrast, dqq (# 1990) occurs in the work of the historical books and the Pentateuch as well as the prophecies of Isaiah. The object of dgq is often inanimate (see Isa 28:28 on the grinding of bread), unless used metaphorically as in Mic 4:13 (see

TDOT 3:199-208). Theologically, the main thought that comes through is that of the crushing burden of poverty and oppression, including the tendency to dehumanize people, to strip them of their self-esteem, and often to make them the victims of physical or psychological abuse. 7. The adj. dak, derived from dkk (a hypothetical root not found in BH), is

found 3x with the sense of oppressed, as the psalmist testifies to God in his role as the refuge of the oppressed (Ps 9:9[10]), the defender of the fatherless and the oppressed (Ps 10:18), and as the one praised by the poor and needy (Ps 74:21). Few passages in the OT carry such an important message of hope for those whom society has swept into its corners. 8. An important element is introduced in Ps 51:17[19], in which the psalmist cries, “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite (dkh) heart, O

God, you will not despise.” When a person, like one oppressed, has no sense of self-worth, no spirit, then a real sense of repentance is reached and the person is able to approach God for his or her forgiveness. Unfortunately, such a verse could and did easily lead to a display of the outward trappings of penance, whereas its emphasis was on a deep and genuine sense of repentance of the heart. 9. dakka’ 1, something crushed, is used 2x with the sense of “contrite” (Isa

57:15—God’s identification with the oppressed) and “crushed” (Ps 34:18[19]—God saves those crushed in spirit). The ancient people of Israel must have understood well the sense of helplessness and complete loss of dignity that comes to people who see no hope for the future. Such are the contrite in spirit. The psalmist underscores both the dehumanizing process of oppression (the lack of dignity and honor in a society that

lived by those values), and God’s active intervention to restore both the physical well-being of the oppressed and their lack of self-esteem. dakka’ 1, with the meaning “dust” (# 1919), is only found in Ps 90:3, with the

LXX supplying the second half of the verse. The connection between crushing and dust is an example of semantic extension. 10. dakka’ Il, crushed, is a hapleg., referring to an emasculated person, who is

forbidden to enter God’s assembly (Deut 23:1[2]), but see Isa 56:3-4.

P-B In Mish. Heb. dk’ carries the sense of being crushed or humbled (e.g., Keth 8b). The nom. dak carries the sense of a poor man, and in Midr. Prov 22, the sages say that the poor man is called dak because he is crushed by poverty. dgdq has the parallel sense of crush or grind and so metaphorically refers to those afflicted with poverty (Exod Rabbah 31), particularly those who are destitute (Gen R 100). Poor, crushed, needy: ~ ’ebyén (poor, needy, #36); ~ dk’ (crush, be crushed, # 1917); + dal Il (scanty, helpless, powerless, insignificant, dejected, # 1924); > dqq (crush, # 1990), ~ mwk (depressed, grow poor, #4575); > miskén (poor man, #5014); > ‘anaw (poor, humble,

945

rim 1(# 1920) #6705); > ‘an? (humble, #6714); oppressed, # 8133)

> sn‘ (be modest, humble, #7570);

> rw (become poor,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

NIDNTT 2:25-64; TDNT 8:9-10; TDOT 3:195-208; T. D. Hanks, God So Loved the Third World,

1983: T. R. Hobbs, “Reflections on ‘The Poor’ and the Old Testament,” ExpTim 100, 1988/89, 291-94. W. R. Domeris

1918 (dakka’ I, contrite, crushed), > # 1917 1919 (dakké II, crushed testicle), > # 1917

1920

=55

m2 (dkh), q. ? Ps 10:10 (Q); ni. be crushed; pi. crush (# 1920); nom. 727] (d’ki), pounding (of waves) (hapleg. in Ps 93:3; # 1922). (For the relation of this root to dk’, crush, and its derivatives, including dak, > # 1917.)

ANE. dkh (and dk’, > #1917) probably < dwk (BL, 375). The Ugar. dk and Arab. daka mean, grind, pulverize, and Akk. daku means, strike, kill. Cf. TDOT 3:197-98.

OT 1. This group of words expresses the intense physical and psychological affliction of the victims. The result is a high degree of dehumanization and depersonalization. In Job 4:19 the vb. dk’, with the image of a crushed moth, expresses total destruction. 2. The various words in the group are used in the following contexts: (a) Yahweh’s complete victory over the powers of chaos (Ps 89:10[11]); (b) social oppression and perverting of the legal process in court (Job 5:4; 22:9; Ps 10:18; 72:4; 74:21; 94:5; Prov 22:22; Isa 3:15); (c) Yahweh’s protection of the poor and the afflicted (Job 34:25; Ps 9:9[10]; 10:10, 18; 72:4; 74:21); (d) the oppressed community or individual who is

physically and mentally distressed and downtrodden at the hand of enemies (Ps 94:5; 143:3), as a result of an act of God on account of their sins (Ps 38:8[9]; 51:8[10]; Lam 3:34), or because of an incomprehensible act of God in the case of Job (6:9; 19:2) or of a righteous community (Ps 44:19[20]); (e) the “brokenhearted” and the “contrite and lowly in spirit” (Ps 34:18[19]; 51:17[19]; Isa 57:15); (f) the suffering Servant of God, the “Bruised One” of Yahweh. The servant takes upon himself the sin of others and sickness and suffering as its consequences (TDOT 3:207-8). God crushes his servant

(Isa 53:10), in what is finally recognized as a crushing on account of the community’s sini(93:9);

3. The vb. dkh occurs only in the Psalms. The chastened poet of Ps 38 experiences God’s anger and complains, “I am feeble and utterly crushed (dkh); I groan in anguish of heart” (Ps 38:8 [9]). More directly, the author of Ps 44:19[20], after protesting innocence with respect to wrongdoing, links God’s wrath to the present misery: “You crushed us.” The more penitent Ps 51 acknowledges guilt, begs forgiveness, and asks, “Let the bones you have crushed rejoice” (v. 8[10]). This entreaty is made in the sure knowledge that “the sacrifices of God are a broken (Sbr) spirit; a broken (¥br) and contrite (dkh) heart, O God, you will not despise” (Ps 51:17[19]). 4. d’k?, pounding (of waves) (hapleg. in Ps 93:3).

946

155 (# 1925) Beating, crushing, grinding: > b‘t (kick, # 1246); > dwk (pound, # 1870); > dk’ (crush, be crushed, # 1917); > dkh (be crushed, # 1920); > dqq (crush, # 1990); > him (beat, # 2150); > hbt (beat from, # 2468); > thn (grind, mill, #3221); > kt¥ (grind down, # 4197); > ktt (beat fine, pound up, disperse, #4198); > mhs (beat to pieces, # 4731); > m‘k (press, squeeze, crush, # 5080); > ngp (strike, # 5597); > nk’ (be whipped out, flogged out, #5777); > nkh (be hit, be battered, ruined, destroyed, #5782); > srr I (bind, tie up, # 7674); > r‘s (beat down, # 8320); > rss (crush, mash, break, # 8368); > Swp I (crush, # 8789); > xhg (grind down, # 8835) Affliction, oppression: ~ dhq (oppress, # 1895); > hms I (do violence, # 2803); > hms II (oppress, # 2807); > ynh (oppress, # 3561); > lhs (press, #4315); > masérI (affliction, siege, #5189); > mrr I (be bitter, distraught, afflict, #5352); > nega‘ (plague, affliction, #5596); > ng§ (exact, #5601); > ‘nh II (afflict, humble, afflict one’s soul, fast, oppress, submit, # 6700); > ‘wq I (crush?, # 6421); > ‘mr II (deal tyrannically with, # 6683); > ‘sq I (wrong, # 6943); > swq I (constrain, press in/upon, harass, vex, #7439); > swr II (deal tyrannically with, #7444); > rhb (assail, press, pester, alarm, confuse, #8104); > rss (crush, # 8368); > 1t6lal (oppressor, # 9354); > tok (oppression, # 9412) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 3:195-208; TWOT 1:188-89; T. D. Hanks, God So Loved the Third World: The Biblical Vocabulary of Oppression, 1983, 3-39; Y. I. Kim, “The Vocabulary of Oppression in the Old Testament,” Ph.D. diss. Drew University, 1981; C. F. Marriottini, “The Problem of Social Oppression in the Eighth-Century Prophets”, Ph.D. diss. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1983; J. Miranda, Communism in the Bible, 1982, 37-39; J. Pons, L’oppression dans |’Ancien Testament, 1981; E. Tamez, Bible of the Oppressed, 1982, 1-30. I. Swart/C. Van Dam

1922 (d°k?, pounding), > # 1920

1923 (dal I, door), > # 1946 1924 (dal Il, scanty, powerless, insignificant, dejected), > # 1937

1925

a

957 (dig), q. leap: pi. leap (# 1925).

OT 1. In Zeph 1:9 the vb. in the q. stands for “jumping over” a threshhold. This picture may refer to the practice of those who on entering a house leap over the threshhold in order to avoid any danger from a spell or a hex hidden under the threshhold to inflict harm on anyone who steps on it (cf. W. Rudolph, Micha—Nahum—Habakuk— Zephania, BKAT,

1975, 262; cf. NIV “who avoid stepping on a threshhold”). Yahweh,

however, plans to punish 2. The vb. in the from an infirmity; in the 35:6). The description of dence that this Scripture

all those who are so caught up in witchcraft. pi. is used to describe the joyful leaping of a person healed coming reign of Yahweh the lame will leap like a deer (Isa Peter’s healing the lame man before the Beautiful Gate is eviis being fulfilled in the age of the Holy Spirit (cf. J. Oswalt,

The Book of Isaiah 1-39, NICOT,

1986, 624). This vb. is used metaphorically to

describe the ability of the righteous to leap over or scale the high fortifications of their enemies (Ps 18:29[30] = 2 Sam 22:30; cf. S of Songs 2:8). In Sir 36:33 the pi. part. describes an armed band moving from city to city. Jumping, leaping, skipping: > g/¥ (skip, jump, # 1683); > dws (dance, # 1881); > dig (leap, # 1925); > znq I (jump before, #2397); > ntr II (start, spring, #6001); > slid Gump, spring,

947

m571(# 1926) # 6134); > pw (skip, leap, #7055);

> pzz II (be quick, agile, hop, #7060);

> rgd (skip, leap,

# 8376); > ¥gq (run about, jump, # 9212) John E. Hartley

rea (dlh I), q. draw out/hoist (water), pi. make hoisted/rescued (someone) (5x; # 1926; HALAT 7771 (d‘li), (leather?) drawing vessel (for water) (2x; # 1932; HALAT abe

1926 213a); nom./adj. 213b).

ANE. This lexeme is attested in all the main Sem. language groups (Bergstrasser, ET: 214-15). Cognates of the vb. are attested in Akk. dali, draw (water from a well) (CAD, D, 56a-b; AHw, 1:155a, dali Il); Aram. d‘la’, draw; Arab. dlw I, pull up (bucket); II/IV, let hang/dangle; V, be lowered/sink (Wehr, 291a); Eth. daldwa, weigh; and Tigre (TigrWb 512a). Nom. cognates appear in Akk. dalii(m), (wooden/bronze/gold) bucket/pitcher (CAD, D, 56b, dalu A; AHw, 1:155a, dalii(m) 1); OSA mdilt, weight, value (Biella, 82; Irvine, 25); Arab. dalw, dallu, (leather) bucket/pail (H. R. P. Dickson, The Arab of the Desert, 1949, 335; Wehr, 291a); Eth. mddlot, weight, value.

OT 1. The basic sense of the q. vb., draw out/hoist, is exemplified in Exod 2:16 (cf. GKC §75w) and 2:19 where, precisely because the direct object is not specified, yet it is evident from the context that water is meant, it is clear that the vb. was normally used with regard to the drawing of water. Hence, in Prov 20:5, “The purposes of a man’s heart are deep waters, but a man of understanding draws them out,” the metaphor that equates “deep waters” (as not easily accessible) with “purposes” (as not easily accessible) infuses the following use of yidlenna (with 3 fem. sing. suff., direct object, antecedent ‘és@) with a hypocatastatic sense analogous to its normal usage. 2. The hybrid form dalyi in Prov 26:7 presents simultaneously the consonantal form of a 3 masc. pl. daly, droop/hang down (< dlh I [intransitive(?)]; cf. GKC §75u):

“a lame man’s legs that hang limp” (so Ewald; Brockington, 166; “dangles helpless” NEB, REB; cf. Toy, 474; BDB 194b) together with a vocalization better suited to dallit

(< dil II, dangle, which may have been preferred by the Masoretes, since this vb. is clearly intransitive; so GKC

§75u; BHS). It remains doubtful, however, whether it is

necessary to posit a separate BH lemma dlh II for the intransitive sense “hang down, dangle” (pace, HALAT 213b; cf. BH nom. dalit, branch, bough; postbiblical Heb. dly/dlh in hi. [Jastrow, 309b]). The pi. in Ps 30:1[2] presents the psalmist as direct object: “I will exalt you, O LorD, for you lifted me” (from Sheol, cf. v. 3[4]).

3. The nom. is used in the simile of Isa 40:15, illustrating Yahweh’s contempt for the nations by comparing them to things considered negligible: “Surely the nations are like a drop [left hanging] from a drawing vessel” (author tr.) (|| “as dust on the scales”). Balaam describes Yahweh’s blessing of water for irrigating Israel’s crops: “Water will flow from his drawing vessels, and his seed [will flow] with much water” (author tr.) (Num 24:7).

P-B__Cognates of the vb. are attested also in postbiblical Heb. dly/dlh q. draw/lift up (water/someone),

hi. (transitive-intransitive) make

suspended/(water)

drawn/(vines)

overhang (Jastrow, 309b; cf. hi. pass. part. midalét, are made to overhang/be suspended (of figs and grapes overhanging one another, in BTalm Baba Mesi‘a 91b);

948

55(# 1927) in Jewish Aram. d‘lé/d‘la’, draw/lift up, be suspended (Jastrow, 309b-310a); in Syr. dla’, draw out (water/someone) (Payne Smith, 92b); and in Mand. (MdD 110b). Nom. cognates appear in postbiblical Heb. d’/i/d‘li, bucket (Jastrow, 310a); Palestinian Syr. dwl, bucket (Rosenthal, Part II/2, 16a); Syr. daula’, bucket, water-pot (Payne Smith, 86a); and Mand. (MdD 98b). Drinking, drawing water, drenching: > gm’ (swallow, drink, # 1686); > gr‘ II (draw up [drops of water], #1758); > dih I (draw water, #1926); > yrh II (give to drink, #3722); > 1 TI (drink noisily, # 4363); > lgq (lick, lap, #4379); > mss (drink, quaff, # 5209); > rwh (drink one’s fill, drench, #8115); > 5’b (draw [water], #8612); > Sgh (drink, refreshment, #9197); > Sth II (drinking, # 9272)

BIBLIOGRAPHY G. Bergstrasser, Einfiihrung in die semitischen Sprachen, 1928; ET: Introduction to the Semitic Languages, tr. P. T. Daniels, 1983; L. H. Brockington, Hebrew Text of the OT, 1973; H. Ewald, Poetische Biicher des alten Bundes, 1837; A. K. Irvine, “Some Notes on Old South Arabian Monetary Terminology,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1964, 18-36; J. Payne Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, Proverbs, ICC, 1899.

1903; F. Rosenthal, Aramaic

Handbook,

1967; C. H. Toy,

Robert H. O’Connell

1927

“hp

m5 (dih IW) dangle (#1927); M97 (dalit), branches (> # 1936).

OT Totranslate dalyii in Prov 26:7 as the imperative of dlh I follows MT and LXX, i.e., “Take away mobility (lit. “legs”) from the lame and (take away) a proverb from the mouth of fools.” However, this usage of dlh I (otherwise, “to draw, save’) is not

known elsewhere in Classical Heb. Delitzsch (Proverbs, 2:179-80) suggests a nominal form of the vb. d/h II, hang, vocalized as dilliiy, limp. This would yield, “the limp legs

of a lame man are like a proverb from the mouth of fools.”” McKane (Proverbs, 598) prefers the revocalization of the MT as dalyé from dlh II, “Legs hanging limp from a lame man, a proverb in the mouth of a fool.” Either possibility allows for the same simile—the uselessness of that which would be of value in a different context (> s/‘ I,

limping condition, #7519). Hanging, dangling, sprawling, strangling: ~ d/h II (dangle, #1927); > dll II (dangle, # 1938); > hng (strangle, #2871); > hps Il (let hang?, #2912); > srh I (hang over, # 6243); > tlh/tl’ (hang, # 9434) BIBLIOGRAPHY

F. Delitzsch, in KD, repr. ed., Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, vol. 6; W. McKane, Proverbs: A New Approach, OTL, 1970. Richard S. Hess

1929

n?7

mo (dallé 1), nom.

hair (S of Songs 7:5[6]),

thrum, loom (Isa 38:12) (# 1929); # 1944

1946

b

ne)

m5" (delet), nom. door (# 1946). Less frequent

is 37 (dal 1) (# 1923). The delet is part of the 961

mom(#1946) ¥a‘ar, “gate.” It is the part of the structure that prohibits or grants access to what lies on the other side of the gate. ANE Cognates of delet are widely attested in Sem. languages. Thus, there is Akk. daltu, Syr. dit’, and Phoen. dit. OT 1. The word delet refers to any device that serves to cover an entrance and thereby to enable or to restrain access from one area to another. The most comprehensive expression is Sa‘ar, gate. Other expressions may serve to identify parts of the gate, e.g., delet, door, the actual covering over the entrance, m°ziizd, doorpost, the sides of the gate to which the delet is attached, and sap or miptan, threshold, the entrance that one crosses over when passing through the gate. Finally, there is the masq6p, lintel. To take an example: the gate of Gaza was made up of doors, two m‘ziiz6t, doorposts, and a b‘riah, bar (Judg 16:3). Cf. similar descriptions in Neh 3:1, 3, 6, 13.

2. Door of the city gate. delet is included in the description of the city gate that Samson carried off (Judg 16:3). A city without a delet was open to invasion and plunder (Jer 49:31; Ezek 26:2; 38:11). However, its defensive purpose could backfire and imprison those inside (1 Sam 23:7). God would break down doors of cities for Cyrus

(Isa 45:1-2). The role of the delet as part of the defensive system of city walls and gates is described in Neh 3:1, 3, 6, 13, 14, 15; 6:1 (cf. the witness of Sir 49:13). Nehemiah

ordered the city gates opened only during the heat of the day and closed all day on the Sabbath (Neh 7:3; 13:19).

3. Door of the sanctuary. When the slave wishes to remain a slave for life (Exod 21:6), does the master bring the slave (1) to the sanctuary, or (2) to the city gate, or (3) to his own house? Mention in Exodus of “the gods” (ha’léhim) or “the judges”

suggests a public place, not a private dwelling (notwithstanding Isa 57:8, which, significantly, does not use the expression ha’‘lohim or anything like it). Placement of the awl through the slave’s ear is to be done at the delet or the m°ziiza. No symbolic activity is performed on the doorposts of the city gate, but much is done at the sanctuary, as noted above. Therefore, the latter seems to be the likely location of the event (cf. Deut 1521): Actions of opening and closing the doors of the sanctuary were related to the pattern of worship. At Shiloh, Samuel opened the doors of the sanctuary each morning (1 Sam 3:15). Closing the doors signaled the end of sanctuary worship (Mal 1:10). It was something that evil kings did (2 Chron 28:24; 29:7), while a good king such as Hezekiah opened the doors (2 Chron 29:3). In Jerusalem, the inner sanctuary doors were of olive wood overlaid with gold (1 Kgs 6:31-32; 2 Chron 3:7; 4:22). On them were carved cherubim and vegetation. The outer sanctuary doors were made of cypress wood (1 Kgs 6:34). Doors similar to those of the inner sanctuary are pictured in Ezekiel’s vision of the new temple, though there they are “double doors” (Ezek 41:23-25). 4. Door of the private dwelling. In the story of his reception of the divine messengers, Lot exits through the opening, but he “closes” the delet, door, behind him (Gen 19:6; cf. TDOT 3:231). The pressure on the door leads to Lot’s rescue by the mes-

sengers, who pull him into the house and close the door (Gen 19:9-10; cf. Judg 19:22). Rahab and her family are promised safety during the conquest of Jericho so long as they do not go outside the delet (Josh 2:19). The delet also existed within larger houses,

962

D7 (# 1947) such as that of the Moabite king Eglon. It provided access to a latrine and could be locked (Judg 3:23-25; cf. Halpern, 43-61). Elisha performs miracles, prays, and anoints Jehu as king over Israel behind closéd doors (2 Kgs 4:4, 5, 33; 9:3, 10).

5. delet occurs as “a column of text” written on papyrus or parchment or as a “waxed wooden tablet” in Jer 36:23, in Lachish Letter 4.3 (Pardee et al., 91-92), and

possibly in the Amman Citadel inscription line 5 (cf. Lansing Hicks, who argues for a wooden tablet for all these occurrences). 6. A delet forms the lid of a chest and has a hole bored into it in order to provide a collection box for the temple (2 Kgs 12:9[10]). 7. In the poetic texts delet appears in construct with a variety of noms. to produce various images: “doors of the heavens” as a source of manna (Ps 78:23), “doors of bronze” as those that God can break down to rescue prisoners (Ps 107:16), “door (dal) of [the] lips” as a means to prevent impious speech (Ps 141:3), “doors (dal) of the womb” as the means by which Job came into the world (Job 3:10). God uses doors to control the sea (Job 38:8, 10). The sister in S of Songs 8:9 is likened to a door that will be beautifully adorned with cedar panels. A closed delet is used to portray the reduced power of the senses in old age ( Eccl 12:4).

P-B. 1. 1QH 3.8 describes the death of the unrighteous with the expression “doors of the pit” (dlty Sht). 2. As in the temples of Solomon and Ezekiel, the temple of the Temple Scroll is to have doors overlaid with gold (11QTemple 36.11; 41.16).

NT

= ~ NIDNTT 2:29-31.

Door, gate, threshold: ~ ’ayil (doorpost, #382); > ’omnd (pillar?, doorpost?, #595); > b‘riah (bar, # 1378); > delet (door, # 1946); > lil (trapdoor, # 4294); > m¢ziizd (doorpost, # 4647); — miptan (threshold, #5159); — masqép (lintel, #5485); > spp (lie at threshold, # 6214); > sirI(door pivot, # 7494); > Sa‘arI (gate, # 9133) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 3:230-33; B. Halpern, The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History, 1988; R. Lan-

sing Hicks, “DELET and M°GILL4@H: A Fresh Approach to Jeremiah xxxvi,” VT 33, 1983, 46-66, D. Pardee et al., Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Letters, 1982. Richard S. Hess

1947

ai

OD" (dam), blood, bloodshed, bloodguilt, murder

(#1947).

ANE. The word for blood is basically the same in all Sem. languages. Blood is often an important element in sacrifices in the ANE and also features in myth and magic.

1. The word dam occurs around 360x in the OT. The most common use of the OT term is to denote the shedding of blood through violence, often resulting in death. The use of the word with this meaning is seen in Hos 4:2 where we read: “There is only cursing, lying and murder ... they break all bounds, and bloodshed (damim) follows bloodshed.” The last clause is helpfully translated by the RSV as “murder follows murder.” David was charged by Shimei as a bloodthirsty man, “Get out, get out, you man of blood (’i¥ damim), you scoundrel!” (2 Sam 16:7; see Ps 5:6[7]). In 1 Kgs 2:9 David

963

D7 (# 1947) said to Solomon: “But now, do not consider him [Shimei] innocent. You are a man of

wisdom; you will know what to do to him. Bring his gray head down to the grave in blood.” David was saying that Shimei should die a violent death, and Solomon subsequently ensured that this occurred (2:46). We should note in this connection that blood is not to be identified with the family bond. While in English we speak of blood kinship or blood relations, the OT speaks of someone as being of the same bone and flesh (‘esem, basar, Gen 2:23; Judg 9:2 [cf. NIV]). Since dam was regularly connected with violence or spilt blood, it was not a suitable word to designate family relationships (Christ, 8-12). 2. The plague of blood was the first in the plague series in Egypt (Exod 7:14-24). The prophets employ the imagery of the plagues as they speak of the judgment of God. Ezekiel proclaims the imminent fall of Jerusalem in the imagery of famine, wild animals, bloodshed, and plagues: “I will send famine and wild beasts against you, and they will leave you childless. Plague and bloodshed (deber w‘dam) will sweep through you, and I will bring the sword against you. I the LORD have spoken” (Ezek 5:17; see 28:23; 38:22). Joel speaks in a similar vein in his oracle on the terror of the Day of the Lord: “I will show wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire

and billows of smoke. The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD” (Joel 2:30-31[3:3-4]). For the link between the plagues of Egypt and the imagery of the eschatological judgment, see H. W. Wolff, Joel and Amos, Hermeneia, 1977, 68. 3. Blood is an indispensable element in many sacrifices, and in this connection is regularly associated with cleansing, consecration, and atonement for sin. Thus, the person who had been healed from a skin disease was anointed with blood and oil to make him ritually clean (Lev 14:6-20); the altar and the priests were consecrated with blood (8:14-15, 23-30); the “blood of the covenant” (dam-habb‘rit) consecrated Israel

as God’s holy people (Exod 24:6-8; see Zech 9:11); blood smeared on the doorposts protected the firstborn from death (Exod 12:7, 13); on the day of atonement the blood of the sin offering made atonement for sin and cleansed and consecrated the tabernacle from the uncleanness of the Israelites (Lev 16). 4. However, blood can defile and pollute. “Bloodshed pollutes the land, and

atonement cannot be made for the land on which blood has been shed, except by the blood of the one who shed it” (Num 35:33; see also Ps 106:38). The power of innocent

blood (dam naqi) to pollute is most vividly portrayed after Cain shed Abel’s blood, which then cried out to God from the ground for vengeance (Gen 4:10). Hence murder, which results in “bloodguilt,” must be avenged: “And for your lifeblood I will surely demand (dr) an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man” (Gen 9:5; > drS, seek, require, #2011).

The person who puts this into effect is called an “avenger of blood” (g6’él haddam, Num 35:19, 21). But if no human will do so, God is the ultimate avenger of mur-

der (Deut 32:43; 2 Kgs 9:7; Ps 9:12[13]). However, death can also be the penalty for breaking a law or may come as the result of a person’s folly. In such cases the expression “his blood will be on his own head” (Lev 20:9, 11-13; Josh 2:19) shows that the person concerned is solely responsible for what has happened (> g’/ I, redeem, # 1457).

964

D7 (# 1947) 5. A related usage is found in three passages. Ezekiel speaks of his calling to be a watchman over Israel and the responsibility this involved in Ezek 3:17-19 and 33:7-9. Failure by the prophet to warn a wicked person to turn from his ways will lead to the death of that person for his sin. In addition, the neglectful prophet will be held “accountable (bg) for his [the wicked person’s] blood” (Ezek 3:18; 33:8). However, if the prophet fulfils his task by warning the wicked person, the prophet will save his own life and will avoid the possibility of bloodguilt. In Ps 51:13-15[15-17] the psalmist asks God to open his lips again by restoring him after he has sinned, so that he will be able to give public testimony to God’s deliverance and thereby challenge other sinners to return to God. Then the psalmist will be delivered from the possibility of bloodguiltiness, which would have arisen if he had not warned other sinners to turn from their ways (v. 14[16]). Thus, in praying “save me from bloodguilt” (hassiléni middamim), “he prays to be kept from becoming answerable for the death of other sinners by failing to challenge and invite them to return to God” (Goldingay, 390). Bloodguilt can, thus, be incurred when a person fails in his or her responsibility to warn others to return to God.

6. People can be defiled by blood. In Lam 4:14 we read that the people of Jerusalem “are so defiled with blood that no one dares to touch their garments.” A woman is unclean after childbirth because of the flow of blood (Lev 12:4-7); a woman is also unclean during menstruation (15:19-24). No explanation is given as to why a discharge of blood should make a person unclean. Perhaps it was because a bleeding or discharging body was regarded as lacking wholeness and therefore in a state of uncleanness. “Loss of blood can lead to death, the antithesis of normal healthy life. Anyone losing blood is at least in danger of becoming less than perfect and therefore unclean. Thus, blood is at once the most effective ritual cleanser and the most polluting substance when it is in the wrong place” (Wenham, 188). 7. Blood must not be eaten but must be drained from an animal before the meat is eaten. This rule goes back to Noah (~), who was allowed to eat meat provided he avoided the blood (Gen 9:4). This principle is restated frequently (Lev 3:17; 7:26-27; 17:10-14; 19:26; Deut 12:16, 23; 15:23; 1 Sam 14:32-34; Ezek 33:25), but it is difficult to determine the precise significance of the rule. In Lev 17:10-14 two explanations are given. The first is that “the life of every creature is its blood.” Thus, the life of an animal is virtually identified with its blood. “At a basic level this is obvious: when an animal loses its blood, it dies. Its blood, therefore, gives it life. By refraining from eating flesh with blood in it, man is honoring life. To eat blood is to despise life” (Wenham, 245). The second reason for the ban is given in Lev 17:11: “I have given it [blood] to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.” We could paraphrase this last clause as “the blood ransoms at the price of life” (see Wenham, ibid. B. A. Levine, 68; cf. H. C. Brichto, 22-29). Thus, the ransom for a person’s life is not money (cf. Exod 21:30; Ps 49:7-9[8-10]) but the end of

the life of an animal represented by its blood. Because blood is the God-given means of atoning for sin, it is sacred and should not be eaten. It must be sprinkled on the altar or

poured on the ground and covered (Lev 1:5; 17:13; Deut 12:24). 8. It has often been noted that in the context of sacrifice, shed blood symbolizes the infliction of death or a life that is poured out in death. However, some scholars have argued that blood was a symbol of the animal’s life being set free. It is the life released

965

D7 (# 1947) and presented to God that atones (e.g., de Vaux, 93). These scholars often refer to Gen 9:4: Lev 17:11, 14; and Deut 12:23, which say that “the blood is the life” or something similar. We cannot enter into the debate here, but, as we have noted, Lev 17:10-14 sug-

gests that the blood ransoms at the price of life—that is, by a life poured out in death. In addition, we can note the following points. First, the predominant usage of the term blood in the OT is to denote death. Second, in many passages blood metaphorically refers to death (Gen 37:26; 1 Kgs 2:5; Ps 58:10[11]), while elsewhere the connection between death and atonement is clear (Num 25:6-13; Deut 21:1-9; 2 Sam 21:3-6). Finally, nepes, the word translated “life” in Gen 9:4; Lev 17:11, 14; and Deut 12:23, is not to be equated precisely with the Eng. word “life,” but can mean “life yielded up in death” (Lev 19:28; 2 Sam 14:7; Jon 1:14). We conclude that sacrificial blood points to death and not to the release of life.

9. The word dam in the phrase “the blood (dam) of grapes” (NIV, Gen 49:11; Deut 32:14; cf. Sir 39:26) denotes “grape juice.” This idiom is also found in Ugaritic poetry (H. P. Riiger, “Zu RS 24.258,” UF 1, 1969, 203-6, esp. 206). The word “juice” here signifies the gracious and plentiful provisions given by the Lord: “with curds and milk from herd and flock and with fattened lambs and goats, with choice rams of Bashan and the finest kernels of wheat. You drank the foaming blood (dam) of the grape” (Deut 32:14). See P. C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, NICOT, 1976, 381.

P-B

The range of meaning of the term “blood” found in the OT continues in later lit-

erature; e.g., for the prohibition against eating blood, see Jub 6:7, 12-13; 7:28-33. The

new expression “flesh and blood” is found in Sir 14:18; 17:31 and is a way of describing human frailty. NT.

> NIDNTT ¥:220-26)

Blood:

~ dam

(blood, bloodshed,

blood-guilt,

murder,

# 1947);

1:172-77;

TDOT

> nésah

II (juice, blood,

# 5906) BIBLIOGRAPHY

EncJud 3:1115-19; NIDNTT

1:220-26;

TDNT

3:234-50;

THAT

1:448-51;

H. C. Brichto, “On Slaughter and Sacrifice, Blood and Atonement,” HUCA 47, 1976, 19-55; H. Christ, Blutvergiessen im Alten Testament, 1977; L. Dewar, “The Biblical Use of the Term

‘Blood’,” JTS 4, 1953, 204-8; J. Goldingay, “Psalm 51:16a (English 51:14a),” CBO 40, 1978, 388-90; K. Koch, “Der Spruch ‘Sein Blut bleibe auf seinem Haupt’ und die israelitischen Auffassung vom vergossenen Blut,” VT 12, 1962, 396-416; B. A. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord, 1974; D. J. McCarthy, “The Symbolism of Blood and Sacrifice,” JBL 88, 1969, 166-76; idem, “Further Notes on the Symbolism of Blood and Sacrifice,” JBL 92, 1973, 205-10; J. Milgrom, “A

Prolegomenon to Leviticus 17:11,” JBL 90, 1971, 149-56; L. Morris, “The Biblical Use of the Term “Blood’,” JTS 3, 1952, 216-27; JTS 6, 1955, 77-82; H. Reventlow, “Sein Blut komme iiber sein Haupt,” VT 10, 1960, 311-27; L. Sabourin, “Nefesh, Sang et Expiation,” Sciences Ecclésiastiques 18, 1966, 25-45; J. Steinmuller, “Sacrificial Blood in the Bible,” Bib 40, 1959, 556-67;

A. Stibbs, The Meaning of the Word ‘Blood’ in Scripture, 1962°; R. de Vaux, Studies in Old Testament Sacrifice, 1964; G. J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT, 1979. Paul Trebilco

966

rit(# 1948)

m7 (dmh 1), be like, become like, compare, 1288 maT . ponder, imagine (# 1948); T727 (d‘miit), nom. pattern, form, shape, image (# 1952); }1°f)"\(dimyén), nom. similarity (# 1955).

ANE Outside of Heb., dmh I is known only in Aram.; the Arab. dumyat (picture) is a loanword from Aram. (THAT 1:451). The Aram. nom. d‘mit is found in the Brooklyn museum papyri with the meaning equality, “a house equivalent to your house” (DISO, 58). The Aram. vb. dm’ is found in Palmyrene as a part. meaning be similar (ibid.). The variant dm‘ is found on a bilingual inscription from the second century of the Christian era; the inscription is in G and Aram., referring to “a person who was not equal in beauty” (KAI 276.10). The ayin (‘) instead of aleph (’) is apparently a mater lectionis

for the final vowel. Recently another example of d’miit was found on a stele from Tell Fakhariyah (Gropp and Lewis, 45-46, Aramaic lines 1, 15); it is a bilingual inscription in Aram. and Akk. that can be dated to the latter half of the ninth century. OT 1. The vb. dmh in the q. is found 13x, always in the sense of observing a likeness; the pi. has the meaning compare in four of its occurrences. A number of these similes are found in the S of Songs: the tall slender lady is like a palm tree (S of Songs 7:7[8]), a classic analogy of ancient times; the young lover is like a gazelle or a young stag in his beauty and graceful speed (2:9, 17; 8:14); the lover compares his darling to a mare among the cavalry in terms of the adornments of her neck and head (1:9). In the lament of Ps 102:6[7] the psalmist compares himself to a bird of prey in a desolate place. In 144:4 human life is likened to a breath or a passing shadow. In Isa 1:9 the city of Jerusalem is likened to Gomorrah in its wickedness; the vb. is here found in parallel

with the comparative particle k*, the most common way of expressing comparison in Heb. (THAT 1:452-53). In about a third of the occurrences of dmh it is used to express the incomparability of God or the folly of other kings attempting to compare themselves with God. Canaanite imagery is used in Ps 89:6[7] in asking what candidate among the pantheons might be likened to Yahweh; God is the creator, who formed the world through the conquest of the primeval waters (vv. 9-12 [10-13]. The majestic passage of the incomparable God in Isa 40:12-26 uses the pi. form twice in the repeated question, “To whom will you compare me?” (vv. 18, 25). In v. 18 the nominal form d‘miit is used in the parallel second line, in v. 25 the verbal synonym Swh (#8750). The question is repeated in Isa 46:5, the vb. used successively in the pi. and in the q. in parallel lines as the prophet ridicules the idols in comparison to Yahweh; the verse also parallels the common synonyms Swh and ml (# 5439) with dmh (cf. THAT 1:451) in corresponding

lines forming a beautiful, powerful symmetry. The questions of the psalmist and prophet are rhetorical (THAT 1:454); the uniqueness of Yahweh is indisputable, there is none that can be aligned with Yahweh (cf. Ps 40:5[6], and the use of the vb. ‘rk,

# 6885). In the diatribe against Pharoah in Ezek 31 the vb. is found 4x in the q. (vv. 2, 8,

18); the might of Pharaoh is compared to a supraterrestial tree, but such a tree will be cut down under the sovereignty of Yahweh. The one occurrence of the hitp. of dmh is the boast of the Babylonian king who would liken himself to the Most High (Isa 967

mi (# 1948) 14:14); the king who would ascend to the heavens stars will be brought down to the lowest depths in 2. The pi. of dmh is used 8x in the extended erations, plans, or intentions. Those who celebrate

and set his throne above the highest Sheol. sense of having appropriate considthe rule of God in Mount Zion con-

template his loyal faithfulness within the temple (Isa 48:9[10]). The wicked think that

others are equally treacherous (Ps 50:21), but the psalmist will no longer be silent, he will lay the charge. Isaiah declares that the Assyrian does not consider his role in the purpose of God, he does not realize that he is merely the means God uses to chastise a disobedient people (Isa 10:7). Mordecai warns Esther that she must not think that she will escape the decree of the king because she is in the palace (Esth 4:13). Some thoughts are intentions, a contemplated course of action. The Levite explains that the people of Gibeah intended to kill him (Judg 20:5); it was the intention of Saul to eliminate the Gibeonites (2 Sam 21:5). Some intentions are plans, deliberated responses to realize a determined goal. God declares that he will do to Israel what he planned to do to the nations if they do not dispose the inhabitants of the land (Num 33:56). By oath Yahweh declares that he will carry out his purpose to break the king of Assyria (Isa 14:24). 3. In some texts it is uncertain which of the meanings of dmh should be preferred. The text of Lam 2:13 could be interpreted to say, “How shall I assure you, how shall I think of you?” However the comparison with the following lines, which are structurally and grammatically parallel, would suggest there should be a semantic synonymity as well. The four lines would then form a chiasm: “What can I say for you, to what may I compare you? To what can I liken you, how can I comfort you?” In other texts it is difficult to choose between the homonyms of dmh. Though the meaning resemble has been proposed for Hos 4:5b and is used by the G, “the result is hardly intelligible” (Andersen and Freedman, 352). In this case dmh means ruin, as it does in

the subsequent line (ni.). However in 12:10[11] it is more likely that “compare” is meant; it may be translated, “Through the prophets I create parables” (ibid., 618). In this manner it forms a suitable chiasm with the previous lines. 4. The nom. d’miit is found 25x; like the vb., as indicated when found parallel to

the vb. (Isa 40:18), it can indicate a simple comparison. Similar to this is the single occurrence of dimyén in Ps 17:12: The wicked are like a lion eager to pounce. In 58:4[5] the lies of the wicked are like (d’miit) the venom of a serpent; the likeness may also be that of sound (Isa 13:4). However the nom. has more specialized functions. It is used to indicate an image or a shape; so Ahaz sends to Uriah the priest the design of the altar that he had seen at Damascus (2 Kgs 16:10), and the laver of Solomon’s temple is

said to have supports in the shape (d°miit) of oxen (2 Chron 4:3; cf. 1 Kgs 7:24, gourds). (> Form: Theology) A distinct use of the nom. is its frequent occurrence in the visions of Ezekiel to describe the divine chariot. It occurs 10x in Ezek 1 to provide some earthly analogy to the “living beings” or the chariot, and 4x in chapter 10, which identifies the “living beings” as cherubim (v. 15). In 8:2 one who had a form as the appearance of a man catches Ezekiel and lifts him away. (MT has the defective form ’¥, rendered fire, but

the context makes clear it should read ’ys.) To this may be compared the experience of Daniel in meeting the prince of the kingdom of Persia, where the same terminology is used; one like (d‘mit) a human touches Daniel’s lips (Dan 10:16), one who had the

968

rif(# 1948) appearance of a man (v. 18). In the instances of the analogy to the human appearance the similarity is expressed cautiously, the comparative particle k° is added to the nom. to limit the comparison to a most general sense. In Ezek 1:26 the particle is combined with “likeness” and “appearance” to describe the divine person on the throne: (lit.) “a likeness (d‘miit) was above the throne, as the appearance of a man.” It is not to be thought that the essence of the divine being should be limited by a human form. The nom. d’miat can denote the full range of similarities, from an actual likeness to a weakened resemblance, according to the requirements of the comparison (THAT 1:452). The type of likeness meant by d‘mit can only be established by a full consideration of the concepts involved. 5. One of the most theologically significant functions of d‘miitt is its association with image (selem, #7512). Though selem is most frequently used of idols, it can refer to any type of similarity in form. The disastrous alliances of Judah with the Babylonians are portrayed by the prophet Ezekiel in a description of the harlotrous woman seeing the images (s/my) of the Chaldeans engraved on the wall (Ezek 23:14), all of them dressed with the likeness (d’miit) of officers of the Babylonians (v. 15). Such

physical similarity may be indicated in the observation that Adam begat a son in his image and likeness (Gen 5:3), but this association with the repeated affirmation that Adam was made in the likeness (d’miit) of God (5:1) suggests that more is intended. Genesis affirms that humans as male and female (’adam here clearly is not an individual) are made in the likeness of God (5:1-2); the narrative returns here to the starting point of the creation of adam (1:26-27), where humans are created as God’s image (selem) and likeness (d’miit). The difficulty is that no indication of the likeness is provided, aside from the fact that the humans will function for God in the exercise of dominion over creation (1:26-27). The nature of the likeness has been conceived as physical, personal, or functional; all can easily fall within the semantic range of the terms involved.

The nature of the likeness of humans to God as far as the Gen narrative is concerned can be established with relative clarity. The function of dominion is indicated in the passage, so it is reasonable to make function the primary point of the analogy. Clines in a detailed study has established that representation is the most central concept involved in image (1968, 70-101). This is further confirmed by the bilingual inscription of Tell Fakhariyah. The statue itself is a representation of the rule of King Hadad-Yith‘i of ancient Guzan over the territory of Sikan across the river. The Aramaic refers to the statue as dmwt’ (1, 15) as well as slm (12, 16); the terms are inter-

changeable, suggesting that no particular distinction is to be found between them in their combination in Gen. Further, their application to the physical form of the statue indicates that the physical human form is a critical aspect of the function of image. It would seem that Gen makes a transfer of the concept of representation by a statue to that of a living being (Gropp and Lewis, 47). The likeness does not consist of the physical form at all; rather, the likeness is in the function of that form to represent the presence of God in the world. This is affirmed by Ps 8, which has as its central theme the majesty of God in the world (vv. 1[2], 9[10]); the divine presence is represented through the creation of humans, who exercise dominion (vv. 5-8[6-9]). If the likeness to God in Gen 1:26-27 is function, as suggested by both lexical and theological data, the sense of v. 26 is to say we are created as God’s image (taking the preposition as

969

“7 (# 1949) beth essentiae, presence.

GKC

&

119 i), i.e., our physical presence represents the divine

All the forms of the root dmh I are found in later Heb. and Aram. with a similar P-B semantic range of meaning (cf. Jastrow, 312, 313). The nom. dmywn is found in the War Scroll (1QM 6.13) to speak of horses of the cavalry trained to hear the din and the

sight of every “display” (Martinez, 100); in Sir 3:24 the nom. is used with reference to thoughts or opinions. The nom. d‘miit is found in songs of the Sabbath sacrifice to speak of the “wonderful likeness of the spirit of the holy of holies” (4Q 405 14 1). QL literature contains expressions on the incomparability of God similar to those of the OT. In the hymns we find “Who is like you, Lord, among the gods?” (1QH 7.28); in the War Scroll, “Who is like you, God of Israel?” (1QM 10.8), or “Who is like you in strength O God of Israel?” (1QM 13.13). The NT anticipates the restoration of the function of image through Christ, the one true representative of the image function (Col 1:15-17). The writer to the Hebrews specifically takes up the question of the function of dominion, quoting Ps 8:5-7 (G) in reference to Christ (Heb 2:6-11). We do not have dominion as we should (v. 8), but Christ, the one who has full dominion, has become the champion of our salvation through his suffering (v. 10), making us one with him. Form, shape: > dmh I (be like, become like, compare, ponder, imagine, # 1948); > ysr (form, shape, fashion, create, #3670); > ‘asab I (form, #6773); > geseb (form, shape, # 7893); > to’ar (form, figure, #9307); — tabnit (pattern, image, model, #9322); — t*miind (image,

form, shape, representation, #9454); > Form, Image: Theology BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 3:250-60; THAT 1:451-56, 643; F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Hosea, AB 24, 1980,

352, 618; D. J. Clines, “The Image of God in Man,” TynBul 19, 1968, 53-103; D. M. Gropp and T. J. Lewis, “Notes on Some Problems in the Aramaic Text of the Hadad-Yith‘i Bilingual,” BASOR 259, 1985, 45-61; F. G. Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, 1994, 100, 427. A. H. Konkel

1949

ma

m7 (dmh Il), q. come to an end, rest; ni. be dumb, silent (#1949); "227 (d’mi), nom. rest

(# 1954),

ANE

No cognates known.

OT The root occurs 19x, 15x in the vb. and 4x in the nom. The most frequent vb. form is ni. (13x). All the occurrences (both vb. and nom.) are in the Psalms and the

Prophets. Twice it is said that a mourner’s eyes “overflow ... without ceasing” (Jer 14:17; Lam 3:49). The silence that the vb. produces is, in most instances, total, so that NIV translates 12x with “destroyed,” “ruined,” or “perished” (cf. also smt, silence, #7551). Three times the reference is to an individual (Ps 49:12[13], 20[21]; Isa 6:5). Four times it is a city that is silenced (Ar and Kir, Isa 15:1; Jerusalem, Jer 6:2; Samaria,

Hos 10:7). Six times it is the sinful people of God, or their representative (their king,

Hos 10:15, or their merchants, Zeph 1:11), that will be destroyed (Hos 4:5, 6; Obad Sy)

The nom. form in its three unchallenged occurrences demonstrates the relationship

970

ria (# 1950) between silence and rest. God is addressed, “Do not keep silent; be not quiet (hrs) ... be not still (Sqf)” (Ps 83:1[2]). If God is silent he is inactive. Likewise, in Isa 62:6-7 the

watchmen of Jerusalem are not to be silent (rest |! hh), nor are they to allow God to be silent (rest) until he has reestablished the city. The occasion in Isa 38:10 “in the prime of my life” is considered by KBL to be from dmh I, meaning likeness, half, midst. KJV translates “in the cutting off of my life.”

Rest, silence: > diimd I (silence, # 1872); > dmh II (come to an end, rest, be dumb, silent, # 1949); > dmm I (stand still, be motionless, silent, # 1957); > hp’ (do s.t. secretly, #2901);

> hsh (keep silence, command to be silent, # 3120); > hrs II (be deaf, keep still, remain inactive, make silent, # 3087); > smt (silence, # 7551) BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 3:260-65; TWOT 1:192-93; G. R. Driver, “A Confused Hebrew Root (017, 7737, O77,”

SepherN H Tur Sinai, 1960. John N. Oswalt

1950

mW (dmh TID, q. ruin; ni. be ruined, destroyed

ie a

(# 1950).

ANE

Cf. Akk. damtu, destruction.

OT

1. Although the occurence of this verb in q. (“ruin”) in Hos 4:5 is questioned

(cf. e.g., HALAT 216, BHS), the sudden shift to the first person, God, in the context of

judgment, as well as the significance of the word mother being included, argue in favor of the MT of Hos 4:5. (See F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Hosea, AB, 1980,

352.) Because of Israel’s and the prophet’s stumbling in sin, Yahweh will destroy (dmh, q.) their mother (cf. NIV), i.e., there is no future for the nation. Yahweh continued by saying, “My people are ruined (dmh, ni.) from lack of knowledge” (4:6a). This statement of fact underlines the great importance of the knowledge of God and his will, a knowledge that the priests had the responsibility to teach (cf. 4:6b-9). (See H. W. Wolf, Hosea, Hermeneia, 1974, 78-79.) 2. When Isaiah saw God, the Holy One, in a vision, he cried: “Woe to me! ... I

am ruined (dmh, ni.). For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty” (Isa 6:5). The realization of one’s sin makes one aware of one’s utter unworthiness before God and deserving judgment from the Holy One (cf. also Ps 24:3, 4; Mal 3:2a). See further, e.g.,

J. N. Oswalt The Book of Isaiah. Chapters 1-39, NICOT, 1986, 182-84. (For a defense of understanding dmh in Isa 6:5 as dmh II, ni., be silent, see H. Wildberger, Isaiah 1-12,

1980/1991,

249-50;

cf. E. J. Young,

The Book

of Isaiah,

NICOT,

1965,

1:247-48.) 3. This vb. is also used in ni. to describe the results of divine judgment, e.g., in the ruin of a northern and a southern Moabite city, thus indicating the destruction of the entire land (Isa 15:1 2x, par. Sdd [pu.; > #8720]), in the overthrow of Samaria and her king (Hos 10:7, par. 3md [ni.; > #9012] in v. 8), and in the ruin of merchants in Jerusalem (Zeph 1:11, par. krt [ni.; > #4162)).

4. The sober refrain that the foolish rich man “is like the beasts that perish (dmh, ni.)” (Ps 49:12, 20[13, 21]) is an appropriate reminder that like the beasts such a person

974

"7977(#1953) will succumb to death. Death is his shepherd (cf. 49:15[16]) and will separate him from his riches (49:10, 14, 17[11, 15, 18]). One cannot conclude from the use of dmh in Ps 49 that the foolish rich cease to exist after dying. See N. H. Ridderbos, De Psalmen II,

1973, 125-26, 138-41. Destruction, annihilation, devastation, disfigurement, ruin: > ’bd I (perish, #6); > ’éd (disaster, #369); > blq (devastate, #1191); > dmh III (ruin, #1950); > dmm III (perish,

# 1959); > hrs (demolish, # 2238); > hbl III (treat badly, # 2472); > hig III (destroy, # 2746); > ht’ (be destroyed, # 3148); > klh (be complete, perish, destroy, # 3983); > krt (cut, cut off, exterminate, cut a covenant, circumcise, # 4162); > mhh I (wipe off, wipe out destroy, # 4681); > nsh Tl (fall in ruins, # 5898); > nts (break up, #5995); > nts (tear down, # 5997); > nts (root up, pull down, destroy, #6004); > p’h (dash to pieces, #6990); ~ pid (ruin, misfortune, #7085); ~ prr (break, invalidate, nullify, frustrate, foil, thwart, #7296); > sdh II (be devastated, #7400); > rzh (destroy, waste away, #8135); > Sdd (devastate, #8720); > Sht (become corrupt, ruin, spoil, #8845); > Smd (be exterminated, destroyed, #9012); > tablit (annihilation, # 9318) Cornelis Van Dam

1952 (d’mit, pattern, form, shape, image), > # 1948, Form

1953

Ps

"fa (d’mi), nom. half (# 1953).

OT The nom. d‘mi, half, is apparently related to Heb. dmh I (be like; > # 1948). It appears 1x, in Isa 38:10, as a part of Hezekiah’s prayer following his healing. He recalls his fear that he would die bid’mi yamay: “in the middle (?) of my days.” The NRSV reads “in the noontime of my days.” The NIV reading “in the prime of my life” is apparently based on the LXX, which reads hypsos, height.

Half: > d°mi (half, # 1953); > h’sdt (half, part, # 2940) Steven S. Tuell

1954 (d’mi, rest), > # 1949 1955 (dimyé6n, similarity), > # 1948

1957

ons

Di (dmm I), q. stand still, be motionless, silent; ni. be made motionless, silent, lifeless; po. make

quiet; hi. cause to stand still (# 1957); Mafa\(d'mama), nom. calm (# 1960). ANE

The Ugar. cognate means keep silent.

OT 1. Vb. forms appear 30x, all but seven in the q. The nom. appears 3x. The vb. shows two connotations. The first is to be silent, and this for a variety of reasons. One obvious one is death (Exod 15:16; 1 Sam 2:9; Ps 31:17[18]; Jer 8:14[2x]). Closely related is silence that results from destruction (Jer 25:37; 48:2; 49:26; 50:30; 51:6; Lam

2:10; 3:28). There is also the silence that results from prudence and patience. After the death of his sons, Aaron is silent (Lev 10:3), as is the person who recognizes the impo-

tence of remonstrance in evil times (Amos 5:13). When we are tempted to vent angry

words, it is often wiser to keep silent (Ps 4:4[5]). But there is also the silence of trust.

972

D7 (# 1958) When needs have been made known, confident silence can follow (62:5[6]; 131:2).

The time to break silence is when oe has granted our requests and we can shout for

joy (30:12[13]). 2. The second connotation of dmm is closely related to the first: inactivity. So Joshua commands the sun to “stand still” (Josh 10:12-13 || ‘a@mad). In the same way, Jeremiah calls upon the sword to “rest (Xgt) ... cease (rg‘) and be still” (Jer 47:6). Job

protests that the churning inside of him “never stops” (Job 30:27), and mourners are called upon to give their eyes “no rest” (Lam 2:18). 3.The nom. d‘mamé is especially related to the sound of silence. So Elijah heard “a gentle whisper” (1 Kgs 19:12, lit. “‘a silent, thin sound,” NRSV “the sound of sheer silence”). Eliphaz heard “a hushed voice” (Job 4:16, lit. “a silence and a voice”), and the psalmist testifies that God “‘stilled the storm to a whisper” (Ps 107:29 Il A¥h). Rest, silence: ~ diimd I (silence, # 1872); > dmh II (come to an end, rest, be dumb, silent, # 1949); > dmm I (stand still, be motionless, silent, # 1957); > hp’ (do s.t. secretly, #2901);

~ hSh (keep silence, command to be silent, # 3120); > Ar§ II (be deaf, keep still, remain inactive, make silent, # 3087); > smt (silence, #7551) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 3:260-65; TWOT

1:193; G. R. Driver, “A Confused Hebrew Root (17 7737 7ard7),”

Sepher N H Tur Sinai, 1960. John N. Oswalt

1958

D7

D7 (dmm ID), g. wail, ailment (# 1958).

ANE The strength of a Ugar. parallel has led to a reconsideration of the root dmm II (# 1958). The meaning of dmm | is be silent. The vb. is attested in Ugar. (UT, 19.674) in the legend of Keret (KTU 1.16 i 26), where it is parallel with weep (bky). The Akk. damamu also carries the meaning of being sorry or lament (AHw, 155). OT — Dahood has cogently argued that a number of passages are better understood with the meaning weep (cf. Ugar. root) rather than the more usual Heb. be silent (400-404). The lament for Phoenicia in Isa 23 begins by calling on the ships of Tarshish to wail (v. 1), and poetic parallel would suggest the same meaning for dommii (v. 2), which addresses the merchants of Sidon. This solution is followed by Wildberger (855). Dahood suggests the same root may be found in the prayer of Hezekiah in Isa 38:10 (402); the problem is with the word bdmy, which Dahood would translate “in my sorrow.” However, this is a questionable solution, since the following line then becomes awkward. It is possible that a mourning ritual is referred to in Ps 4:4[5] and that the last line should read “upon your beds weep” (démmi); however, the text is

problematic in other ways, and another solution is to rearrange the phrases to read “be angry on your beds, but be silent” (Kraus, 145). It is likely that the meaning lament is to be found in Ps 31:17[18], which could readily be translated “go lamenting to Sheol.”

Similarly, dmm as lament is a probable meaning in Lam 2:10, which should read “they sit on the ground, they lament” (cf. Ps 137:1). The reference is to a lamenting ritual,

hardly a ritual in silence. (~ Lament: Theology) Lament, mourning: ~ ’b/ I (mourn, observe mourning rites, #61); > ‘nh I (lament, # 627); ~ bkh (weep, bewail, #1134); > dm‘ (shed tears, # 1963); > z‘q (call for help, call to arms,

973

Br" (# 1959) > nhh I (lament, #5629); > spd (sound of lament, > gdr (be dark, mourn, #7722); > gind I (dirge, #7806); > Lament:

assemble, utter a plaintive cry, #2410);

mourn, #6199); Theology BIBLIOGRAPHY

M. Dahood,

“Textual Problems

13-27, BKAT

in Isaiah,” CBQ 22, 1960, 400-404;

H. Wildeberger, Jesaja

10/2, 1978.

A. H. Konkel

1959

or

Br (dmm Ill), q. perish (Jer 8:14; of Moab, 48:2); ni. be devastated (of pastures, Jer 25:37);

perish (of wicked, 1 Sam 2:9); hi. let perish (of God’s judgment on Judah, Jer 8:14) (# 1959). HALAT 217b considers dmm III, a par. form of dmh IIL.

OT _ Inthe Song of Hannah reference is made to the wicked who perish (dmm, ni.) in darkness (1 Sam 2:9). Darkness is probably best taken here as a poetic name for Sheol as a place of punishment, darkness, and gloom (cf., e.g., Job 15:30; Nah 1:8; see further TDOT 5:255-56).

P-BIn 1 Sam 2:9 Tg. Jonathan connects the darkness with Gehenna (“the wicked will walk about in Gehenna in the darkness”— wrSy‘y’ bgyhgm bhSwk’ yddnwn), which is associated with the eschatological fires of judgment (cf. Isa 66:24; also Jer 7:32-33; 19:6; Mark 9:43-48). See further NJDNTT 2:208-9; TDNT 1:657-58. On the textual problems of 1 Sam 2:9 see P. K. McCarter, Jr., 7 Samuel, AB, 1080, 69-70. Destruction, annihilation, devastation, disfigurement, ruin: ~ ’bd I (perish, #6); > ’éd (disaster, # 369); > blq (devastate, #1191); — dmh II (ruin, #1950); > dmm III (perish, # 1959); > hrs (demolish, # 2238); > hbl II (treat badly, # 2472); > hiq II] (destroy, # 2746);

> ht’ (be destroyed, #3148); > klh (be complete, perish, destroy, # 3983); > krt (cut, cut off, exterminate, cut a covenant, circumcise, #4162); > mhh I (wipe off, wipe out destroy, # 4681); > nsh II (fall in ruins, # 5898); > nts (break up, #5995); > nts (tear down, # 5997); > nt¥ (root up, pull down, destroy, #6004); > p’h (dash to pieces, #6990); > pid (ruin, misfortune, #7085); — prr (break, invalidate, nullify, frustrate, foil, thwart, #7296); — sdh II (be devastated, #7400); > rzh (destroy, waste away, #8135); > Sdd (devastate, # 8720); > Sht

(become corrupt, ruin, spoil, # 8845); > Smd (be exterminated, destroyed, #9012);

> tablit

(annihilation, # 9318) Cornelis Van Dam

1960 (d’maméd, calm), > # 1957

1961

W741

11271 (démen), nom. dung, manure (# 1961).

OT The word domen is used for corpses lying on the ground in the form of dung or refuse, such as Jezebel’s body (2 Kgs 9:37; cf. Ps 83:10[11]; Jer 8:2; 9:21[22]; 16:4;

25:33); Dung, excrement, refuse, urine: > ’aSpét (ash-heap, refuse-heap, dung-hill, #883); > gil II (befoul, dirty 0.s., #1671); — domen (dung, manure, #1961); > h*ra’im (dung, # 2989); > yesah (filth, diarrhea, #3803); > madménd I (dung pit, #4523); > sithd (offal, # 6054);

974

DPI (# 1963) a

a

a

a

a

> peres I (offal, contents of stomach, #7302); > sé’ (filth, human excrement, # 7362); > sapia‘ (dung [of cattle], #7616); > sig (excrement, # 8485); > Syn (urinate, # 8874)

Roy E. Hayden

1963 ANE

yn

YI" (dm‘), shed tears (# 1963); MYM

(dim‘a),

nom. tears (# 1965).

The vb. is found several times in the Ugar. story of Aqhat in relation to his

death (KTU 1.19 i 35; iv 13, 17), and in the lament of Keret because he has no heir (KTU 1.141 32); the nom. (’udm‘t) is found in the same section of Keret (line 28), as

well as in a fragment of Baal, of Keret, and a mythological fragment (UT, 19.676). The Akk. dimtu(m) Il is common (AHw, 171). The Arab. has both the vb. (dama‘a) and the nom. (dam ‘at). OT 1. The Heb. weep (bkh) is at times used for lament parallel with the term for mourn (spd) (Gen 23:2; 2 Sam 1:12), but on other occasions it is parallel with the flow of tears (Isa 16:9; Jer 9:1[8:23]; 13:17; 31:16; Lam 1:2; Mal 2:13). The source of tears

is the eye, which apparently has yielded the metaphor more generally of eye as source (THAT 2:264), but the term eye is never used with the term weep (bkh). However, eyes flowing with tears frequently portray the pain and lament expressed by an outcry. It is common in the laments for the fall of the nations. 2. The vb. dm‘ occurs only at Jer 13:17 in a description of the tears shed for the destruction of Israel and Judah because of their refusal to repent. The nom. is found a number of other times in Jeremiah’s laments for Jerusalem (9:1[8:23], 18[17]; 14:17);

the tears of Jerusalem and its people in Lamentations similarly reflect the pain of the fall of the city (Lam 1:2; 2:11, 18). The emotional weeping and shedding of tears for the northern cities of Moab because of the loss of the crops (Isa 16:9) may indicate sentimental feelings for the destruction of the land with which Israel had various congenial relations (Wildberger, 628). 3. In the Psalter and the Prophets tears are a way of describing personal pain and lament (Ps 39:12[13]; 56:8[9]; 116:8). Tears may become the food of the suffering, whether they be for the longing of worship (42:3[4]) or the grief of the exile of Israel (80:5[6]). Job in his grief also speaks of tears as food (Job 3:24). Grief and tears express the anguish of the debilitation caused by unconfessed sin (Ps 6:6[7]), at least if Ps 6 is interpreted as belonging to the traditional group of seven penitential psalms (cf. 6:1[2]; 38:1[2]). Another case of tears in illness is the prayer of Hezekiah when he learns that he is about to die (2 Kgs 20:5; Isa 38:5). In contrast to this is Malachi’s rebuke of the priests, who cover the altar with tears when their offerings are not accepted, without realizing that the cause is their disgraceful sin in divorcing their wives (Mal 2:13). Once tears refer to the pain of those oppressed by their masters (Eccl 4:1). However, there is a time when the pain of tears will be no more; it may be the triumph of those now able to return in the pilgrimage festival (Ps 126:6), those returning from exile (Jer 31:16), or even the assurance that God will triumph over death and the tears that accompany mourning (Isa 25:8; cf. 65:19-20). Two passages regarding tears are left open to question. (a) The text of Ezek 24:16 is problematic, in that the phrase that refers to the prophet’s not shedding tears at the death of his wife is textually uncertain. The phrase is not in the G and appears to

975

DDT(# 1963) interrupt the as a conflate for Isa 15:9, “wailing for

rigid parallelism of the poetry (Allen, 58); its presence may be explained reading of an illegible text (ibid., 55). (b) The vb. dm‘ has been proposed but this involves two emendations; v. 9c would need to be emended to the refugee of Moab,” following a conjectural evaluation based on the

G, and v. 9d would be emended to “to cry for its remnant.” However, this is doubtful in

an extremely problematic text; Wildberger regards the entire verse as secondar 599): : 4. A number of other terms are occasionally used in reference to lament. (a) A vb. used once to express lament is nhg (# 5628). It is found in Akk. as nagagu with the meaning of cry out, scream (AHw, 709); the Arab. nahiga has the sense of pant or gasp; in Syr. it has the meaning cry out, groan. In the OT it occurs at Nah 2:7[8], which speaks of the exile of the city of Nineveh. Only a few maidens remain, whose sighs are here compared with the moaning of a dove. (b) Another vb. found once for lament in the OT is ’/h (# 458); it is also known in the Tgs., Syr., and Mand. It is found as a fem. impv. sing. in Joel 1:8, in the call to

lament because of the grasshopper plague. There are a number of indications that the text has been disturbed (Wolff, 1977, 18). There is no vocative for the impv. to indicate the party addressed. The G has “Wail unto me,” which indicates a longer text; the phrase “unto me” would reflect the consonants of the impv. of the MT (’y) with a different vocalization. The vb. may be the mutilated remainder of a second exhortation that was more fully available to the G translator. (c) The vb. ybb (# 3291) occurs once in the song of Deborah (Judg 5:28), where it describes the lament of the mother of Sisera as she looks through the lattice wondering why the chariots are so delayed. It is attested in the Arab. habbaba, flutter; the sense of thunder or drum is present in Tigre. The Eth. yabdbd means to exult. The vb. is also known in the Tgs., Talm., Syr., and Mand.

(d) The vb. yll (# 3536) is onomatopoeic for wailing or lament. It is found occasionally in the ANE. It is a proposed reading in a Punic grave inscription as a pu. part. referring to one lamented or mourned (KAI 161.2). It is found in the Aram. version of Ahigar; the officer of the king laments when he finds Ahigar, who has been condemned to die (APFC Ahigar, 41). The nom. yV/ald (#3538) is found in the Aram. Sefire treaty among the curses of breaking the covenant (KAI, 222 A 30). The Akk. alala is found as an exclamation of joy or the refrain of a work song CAD, Al 328); a related vb. alalu in the reflexive means to shout, boast, or brag (CAD A1 331), and in

the causative to shout in triumph or joy (AHw, 34). The Arab. walwala and Eth. wailawa mean to cry out or scream; the Amharic wdildle means to cry out in pain or grief. The vb. is also found in Mand. and Syr. In the OT yil is found 27x, always in the hi.; the nom. y7ala occurs 5x, always in the same context as the vb. (Isa 15:2, 3, 8; Jer 25:34, 36; Zeph 1:10, 11; Zech 11:2, 3). The verb is found parallel with z‘q (cry out) 7x (Isa 14:31; Jer 25:34; 47:2; 48:20,

31; Ezek 21:12[17]; Hos 7:14), with s‘q (cry out) 2x (Isa 65:14; Jer 49:3), with the nom. s°‘aqda (loud cry) 2x (Jer 25:36; Zeph 1:10), and with the nom. z°‘aqd in Isa 15:8. It is found with spd (mourn) 3x (Jer 4:8; Joel 1:13; Mic 1:8). The lament wail is in the context of the judgments against the nations, Israel, or Jerusalem, except for Isa 65:14,

where it is a judgment against the false priests. The description of wailing is often

found several times in a single passage (Isa 15:2, 3, 8; 16:7; 23:1, 6, 14; Jer 48:20, 31,

976

DIN (# 1964) 39). The loud wail of lament will characterize the great judgment of the day of the Lord (Isa 13:6; Ezek 30:2; Joel 1:11, 13, 15). The reading of Isa 52:5 is doubtful; based on Qumran comparisons it is probable that the word is All III, to describe the delusion of the rulers (HALAT 395; cf. BHS).

P-B_

Both dm‘ and dim‘a are common in later Heb., Aram., and Syr. (e.g., Sir 12:16).

Tears of lament are found in the thanksgiving hymn of Qumran (1QH 9.5) as part of an individual expression of repentance and hope. In the Genesis Apocrypon Abram expresses tears of lament (dm ‘y) because the pharaoh has taken away Sarai (1QapGen 20.12). The nom. form of dema‘, which occurs once in the MT text meaning juice (Exod 22:28), is also found in the Talm. with the meaning tear or weeping (Jastrow, 314). The nom. dm‘ is found 15x in the inventory of the copper scroll (3Q15), used for a spice, perfume, or medicine that is a plant product (DJD, 3:250); this use is probably derivative of Exod 22:28, etymologically derived from tear, which is the shape of a drop of plant resin. NT The motif of a coming time when the tears of pain and lament will be ended forever (Isa 25:8; Jer 31:16) is continued in the Apocalypse (Rev 7:17; 21:4). Illness or death and the violence of peoples and nations are the cause of pain and grief; the judgment of the evil of all nations and the end of death will leave no more place for tears. Lament, mourning: > ’b/ I (mourn, observe mourning rites, #61); > > bkh (weep, bewail, # 1134); > dm‘ (shed tears, # 1963); > z‘q (call assemble, utter a plaintive cry, #2410); > nhh I (lament, #5629); > mourn, #6199); — qdr (be dark, mourn, #7722); — gind I (dirge,

’nh I (lament, #627); for help, call to arms, spd (sound of lament, #7806); > Lament:

Theology

BIBLIOGRAPHY DJD 3:250; THAT 1:314; 2:264; L. Allen, Ezekiel 20-48, WBC 29, 1990; T. Collins, “The Physiology of Tears in the OT,” CBQ 33, 1971, 18-38, 185-97; M. Dahood, “Textual Problems in Isaiah,” CBQ 22, 1960, 400-404; J. C. Greenfield, “DM,” Bib 50, 1969, 101; H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 1-59, 1988, 145; idem, Psalms 60-150, 1989, 282; H. Wildberger, Jesaja 13-27, BKAT 10/2, 1978; H. W. Wolff, Joel and Amos, Hermeneia, 1977. A. H. Konkel

1964 ANE

vis

Yi" (dema‘), nom. juice from wine vat (# 1964).

Arab. dam‘.

OT This hapleg., found in Exod 22:29[28], has uncertain meaning. The NJPSV renders it and its parallel term m‘/é’at*ka, your fullness, as the “skimming of the first yield of your vats.” The NIV renders the two Heb. words as “offerings from your granaries or your vats.” Whatever the two words designate, there is to be no delay in bringing the offerings to the Lord. The word is related to dm‘, drip, pour out tears (> # 1963), so it has special ref-

erence to the drippings of the new grape harvest at the vats, but also has reference to the grains harvested and especially the oil gathered from the olive groves. With the sequence ml’, be full (> #4848), and dema’, juice, the writer orders Israel to give the

OF1

m7 (# 1977) Lord all their abundant increase appropriately and without delay. Yahweh gets the best at the beginning of the harvest, not a token amount of inferior product later. Grapes—juice, wine: > gat I (wine press, # 1780); > dema‘ (juice from wine vat, # 1964); ~ homes # 3516); # 3770); > mixra # 8469);

(vinegar, wine, beer, # 2810); > hemer (wine, foaming wine, # 2815); > yayin (wine, > yegeb (wine vat/trough, winepress, # 3676); ~ yrs II (tread the wine press/grapes, > mhl (adulterated wine, #4543); > mezeg (spiced/blended/mixed wine, # 4641); (juice, #5489); > ‘asts (grape juice, #6747); > Sht (squeeze, to press out grapes, > Semer I (dregs, aged wine, # 9069); ~ tirds (fresh wine, # 9408)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

J. I. Durham, Exodus, WBC 3, 1987, 314, 329-30; J. Greenfield, “Dm‘,” Bib 50, 1969, 101. Eugene Carpenter

1965 (dim ‘4, tears), > # 1963 1966 (dammeseq, Damascus), ~ Damascus 1969 (dan II, Dan), > Dan

1976 (déa‘, wisdom), > # 3359

Lone,

mw

mY (d‘h), q. seek, request (# 1977); NY (da ‘at

II), claim, suit (# 1982).

ANE Cognate with classical Arab. vb. d‘w, seek, request, desire (Lane, 883); modern Arab. da‘G, request, invite, call (Wehr, 282-83).

OT 1. The lexeme d‘h is not likely a variant form of yd‘, know (# 3359), as generally regarded by scholars, but of a different root meaning seek, request, demand, desire (Thomas, 285; Barr, 23-24). However, it is not totally unrelated to yd‘, know. 2. Three occurrences in the vb. form are: (1) Prov 10:32: “The lips of the righteous know (desire/seek) (d‘h) what is fitting, but the mouth of the wicked only what is

perverse.” The righteous strive after goodwill, whereas the wicked do the opposite, i.e., cause harm. (2) Prov 24:14: “Know (d‘h) also that wisdom is sweet to your soul.” Wisdom is the route to fulfillment and vindication for those who seek it (McKane, 403). (3) Hosea 6:3: “Let us [desire to (d‘h)] acknowledge the LORD; let us press on (rdp, # 8103) to acknowledge him.” Here d‘h, desire, is synonymously parallel with rdp,

pursue. Hosea calls Israel to repentance, acknowledging with heart and life the lordship of the God of covenant. However, Andersen and Freedman take the meaning know, probably assuming the root yd‘ for néd*‘d. Supporting Gordis’ (115) redivision of the cola in v. 2b as w‘nihyeh I’panayw w*néd*‘a and v. 3a as nird*pa lada‘at ’et-yhwh (3 beats each), they render 2b, “We will live in his presence so that we know him,” and 3a, “We will pursue knowledge of Yahweh.” They stress the compound idea of the assiduous pursuit of the knowledge of Yahweh (Andersen and Freedman, 12, 422). This seems plausible according to the context; however, semantically the root for néd* ‘a is not likely to be yd‘, know, but rather d‘h, desire. 3. The nom. da ‘at II, claim, suit (# 1982), appears only in Prov 29:7: “The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern (da‘at).” Here the righteous and the wicked are portrayed in antithetic parallelism. That is, the 978

D7(# 1980) righteous have a concern for the poor, while the wicked are indifferent to the cause of the rights of the poor. Traditionally, da‘at has been understood as knowledge, hence the tr. of yabin da ‘at: discern/understand knowledge (Vg., RV, RSV). The tr. claim or concern (NASB, NIV, JPSV) is preferable both semantically and contextually. Seeking: > bq (seek, find, look for, require, desire, # 1335); > dr (care about, inquire, seek, #2011); > hprI (dig, seek out, # 2916); > Shr II (seek, inquire for, # 8838)

BIBLIOGRAPHY F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Hosea, AB, 1980; J. Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament, 1968; R. Gordis, Poets, Prophets, and Sages, 1971; W. McKane,

Proverbs: A New Approach, 1970; D. W. Thomas, “Textual and Philological Notes on Some Passages in the Book of Proverbs,’ SVT 3, 1955, 280-92. Chitra Chhetri

1978 (dé ‘a, knowledge),

1980

> #3359

271 (d‘k), q. be extinguished; ni. be dried up, disappear; pu.? be extinguished (# 1980).

77

ANE Imperial Aram. d‘k (Ahiqar, 147), Syr. d‘k and Mand. d’k, dhk, be extinguished, vanish; Arab. da ‘aka, rub.

OT

1. The everyday activity of snuffing out the wick of a lamp became proverbial

as a description of the destruction of the wicked (Job 18:6; 21:17; Prov 13:9; 20:20;

24:20). As the lamp (nér I, > #5944) of the wicked is snuffed out, so too is their light (6r, > #240) (Job 18:5). The snuffing out of the lamp of the wicked speaks either of

their life being extinguished (so McKane, 405) or their prosperity and peace being taken away (so Hakham, 138). By contrast, the righteous enjoy life and prosperity (Prov 13:9). In the proclamation of the second exodus, there is a reminder to God’s

people that the hostile armies of the first exodus were snuffed out as a wick, never to trouble them again (Isa 43:17).

2. The ni. is used in the poetry of Job to indicate that streams will “dry up and disappear” in the heat of summer (6:17). Cf. the parallel form z‘k, cut short (hapleg.; > #2403), in Job 17:1, where some Heb. MSS read nd ‘kw for nz ‘kw. There Job’s days are “cut short,” the grave awaits him.

3. In an individual song of thanksgiving the psalmist utters thanks to the Lord because the nations that surrounded him were extinguished as burning thorns (Ps 118:12). Some have suggested that the form do“kii, the only attestation of d‘k in the pu., should be emended to b‘rw (i.e., beth for daleth and resh for kaph), yielding the sense: “they burned (b‘r, # 1277) as a fire of thorns.”

P-B___

The ni. seems to mean be extinguished in Sir 40:16. Cf. Jastrow 1:316.

Disappearance,

extinction,

vanishing:

~ ’z/ (disappear,

go

away,

#261);

> d‘k

(be

extinguished, be dried up, disappear, # 1980); > m’s II (vanish, dissolve?, # 4416) BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Hakham, The Book of Job [Heb.], 1970; W. McKane, Proverbs, OTL, 1970. Jerome A. Lund

979

"Bl (# 1984) 1981 (da‘at I, knowledge, ability), > #3359 1982 (da‘at Il, claim, suit), > # 1977 1983 (da‘at III, sweat, perspiration), ~ # 2399

1984

"I

*571 (d’pi), nom. blemish, stain, fault (# 1984).

ANE d’pi has background in Arab. ’adfa’, hunchback, and continues into Late Heb. and Jewish Aram. (HALOT 229a).

OT

Inthe OT dp? occurs only 1x: “You speak continually against your brother and

slander (lit., give fault/blemish against) your own mother’s son” (Ps 50:20). Although

its derivation defectiveness.

suggests

a physical

blemish,

the context

here

refers

to moral

Slander: > b/‘ II (make conveyed, reported, #1181); > d’pi (blemish, stain, fault, slander, # 1984); — adn (tongue, language, #4383) > rgl (slander, spy, #8078); > rakil (peddler, huckster, deceiver, slanderer, # 8215) Richard E. Averbeck

1985

355 |

(51 (dpq), q. push, drive hard, knock; hithp. beat violently (#1985); 1/227 (dopga), n. loc.

Dophkah (# 1986). ANE

Arab. dafaqa, make to hasten (an animal).

OT

1. The vb. occurs 3x in the OT and usually denotes the forceful handling of an

animal or an object. In Gen 33:13, Jacob, after returning from Paddan-Aram, is con-

cerned that his livestock are not “driven” too hard, in order to prevent them from overexhaustion. It is the sign of a good shepherd to let his flock rest sufficiently in hot conditions, especially when the animals are nursing (ABD 5:1187). The activity of “knocking” at a door is described by dpq in Judg 19:22 and S of Songs 5:2. While the “knock” in Judg 19:22 is a violent pounding that almost breaks down the door, expressed by the hitp. form (against HALAT 220, which suggests the translation “push one another” for the hitp. form), in S of Songs 5:2 it is the “knock” of the lover at the door of his beloved. ; 2. Dophkah (dopq4@) refers to the “first encampment site of the Israelites after leaving the wilderness of Sin” (ADB 2:222) as mentioned in Num 33:12-13; it has been

associated with the Egyptian mining center at Serabit el-Khadim. P-B

In Midrashic literature (Lev. Rabbah, section 5) the vb. occurs with the same

meaning as in BH (Jastrow, 317). Pushing, goring, thrusting:

> dhh (push, overthrow, be cast down, #1890);

drive hard, knock, #1985);

> hdp (push, thrust, #2074);

> dpgq (push,

> yrt (shove, push, be reckless,

# 3740); > ngh (gore, push, thrust, # 5590); > ‘I/II (thrust in, # 6619); > tq‘ (drive, thrust, clap one’s hands, blow trumpet, pledge, # 9546)

980

DT (# 1987)

a BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABD 2:222-23; 5:1187-90; HALAT 220; TWOT 1:194. Martin G. Klingbeil

1987 OT

ee

| (dag), thin, small, lean, soft (# 1987); < PPT (dqq), crush, pulverize (> # 1990).

1. This word is used of a variety of things that are physically small or thin, the

cows and the ears of corn in Pharoah’s dreams (Gen 41:3-7, 23-24), hair that is thin as a symptom of skin disease (Lev 13:30), finely ground incense (Lev 16:12), a thin shrunken person (NIV dwarfed) who is not allowed to offer sacrifices to God (Lev 21:20), and the manna that fell in the wilderness, “thin flakes like frost” (Exod 16:14).

2. Then, significantly, it is used to describe how the living God sees people and nations who are great and powerful in human eyes. Isa 29:5 says that the Lord Almighty will come and make the enemies of the city of David “like fine dust,” and the parallel is “the ruthless hordes like blown chaff.” In Isa 40:15 the same words are used: “the nations are like a drop in a bucket; they are regarded as dust on the scales; he weighs the islands as though they were fine dust.” 3. The other significant use of the word in the OT is in 1 Kgs 19:11-12, when Elijah in Horeb was told to “stand on the mountain in the presence of the LORD,” where

he had to learn the lesson from the fact that the Lord’s presence was not manifest in wind and earthquake and fire, but in a “gentle whisper.” Francis Foulkes

1988

Pa

PI (dog), nom. veil, gauze (# 1988).

OT The nom. déq is found only in Isa 40:22, where God “stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in” (NIV). The parallelism suggests a tent fabric, hence curtain (NRSV). However, the adj. dag (< dqq) means thin, small, fine, so we also find veil (NAB) and gauze (NJPSV). Elsewhere creation is por-

trayed as a building with foundations (Isa 51:13, 16). The comparison with the thin fabric of a tent highlights the material and temporal fragility of the world and the greatness of the Creator. Veil: > ddg (veil, gauze, #1988); > hebyén (covering, #2470); ~ mitpahat (veil, cloak, # 4762); > masweh (veil, # 5003); > masséka Il (veil, sheet, blanket, # 5012); > mispahd (veil, # 5029); > sammé (veil, # 7539); > sa ‘ip (veil, # 7581); > rdid (veil, # 8100); > r°‘ald (veil,

# 8304) BIBLIOGRAPHY

K. van der Toorn, “The Significance of the Veil in the Ancient Near East,” in D. P. Wright, DN. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz, ed., Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, 1995, 327-39; JCS 27, 1975, 235-40. M. Tsevat, “The Husband Veils a Wife (Hittite Laws, §§ 197-98),” P. Jenson

981

PPro (# 1990)

eg

Fala

Pp

(dqq), q. crush, pulverize, crush fine; hi.

pulverize; ho. be pulverized (# 1990); 7 (daq),

thin, fine, soft (> # 1987); Pa (doq), veil? (hapleg. in Isa 40:22; > # 1988).

ANE. The Akk. dagaqu means “be fine,” and cognates with similar meanings occur in Ugar., Aram., Arab., and Eth. (HALAT 220b; cf. TDOT 197-98). dqq may possibly be related to the vbs. dk’, dkh and dwk. Yahweh is never the subject of dgqg (in contrast with dk’, etc.), but his powerful and gracious intervention makes it possible for the worshiper to say of his enemies: “I beat them as fine as the dust of the earth; I pounded (dqq) and trampled them like mud in the streets” (2 Sam 22:43; see also Isa 28:28-29; 41:14-15, etc.).

OT 1. The term dgq can denote the bruising and the crushing of grain (q. and ho., Isa 28:28). It is also employed (with 5hq; > # 8835) in the instructions for pulverizing holy incense for the Tent of Meeting (Exod 30:36). Furthermore, the vb. dgg appears in order to describe Moses’ grinding down of the golden calf (with thn [> # 3221]; Exod 32:20; Deut 9:21) and Josiah’s pulverizing of the Asherah images (2 Kgs 23:6; 2 Chron 34:4, 7; cf. 15:16) and the high place at Bethel (2 Kgs 23:15). 2. Figuratively, this vb. is used of David’s crushing his enemies into dust (par. with Shq in 2 Sam 22:43; cf. par. Ps 18:42[43]). In a powerful figure of harvesting, this vb. is combined with threshing (dws) to denote the breaking in pieces of many nations by the daughter of Zion (Mic 4:13) and the overcoming of all hindrances and enemies by Israel who will thresh the mountains and crush them (Isa 41:15). The context of all these examples makes it clear that such crushing of foes is only possible because of the enabling power of Yahweh. 3. The Aram. dqq is used for the smashing of the great image of Nebuchadnezzar by God’s kingdom (Dan 2:34, 35, 44, 45; cf. v. 40), the crushing of the bones of Daniel’s accusers by the lions (6:24[25]), and the destruction of the fourth beast (7:7,

19, 23). Beating, crushing, grinding: ~ b‘t (kick, #1246); > dwk (pound, # 1870); > dk’ (crush, be crushed, #1917); > dkh (be crushed, # 1920); > dqq (crush, # 1990); > him (beat, #2150); > hbt (beat from, # 2468); > thn (grind, mill, #3221); > kt¥ (grind down, # 4197); > ktt (beat

fine, pound up, disperse, #4198); > mhs (beat to pieces, #4731); > m‘k (press, squeeze, crush, # 5080); > ngp (strike, #5597); > nk’ (be whipped out, flogged out, #5777); > nkh (be hit, be battered, ruined, destroyed, #5782); > srr I (bind, tie up, #7674); > r‘s (beat down, # 8320);

> rss (crush, mash, break, # 8368); > Swp I (crush, # 8789); > Shq (grind down, # 8835) Dust, clay, dirt, loose soil: > ’abdq (dust, # 85); > ’@per (ashes, loose soil, #709); > homer II (mud, clay, mortar, # 2817); > fét (mud, mire, clay, #3226); > tmp (dirty, #3245); > ‘pr (dust, #6759); > roba‘ II (dust, rubbish, # 8066); > regeb (clods of earth, # 8073); > shdr (soot, blackness, # 8818); > Sahag (dust, clouds of dust, # 8836) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 3:195-208; TWOT 1:194-95; T. D. Hanks, God So Loved the Third World: The Biblical Vocabulary of Oppression, 1983, 3-39; B. Kedar-Kopfstein, “Glossen zur traditionallen biblischen Philologie (2),” ZAH 3, 1990, 207-11; Y. I. Kim, “The Vocabulary of Oppression in the Old Testament”

(Ph.D. diss. Drew

University),

1981; C. F. Marriottini, “The Problem

of Social

Oppression in the Eighth Century Prophets,” Ph.D. diss. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary,

982

“PT 1991) 1983; J. Miranda, Communism

in the Bible, 1982, 37-39; J. Pons, L’oppression dans l’Ancien

Testament, 1981; E. Tamez, Bible of the Oppressed, 1982, 1-30. Cornelis Van Dam

1991

“35 “WPT (dqr), 11x, vb. q. to stab, pierce through; ni. ! to be stabbed, pierced through; pu. (only part.) wounded, racked with hunger (# 1991); Mia (madgéra), 1x, nom. pierce, thrust (# 4532). ANE Arab. dagara (I-stem), daqqara (II-stem), to touch, bump(?); Official Aram. dqr, to beat(?); Aram. d‘qar, to stab; Syr. dgar, to dig, break, pierce through, stab, gore.

OT 1. In several instances a sword or spear is the instrument used for carrying out the vb.’s signification of stabbing or piercing through someone: Saul begs to be run through with a sword (1 Sam 31:4 [2x] = 1 Chron 10:4), as does Abimelech (Judg 9:54); a spear is thrust through a Midianite woman and an Israelite (Num 25:8). The instrument with which one stabs is not always mentioned (Jer 37:10; Zech 12:10;

3A): On two occasions the vb. refers to a stabbing that hastens death (Judg 9:54; 1 Sam 31:4 [2x] = 1 Chron 10:4), while in most instances the vb. refers to a violent death as part of judgment on particular persons (Num 25:8, a Midianite woman and an Israelite; Zech 13:3, a false prophet) or a nation (Isa 13:15, Babylon; Jer 51:4, Babylon). While most uses of the vb. refer to a fatal stabbing, the occurrence of the vb. (pu. part.) in Jer 37:10 refers to badly wounded Babylonian soldiers, whom Jeremiah asserts will leave their infirmary tents to burn down Jerusalem, a message to challenge Jerusalemites from being too certain about their future.

In Lam 4:9 the vb. (pu. part.) is used figuratively to refer to being “racked with hunger” (NIV). The writer claims that it is better to die (quickly) by the sword than by starvation (Guillaume, 47).

The identity of the one “pierced” (Zech 12:10), on whom the house of David and the Jerusalemites will look, has a variety of possible answers: King Josiah, pierced by Pharaoh Neco; visionary successors of Deutero-Isaiah, persecuted by hierocrats (Hanson, 365); Onias III (2 Macc 4:34); the Suffering Servant of Isa 53; Yahweh himself. The Talmud understands this verse as referring to the slaying of Messiah (Sukka, 52a); John 19:37 identifies Jesus (for further reading on this last option, see Bruce). 2. The nom. madgérd, thrust, pierce, occurs only once in BH (Prov 12:18) and is found in a simile: “reckless words pierce like a sword.” P-B

The senses of dig, bore, pierce are attested (Jastrow, 320).

Piercing: ~ dgqr (stab, pierce through, wounded, # 1991); > hill II (pierce, wound, slay, # 2726); > hip I (cut through, pierce, # 2737); > t‘n I (pierced, #3249); > ngb (pierce, bore, distinguish, curse, # 5918); > rs‘ (bore, pierce, # 8361); > Snn I (sharpen, pierce, #9111) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TWOT 1:195; F. F. Bruce, New Testament Development of Old Testament Themes, 1968, 112-13, A. Guillaume, “A Note on Lamentations IV 9,” ALUOS 4, 1962-63, 47; P. D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic, 1975, 365.

Gary Alan Long

983

]277 1995) oe EE

eee

1993 (dar, costly flooring), > #7977

1995 ANE

wo

13.77) (dar‘ban), oxgoad (# 1995).

There are no apparent cognates.

OT = dar‘ban occurs only in 1 Sam 13:21, where the Philistine monolopy on iron work necessitated Israelites spending inflated prices to sharpen their agricultural implements—in this case, the repointing of “the (iron) point of the stick (by which cattle is driven by the man going behind).” (HALAT 221a). It seems clear that dar*ban is the semantic equivalent of malmad, oxgoad (#4913), which occurs in Judg 3:31 (where Shamgar ben Anath saved Israel by killing 600 Philistines with this implement).

P-B A cognate is found in a number of postbiblical texts with the meaning “goad, the iron point on the staff, the spud at the end of the handle of the ploughshare” (PTalm Sanhedrin 10.28a; Hagiga. 3b; Baba Mesi‘a. IV. 4). Thornbush, nettle, sting, thistle, thorn: > ’Gtad (thornbush, # 1402); > deber II (thorny sting, # 1823); > dardar (thistle, # > héah I (thorn, #2560); > m‘sikd (thorn hedge, #5004); > sirad (thorny bush, #6106); > sillén (thorn, #6141); —

# 353); > bargon (thorn, brier, 1998); > hédeq (brier, # 2537); > na‘“siis (thornbush, #5848); s‘neh (thorny shrub, #6174);

> sirpad (stinging nettle, #6252); > se’‘lim (thorny lotus, # 7365); > s*ninim (thorns, # 7564); > qos 1 (thornbush, #7764); — gimmés (weeds, nettles, #7853); — sék (thorn, splinter, # 8493); > Samir I (Christ’s thorn, # 9031) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TWOT 1:195; W. F. Albright, AASOR XXII, 1943, 33. K. Lawson Younger, Jr.

1998

ea aE!

"V1" (dardar), sort of thistle (# 1998).

ANE Cognates occur in Akk. daddaru (CAD 3:17-18); Syr.; Arab., dardur; and Eth. (HALAT 221a).

OT While Zohary identifies this as “Spanish thistle” (Centaurea iberica) (159), I. and W. Jacob suggest that “globe thystle” (Echinops viscosus), “Syrian thistle” (Notobasis syriaca), and “holy thistle” (Silybum marianum) are all candidates for dardar and bargon. These plants grow among shrubs and are common in Samaria and parts of Israel. They are perennials with stout, spiny stems and globular, spiny flowers of various colors. In Gen 3:18, dardar is used in conjunction with gés to convey part of

the curse on humanity as the result of the Fall. This is “in contrast to the trees of the garden supplied by the Lord God for their sustenance, already that they will soon be leaving the garden” (G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15. 82). Hos 10:8 uses dardar to describe the results of God’s judgment of

fruit-bearing giving a hint WBC, 1987, Samaria.

NT _ Finally, the dardar may be the thorny thistles to which Jesus likened the false © prophets (cf. Matt 7:15-16). 984

DIN(# 1999) P-B_ Cognate terms refer to the “thistle, artichoke,” and “thorns” (the Carthamus tinctorius [Léw, 199). Thornbush, nettle, sting, thistle, thorn: > ’atad (thornbush, # 353); > bargon (thorn, brier, # 1402); > deber II (thorny sting, # 1823); > dardar (thistle, # 1998); > hédeg (brier, # 2537);

> hdah I (thorn, #2560); > m‘sikd (thorn hedge, #5004); > na‘“sis (thornbush, shrub, > sira (thorny bush, #6106); — sillén (thorn, #6141); > s*neh ey > sirpad (stinging nettle, # 6252); > se’‘lim (thorny lotus, # 7365); > s°ninim (thorns, > gos I (thornbush, #7764); > gimmés (weeds, nettles, #7853); — sék (thorn, # 8493); > SamirI (Christ’s thorn, # 9031)

#5848); #6174); # 7564); splinter,

BIBLIOGRAPHY TWOT 1:198; I. and W. Jacob, “Flora,” ABD, 2:816; I. Low, Die Flora der Juden, 1928, 199; M. Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 1982, 159.

K. Lawson Younger, Jr.

1999 OT

an

0577 (darém), south, southwind (# 1999).

This word describes the southern boundary of Naphtali (Deut 33:23), the south-

ern gate of the temple (Ezek 41:11; 42:12), and the southwind (Job 37:17). E. Dhorme

writes regarding the southern wind, “All becomes drowsy under the influence of the warm wind. This is the time when ‘the earth rests because of the south wind.’ What is most desired is some clouds which would intercept the rays of the sun and refresh the atmosphere” (156). Directions:

~ darém

(south, # 1999);

~ yam (west, sea, #3542);

> yamin I (right, south,

#3545); > mizrah (sunrise, east, #4667); > ma “rab II (west, #5115); > negeb (south, Negev, #5582); > sapdn I (north, #7600); > gadim (east side, east wind, # 7708); > s*mo’l (left side, left hand, unlucky, northwards, # 8520); > téman I (south, # 9402)

BIBLIOGRAPHY E. Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job, 1967.

Cleon L. Rogers, Jr.

2000 (d’rér I, bird),

2001

> #7606

“07

“3771 (d’rér ID), myrrh oil (# 2001).

OT The nom. d‘rér, myrrh-oil, occurs only 1x in the Heb. expression mor d‘rér (NIV liquid myrrh; see mdr, # 5255). According to Exod 30:22-33 Moses was to mix a special “sacred anointing oil (Semen, #9043)” (v. 25, 31) by blending several spices with oil. d°rér, myrrh oil (lit., myrrh of d’rér) was included in the mixture (v. 23). It probably refers to “drops of myrrh congealed into grains” or “viscous” drops of oil (HALOT 230b). This recipe was not to be used by anyone else, and none of it was to be poured on any common person. It was limited to particular uses in the tabernacle (vv. 31-33). aineny Moses was to use this oil to anoint the whole tabernacle, all its furniture (even the ark of the covenant), and all the vessels used therein (Exod 30:26-28; cf.

985

1751(#2002) 40:9-11; Lev 8:10-11; Num 7:1). By this means Moses would “consecrate them so they will be most holy, and whatever touches them will be holy” (Exod 30:29; cf. 29:37). Second, Moses was to use this oil to anoint the priests and thereby consecrate them to minister in the consecrated tabernacle (Exod 30:30; cf. 29:7; 40:12-15; Lev

8:12). In this way they would become holy (Lev 21:6, 8) and could therefore come into

direct contact with the “most holy” tabernacle, its furniture, and its vessels.

Even

though the OT records the anointing of the priests in the days of Moses, some critical scholars have argued that, historically, priests were not anointed in Israel or generally in the ANE until the postexilic period. A recent text from Emar (ca. 1300 BC), however, refers to the anointing of a priestess there (Fleming, 49). NT

Matt 26:7 refers to the perfume (G myron) that was used to anoint Jesus for his

burial before his death: “a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table” (cf. John 19:39-40, the spices used in the actual burial of Jesus), and early in his ministry in Luke 7:37 it was used by a repentant woman to anoint his feet. Oil: > shr (press out oil, # 7414); > Semen (oil, # 9043) BIBLIOGRAPHY

IDB 3:592-95; D. E. Fleming, The Installation of Baal’s High Priestess at Emar, HSS 42, 1992; M. Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 1982, 56-57. Richard E. Averbeck

= 2002

aOR

307

(d’rér

Il); nom. release, freedom (# 2002); technical term referring to the release

of “Hebrew” slaves from debt servitude, and of the restoring to its original owner of the ancestral land that had been alienated as a result of poverty and debt, every 50 years (Jubilee, cf. Lev 25:10). ANE In Akk. the nom. andurdru(m) (cf. AHw, 54) is used for the manumission of slaves, the cancellation of commercial debts, including the enforced sales of real estate

owing to debt, and to designate a general redress whereby certain taxes, duties on goods, and the arrears on repayments of loans are remitted to benefit specified groups or regions in order to “restore” the economical equilibrium in the land. These royal grants of justice date back at least to the time of Entemena of Lagash (2430 BC) and are attested as late as 600 BC (CAD, 1/2, 115). They are closely connected with, and in most cases identical to, the méSarum practice, of which the Edict of Ammisaduqa is the best example (Kraus, Ein Edikt des Konigs Ammi-saduga von Babylon, 1958). Lewy draws a close connection between the biblical institution of d°rér and the Akk. practice of andurdru (Erlsr 5, 1958, 21-31), but is opposed by Lemche (VT 26, 1976, 38-59)

and Olivier (The Old Babylonian méXarum-Edict and the Old Testament, 246). Lewy also relates the term to Arab. drr/dwr, which means to flow (freely), “run.” It is not fur-

ther attested in other Sem. languages. OT 1. The Heb. word d*rér occurs 7x in the OT, of which four are in Jer 34. It designates the manumission of (Hebrew) slaves (Lev 25:10; Jer 34:8, 15, 17[2x]),

the release to the original owner of captives (Isa 61:1), and the reversion of property

986

19714 2002) (Ezek 46:17). The LXX renders it as aphesis (“remission”), a term it also uses for Heb. ¥mitta (Deut 15:2, 9), ydbél (Lev 25:12, 28), and hops? (Isa 58:6).

2. Jeremiah uses d’rér in the context of the emancipation of slaves. Zedekiah “made a covenant with all the people in Jerusalem to proclaim freedom (d‘rér) for the slaves. Everyone was to free (Sh hops?) his Hebrew slaves, male and female; no one was to hold a fellow Jew in bondage” (Jer 34:8-9). This event echoes Exod 21:2, where

it is said that a Hebrew slave (only male) who was bought by a fellow Israelite must be released (yésé’ lahopSt hinnam) after six years of service. It can also be related to the proclamation of the S*mittad (Deut 15:2), which entails the cancellation of loans (‘sh Smitta, > #9024) made to fellow Israelites, as well as the release (%/h hop%i) of Hebrew slaves in the seventh year (15:12-13). The unfaithful conduct not to adhere to the provisions of the d*rér, but to repossess their freed slaves, would effectuate another

dor, namely, the release of all sorts of disasters to befall the land: “freedom” to fall by the sword, plague, and famine (Jer 34:17).

3. The particulars pertaining to the institution of d’rér are, however, closely connected with those of the Year of the Jubilee (Lev 25:8-55). The Jubilee (y6bé/) coincides with or follows the seventh Sabbatical (Fallow) year (25:2-7), “on the tenth

day of the seventh month; on the Day of Atonement” (25:9). The sounding of the trumpet throughout the land marks the promulgation of the d’rér (“‘liberty’’) to all its inhabitants (Wolff, 295). It comprises the release of land (real estate) that was previously

sold of necessity, and the return to and repossession thereof by the original owners (25:10) in the fiftieth year (y6bé/). Their “liberty” is effectuated by the legal removal of “rightful” curtailments so that they may exercise again their property and family rights. The fact that the reforms of Nehemiah (Neh 5:1-13) do not refer to the law of Lev 25

has been interpreted as an indication of the latter’s relatively late origin (de Vaux, 83). Similarly, Ezek 46:17 deals with the release of property given to a servant in the year of the d’rér, when it had to revert to the king. The question remains whether this reference to d*rér coincides with the seven-year cycle as it is applicable to the emancipation of debt slaves, or with the ydbél in the fiftieth year. Most scholars agree that seven years is too short a term for the restoration of property (North, TDOT 3:268). Van Selms contends that the Jubilee was enacted regularly and with definite effects throughout the history of Israel (“Year,” 74-85). But such regular occurrence would have destroyed its impact and intentions (Olivier, “Effectiveness,” 107). 4. In Isa 61:1 the word d‘rér is used for the release of the captives in exile to whom d‘rér, freedom, is proclaimed. It is paralleled by two expressions: the release (opening of the eyes, according to the LXX) of the prisoners and the proclamation of “the year of the LORD’s favor (ras6n).” This coming day is meant to comfort the poor and brokenhearted and to restore to them their inheritance (Isa 61:7). d’rér here con-

veys the meaning of liberating prisoners from a destitute position of powerlessness and poverty to a position of freedom and dignity, the realization of which is their return to their ancestral land. Such liberation is envisaged in the Messiah’s spiritual ministry of salvation (cf. Luke 4:16-17). 5. It would seem that the practice of d‘rér was originally intended to alleviate the burden of those Hebrew slaves in debt servitude by releasing them (from their obligations), cancelling their debts, and restoring to them the possibility of starting anew on their ancestral land—hence “freedom” (de Vaux, Anclsr, 83-88). As such it can be

987

3715(#2002) compared with the Old Babylonian méXarum and the more general andurdru practices, which were intended to restore economic equilibrium in the country when too much wealth had become concentrated into too few hands (Finkelstein, 102). The release (d’rér) from debt slavery constitutes a major feature of the OT con-

cept of freedom. The socioeconomical background of d‘rér and its related institutions is of major importance in understanding this notion of freedom (Neufeld, 53f.). The long history of Israel is marked by several economic systems, viz., subsistence, redistributive, market orientated (capitalistic), that operated consecutively or simultaneously. None of these incorporates the possibility of bankruptcy, simply because there was no zero-factor in ancient mathematics. Whenever the farmers of the central highlands, who were dependent on regular rains, experienced periodic droughts, pestilences, or plagues, their food produce was affected seriously, and they were forced to

borrow their food supplies and seed from the (usually) Canaanite moneylenders, sometimes at exorbitant interest rates. The monarchy imposed taxes in natura and conscription (corvee and army), indulged in costly wars, ventured prestigious economic enterprises like building programs, and incurred foreign rule, all of which increased the heavy burdens of the farmers. The cumulative effect of all these burdens left no option for the farmer but to sell his children (workers) or himself into debt servitude in order to repay the debts and accrued interest (Neh 5:1-5). This situation also provided the opportunity for the moneylender (and sometimes official) to exact usury, to seize the debtor’s real estate and to confiscate all his assets. In this way, creditors could “‘add house to house and join field to field till no space is left and you live alone in the land” (Isa 5:8). Many peasant farmers were thus forced to leave their ancestral property to become wage earners (§a@kir) or permanent slaves (Exod 21:6) elsewhere. Soon they would have formed part of the ever-growing group of the poor and landless class, who were severely exploited and robbed of their human dignity and freedom. To these people the promulgation of a d‘rér (the word is notably absent in Neh 5) was their only hope for liberation and restoration of their human dignity, because it was basically intended to keep the Israelites free from any bondage, to serve their God. Freedom, therefore, means to be self-supporting and self-sufficient, independent of and free from outside pressures, and free to determine and enjoy one’s own life. Heb. m*nuhd, rest (> Rest), epitomizes this ideal

(Isa 11:10). Freedom, innocence, cleanness, liberation: ~ d‘rdr III (release, freedom, # 2002); > hp (freed, # 2926); > horI (free man, freeborn, # 2985); > nqh (be free, exempt from guilt, remain

unpunished, # 5927); — ntr III (set free, # 6002); > gém‘miyyit (walk erect, # 7758); > rwh A (become wide or spacious, be spacious, #8118) BIBLIOGRAPHY

ISBE 3:118-22; TDOT 3:265-69; 5:114-18; F. M. Cross, “The Cave Inscriptions from Khirbet Beit Lei,” FS Glueck, 1970, 299-306; F. Criisemann, Bewahrung der Freiheit, 1983; R. de Vaux,

Anclsr, 1968; E. Dhorme, Les religions de Babylonie et d’Assyrie, 1949; J. J. Finkelstein, “Ammisaduqa’s Edict and the Babylonian Law Codes” JCS 15, 1961, 91-104; J. Gray, I and II Kings, OTL, 1970; R. Heiligenthal, “Freiheit: Friihjudentum,” Theologische Realenzyklopddie, 11, 1983, 498-502;

H.-J. Kraus, Klagelieder

,

BKAT,

1968; idem, Psalmen

1-59,

BKAT, 1978; idem, Psalmen 60-150, BKAT, 1978; N.-P. Lemche, “Apsy in 1 Sam 17:25,” VT 24, 1975, 373-74; idem, “The Manumission of Slaves—The Fallow Year, The Sabbatical and

988

771(#2005) Jobel Year,’ VT 26, 1976, 38-59; J. Lewy, “The Biblical Institution of d‘ror in the Light of Akkadian Documents,” Erlsr 5, 1958, 21-31; N. Lohfink, Unsere Grossen Worter, 1977;

O. Loretz, Habiru—Hebriier: Eine sozio-linguistische Studie tiber die Herkunft des Gentiliziums ‘ibri vom Appellativum habiru, 1984; J. L. McKenzie, “The Elders in the OT,” Bib 40, 1959, 522-40; I. Mendelsohn, “The Canaanite Term for ‘Free Proleterian’,” BASOR 83, 1941, 36-39; J. M. Myers, IJ Chronicles, 1965; E. Neufeld, ‘Socio-Economic Background of Y6bél and S‘mitta,” RSO 33, 1958, 53-124; J. P. J. Olivier, The Old Babylonian méSarum-Edict and the Old Testament, 1977; idem, “The Effectiveness of the Old Babylonian méSarum Decree,” JNSL 12, 1984, 107-13; N. Postgate, Taxation and Conscription in the Assyrian Empire, 1974; H. J. Stoebe, Chronikbiicher, HAT, 1955; idem, Das Erste Buch Samuelis, KAT, 1973; A. van

Selms, “The Year of Jubilee in and Outside the Pentateuch,” OTWSA 17 and 18, 1974/5, 74-85; G. von Rad, OTT, 1962; Th. C. Vriezen, Hoofdlijnen der Theologie van het Oude Testament’,

1966; H. W. Wolff, Anthropologie des Alten Testaments, 1974; C. J. H. Wright, Living as the People of God: The Relevance of Old Testament Ethics, 1983; W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel, BKAT, 1969. J. P. J. Olivier

2005

nie (drk) q. tread, march, bend the bow, press; hi. make solid, cause to tread, lead in the path of (# 2005); nom. eas (derek), way, road, distance, journey, manner, custom, behavior, mode of life, condition (# 2006). OT

7

1. The nom. derek occurs more than 700x in the OT, in the majority of instances

in a figurative sense. As such it is by far the most common substantive used to speak of the experience and course of life. Despite its common use in Heb., it is otherwise sparsely attested in Phoen., Aram., Syr., and rarely in Eth. and other West and South

Sem. dialects. And in these languages it seldom carries a figurative meaning (TDOT 3:276-77). 2. Fundamental to the metaphorical meaning of derek is its covenant overtone. One’s path in life, i.e., spiritual journey, finds its source and orientation in reference to

one’s relationship with Yahweh, the God of the covenant. The OT univocally attests to the fact that all humanity, righteous and wicked alike, are in pilgrimage along a way that leads either to life or death. The difference of outcome lies strictly in how the individual identifies himself with Yahweh, and the success or failure of the journey of the believer is determined by the degree to which the traveler is obedient to the covenant stipulations that govern the pursuit of the spiritual itinerary (McComiskey, The Covenants of Promise, 153). The earliest statement of this connection between covenant and journey occurs in Exod 18:20, where Moses is instructed by Jethro to teach the redeemed people the “decrees and laws,” a teaching synonymous with “the way to live.” The way (derek) is, therefore, the whole course of life lived in conformity to covenant obligation. The same emphasis on walking in a God-ordained manner appears in the psalms (Ps 32:8; 143:8) and prophets (Isa 48:17; Jer 42:3). 3. Faithful continuation of the covenant relationship demands that Yahweh’s people follow the way he has commanded them to take. Deuteronomy is particularly rich in the imagery of the journey as metaphor for covenant obedience. To hold fast to

989

77 # 2005) the way is to assure life (Deut 5:33). But such obedience rises not just as response to some inner instinct. It is an act of the will, a compliance with divine commandment (9:12, 16; 11:28;

13:5; 31:29). Jeremiah, in the Deuteronomic

tradition, places the

promise that “I will be your God and you will be my people” in juxtaposition to walking in the way God has commanded (Jer 7:23) (J. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, NICOT, 288-89). In other words, to keep the commandments is, at the same time, to walk in his ways (Deut 8:6; 19:9; 26:17; 28:9; 30:16; 1 Kgs 2:3; Ps 119:2, 3; 128:1; Isa

42:24; Mic 4:2). The same notion, but with the covenant requirements implicitly in view, may be found in a host of passages (2 Kgs 21:22; Ps 119:27, 32, 33; Prov 10:29; Isa 40:3; Jer 5:4, 5; Ezek 18:25, 29; 33:17, 20). Here Yahweh’s way (or “my way”) clearly speaks of his expectations for his chosen people. 4. Beyond the technical meaning of “journey” or “way” as covenant relationship is its use as a broader metaphor for life in general and for the righteous and evil life in particular (Habel, “Naked I Came,” 376-77). Jeremiah combines the latter two in Yahweh’s words to the community under impending judgment: “See, I am setting before you the way of life and the way of death” (Jer 21:8; cf. Prov 6:23; 14:12; 16:25). In an eschatological setting Isaiah expresses a similar sentiment couched in terms of an invitation: “This is the way; walk in it” (Isa 30:21). “Way” in all these instances is simply a synonym for a course of life.

5. As for more practical applications of the imagery, there are both personal, subjective uses and those that refer to other persons more objectively. In the former case there is the observation, especially in the Wisdom literature, that one’s life consists of a pathway to which he commits himself because it always seems intuitively right. Thus, “all a man’s ways seem right to him” (Prov 21:2). But even if “there is a way that seems right to a man,” that way inevitably leads to death (14:12). The problem, then, is precisely this, that such a way finds its source and impetus from one’s own heart (Isa 57:17). What is needed is the disclosure of a way from without, from the

God who knows the end from the beginning. When one finds his way through a covenant relationship with the living God, he can say, with Job, “he knows the way I take; when he has tested me I will come forth as gold” (Job 23:10).

6. From a more detached, objective standpoint the biblical prophets and sages reflect on the pilgrimage of life in terms of alternative pathways. They can say that “the LORD watches over the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish” (Ps 1:6). Isaiah in particular views the historical experience of his contemporaries in terms of their “way” or journey. He is cautioned by Yahweh not to walk in their way (Isa 8:11). However, in the eschaton the way of the people will be cleared so that they once again can live before him as his elect nation (57:14; 62:10). Here derek is less meta-

phorical, referring to the path of salvation and restoration, but the clearing of the one road makes possible the successful pursuit of the other. 7. In a narrower sense, derek refers to the life of righteousness or wickedness. It can speak of existence as a function of the covenant and as a metaphor for life as such. Far more frequently, however, it suggests a particular style of life, either righteous or evil. The former of these will be considered first under the categories of its characteristics and then of its examples. Solomon, in his famous dedicatory prayer, alludes to the way his people should walk as a “right (good) way,” one that is inherently worthy and that also brings about good (1 Kgs 8:36). Jeremiah speaks of the good way as

990

771 (# 2005) synonymous with the old paths (n°tibd), those trodden by godly men and women in the past (Jer 6:16). These good routes are also straight, like those through which Yahweh led Israel in the wilderness (Ps 107:7), and they are smooth as well, allowing their trav-

elers to pass along without stumbling (Jer 31:9). It is not the path that makes one righteous, of course, for the path of the righteous only reflects the character of those who take it. They are the upright ones (Prov 13:6), those whose very lives serve to rebuke the wicked by their startling contrast (29:27). They are blessed because their uprightness is a hallmark of their covenant fidelity, their adherence to the law of Yahweh (Ps 119:1). There is no wonder that Yahweh delights in them and their godly walk (Prov 11:20). 8. Characteristic of the true pilgrim, moreover, is faithfulness to the call of Yahweh. The pilgrim has chosen the way of ’*miind, of steadfastness or fidelity (> #575; Ps 119:30). The parallelism here suggests that covenant commitment is in view, for it is the ordinances (mispat) of Yahweh that the pilgrim is so careful to follow. The pilgrim’s way is also a way of righteousness, a path that ultimately leads to life (Prov 12:28). Again, the righteousness is not something native to the journey but is an attribute of the traveler. The way becomes righteous by virtue of the godliness of the one who treads it. 9. It is not surprising that Wisdom texts connect the path of uprightness (ydser) with wisdom. The servant of Yahweh who seeks to walk in the right way must depend upon the wisdom of Yahweh if he or she is to be successful (Prov 4:11). Another way of asserting this truth is by use of the synonym of wisdom (hokmd), namely, understanding (bind). The sage says that the only way to live is to walk in the way of understanding (9:6). Those who fail to do so will find their resting place among the dead (21:16). Those who find themselves in paths of righteousness are described as the “good” (Prov 2:20), an epithet suggestive of their status as members of the covenant community. That is, there is direct connection between the way the believer professes faith and the way he or she lives it out. It is only Yahweh’s “holy ones” (hasid), his saints, whose pathway is guarded against harm and interdiction (Prov 2:8). It is they, and they alone, whose pilgrimage leads at last to the way everlasting (Ps 139:24). 10. There are three of these saints whose “way” is held up as exemplary. David, the man after God’s own heart, sets the standard by which all kings who follow him are measured. Among these are Josiah (2 Kgs 22:2; 2 Chron 34:2) and Jehoshaphat (2 Chron 17:3), both of whom are said to have “walked in all the ways of his father

David.” Asa, too, was a pilgrim in whose godly footsteps others later walked with commendation, notably his son Jehoshaphat (1 Kgs 22:43; 2 Chron 20:32). His grandson Jehoram is rebuked, however, precisely because he failed to walk in the ways of Asa (2 Chron 21:12). He even rejected the ways of Jehoshaphat, who himself served as a model of virtue (21:12). 11. The term derek as a metaphor for life is descriptive of the way of the wicked as well as that of the righteous. Those who pursue this path are indeed called “wicked” (rasa‘, Jer 12:1; Ps 146:9; Prov 4:19; 15:9), “sinners” (hatta’im, Ps 1:1 ), “the guilty” (28 wazar, Prov 21:8), and those who have “turned aside” (Job 31:7; Mal 2:8). The last

phrase refers to those who have started out on the road of righteousness but who have become diverted to a pathway of disobedience.

991

771 4 2005) 12. Such a pathway is characterized by darkness (Prov 2:13), falsehood (Ps 119:29), and perversity (Prov 22:5). The fool (Prov 12:15) and sluggard (15:19) will be found thereon, holding fast to a way of life that is evil (ra‘, 1 Kgs 18:384Provi2 12: 28:10; Jer 18:11; 25:5; 26:3; 35:15; 36:3, 7; Zech 1:4), one the psalmist dismisses as “a sinful course” (Ps 36:4[5]; cf. Isa 65:2; Prov 16:29).

The OT offers many examples of those whose spiritual journey was marked by the preceding characteristics and whose pilgrimage must be assiduously avoided. These include the pagan nations as a whole, the customs of which Jeremiah condemns as idolatrous (Jer 10:2). But even Israel’s ancestral fathers often took the path of evil

(Ezek 20:30). On a more individual and personal level, the kings were guilty of following in the footsteps of their wicked royal predecessors, such as Jeroboam (1 Kgs 15:26) and Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:21). Judah as a nation comes in for special rebuke because she walked in the ways of her sister Israel (Ezek 23:31), both of them taking the same route to disaster (23:13). The kings of Israel set a particularly bad example both collectively (2 Kgs 8:18;

16:3; 2 Chron 21:6; 28:2) and in the person of such notorious figures as Jeroboam I (1 Kgs 15:34; 16:2, 26; 22:52) and the whole house of Ahab (2 Kgs 8:27; 2 Chron 22:3). This was especially regrettable inasmuch as the kings, as theocratic administrators, should above all have blazed the trail of persistent godliness and covenant fidelity. 13. The vb. drk, as already noted, occurs in both the q. and hi. stems with the meaning “tread” or “march,” usually in a literal sense. Theologically it expresses the same notions as the nom. dérék, that is, it speaks of the pursuit of a manner of life or practice, at least when used with a human subject. Thus, in a chiastic structure in Isa 59:8, the nom. derek matches the part. dorek to suggest that he who walks (or treads) crooked roads cannot know the way of peace. Here drk is clearly only a synonym of hlk or any other vb. meaning “to walk.” 14. More commonly drk speaks figuratively of conquest. The context may be one of marching (Deut 1:36; 11:24-25), treading the grapes to produce wine (with divine subject, Isa 63:3), “treading” the bow to bend it in combat (Ps 7:13; Zech 9:13),

and achieving victory by the help of the Lord (Hab 3:19). In all these instances there is an element of force or violence. This suggests that the pilgrim walk has a certain militancy about it. There is land to be occupied and enemies to be overcome by the Lord and by his people, whom he leads in triumph. Journey, going, marching, walking, wandering: > ’rh (be on the road, wander, #782); > ’SrI (walk straight, #886); > drk (tread, march, # 2005); > hlk (go, walk, behave, # 2143); > zhl I (slide away, #2323); > ys’ (go out, come forward, # 3655); > yrd (go down, go up, descend, #3718); > massa‘ (setting out, #5023); > nht (march down, descend, settle, # 5737); > s’n (tramp along, tread, #6008); > ‘dh I (stride, #6334); > ‘lh (go up, ascend, bring up, # 6590); > ps‘ I (step forth, march, #7314); > s‘d (step, march, # 7575); > Swr I (descend, caravan, # 8801) Path, way: ~ ’rh (be on the road, wander, #782); > derek (way, distance, journey, manner, #2006); > madréga (steep way, #4533); > m*silla (highway, #5019); > ma‘gal II (track, #5047); > mix‘6l (hollow way, #5469); > nattb (path, #5985); > pls I (clear way, make a path, #7142); > S*bil (path, # 8666); > sp?I (track, #9155) Wisdom, knowledge, skill: > byn (understand, discern, # 1067); > hkm (be wise, become wise, act wisely, # 2681); > yd‘ (understand, know, #3359); > ysr I(admonish, correct, discipline, #3579); > leqah (teaching, gift of persuasion, #4375); > m°zimmd, consideration, plan,

992

wan(# 2011) evil plan, plot, #4659); > ‘ogba (cunning, craftiness, make crafty, #6891);

#6817); > ‘rm II (be cunning, be crafty,

> ski I (have success, understand, make wise, act with insight, # 8505);

> tahbul6t (advice, guidance, # 9374)

.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 3:270-93; THAT 1:456-60; TWOT 1:196-97; M. Dahood, “Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography

II,” Bib 45, 1964, 404; idem, “Proverbs 8, 22-31,” CBQ 30, 1968, 514; idem, “Some Northwest Semitic Words in Job,” Bib 38, 1957, 320; N. Habel, “‘Naked I Came . . .”: Humanness in the Book of Job,” Die Botschaft und die Boten, 1981, 373-92; M. Held, “Hebrew baivn A Study in

Lexical Parallelism,” JANESCU

6, 1974, 107-16; R. Ratner, “Derek-Morpho-Syntactical Con-

siderations,” JAOS 107, 1987, 471-73; H. Zirker, “derekh-potentia?” BZ 2, 1958, 291-94. Eugene H. Merrill

2006 (derek, way, distance, journey, manner), > # 2005

2007 (dark’mén, daric), > #3971

011

vq (drs), q. care about, inquire (of), consult, seek, require (of), study, investigate, examine, ask, (HALAT 223-24); ni. (let oneself) be sought (HAD, 61; #2011). a (midrai, #4535) interpretation, exposition (HAD, 139), composition, study, commentary (TDOT 3:306). ANE

a

Northwest Sem. drs, inquire (of), seek; Akk. darasu, trample on (CAD 3:110),

press (AHw, 163b). Ugar. drS, interrogate; Syr. drs, dispute; deros, care about (WUS, # 795); Rabb. Heb. and Aram. drs, tread (Jastrow, 324b), interpret, care about; Mand. dr§, teach, recite (MdD, 114). Eth. darasa, explain (WUS, 83); Arab. darasa, tread CAD, study.

OT

1. Distribution. dr§ is used 165x in the OT: 1 and 2 Chron (41x), Ps (25x), Ezek

(15x), 14x in Deut, 1 and 2 Kgs, and Isa; Jer (9x); it also appears in Gen, Exod, Lev, Judg, 1 and 2 Sam, Ezra, Esth, Job, Prov, Eccl, Lam, Hos, Amos, Mic, and Zeph. Ni.

appears 9x, otherwise q.; nom. midraS, exposition 2x. 2. The semantic word field of drs. (a) Vbs. expressing motion. Vbs. such as walk (hlk, > #2143), go (bw’, > #995), and send (Sih, > #8938) sometimes precede drs (e.g., Exod 18:15; 2 Kgs 1:2, 3, 6; 1 Chron 21:30; Jer 37:7). All instances are in histor-

ical books or in narrative portions of the prophets. 1 Sam 9:9 reports a standard usage in the time of the judges: “. . . if a man went (h/k) to inquire (drs) of God, he would say, ‘Come, let us go to the seer.’” The uses suggest that a protocol was involved in inquiry. (b) Anticipated Responses. When drs means seek, the anticipated response is expressed by find (ms’, > #5162), though the idea is often only implied. The Lord is

usually the object of seeking (“If you seek him, he will be found by you,” 2 Chron 15:2d). Inquire of (drs) sometimes appears with answer (‘nh I, > #6699): “I sought the LORD, and he answered me” (Ps 34:4[5]). Often the particular answer is given (e.g., Aaron’s answer to Moses’ inquiry [Lev 10:16, 19] is introduced with dbr). (c) Use with Synonyms. “Seek” (bgs > # 1335), used more frequently than dr‘,

appears in conjunction or in par. with drS in Judg 6:29; 1 Chron 16:11; 2 Chron 20:3-4; Job 10:6; Ps 24:6; 38:12[13]; 105:4; Jer 29:13; and Ezek 34:6, 11. In the same context

993

wan (#2011) drs and bq¥ are virtually indistinguishable. (Used separately with Yahweh as its object, bqs often describes the action of someone away from him; e.g., apostate Israel in Hos 3:4-5). dr¥ often depicts seeking as a sign of relationship (esp. of the faithful in 2 Chron and Ps, but cf. Deut 4:29). Investigate (bgr, > # 1329) appears with drs in Ezek 34:11. (d) Antonyms. Forsake (‘zb I > # 6440), in par. syntax with drs, highlights the sense “care for,” e.g., “and you will be called Sought Out (drs), the City No Longer Deserted” (‘zb; Isa 62:12; cf. 2 Kgs 22:17-18; 2 Chron 34:25-26; Ps 9:10[11]; Isa 55:6-7; 58:2; 65:10-11). Cast off (znh Il > #2396) has a similar impact in the par. construction, “If you seek (drs) him, he will be found (ms’) by you; but if you forsake

(‘zb) him, he will reject (znh) you forever” (1 Chron 28:9b; cf. Ps 77:2[3], 7[8]; Lam Bl Wine) 3 (e) Prepositions. drX with to, I° or ’el; of, b° or ‘al, does not form a consistent

pattern. With the prep. min the vb. drs means require, ask (something) of someone (e.g., Deut 18:19; 1 Kgs 14:5; 2 Chron 18:6; Ezek 33:6; Mic 6:8; but cf. Ps 109:10).

3. Nonfigurative sense (13x). The subject is usually a human (but cf. Job 39:8) seeking some material object (a lost sheep, Deut 22:2; wool and flax, Prov 31:13) or information (concerning Bathsheba, 2 Sam 11:3; verification of God’s promise, Isa

34:16). dr§ in 1 Chron 15:13 refers to instructions for carrying the ark properly. Other objects of dré are hurt (Ps 38:12[13]) and good (Esth 10:3). Job sees God as probing ‘ after his sin (10:6; > examine, bwr [# 1013], used of God’s testing men [Eccl 9:1; for

3:18 cf. Driver). Joash is challenged to require (drs) the Levites to bring the tithes (2 Chron 24:6). 4. Figurative sense. (a) Pentateuch. Deut 23:6[7] warns against seeking the peace (Sal6ém) or good (t6b) of Ammonites or Moabites. The context (policy-setting) suggests the sense of prohibiting treaties (cf. Ezra 9:12). Deut 11:12 introduces a nuance of dr§: “It is a land the LORD your God cares for.” The Lord sends rain on the

land and watches it through every season. Here both practical provision and special attention are denoted by drs. (b) Psalms. Objects of drs include my hurt (38:12[13]) and the works of Yahweh in 111:2, where dr§ means “pondered.” In 142:4[5] dr¥ is used with negative ’én

and “for my life” (/°napS?), meaning “no one cares for me,” demonstrating the extension of drs to mean care. dr§ reflects a person’s will. (c) Wisdom.

Seeking

mischief

(Prov

11:27)

implies

practical

action,

but

describes inner character. “May God above not care about” that day (Job 3:4) and “to explore all that is done” (Eccl 1:13) both involve reflective consideration. (d) Prophets. Objects of drs include justice (mispat; Isa 1:17) and good (Amos 5:14a). Jeremiah brings God’s instruction that the exiles seek the welfare of Babylon as Yahweh’s plan for their own well-being (29:7; cf., J. Sisson, 429-42). In each case dr¥

involves acting for others’ well-being. Zion is a city for whom no one cares (drs, Jer 30:17), but Yahweh announces

that he will restore her (cf. “Sought Out [drs, q. pass. part.], the City No Longer Deserted” [‘zb, ni. part., Isa 62:12]). Ezekiel uses dr¥ 4x in ch. 34: with seek out, bqs (v. 6), and with search out, bgr (vv. 8, 10, 11). Yahweh’s sheep are scattered (pws > #7046), the word used for the literal condition of God’s people in 11:16, 17; 20:34, 41; 28:25; 29:13. In Ezek 34 pws is used 5x, while dr¥ becomes the key word in Ezekiel’s promise of restoration (Allen, 161-62). Used with miyyadam (v. 10) it specifies,

994

wan(# 2011) “require my sheep at their (the unworthy shepherds’) hand.” With search out (bqr, Vv. 11) dr§ announces Yahweh’s restoration for his flock, reestablishing ownership and his

personal care for the sheep. 5. Legal usage. (a) Pentateuch. Gen uses dr¥ 4x of Yahweh’s requiring shed blood (3x in 9:5). Yahweh requires payment of vows (Deut 23:21[22]) and obedience to a prophetic word (18:19). drs is used of people’s inquiry prior to rendering a judgment (Deut 13:14[15]; 17:4, 9; and 19:18; cf. also Lev 10:16). (b) Historical books. The same two usages occur here: investigate (Ezra 10:16) and Zechariah’s plea that the Lord will avenge (2 Chron 24:22). (c) Psalms. The focus of dr¥ in Ps in a legal sense is on God, who is to account and avenge bloodshed (Ps 9:12[13]) and human evil (10:13; 10:15). (d) Prophets. Every legal use of drs in the prophets carries the sense, require.

The Lord requires his flock of the careless shepherds (Ezek 34:10), holds the watchman accountable for failure to warn (33:6), and requires his people’s offerings (20:40).

Mic 6:8 presents a legal hearing with God as the plaintiff and Israel as the accused. Israel sees the impossible cost of legal satisfaction (6:6-7). Then the verdict comes: Yahweh requires (drS) “to act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” The use of legal language restates the requirements of being God’s own. (e) Conclusion. Every legal use of dr§ with Yahweh as subject carries the sense of require. When humans are the subject, drs means investigate or inquire (into a matter).

6. Covenantal Usage. The predominant use of drs describes humans either seeking God or inquiring of him for a specific answer. Sometimes drS involves a traditionally or legally established procedure. Seeking is a privilege and responsibility of belonging to the covenant community; it is not always cultic. (a) Abuses. Neglecting to seek Yahweh or seeking elsewhere breaks his covenant or a specific command. Only two Torah prohibitions use drs: Deut 18:11 (consulting the dead) and 12:30 (inquiring about the Canaanite gods). The focus on abuse in the historical books centers on seeking others rather than Yahweh. Saul consulted (5’] > #8626) a medium to seek (dr5) guidance (1 Chron 10:13); he failed to inquire of (drs) the Lord (v. 14; cf. 1 Sam 28:6-7). 2 Kgs 1 uses drs 4x to record Ahaziah’s inquiry of Baal. Asa is judged for consulting (drs) the physicians rather than the Lord (2 Chron 16:12). Seeking elsewhere is symptomatic of a

relationship that has already failed. In 2 Chron 25:15 the sense of drs is broader than an inquiry. Yahweh’s anger burns against Amaziah for instituting the worship of Edom’s gods. In Ps the wicked (rasa‘) stands as an antonym for drs (part.). In Ps 10:4 the wicked are those who do not seek God, but instead are corrupt, Sht (> # 8845) and depraved, ’/h (> #480; cf. 14:1-3; 53:2-4). Failure to seek Yahweh is sin.

The prophets warn against two abuses: seeking others than Yahweh and seeking him emptily. Isaiah indicts Judah for seeking (drs) mediums (8:19) and going to Egypt (31:1) instead of seeking the Lord (cf. 19:3). Seeking Yahweh as well as other helpers

becomes a cause for judgment (Ezek 14:10). Yahweh’s jealous declaration of coming judgment in Jer 8:2 describes what consulting (drs) the host of heaven entails—note the vbs. love (‘hb > #170); serve (‘bd > #6268); go after (h/k > #2143); and worship (hwh I > # 2556, or shh, > #8820). Isa 58:2 renounces empty seeking (drs); the

o75

wan(# 2011) following vv. specify asking Yahweh for decisions and fasting as part of the empty process. Justice and compassion are identified as necessary qualities of successful seeking (58:6-7, 9b-10a). In Zeph 1:6 not inquiring is associated with not seeking (bqs) and turning back (swg I, > # 6047); i.e., neglecting continuing devotion. The prophets’ charges of abuse help set the specific act of inquiring (dr) within the context of an ongoing relationship. The act of inquiry is always indicative of the relationship. The context often determines the intended sense. The Eng. usages (seek and inquire of) are not always distinguishable; while both are used for specific consultation, seek is better suited for relationship.

In this discussion

we will distinguish

accordingly. (b) Inquiry directed to Yahweh. Rebecca went (hlk) to inquire (drs) of the Lord about the twins within her (Gen 25:22). No mediator or procedure is specified beyond the mention of hlik. Moses serves as the mediator for inquiry (drs) of Yahweh (Exod 18:15) prior to the institution of the priesthood. 1 Sam 9:9 documents the practice of inquiring through a seer in the time of the judges. 1 Kgs never mentions inquiry of Yahweh apart from a prophet (14:5; 22:5, 7-8; sim. 2 Kgs 3:11; 8:8; 22:13, 18). 1 Chron 21:28-30 is pivotal in identifying what is to be the center of Israel’s worship (cf. Deut 12:5). The tabernacle at Gibeon (cf. inquire [drs] of the ark in 13:3) is preempted by the command of the angel of the Lord that David sacrifice at the threshing floor of Araunah. David receives mercy there, and 22:1 designates the site as the location for Yahweh’s temple (cf. 21:30). Before he builds the temple, Solomon and all Israel sacrifice and successfully inquire (drs) of the Lord at Gibeon (2 Chron 1:5-7). An altar is again the scene of the inquiry, but there is no prophet. Later kings’ inquiries rely on prophetic words. Jehoshaphat insists on consulting a prophet before battle (18:4, 6-7). In a later crisis he calls Judah to inquire (drs) by fasting and assembling at the temple. Yahweh answers through a Levite’s inspired message (20:3-4, 14). Josiah inquires through the prophetess Huldah concerning the Book of the Law (34:21, 26). While not all inquiry takes place at the temple, successful answers are associated with a king’s faithful attention to Yahweh’s house. Jer 21:2; 37:7-8; and Ezek

14:7-8; 20:1, 3 enforce this distinction as they

respond to the presumption of faithless leaders that they may inquire of Yahweh and even expect favorable replies. God curses such a person (14:7). (c) Seeking Yahweh. (i) In the Pent. drS appears 1x in instructions concerning worship: “But you are to seek the place the LORD your God will choose . . . for his dwelling” (Deut 12:5). The context is sacrifice and festival. Yahweh would dwell with his people, and there they would worship. Deut 4:29 had already presented seeking as the key to recovery after forfeiting the land for apostasy: “But if from there you seek (bq) the LORD your God, you will find (ms’) him if you look for (dr) him with all your heart and with all your soul.” Seeking was cultic and personal; its center was Jerusalem; its object, Yahweh himself. (i1) In Chronicles seeking (dr) Yahweh becomes a way of identifying faithfulness. In | Chron 16:10-11 David’s psalm calls those who seek (bg¥ part.) the Lord to rejoice. Impv. drs and bqs follow. Williamson (259), noting the judgment against Saul (10:14), identifies seeking the Lord as a human’s chief duty in Chron. David exhorts the Levites to seek (dr5) Yahweh

996

(with heart and soul) and to build the sanctuary

wa (# 2011) (22:19). In 28:9 he addresses sim. words to Solomon in the presence of the national leaders: “If you seek (drs) him, he will be found (ms’) by you; but if you forsake (‘zb) him, he will reject (¢nh) you forever.” As in 22:19 a whole heart and a willing mind are specified. Ackroyd notes that dr§ expresses a deep sense of the relationship between people and God (91). D. McCarthy (31) characterizes dr¥ as an eager “striving to cleave to the Lord directly.” Yahweh is the one searching (drs) all hearts (28:9). J. G. McConville argues that seeking involves longing in both occurrences of dr¥ in v. 9 (105). Compare 28:10, where the Lord desires Solomon to build the temple. Seeking the Lord is an underlying theme of 2 Chron (cf. C. Begg, 128-42; R. Dillard, 143). dr¥ (used 27x) with Yahweh (or some variation) as object is favored over bq (used 8x). dr¥ is repeated as the decisive factor in the evaluation of kings: Rehoboam (12:14), Asa (16:12), Jehoshaphat (19:3), Ahaziah (22:9), Uzziah (26:5), and

Josiah (34:3). Used as the plumb line throughout the book, drS is especially highlighted by clusters of usage in the material on Asa (chs. 14-15), Jehoshaphat (17), and Hezekiah (30-31). The Chronicler sets forsake (‘zb) in contrast, using it 21x and clustering its use 4x in ch. 24 (Joash’s reign). McCarthy (31) also identifies “humble oneself before” (kn‘ > #4044 [clustered in 30-33]) and rebel (m‘] > #5085 [clustered in 28-29]) as characteristic vocabulary (cf. Dillard, 77-78, on m‘/ as an antonym). Williamson (278) notes the juxtaposition of episodes (seeking; forsaking, etc.) in patterns of alternating light and shade to emphasize the blessing of faithfulness in seeking Yahweh. These benefits include rest, success (14:7; 26:5), prosperity, and peace (17:5, 11-12; 31:21).

The most important outcome of seeking Yahweh is that Yahweh is found (ms’; promised in 2 Chron 15:2 and reported as successful in v. 15). Surprisingly, bqs appears in 15:15 (after a cluster of dr§ usages in the same ch.). The shift may be explained as a reference back to the Lord’s promise to Solomon (esp. 7:14), where bqs is used for the seeking that will bring restoration. Williamson (295) regards this promise as paradigmatic for 2 Chron; Dillard (7) calls it the charter for all that follows. The promise in 7:14 reflects David’s words in 1 Chron 28:9 and God’s promise in Deut 4:29 (both using dr). Seeking involves the place the Lord has chosen for his name (cf. 2 Chron 15:9-10; people from Israel come over to Asa, assembling in Jerusalem)—cf. the centrality of the temple in 2 Chron (Coggins, 6; Dillard, 2). The essential seeking that Chron requires points Israel to the temple in Jerusalem, while specifying a wholehearted, humble relationship with Yahweh in each individual life.

Ezra 6:21 uses dr§ (Yahweh) as the motive for separation from unclean practices; a sim. sense to Chron. dr (with Torah) means study, an emerging postexilic focus and identification of the faithful (7:10).

(iii) In Psalms dr¥ appears 12x for seeking Yahweh, 11x as act. part. describing those who seek (they praise him, 22:26-27; they also understand, 14:2; 53:2[3]) or noting the results (e.g., never forsaken, 9:10[11]; lacking no good, 34:10[11]; being answered and delivered, 34:4[5]). Cf. 10:4; 24:5-6; 69:32[33]. The pass. part. (111:2)

takes Yahweh’s works as its subject and describes those by whom they are studied

(drs). The gq. pf. is used 2x (as testimony in 77:2[3]; didactically in 78:34). The impv.

occurs in 105:4. Seeking Yahweh is the action characterizing faithfulness and the key to blessing. Yahweh’s statutes are sought in Ps 119 (vv. 2, 45, 94, and 155).

O97

wan(# 2011) (iv) Isaiah speaks of a day when the nations will rally (drs) to the Root of Jesse (11:10). The warning to seek Yahweh while he may be found (55:6) follows the prom-

ise of a day in which nations serve God’s people. A pass. use of dr¥ occurs in Isaiah; Yahweh speaks about those not interested in his offer to be sought and found (65:1). The distinction between these and those who seek him (65:10) is developed in proclamations of judgment and deliverance in ch. 65 (Westermann,

1991, 246). Yahweh

promises that he will be found when his people seek him with their whole heart (Jer 29:13); bg¥ and drs are used in par. The conditional promise awaits the return from exile and follows the instruction to seek (drs) the welfare of Babylon (29:7). Yahweh promises goodness to the one who waits for and seeks him (in the present distress [Lam 3:25]). Hosea (10:12) and Amos (5:4,6) use drs with a sense of urgency; it is the last

hope in the face of judgment. The prophets’ limited usage of dr¥ depicts behavior that distinguishes and restores the faithful in every period.

(v) Conclusion. As important as drs is as reference to humans seeking God, it is rarely used with God as subject and humanity as object (cf. 1 Chron 28:9). God seeks (requires) what he will of humans; they cannot hold themselves from him, only their obedience. Even seeking him, for all the blessings that attend it, is an expected activity; hence,

those who

do not seek Yahweh

are the wicked,

and their punishment

is

announced. 7. With Torah or related words as its object, dr¥ means “study.” This sense is reflected in nom.

midras, writing exposition (cf. Rudolph, 238; Rinaldi, 277). The

midras on the book of Kings (2 Chron 24:27) may be an annotation or commentary and may already reflect rabbinic exegesis (Dillard, 109-10). Commentary, midras, represents the exposition of a book, séper (2 Chron 24:27). P-B

Ay

Examine, expound, lecture, drs, occurs in the Talm.; also nom. dérés, lecturer,

d°rasa, interpretation,

argument,

and darsan,

lawyer,

lecturer (Jastrow,

325-26).

midras means textual interpretation, study (cf. midras, treading, place trodden on, basis [Jastrow 2:733]).

QL attests dr¥ 38x. Particular uses include: seeker, teacher of the law, htwrh 3x

(cf. P. Callaway, 637-50); seeker of justice, mspt 3x; and expounders of smooth (empty) things, hlgwt, 6x (K. Kuhn, 52-53). The latter was used derogatively of the Pharisees

and their interpretations of Torah

(cf. N. Broznick,

653-57;

B. Sharvit,

142-48). Cf. drs in Mish. Heb. in A. Guillaume, 92-93. midras, exposition, commentary, explanation on a passage of Torah (hattéra), appears in 1QS 8:15 and CD 20:6 and designates an official court of investigation and exposition in the community (1QS 6:24, 8:26; TDOT 3:306). NT

The LXX

translates dr§ with zéted or ekzéted, both meaning

seek and used

without clear distinctions across the range of senses dr¥ commands. ekzéted is used for “require blood”; exetaz6, for legal enquiry; episkoped, for “require,” erdtad, for “inquire (of God),” but these are rare (TDNT 2:893-95). The primary NT contexts of zéteo are the Son of Man seeking (Matt 18:12; Luke 15:8; 19:10) and God demanding (with patient expectation) what belongs to him (Luke 12:48; 13:6; John 4:23; 1 Cor 4:2). Human search for truth and wisdom is rooted in the LXX zétein, seek (Acts 17:27; 1 Cord: 2247DNT2:3893):

998

NW (# 2012) Examination, inquiry, inspection: > bhn (test, # 1043); > bqr I (examine, inspect, care for, # 1329); > bg (seek, find, look for, require, desire, # 1335); > drs (care about, inquire, seek, : # 2011) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDNT 2:892-96; TDOT 2:229-41, 308-12; 3:293-307; THAT ITand II Chronicles,

Ezra, Nehemiah:

1:333-36, 459-67; P. Ackroyd,

Introduction and Commentary,

1973; L. Allen, Ezekiel

20-48, WBC, 1990, 161-65, 269-71; C. Begg, ““Seeking Yahweh’ and the Purpose of Chronicles,” LS 9, 1982, 128-42; N. Broznick, “The Meaning of dwrsk hiqwt,” Tarbiz 60, 1990-91,

653-57; P. Callaway, “‘Qumran Origins’: From the Doresh to the Moreh,” RevQ 14, 1990, 637-50; A. Coggins, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 1976; G. Cooke, The Book of Ezekiel, ICC, 1936; R. Dillard, 2 Chronicles, WBC,

1987, 1-143; S. Driver, “Supposed Arabisms

in the Old Testa-

ment,” JBL 55, 1936, 108; E. Gerstenberger, Psalms, Part I with an Introduction to Cultic Poetry, FOTL, 14, 1988, 124-27; A. Guillaume, “A Note on Psalm CIX"®,” JTS, NS 14, 1963, 92-93; R. K. Harrison, Leviticus, TOTC, 1980, 238; H.-J. Kraus, Psalm 1-59: A Commentary, 1988, 330-37; K. Kuhn, Konkordanz zu den Qumrantexten, 1960, 52-53; D. McCarthy, “Covenant and Law in Chronicles-Nehemiah,” CBO 44, 1982, 25-44; J. McConville, “1 Chron 28:9 “Yahweh Seeks out Solomon’: Notes and Studies” JTS 37, 1986, 105-8; G. Rinaldi, “Alcuni ter-

mini ebraici relativi alla letteratura [2 Sam 19:3; Qoh 12:9],” Bib 40, 1959, 267-89; W. Rudolph, Die Chronikbiicher, HAT 21, 1955, 238; B. Sharvit, “The Pharisees According to the Scrolls of the Judean Desert Sect,” BethM 34, 1989, 142-48; J. Sisson, “Jeremiah and the Jerusalem Conception of Peace,” JBL 105, 1986, 429-42; J. Watts, Isaiah 34-66, WBC, 1987, 342; C.

Westermann, “Die Begriffe fiir Fragen und Suchen im Alten Testament,” KD 6, 1960, 2-30; idem, Isaiah 40-66, OTL, 1969, 334-36; idem, Prophetic Oracles of Salvation in the OT, 1991, 169-70, 246; H. Williamson, / and 2 Chronicles, NCB, 1982, 259-95; R. Wilson, “An Interpreta-

tion of Ezekiel’s Dumbness,”

VT 22, 1972, 91-104.

David Denninger

2012

ROT

NWT (d5’), g. become green, hi. sprout (# 2012); nom. NW" (dese’), new fresh grass (after the

rain; # 2013).

ANE dee’ is related to Akk. diSu(m), grass/spring, see AHw, 173b, and to Syr. tad’a, sprouting grass/spring, and Arab. data’iy, spring rain, see HALAT 224.

OT

1. dee’ refers to the new fresh grass that sprouts after the rains have fallen on

Israel (G. Dalman, AuSP, 1:329, 336) and withers in the dry season (Isa 15:6). dese’

can sprout in the steppe (midbar I, > # 4497; cf. Job 38:26-27), which then serves as pastureland (n‘°’6t midbar) for livestock (Joel 2:21-22 [vb.]; see Job 38:27). So the sheep in Ps 23:1-3 is confident that the Lord will provide (the rain that will bring forth) deXe’ in the pasturelands (n°’6t). Thus, dese’ is used in various positive images, e.g., in 2 Sam 23:4, where a king ruling in righteousness is “like the rain that brings dee’ from the earth,” and in Deut 32:2, where Moses’ teaching is “like showers on dese’.” Conversely, dese’ withers in images of divine judgment (2 Kgs 19:26 |! Isa 37:27; cf. also 1536;.Psi37:2): 2. In Gen 1:11 dese’ is used in a different sense than the above, not referring to new fresh grass, but to all vegetation, which is then subdivided into plants and trees (TDOT 3:308; Budde, “Wortlaut,” 73-74; Cassuto, Genesis, 40; min, > # 4786).

999

yw # 2014) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 3:307-9; 5:127-30; TWOT

1:199; K. Budde, “Wortlaut und Werden

der ersten Schdp-

fungsgeschichte,” ZAW 35, 1915, 65-97; U. Cassuto, Commentary on Genesis, 1944; C. Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 1974. Mark D. Futato

2013 (dexe’, new fresh grass), > # 2012, Vegetation

yw (dn I), gq. be, become fat (1x); pi. make fat Bue ia (3x), clear away fatty residue (2x); pu. be refreshed, to be soaked with fat (4x); hotpa ‘al, make o.s. gorged with (1x) (# 2014); }Wo (dasén), adj. fat (# 2015); wa (deXen), nom. fat, fat-soaked ash (15x) (# 2016). ANE.

Arab. dasima, to be fat; Akk. duSumu, very fat; Aram. dina’, fat ashes.

OT

1. As a vb. d&n, become fat, is a denom. from deSen, fat, fatty residue. (a) The q. daén, to be, grow fat, occurs only in Deut 31:20 (NIV thrive), where

Israel’s plenty in the Promised Land is described as an occasion of threat to its integrity of heart. In a similar context in the Song of Moses (Deut 32:15, “Jeshurun grew fat’) q. mn is used. (b) In common with other denominative vbs., dsn occurs most frequently in the pi. It is used in nonsacrificial and sacrificial contexts. (i) In Ps 23:5 (EVV anoints) and Prov

15:30 (NIV gives health to) the pi.

expresses the sense of to bring refreshment, well-being. In Ps 23:5 the vb. is to be distinguished from that more commonly used for to anoint (mh, > #5417). The pu. carries the passive sense of pi. in Prov 11:25 (NIV be refreshed); 13:4 (NIV are fully satisfied); and 28:25 (NIV will prosper). In these occurrences of the pi. and pu. Proverbs reflects the secular attitude of the wisdom writers in that God is never made the subject of the vb. The only reference in which God is the actor and which is set in a nonsacrificial context is Ps 23:5. (ii) After a sacrifice had been offered, fat (defen), doubtless congealed with wood ash, remained (see below; Lev 6:10-11[3-4]), which had to be cleaned from the

altar. Exod 27:3 mentions implements with which this could be done. NIV “to remove the ashes” represents the pi. of din. Num 4:13 uses the pi. with the same meaning but designates the task to the Kohathites (Num 4:4). Compare Lev 4:12; 6:10-11[3-4]. In

Ps 20:3[4] the pi. has “God” as subject and “burnt offering” as direct object. Here pi. dsn carries the sense of the sacrifice being regarded as of a fatling (so Vg., Jerome, LXX), i.e., of high worth. The parallelism with “remember” leads to NIV accept. (c) The hotpa‘al in Isa 34:6-7 is part of a description of God’s coming vengeance on Edom, couched in terms taken from the offering of sacrifice. “The sword of the LORD . . . is covered with fat (hotpa‘al). .. . (Edom’s) dust will be soaked with fat (pu.).” The hotpa‘al vb. pattern occurs elsewhere only in Deut 24:4 (GKC 54h). A recent study by John H. Walton suggests that the Heb. underlying NIV “is covered with fat—the blood of lambs” could be more fully rendered, “(The sword of the LorD) has made itself gorged with fat (héleb), with the blood of lambs. . . .” This verbal pattern emphasizes the causative and yet reflexive action of the subject, and in this instance underlines the totality of the slaughter that is wrought.

1000

7 (# 2014) 2. As an adj. daxén describes fruitful crops in apposition to sa@mén (Isa 30:23), the fertility of the righteous even in old age (Ps 92:14[15] “fresh” NIV), and those “rich” who will acknowledge the overlordship of God (Ps 22:29). 3. The nom. deen is used in nonsacrificial and in sacrificial contexts.

(a) In Isa 55:2 it is included with other culinary delights as a metaphor for spiritual blessing promised by God (NIV the richest of fare, cf. Ps 36:8[9]). More generally it is used to represent the material but God-given blessings of good food (Job 36:16, choice food; Ps 65:11[12]; Jer 31:14, abundance); cf. Jotham’s fable (Judg 9:9), where deen denotes the oil of the olive tree (NIV).

(b) desen is used to denote the fat mingled with ash left on the altar by a burnt

sacrifice (see under pi. above). These were from that part of the sacrifice that had been given to God, and as such were to be disposed of with reverent care (Lev 6:10-11 [3-4]); their having been cast on the floor is part of the horror of the events referred to

in 1 Kgs 13:3, 5. Jer 31:40 presents difficulties. If this refers to the Valley of Hinnom, it can hardly be the depository for the carcasses and ashes referred to in Lev 4:11-12; 6:11[4]. Hinnom is not a place that is ceremonially clean. Further, Q 5“démét, “fields,”

can hardly fit a description of the ravine of Kidron. NIV “terraces” draws on Ugar. Sdmt, but Wyatt (149-53) queries this and suggests the Q should be read s*dé mawet, “fields of death,” a fitting description of Hinnom. Jeremiah’s reference to “dead bodies and ashes. . . and all the fields of death” is to the offerings to Molech (> Molech) in Hinnom (cf. Heider, 346-61; de Vaux, 443-46). But what of the ash depository of Lev 4:12; 6:10-11[3-4]? Gareb and Goah have not been identified, but it is possible that Jeremiah is tracing the boundaries of Jerusalem: the northern boundary (v. 38), the western (v. 39), the southern (v. 40), and the eastern (v. 40b). If this is so, v. 40 does refer to Hinnom and probably not to the depository of Leviticus (so also Thompson, on Jer 31:39-40). Milgrom (240) adduces rabbinic and medieval evidence for locating the ash depository to the north of the temple area and records nineteenth-century archaeological support for it. Jeremiah’s words may be deliberately alluding to Lev 4:11-12, thereby contrasting what God intended with what actually happened in order to underline the character of what is to be (Jer 31:39b[40b]).

In their nonsacral use, smn and dsn sometimes approach each other in their extended meanings. Deut 31:20 (q. dsn NIV thrive) compared with 32:15 (q. §mn NIV grew fat) suggests they could be used synonymously, while in Judg 9:9 deen denotes olive oil, normally Semen. According to Ps 23:5 Semen is used in the act of anointing (pi. diX¥én), while in Isa 30:23 dasén and Samén (NIV rich and plentiful) stand in apposition to describe the fertility of the land in which God’s word is heard and obeyed. Both words tell of the receipt of honor (mn Deut 33:24; Smn and d§n Ps 23:5), of prosperity («mn Job 29:6; din Prov 28:25), and of bodily and mental repletion (Smn Ps 45:7; Isa 61:3; dSn Prov 28:25). In their use within the cult, the two words have, in contrast, distinct spheres of

meaning. They are also to be distinguished by the words with which they are used. Smn is typically construed with bil, mix (> # 1176), mh, anoint (> #5417), ysq, pour out (> #3668), ryg, empty out (> #8197); while dn is in apposition to rwh, drench (> #8115) and its derivatives (5x) (Ps 23:5; 36:8[9]; Prov 11:25; Isa 34:6-7; Jer 31:14)—more distantly, Ps 65:10-11[11-12].

1001

yw # 2014) P-B In Mish. the pi. also occurs in two types of context. In nonsacrificial contexts it means “‘to bless with rich pastures,” but in sacral contexts it has widened its meaning to include trimming the lampstand as well as cleansing the altar (Tamid 3:1, 9; Yoma 2:3). Another vb., trm, a denominative from frimd (> #9556), that does not occur in the OT, is also used in the sense “‘to clean the altar” (Tamid 1:2, 4; Yoma 2:1). Fat, fatty food, oil: > ’bs (fatten, #80); > br’ II (fatten o.s., # 1344); > dsn I (become fat, #2014); > héleb I (fat, #2693); > mhh III (fattened, #4683); > mri’ (fattened, #5309);

> peder (fat, # 7022); > pimd (fat, # 7089); > 5mn I (be fat, # 9042) BIBLIOGRAPHY

C. F. Graesser, “Standing Stones in Ancient Palestine,” BA 35, 1972, 34-63; G. C. Heider, The Cult of Molek: A Reassessment, JSOTS 43, 1985; J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, AB 3, 1991; J. A. Thompson, Jeremiah, NICOT, 1979; R. de Vaux, Anclsr, 443-46; J. H. Walton, “The Place of

the Hutgattel Within the D-stem Group and Its Implication in Dt. 24:4,” HS 32, 1991, 7-17; N. Wyatt, “A New Look at Ugaritic sdmt,” JSS 37, 1992, 149-53.

Robert J. Way

2015 (dasén, fat), > #2014 2016 (desen, fat), > #2014 2018 (datan, Dathan), > Korah

1002

537 (# 2038)

j 2021 (h*, [article]), > Particles

2026 (he’ I, [a cry]), > Particles 2027 (he’ah, [a cry]), > Particles

2035 (hab I, [acry]), > Particles 2036 (hab II, elephant?), > #989

2038

in mis

Ss5 (Abl), q. be futile, profitless, worthless; 3 , : 3

become vain, act foolish; speak in a futile man-

ner, speak to no avail, meaningless talk; hi. to make void; delude (# 2038); (hebel 1), nom.

237

wind, breath, vapor; futile, vain, empty, void, worthless, profitless;

transitory, fleeting; enigmatic (> # 2039). ANE _ The root is attested only in West and South Sem.: Old Aram. hiba&l, nom. wind, warm breath, vapor; vanity; JewAram. habla’, nom. breath, vanity; Syr. hebla’, nom. dust, vanity, emptiness; Mand. habla and h*bila, nom. damp, breath, vapor; OSA hibdil, nom. wind; Arab. habil, nom. fool; habila, vb. be foolish, out of one’s senses; habalat, nom. vapor; Eth. hibal, nom. wind; Tigre habbala, vb. to babble, chatter, prattle; Late

Egyp. hbl‘, nom. wind, breath (South Sem. loanword). OT 1. In the Wisdom literature the vb. hb/ and the nom. hebel describe speech whose content is empty, unsubstantial, devoid of reality, meaningless, worthless, or futile. Rather than depicting endless or rambling babbling, they focus on empty content: false claims without substance (Job 27:12), contradictory assertions that render one’s argument empty and meaningless (35:16), futile arguments made to no avail (5:7[6]), and empty promises or rash vows that are never fulfilled (Eccl 6:11). 2. The basic sense of the root hbi describes the immaterial, transient nature of one’s breath and evanescent vapor (Prov 21:6; Isa 57:13), which is a synonym for riah, breath, wind (Eccl 1:14; Isa 57:13; Jer 10:14). This yields the abstract negative, viz., that which is unsubstantial (Jer 10:15; 16:19; 51:18), worthless (2 Kgs 17:15; Jer 2:5; 10:3), unprofitable (Prov 13:11), futile (Lam 4:17; Eccl 1:2, 14; 2:1, 14-15),

transient and fleeting (Job 7:16; Prov 31:30; Eccl 11:10). It is used with synonyms

1003

597 (# 2038) oe ee

at

depicting worthlessness: /‘tohd, for nothing (Isa 49:4); tohi, emptiness, vanity (# 9332; 44:25); réq, profitless, useless (Eccl 6:11; Isa 30:7); and 10’ ho ‘él, worthless, profitless (> # 3603; Isa 30:6; 57:12; Jer 16:19). Because the worthlessness of some objects iS not obvious to the undiscerning, it is often used with saw’, deceit, falsehood (> #8736; Zech 10:2); Seger, deceit, falsehood (> #9214; Jer 10:14; Prov 31:30; Zech 10:2); and ’awen, deceit (> #224; Zech 10:2). It is used in antithesis to yitr6n,

profit, advantage, gain. 3. Job uses the expression hebel hbi (utter utterly empty things; Job 27:12) in rhetorically pejorative characterization of the lengthy speeches of his friends. Since they had seen evidences of God’s work, they were wrong to continue their false and empty accusations, claiming that God was punishing an innocent person. Their speeches were devoid of truth and unsubstantial, and they were useless in solving Job’s dilemma. The parallelism with bibli-da‘at, without knowledge, suggests that hebel connotes empty talk without intelligent substance (Job 35:16). Elihu contends that Job is contradicting himself and speaking out of both sides of his mouth, as it were, wanting God to clear him but contending that God does not normally do anything about sin in the world (Job 35:12-15). 4. Qohelet states that everything has been immutably foreordained by God; therefore, it is useless for a person to complain about what God has done (Eccl 6:10-11). Because God is more powerful than humans, the more they argue against God, the less they accomplish: “The more the words, the more the futility (hebel)” (6:11). 5. The sage warns against the folly of rash vows that could cause a person to lose the fruits of his labor through God’s discipline (Eccl 5:1-7[4:17-5:6]; cf. Deut 23:21-23). Rash vows are characterized as empty, futile (h“balim) words; they are not fulfilled and might result in loss (Eccl 5:6[5]). Rash vows are compared to meaningless dreams; dreams have no substance in reality and provide no profit to the idle dreamer; likewise rash vows not carried out are empty promises and profitless because of the possibility of discipline. (> Ecclesiastes: Theology; > hebel, # 2039) P-B

1. In QL the nom. is used once in reference to speech, where it describes the

empty deceitful seductions of the wayward woman: “The harlot utters empty vanities (hbl) and falsehoods (bt’); she is always sharpening her words, she mockingly flatters with emptiness (Sw’)” (4Q184 1:1:1). 2. The root is common in postbiblical Heb. and Judean Aram.: hebel, nom. warm breath, vapor; vanity; Ab/, q. become vain, act foolish, be vainly occupied; speak vain, empty, idle, futile words; be wild, unruly, exuberant, boisterous; hi. steam, emit steam. A new form appears in Mish. Heb.: mahbil, steaming; erroneous; talking non-

sense.

3. The Modern Heb. nuances parallel those in BH and Mish. Heb.: Abi, waste one’s life (on vain things); loaf, twaddle; hebel, nom.

vapor; vanity, worthlessness,

futility, nonsense, piffle; habli, vain, futile; nonsense, absurd. NT/LXX

The LXX translates hb/ with the roots mataios, vanity, meaningless, and

kenos, empty, which are reflected in the NT terms kenophdnia, meaningless talk (1 Tim 1:6), mataiologos, meaningless talker (Titus 1:10), and kendphonia, empty

1004

21 (# 2039) chatter, vain babbling (1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 2:16). The term spermologos, empty babbler (Acts 17:18), is a close parallel as well. Chatter, careless speech, lie: > ba’ (invent, devise, lie, #968); > bt’/bth (chatter, babble, vow rashly, #1051); > Abl (be futile, profitless, worthless, meaningless talk, #2038); > 1“ I (talk

wildly, speak rashly, # 4362) Breath, life: > hebel I (breath, #2039);

(breath, #5972);

> nepes (breath, life, desire, #5883);

> n’Xamd

> 5’p I (pant, gasp, # 8634)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 3:313-20; THAT 1:467-69; TWAT 2:334-43; TWOT 1:204-5; J. M. Allegro, “The Wiles of the Wicked Woman,” PEQ 96, 1964, 53-55; H. M. Barstad, “HBL als Bezeichung der Fremden Gotter im AT und der Gott Hubal,” ST 32, 1978, 57-65; G. Bertram, ‘“Hebriaischer under grieschischer Qohelet,” ZAW 64, 1952, 26-49; R. C. Cover, “The Use of Hébel in Ecclesiastes,”

unpublished Th. M. Thesis. Dallas: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1978; F. W. Danker, “The Pessimism of Ecclesiastes,” CJ 22, 1951, 9-32; C. Dieterlé, “A Propos de la traduction de 1’ Ecclési-

aste et de la Bible en Francais Courant,’ ETR 59, 1984, 377-81; G. R. Driver, “Problems in ‘Proverbs,’” ZAW 50, 1932, 144; A. Guillaume, “Paranomasia in the Old Testament,” JSS 9,

1928, 282-90; E. Klein,

A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language,

1987, 136; J. Krasovec, “Stilistika Antiteze in Izkustvo Nicnosti pri Pridigarju,” BVC 36, 1973,

482-91; W. E. Staples, “The ‘Vanity’ of Ecclesiastes,” JNES 2, 1943, 95-104; M. Zer-Kavod “The Meaning of the Noun hebel in the Book of Qoheleth [Heb.],” Bar-Ilan 4-5, 1967, 50-79. Gordon H. Johnston

ban (hebel I), breath

a

(#2039);

bon (hbl),

denom. vb., be worthless (> # 2038).

1. Literal meaning, “breath.” hebel is used only 3x in its literal sense of ae and even then to illustrate the breath-like, weightless, insubstantial futility of wickedness (Ps 62:9[10]; Prov 21:6; Isa 57:13). The other 75 nominal and verbal

instances are metaphorical (38 in Ecclesiastes alone). This word functions as a metaphor for “insubstantial because false.” hebel is used 32x to appraise the substantiality of personal action or heretical cults on the basis of their veracity or falsity. In a “Deuteronomic” sense, hebel refers to the components of false religions. In some passages hebel is nearly a synonym for “idol,” e.g., Jer 10:8; 14:22. However, there are entire systems of insubstantialities (breath-like vanities) in

the non-Judaic religions. Jeremiah uses the word often and almost exclusively in this way. Idol-making is useless (Jer 10:3) because such are the idols themselves (10:14-15; 16:19-20; 51:18). In addition to idols, vain are sacrificial carcasses (16:18-19) and foreign customs (10:3). In Jeremiah hebel refers to the totality of any false religion, even if it is Israel’s own ineffective pursuit (2:5, 8:19; also Deut 32:21; 1 Kgs 16:13, 26; 2 Kgs 17:15). There are other insubstantial human efforts that are spoken of by biblical poets. The righteous themselves despair of their “vain” piety since no immediate fruit is evident (Job 9:29; Isa 49:4). Truly vain efforts, on the other hand, come from foreign nations who intend to help Israel, when God’s people need only his assistance (Isa 30:7; Lam 4:17). The efforts of the wicked and thieves are equally vain steps to success

1005

337 (# 2042) (Ps 62:9[10], 10[11]). Also false speech is of no value because of its deception or igno-

rance. Job and his friends exchange insults about their vain comments that lack wisdom (21:34; 27:12; 35:16; cf. Ps 94:11; Eccl 5:7[6]; 6:11). More devious, however, are the vain, dishonest words of false prophets (Jer 23:16), diviners (Zech 10:2), and unscrupulous businessmen (Prov 13:11; 21:6).

2. Metaphor for “temporary.” The remaining 43 instances of hebel refer more to the temporality of breath. Only seven of these occur outside of Ecclesiastes, mainly in reference to one’s life. Job himself (7:16), psalmists (Ps 39:5[6], 6[7], 11[12]; 78:33; 144:4), and Eccl (6:12; 7:15; 9:9; 11:10) all describe the length of life as temporary and fleeting. Ecclesiastes goes on to enumerate many other aspects of life that are only

temporary in nature and value, including personal efforts, joys, and tragedies. Most scholars feel that Ecclesiastes’ conclusion is that all is vain, and in a way that may or may not be due to transience alone. Breath, life:

> hebel I (breath, #2039); > nepes (breath, life, desire, #5883); — n°Sama (breath, #5972); > §’p I (pant, gasp, # 8634) Blowing (wind, breath): > hzh (pant in sleep, #2111); > ndp (blow away, scatter, #5622); > nph (blow, #5870); > nsb (blow, #5959); > nsp (blow, #5973); > pwh (blow, blast, malign, # 7032) Life, living, restoration: > hyh (be alive, be revived, keep alive, restore, # 2649); > heled (life, lifetime, # 2698); — y°qum (what lives, # 3685)

BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 3:313-20; M. V. Fox, Qohelet and His Contradictions, 1989, 29-51; D. C. Fredericks, Coping with Transience, 1993, 11-32; E. M. Good, Irony in the Old Testament, 1981, 176-83; O. Loretz, Qohelet und der alte Orient, 1964, 218-46; D. Lys, L’Ecclésiaste, 1977, 87-95. D. C. Fredericks

2041 (hobnim, ebony), > #6770

20s ANE

aan

“An (hbr), gq. engage in astrology, interpret the stars (hapleg. in Isa 47:13; # 2042).

Arab. habbara, cut in pieces; Ugar. hbr, bow before, revere, worship (UT 745).

OT The OT uses only the pl. part., hob‘ré Samayim, those who classify (the heavens), astrologers. For an extended discussion on mantic practices, see gsm, practice divination (# 7876). Malcolm J. A. Horsnell

3047

=o

man (hgh I), q. groan, moan, sigh, utter, speak, meditate, muse, imagine, devise; hi. chirp, mutter (# 2047); 12s] (hegeh), nom. rumbling, growling, moaning (# 2049); MAIN (haga), nom. meditation, musing (# 2050); 11°37 (higgayén), nom. resounding, music, meditation, musing (> # 2053).

1006

ran (# 2047) ANE Aram. h’gd, vb. think, meditate, murmur, or speak; hegy6nda’, nom. reading, thinking, meditating. Syr. h’gd, meditate. Arab. haga, mock, deride, ridicule. Tigre,

te-haga, to speak. Ugar. hg, count, reckon (TDOT 3:321).

OT Asa vb., hgh occurs 25x, 19x as aq. impf. The q. pf. occurs 3x (Josh 1:8; Ps 77:12[13]; 143:5) and the q. inf. abs. 2x (Isa 59:11, 13). It also occurs 1x as the hi. part. (Isa 8:19). 1. With regard to the audible nature of hgh, the range of meaning is broad, ranging from the inarticulate sounds of a cooing dove (Isa 38:14) to the articulate praise of Yahweh (Ps 35:28). To describe the sounds of an animal, hgh is used 3x—2x to depict the sad tones of a dove and once for the growl of a young lion. All three instances are used illustratively. The sad tones of the dove depict a state of mourning or lamentation: “We all growl like bears; we moan mournfully like doves” (Isa 59:11). The growl of the lion is more intense and vocal: “As a lion growls, a great lion over his prey . . . so the LORD Almighty will come down to do battle on Mount Zion and on its heights” (Isa 31:4). This, the least articulate use of hgh, exhibits an emotive force that heightens the

sense of tragedy or dread in a particular context. Words used in a parallel relationship with hgh in this context are: spp, chirp, peep, whisper (> #7627), in Isa 8:19; 38:14; yll, howl, wail (> #3536), in Isa 16:7; Jer 48:31; hmh, murmur, growl, roar (> #2159), in Isa 59:11. 2. Still somewhat inarticulate, but more than mere animal sounds, are those sounds associated with human sorrow or lamentation: “Therefore I wail over Moab, for all Moab I cry out; I moan for the men of Kir Hareseth” (Jer 48:31). Other such uses occur in Ps 115:7; Isa 8:19; 16:7.

3. The most articulate use of the vb. hgh may be translated as declare, mutter, or utter: “My tongue will speak of your righteousness and of your praises all day long” (Ps 35:28). On several occasions the text even depicts the body part associated with the making of such sounds: the mouth, pz (Josh 1:8; Ps 37:30), tongue, /°S6n (Job 27:4; Ps 35:28; 37:30; 71:24; Isa 8:7). In this context, hgh (Job 27:4; Ps 37:30; Isa express much more than

59:3), lips, Sapa (Job 27:4), and palate or mouth, hék (Prov is often used as a parallel vb. with dbr, to speak (> # 1819) 59:3, 13). Such evidence demonstrates that the vb. hgh can

the sad cooings of a dove. It can be used in both a negative

and a positive context. Negatively, it is used with ‘awld, wickedness (> # 6406), and

dibré-sager, lying words, as its object (Isa 59:13, cf. v. 3): “your lips have spoken lies, and your tongue mutters wicked things” (Isa 59:3). Positively, the Lord’s righteousness, praise, wisdom, and truth are the objects in this context (Job 27:4; Ps 35:28; 37:30; 71:24; Prov 8:7). In the words of the sage: “For my mouth speaks what is true”

(Prov 8:7). 4. The vb. hgh may be used to express the act of meditation or planning. Meditation may be characterized as deep, reflective thought, often occurring in a repetitive

or enduring fashion. This is linked with adverbial phrases such as “day and night” (Josh 1:8; Ps 1:2) and “during the watches of the night” (Ps 63:6[7]). Typically, meditation is an act of the righteous (Prov 15:28) that focuses on the Law (Josh 1:8; Ps 1:2), the LORD himself (Ps 63:6[7]), and the works or deeds of the LORD (Ps 77:12[13];

143:5). It seems that the righteous meditate not only for the purpose of encouragement, but also that their life may actually conform to the object of such meditation. “Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that

1007

rar (# 2048) you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful” (Josh 1:8). Verbs that occur in a parallel relationship with hgh in this context are zkr (> #2349), to remember (Ps 63:6[7]; 143:5), and stah, to ponder or muse (> # 8488) (77:12[13]; 143:5). 5. While the vb. hgh as meditation is primarily a positive activity of the righteous, it is also a negative activity of the wicked when translated as “to plan, devise, or scheme” (Ps 2:1; 38:12[13]; Prov 24:2), as in something carefully conceived and devised: “all day long they plot deception” (Ps 38:12[13]) and “for their hearts plot violence” (Prov 24:2). 6. The nom. forms of hgh appear 8x as hegeh 3x (Job 37:2; Ps 90:9; Ezek 2:10),

as hagiit 1x (Ps 49:3[4]), and as higgay6n 4x (Ps 9:17; 19:14[15]; 92:4; Lam 3:62). The nom. hegeh is used in a general inarticulate manner as mourning, sigh, and rumbling: “we finish our years with a moan” (Ps 90:9). In Job 37:2 it appears in a parallel relationship with rdgez (> # 8075) and is thus translated as rumbling or roar. The form hagit, on the other hand, is best translated as meditation: “and the meditation of my heart will be understanding” (Ps 49:3[4] NASB). higgay6n, however, is the most difficult form of the root hgh. The most lucid occurrence appears in 19:14[15], understood as meditation. The term appears in connection with musical instruments and has been translated as “melody” in the NIV and “resounding” in the NASB (92:3[4]). This occurrence is difficult and probably refers either to the sound or the purpose of the music being played. Finally, in 9:16[17], higgay6n appears in connection with the troubling seld and typically remains untranslated. Like the occurrence in 92:3[4], it most likely refers to some type of musical accompaniment. (> # 2053) P-B__ The occurrences trative citation appears leads to the mutterings “bhgy lby, which seems

of hgh in the Qumran material are of little help. The most illusin 1QH 11:21, which says that “man’s reflection on his guilt of grievous muttering.” Another occurrence in 1QH 11:2 reads to mean ‘in the thought of my heart’” (TDOT 3:324).

Meditation, planning, thinking: > hgh I (groan, moan, sigh, meditate, muse, chirp, mutter, # 2047); > Syh, complain, muse, study, talk, meditate, # 8488); > Plan, thought, meditation

BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 3:321-24; W. C. Kaiser, Jr., “What Is Biblical Meditation,” Renewing Your Mind in a Secular World, ed. J. D.Woodbridge, 1985, 39-53. M. V. Van Pelt/W. C. Kaiser, Jr.

rr (hgh ID), q. separate (impurities from silver); 2048

nan

remove; drive away (# 2048).

ANE Asa byform of ygh (cf. 2 Sam 20:13), it is related to Arab. wy, which has the meanings “find worthless, remove” (HALAT 228; Guillaume, 22).

OT The vb. is used in Prov 25:4 of separating the worthless dross from silver. This usage is part of an extended image showing that a king can rule righteously only when the wicked are removed from his presence (25:5), as a silversmith can work only with silver that has been purified of the dross (cf. R. C. Van Leeuwen, Context and Meaning in Proverbs 25-27, SBLDS 96, 1984, 77-78). In Isa 27:8 hgh is used to describe the

1008

3°27 (# 2052) Lord’s driving away Judah to exile under the image of a strong east wind. Here, too, the idea of cleansing is present (cf. Isa 27:9). P-B

In MasSir 6:12 (= Sir 43:18), yhg can be explained as related to hgh, “‘to

divert’, i.e., the whiteness of the snow diverts the eyes, which cannot bear to look at it; in effect ‘dazzles’” (Y. Yadin, The Ben Sira Scroll From Masada, 1965, 32). Separation, breaking down, removal: > ’s/ (set apart, withdraw, shorten, #724); — bdl (separate 0.s., #976); > br’ I (create, separate, # 1343); > hgh II (separate, remove, # 2048); > mw II (depart, remove, take away, # 4631); > ns‘ (tear out, march out, # 5825); > ntg (tear away, #5998); > prq (pull away, #7293); > s‘n (pack up, #7585); > rhq (be far away, remove, # 8178) BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Guillaume, Hebrew and Arabic Lexicography, 1965, 22 (= AbrN 1, 1959, 22).

Cornelis Van Dam

2049 (hegeh, rumbling, growling, moaning), > #2047 2050 (hagiit, meditation, musing), > # 2047

2052

740

17471 (hagig), nom., groan (in prayer) (# 2052).

ANE Unattested in the OT, vbs. from hgg appear in Syr. (etpa.), to imagine seeing, Arab., hagga, crackle (of a flame), and Akk., agdgu, grow angry, flare up in anger. Related noms. hgégé (Syr.) and hgaga (Mand.) denote imagination, fancy.

OT Neither etymology (cf. HALAT 228; BDB, 211) nor OT use allows us to fix the precise meaning of hdgig. The context in Ps 5:1[2] indicates a sound stronger than sighing (NIV; NAB; HALAT), more like groaning (NASB; cf. LXX kraugé, crying). But Ps 39:3[4] associates it with the inner turmoil of silence (cf. LXX, meleté). Modern versions (e.g., NIV, NAB) may be correct here in taking hagig as meditation or musing (BDB, 211, against HALAT 228, sigh).

P-B-

Cf. NT kraugé (Rev 21:4).

Groan, sigh, growl: > ’nh (sigh, groan, # 634); > ’nq (groan, # 650); > hgh I (groan, moan, sigh, meditate, muse, chirp, mutter, # 2047); > hagig (groan in prayer, #2052); > z‘q (cry, howl, wail, #2410); > n’g (groan, # 5543); > nhm (growl, groan, #5637); > nwh II (groan in anticipation, # 5664); > p‘h (groan in childbirth, # 7184); > 5’g (roar, # 8613) David Thompson

2053

es

ela

11737) (higgay6n), nom. melody, improvisation,

thought, meditation (#2053); #2047).

ANE

OT

Syr. hegyana, meditation, study.

1. In Ps 92:3[4] this nom. stands for a melody produced by a lyre. 2. The nom. occurs in the phrase “the melody of my heart” for what one

meditates on; it is vital that one’s meditation be acceptable to God (Ps 19:14[15]). In

1009

“Wl (# 2059) Lam 3:62 it stands with “lips” to express the thoughts one’s enemies ponder against the lamenter. 3. This nom. may also communicate a musical direction (Ps 9:16[17]), but the

precise meaning is unknown. Mowinckel suggests that it means “musical flourish” (The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 1967, 2:211). Craigie, working with the root meaning

of hgh (“‘sigh, muse”), proposes that it signals that the following lines are to be sung softly (Psalms

1-50, WBC,

1983,

116). Kraus

(Psalms

1-59,

1988, 27), however,

thinks it signals either a reflective pause or a musical interlude. Plan, thought, meditation, scheming:

> ’zn II (weigh, consider carefully, #264);

> bd’

(devise, imagine, #968); > higgaydn (melody, thought, # 2053); > zmm (plan, purpose, plan evil, # 2372); > hms II (think, invent, # 2804); > hsb (count, compute, calculate, think, plan, #3108); > yéser I (frame of mind, disposition, #3671); > ‘St I (think, consider, #6951); > stha (meditation, study, # 8491); > s*‘ippim (disquieting thoughts, worries, # 8546); > tar ‘it (thought, # 9569)

Musical instruments/terms: ~ gittit (musical instrument?, #1787); — hemyd (sound, din, # 2166); —> hill (make the pipe played, #2727); > hssr (make the trumpet sound, #2955); > y6bél (ram, # 3413); > kinndr (lyre, # 4036); > mén (string, # 4944); > m*na‘an ‘im (rattle, # 4983); > nébel II (unstringed instrument, #5575); > ngn (play the lyre, #5594); > ‘“agab (flute?, # 6385); > prt (improvise, #7260); > sll I (ring, quiver, #7509); > S6par (ram’s horn, # 8795); > Salis II (musical instrument, # 8956); > Sema‘ I (sound, # 9049); > tpp (drum, beat, #9528); > tq‘ (drive, thrust, clap one’s hands, blow trumpet, pledge, # 9546) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 3:321-24. John E. Hartley

2059 OT

Th

“WW (héd), thunderclap (?) (# 2059).

_héd occurs only in Ezek 7:7 and is probably a short form of hédad (shout) in the

sense of the harvester’s shout of joy (see Isa 16:9; Jer 48:33; Brownlee, Ezekiel 1-19, WBC, 1986, 108; Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20, AB, 1983, 148; Zimmerli, Ezekiel, Hermeneia, 1:196). Thunder: ~ héd (thunderclap?, #2059); > haziz (cloud, strong wind, thunderclap, # 2613); > qol (voice, sound, thunder, cry, #7754); > r‘m I (storm, thunder, # 8306) Mark D. Futato

2063

aaa

7

(Adh), stretch out (the hands) (# 2063).

OT Used as a hapleg. in Isa 11:8 for the Shoot from Jesse who will be able, without receiving a fatal bite, to “put his hand into (or reach his hand over) the viper’s nest.” So, in Messiah’s reign any fears associated with danger or evil will be removed. Death will lose its sting (1 Cor 15:55). The verse comes in the third section of Isa 11:1-9, all

of which deals with the messianic shoot of Jesse. First is the description of the divine enduement by which he will perform his work (vv. 2-3a); second is the description of the manner of his reign (i.e., in justice and faithfulness, vv. 3b-5); third is the presence of a sense of security and safety that will distinguish Messiah’s reign (vv. 6-9).

1010

777 (# 2070) ee ret a

Spreading, extending, stretching: > hdh (stretch out the hands, #2063); > zrh I (scatter, sprinkle, spread, # 2430); > tph I (spread out, # 3253); > yst (hold out, extend, # 3804); > mth (spread out, #5501);

> nth (extend,

#5742);

> nps Il (spread out, scatter, be dispersed,

# 5880); > pws (scatter, disperse, be spread, dispersed, #7046); — pzr (scatter, scatter, spread, be scattered, #7061); > pr (spread out, spread, # 7298); > psh (spread [of disease], # 7313); > rpd (spread out, support, refresh, # 8331); > Sth (spread out, pour out, # 8848)

BIBLIOGRAPHY F. E. Greenspahn, Hapax Legomena in Biblical Hebrew, 1984, 111. Victor P. Hamilton

2070 ANE

VW

11 (Adk), q. tread down (# 2070).

The root is also known in Arab. hadaka, tear down, pull down.

OT The word is used only once in the OT, in Job 40:12, in the Almighty’s challenge to Job whether he imagined that he had an arm like God’s arm to be able to “look at every proud man and humble (kn‘; > # 4044) him, crush (hdk) the wicked where they

stand.” Trampling, treading, subjugation:

> bws (tread down, # 1008); > dbr I (turn/drive away,

#1818); — dw§ (trample, thresh, #1889); > hdk (tread down, #2070); > kb§ (make subservient, subdue, #3899); —> kps (make cower, #4115); — lkd (catch, capture, # 4334); > “ss (tread down, #6748); > rms (trample, # 8252); > rps (trample, # 8346) Francis Foulkes

:

2071

aa

D7

(h’dom), nom.

footstool (# 2071), always

shoe DAN (h*dém raglayim), “the footstool of

(the) feet,’ which was a resting place (m*niihd, rest, in synonymous parallelism, Isa 66:1) for the feet of the enthroned person (~ kissé’, throne, # 4058), but used only figuratively in OT. ANE Egyp. idmw feet on a footstool, (Keel, Symbolism, conquered enemies

rd.wy (stool of the feet) representations show the pharaoh with his depicting enemies or even enemies serving as footstool themselves figs. 341-42); Akk. galtappu, g/kersa/eppu used figuratively for (AHw, 286), Amarna Akk. giStappu Sa Sépéka (the footstool of thy

feet), denoting the obedient vassal.

OT 1. God is said to have a footstool, which may be either Zion or the ark. The earth is Yahweh’s footstool (Isa 66:1), whereas heaven is his throne (kissé’). In the same fashion Zion (parallel with “holy mountain”; > # Theology) is God’s footstool, where he is worshiped (Ps 99:5; cf. Lam 2:1, “daughter of Zion’). When the ark as a symbol of God’s presence is brought into the temple, the worshipers prostrate themselves (awh; > # 2556) before his footstool (= ark) (Ps 132:7; cf. 1 Chron 28:2). 2. As in the ANE a royal footstool was a symbol of the king’s power. The Davidic king is promised that Yahweh will make the king’s enemies (‘dyéb; > # 367) the king’s footstool (Ps 110:1).

1011

17 (# 2074) gn

eee

Furniture: > h’ddm (footstool, # 2071); > kebes (footstool, #3900); > kissé’ (chair, throne, #4058); > Sulhan (table, # 8947) Worship, bow down, serve: > ghr (down, bend over, # 1566); > hwh II (worship, bow, make obeisance, # 2556); > kpp (bow down, bow oneself down, #4104); > kr‘ (bend, #4156); > sed (bow down, #6032); > ‘bd (work, serve, worship, # 6268); > gdd (bow down, kneel down, #7702); > srt (wait on, be an attendant, serve, minister, # 9250) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 3:325-34; O. Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World, 1978, 254-56. I. Cornelius

2072 (h*das, myrtles), > #6770

2074

ANE

ym

aya (hdp), q. push (a person) (with acc.), push away, thrust away (# 2074).

The vb. is clearly attested only in Heb. In Tigre, a similar vb., hadfa, arrive

unexpectedly, is found.

OT hdp occurs 11x in the OT and usually denotes a vb. of linear motion, i.e., the movement of an object or person from one point to another, often with the involvement of sudden physical force. The context is normally negative. 1. Denoting a physical action with a violent intention, the vb. is used in Num 35:20, 22 to describe the difference between deliberate murder versus unintentional manslaughter caused by a sudden “shove” (hdp) (cf. Phillips, 114, n. 34).

A woman

who wants to approach Elisha (2 Kgs 4:27) is “pushed away” by the prophet’s assistant, Gehazi. Figuratively, it is used in Ezek 34:21 to illustrate social injustice in Israel, where the fat sheep (Israel’s leader) “shove” the lean sheep (the suffering people) around. 2. In Job 18:18 hdp is used in Bildad’s speech to describe the sudden fall of the wicked who are “driven away” from light to darkness. 3. Theologically the most interesting usage of hdp is found in instances where the active agent of the motion is God, while Israel’s (i.e., ultimately his) enemies are the object of the pushing action. In Deut 6:19; 9:4; Josh 23:5 the vb. is used almost as a

terminus technicus in the description of God’s involvement in the conquest of the land. All three passages are in the form of a promise and do not describe the actual event of God’s action. He promises to “thrust out” the Canaanites as Israel advances its territory. God’s involvement in Israel’s warfare during the Conquest (cf. Kang, 127-60) and in the whole of Israel’s history has to be understood along the lines of the metaphor of Yahweh as a warrior (Brettler, 135-65). Jer 46:15 evokes a similar picture of God’s

involvement in Israelite warfare by describing him as “pushing down” Egypt. But even Israel’s leaders can become the object of hdp if they do not follow God’s commandments (Isa 22:19).

P-B The vb. is attested in postbiblical Heb. and Judaeo-Aramaic literature without a change of meaning, e.g., Tg. Yerushalmi Num 35:20; Tg. Job 18:18 (Jastrow, 334). Pushing, goring, thrusting: > dhh (push, overthrow, be cast down, #1890); drive hard, knock, #1985);

1012

> hdp (push, thrust, #2074);

> dpq (push,

> yrt (shove, push, be reckless,

“V1 (# 2075) # 3740); > ngh (gore, push, thrust, #5590); — ‘JI II (thrust in, # 6619); > tq‘ (drive, thrust, clap

one’s hands, blow trumpet, pledge, # 9546) BIBLIOGRAPHY HALAT 229-30; TWOT 1:207; M. Brettler, “Images of YHWH the Warrior in Psalms,” Semeia 61, 1993, 135-65; S.-M. Kang, Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East, BZAW 177, 1989; A. Phillips, “Another Look at Murder,” JJS 28, 1977, 105-26.

Martin G. Klingbeil

“V1 (hdr), vb. q. to swell, honor, adorn; ni. be 2075 7 honored; hitp. honor oneself (#2075); T74 (hadar), nom. adornment, splendor, majesty (# 2077); T7717 (h*dara), nom. ornament, splendor (#2079). Included here are Bibl. Aram. 0 (hdr), pa. to honor (God) (# 10198); V7 (A“dar), nom. splendor (# 10199).

ANE Outside of Heb. and the Aram. dialects, there is no certain cognate (but cf. TDOT for several possibilities). OT 1. Verb. (a) In the Pentateuch, the q. is transitive, A hdr B, A honored/ deferred to B. Israelites are not to defer (i.e., show favoritism) to a poor man (Exod 23:3) or the face of a great man (Lev 19:15) in giving justice; in ordinary social settings, however, they are to defer to the face of the elderly (19:32). Isaiah uses the pass. part. to denote swollen places (in context, self-exalted) that God will level (Isa 45:2; note that NIV follows Qumran MSS and LXX and emends to h’rarim, mountains) and to describe

God in his impressive appearance in judgment as hadiir bil*bii56, splendid in his clothing (63:1).

(b) The ni., attested only in Lam 5:12, is the pass. of the q.: at the hands of the Babylonians the faces of the elderly were not deferred to (cf. Lev 19:32). (c) The hitp. in its lone occurrence in Prov 25:6 is reflexive: ’al-tithaddar lipné

melek, “do not exalt yourself before a king” (cf. NIV). (d) Pael of Aram. cognate is transitive: A haddar I’-B, A honored B. In each of its three appearances A is a Babylonian king and B is the true God: Nebuchadnezzar honored the true God as a result of his punishment (Dan 4:34, 37[31, 34]), while Belshazzar did not honor him and hence was punished (5:23). (e) Semantic conclusions. The unifying idea seems to be that of deferring to someone out of respect for superior quality (real or ascribed). 2. The nom. hadar. The OED includes the following in its definition of the Eng. word splendor: magnificence, great show of riches; eminence, impressive or imposing character; ornate appearance. This corresponds closely to the range of Heb. hadar. The dominant use is in the realm of magnificence, eminence. (a) Magnificence, eminence. God’s impressive or imposing character is in view when this word is used of him. For example, Ps 90:16, “May your deeds (pd ‘al) be shown to your servants, your splendor to their children.” As Delitzsch pointed out here, “In the work of the Lord the bright side of his glory unveils itself, hence it is called hadar.” In Isa 2:10, 19, 21, at God’s day of reckoning, sinners among his people will

hide from the terror (pahad) of the Lord and from the splendor of his exaltation (h“dar g°’6nd). In Ps 29:4 the sound of the Lord as it is heard in the thunder is behadar, in

1013

V1 (# 2075) splendor, i.e., it impresses the believer with the Lord’s greatness (cf. ! bakkéah, in strength). Commonly we find the word pair hdd w*hadar, majesty and splendor, applied to God: Job 40:10; Ps 96:6 (= 1 Chron 16:27); 104:1; 111:3; cf. 145:5 (h“dar k*‘béd hédeka, the splendor of the glory of your majesty), 12 (ak*béd h‘dar mal‘kito, and the glory of the splendor of his kingdom). Delitzsch (at Ps 96:6) called hdd w*hadar, “The usual pair of words for royal glory.” In Isa 35:2a we read how God’s deliverance of his people will result in the desert’s sharing the glory (kabéd) of Lebanon and the splendor (hadar) of Carmel and Sharon; in v. 2b these will display the glory and splendor of the Lord. This is probably a wordplay using the sense “ornate appearance” in v. 2a (cf. Lev 23:40 as described below), with the sense “magnificence” in v. 2b.

We find hadar applied to humans in different ways. First we consider its use for the splendor of a king: in Ps 21:5[6] God has set héd w*hadar, majesty and splendor, on the (Davidic) king; cf. 45:3[4], where the sword is the emblem of the (Davidic) king’s héd w‘hadar, majesty and splendor, while in v. 4[5] the king is urged to prosper and ride on h*dar*ka, in your splendor (following Delitzsch, who takes it as an adverbial accusative). Bibl. Aram. h*dar appears 3x with this sense of (royal) splendor: Dan 4:30, 36[27, 33]; 5:18 (probably a wordplay here with vb. haddar, 4:34, 37[31, 34];

5:23: kings should honor the God who is the true source of their royal honor). This word has a wider usage, however: In Ps 8:5[6] God has crowned humanity with glory and splendor (kabéd w*hadar); perhaps this word is used because the psalm pictures humankind as God’s vice-regent over nature. In Isa 53:2 the Servant has neither beauty (to’ar) nor external (royal, Davidic?) splendor (hada@r) to attract people’s interest. The clause in Ps 149:9, hadar hii’ I’kol h*stdayw, is usually interpreted: “This (i.e., the exe-

cuting of judgment, taking miSpdt as the antecedent of hi’) is the glory of all his siants” (so NIV, NASB, RSV). Kraus interprets this as explicitly royal splendor, and this is possible but not definite. An ethnic or political entity may have splendor, i.e., magnificence: Deut 33:17 (Ephraim, like a firstborn bull); Isa 5:14; Lam 1:6 (both of Jerusalem’s splendor being taken away); Ezek 27:10 (Tyre’s splendor came from warriors and mercenaries). And the virtuous woman has strength and splendor (‘6z w*hadar) for her clothing (/°baxah; cf. v. 22, where her clothing is fine linen and purple—probably then these are emblematic of her strength and splendor). The other cases of clothing oneself (/b5) with splendor are Job 40:10; Ps 104:1; Isa 63:1, all of which have God as the actor: this woman is a majestic person indeed!

(b) Ornate appearance. Gray hair is the splendor/ornate appearance of old men, Prov 20:29 (Il the tip’eret, beauty, of young men is in their strength). In Lev 23:40, as part of the celebration of Tabernacles, the Israelites are to take the produce of trees of

splendor (NIV choice fruit from the trees), i.e., the trees or their fruit are beautiful. In Ezek 16:14 God speaks of the splendor/ornamentation that he had put upon Jerusalem; in view of the overall imagery of this chapter, as well as vv. 10-13 (describing ornaments in detail), this verse belongs in this category. Ps 110:3 is difficult: the priest-king’s people will be willing in the day of his battle, b°hadré godes (NIV arrayed in holy majesty) from the womb of the dawn (following accents, against NIV, cf. Delitzsch). Is this to be connected with the phrase hadrat qddeX (discussed below) and interpreted as in holy array (so Delitzsch), or should we emend it to b*har’ré gode¥, in

1014

“VIF (# 2075) mountains of holiness (so BHS; RSV upon the holy mountains)? It seems better contextually to separate this from the expression using h“dard and to interpret the MT in light of this sense of hadar, to yield “in ornaments (ornamental garments?) of holi-

ness,” describing the attire of the king’s troops. 3. The nom. h‘dard. This nom. always appears in the construct: 1x as hadrat melek, the splendor of a king, which consists in many people (Prov 14:28, contrasted with m*hitta, ruin); and 4x in the debated phrase hadrat gode¥ (1 Chron 16:29; Ps 29:2;

96:9, all with prep. b*-; 2 Chron 20:21, with prep. /’-). This has been variously taken as “ornamental

garments of holiness” (cf. Delitzsch; NASB,

RSV

at Ps 29:2, in holy

array), “the splendor of [God’s] holiness” (cf. NIV at Ps 29:2), and “in a dream/theophany of holiness/sanctuary” (Dahood, based on UT, #752). Besides the highly conjectural nature of the Ugaritic-based proposal, Kidner (at Ps 29:2) is right in pointing out that if the expression means the same thing every time it is used, the syntax of 2 Chron 20:21 is decisive: m*hal‘lim I‘hadrat qodes can only mean “praising the splendor of holiness,” since the construction hallél I’ X means to praise X (cf. v. 19); hence the

implication is the splendor of God’s holiness. See kbd (be heavy, # 3877) for comparative discussion of synonyms. P-B__ The Heb. frgs. of Ben Sira attest the vb. hdr in q., ni., and pi. (not found in BH but it is in Mish. Heb.); the nom. hadar is found twice for sure and is used for the

ornate appearance of the heavens (Sir 43:1, 9). The DSS attest a number of instances of the nom. hddar, generally in the sense magnificence (cf. || kabéd, 1QS 4:8; 1QH 12:15). The RL uses the noms. hadar (much as in BH) and h“darda (only in phrase hadrat panim, beauty of the face), and the vb. (q. pass. part., hitp. as in BH, and now with pi., to adorn, distinguish).

The LXX uses a number of G words to translate words from this group, of which the most common are doxa, glory, euprepeia, fine appearance, and megaloprepeia, magnificence; of these, only doxa figures prominently in NT usage. This adds the nuances splendor, beauty to the native G sense of reputation. Glory, honor, majesty: > ‘dr (be magnificent, majestic, splendid, # 158); > hdr (swell, honor,

adorn, # 2075); ~ héd I (splendor, majesty, # 2086); ~ y‘qar (honor, riches, respect, price, splendor, #3702); > kbd (be heavy, unresponsive, honored, # 3877); > nésah I (luster, glory, lastingness, successful, # 5905); > p’r II (beautify, glorify, # 6995); > s‘biI(ornament, glory, # 7382)

BIBLIOGRAPHY NIDNTT 2:44-52; TDNT 2:232-55; TDOT 3:335-41; THAT 1:469-72; TWOT 1:207-8; F. Delitzsch, Psalms, KD; D. Kidner, Psalms 1-72 and Psalms 73-150, TOTC, 1973 and 1975; H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 60-150, ConCom, 1989; D. Raffel, “Hadar: Towards a Clarification of a Central

Concept in Biblical Aesthetics,” BethM 36, 1990-91, 212-19. C. John Collins

2077 (hadar, adornment, splendor, majesty), > # 2075 2079 (h*dard, ornament, splendor),

> # 2075

2081 (hah, [a cry]), > Particles 2082 (hd, [a cry]), > Particles

1015

57 (# 2086)

2086

Tbs

“7 (héd I), splendor, majesty (# 2086).

ANE Although attempts have been made to connect this Heb. word with such Arab. roots as hwd and ’wd (cf. BDB, HALAT, THAT for bibliography), none have been thoroughly satisfying. We may follow the HALAT arrangement (more insightful than BDB) in seeing OT that there are three groups of beings that are said to have hdd: God, humans, and assorted nonhuman natural elements. 1. Applied to God. When used of God, this term often denotes the revelation of his majesty to people: e.g., Isa 30:30, where God will make the Assyrians hear the majesty of his voice (héd q6l6), thereby terrifying them (v. 31); Hab 3:3, where in a theophany he has covered the sky with his majesty (I his praise [fhilld] fills the earth); Ps 8:1[2], where he has set his majesty over or upon the sky, which in vv. 3-4[4-5] leads the psalmist to wonder at the high position God has given to man; cf. Ps 148:13;

1 Chron 29:11 (in company with several synonyms). Several times we find the combination héd w*hadar, majesty and splendor: e.g., Ps 104:1 (cf. Job 40:10); 96:6 (= 1 Chron 16:27; || ‘6z strength, tip’eret, glory, beauty); 111:3; cf. 145:5, h°dar k*béd hédeka, the glorious splendor of your majesty. As Delitzsch pointed out (at Ps 96:6), this is the usual pair of words for royal glory, and before it humans should bow in reverent submission. 2. Applied to humans. The most common kind of human to be described with this word is a king: e.g., 1 Chron 29:25, where the Lord exalted Solomon and set upon him héd mal*kit, majesty of the kingdom (cf. Dan 11:21, the only non-Davidic king here); Zech 6:13, where the Branch will bear majesty; cf. Jer 22:18. Note that the word pair héd w*hdda@r is also used for the royal majesty of a human (Davidic) king: Ps 21:5 [6] (| kabéd, glory); 45:3[4]. Delitzsch observed (at 45:3[4]) that this usage reflects the view that the Davidic kingship has a glory that reflects that of God himself. Other instances of the application of this word to humans include Num 27:20, where Moses will set some of his majesty upon Joshua; Prov 5:9, where a young man is to avoid the snare of an adulteress, “lest you give your majesty (hddeka, NIV your best strength) to others” (in context it refers to evidences of his manly vigor: labor, wealth, health); and Dan 10:8, where Daniel, upon seeing a heavenly messenger, loses his strength and his splendor turns to ruin (lit.; NIV my face turned deathly pale; RSV my radiant appearance was fearfully changed, is better). These last two cases refer to a man’s natural strength. 3. Applied to nonhuman natural elements. The word héd can refer to the majestic strength of a war horse (Job 39:20; Zech 10:3) and to the beauty or strength of a healthy olive tree (Hos 14:6[7], a figure for restored Israel).

4. Semantic conclusions. From the above it appears that the basic idea conveyed by this word corresponds pretty well to English “majesty,” which OED defines as magnificence, impressiveness: it is that which is evidence of the bearer’s power. The word itself does not imply that the power is necessarily supernatural; that information comes from the context (especially the nature of the bearer). Although when describing a face the word can refer to its brightness, that does not seem to be its meaning in other con-

texts (but cf. perhaps Sir 43:9 below, for a later development).

1016

mn (# 2092) P-B

In the Heb. of Ben Sira, we find the word héd used in all the applications found

in the Bible. For instance, we read of God’s being asked to fill Zion with his majesty

(Sir 36:19), the honorable or majestic position given to Aaron (45:7), and the majesty of the stars (43:9). Kuhn’s concordance of the DSS lists only 1QH 5:32 (where the word has the sense radiant appearance, in a syntactic context similar to Dan 10:8); Newsom (407) and Schuller (286b) add examples that illustrate usage basically like that in BH [with a few instances of hdd w‘hadar]. In the RL we find the expression garné hdd, rays of majesty (from Moses’ face; Exodus Rabba, 47). The LXX used a number of words to translate hdd, the most frequent and prob-

ably most important being doxa, glory. This would explain Paul’s application of glory (doxa) to heavenly bodies (1 Cor 15:40-41), based on the analogous Sir 43:9, which perhaps is the result of a semantic development of Ps 8:1[2]. Glory, honor, majesty: > ’dr (be magnificent, majestic, splendid, # 158);

adorn, #2075);

> héd I (splendor, majesty, #2086);

splendor, # 3702);

> kbd (be heavy, unresponsive, honored, #3877);

lastingness, successful, #5905); # 7382)

> hdr (swell, honor,

> y°gar (honor, riches, respect, price, > nésah I (luster, glory,

> p’r II (beautify, glorify, #6995); > sbi I(ornament, glory,

BIBLIOGRAPHY TDNT 2:232-55; TDOT 3:352-56; THAT 1:472-74; F. Delitzsch, Psalms, KD; C. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition (HSS 27), 1985; E. Schuller, Non-Canonical Psalms from Qumran (HSS 28), 1986. C. John Collins

3092

_ min (hwh J), q. fall (#2092); M9 (hawwa I), tg ruin, misery (e.g., as befell Job, Job 6:2 [Q]; 30:13; as threatened by treacherous men, Ps 38:12[13]; as a foolish son brings on his father, Prov 19:13; #2095); mn (how4), disaster (only in Isa 47:11 and Ezek 7:26, as divine punishment on Babylon and Israel respectively; # 2096). Cf. TDOT 3:356-58. OT The only occurrence of hwh is in Job 37:6, where God says to the snow, “Fall (hwh) on the earth.”” BDB (216-17) connects it with the Arab. hawa’, while HALAT

(231) suggests that the form is written with an ’alef in order to differentiate it from hwh Il, become (> # 2093). Another possibility is that it is actually just a variation of hwh II, become (cf. also the Aram. h*wa’, become).

NT

> NIDNTT 1:606-11; 2:705-10.

Falling, tottering, stumbling: > bth II (fall to ground, # 1054); > hwh I (fall, # 2092); > kl (stumble, totter, be brought to ruin, #4173); > nss I (falter, #5823); > npl (fall, lie prostrate, # 5877); > ntrI (fall, # 6000); > Xmf (release, remit, drop, throw down, fall, stumble, # 9023) Allan M. Harman

2093 ANE

mn

min

(hwh ID, g. become;

lie, stay (#2093);

+ Tn (hwh I, fall, > #2092).

Cf. Aram./Syr. h*wa’, be, become; Akk. ewii/emit. See further TDOT 3:356.

1017

Din (#2101) OT

1. Isaac blessed Jacob with an exalted status in God’s redemptive plan, “Be

(hwh) lord over your brothers” (Gen 27:29).

2. In Eccl 11:1-6, one is urged to take the opportunities God gives (vv. 1-2) and not wait for ideal conditions (v. 4). One cannot foresee everything. The unexpected happens and a human being is not consulted, like a tree that falls where it wills and “there it will lie (hwh)” (v. 3; cf. GKC, § 75s). All comes about as God ordains it (v. oh

and one must work in that knowledge. Happening, meeting, attack: > ‘nh III (happen, # 628); > hwh II (become, #2093); > hyh (be, become, happen, # 2118); > y‘d (appoint, appear, come, meet, # 3585); > ng‘ (touch, hurt, #5595); > pg‘ (encounter, attack, #7003); > pgs (meet, #7008); > gdm (be before, meet, confront, #7709); — qr’ II (happen, #7925); > grh I (happen, build, odain, direct, select, # 7936) BIBLIOGRAPHY

NIDNTT 1:462-71. Cornelis Van Dam

2094 (hawwad II, longing), > #203 2095 (hawwéd II, ruin, misery), > # 2092 2096 (howd, disaster), > #2092

2098 (hdy, woe), > Particles

2099 (hélélét, folly, delusion), > #2147 2100 (hélélit, folly, delusion), > #2147 7101

on

:

DIN (hwm), q. throw into confusion, ni. be in

uproar (#2101); MP7

(m*hiima), nom. confu-

sion, panic (# 4539).

ANE _ The Arab. vb. hym means to rush about madly. OT 1. The vb. hwm appears 6x in the OT. In the q. it appears only in Deut 7:23. In this instance God will confuse the enemies of the people as preparation for their defeat (cf. hmm). The vb. appears 3x in the ni. In 1 Sam 4:5 the earth is the subject, in 1 Kgs 1:45 the city (girya), and in Ruth 1:19 the whole city (kol ha ‘ir). In Ruth 1:19 the city is in an uproar because of the return of Ruth and Naomi. In the other two cases it indicates the result of a huge clamor. In the hi. the vb. appears 2x, in Ps 55:2[3] and Mic 2:12. The two instances are problematical. In Mic 2:12 the NIV has “the place will throng with people,” and in Ps 55:2[3] “I am distraught.” 2. The nom. m*hiimd belongs to the ideology of the holy war (cf. THAT 1:503). In Deut 7:23 it is used with the vb. hwm to denote the confusion that God will create among his enemies. In 28:20 confusion is one of the curses pronounced on the people for breaking the covenant (cf. also Amos 3:9; 2 Chron 15:5). In 1 Sam 5:9, 11 the holy war is related to the ark of the covenant. Panic was one of the results of the entry of the ark in the Philistine cities. In 1 Sam 14:20 confusion in the ranks of the Philistines also resulted from the ark’s entry into the Israelite camp. In Isa 22:5 confusion is part of the

1018

Di(# 2101) eschatological day of the Lord (cf. also Ezek 7:7; 22:5; Zech 14:13). In Prov 15:16 it is contrasted with the fear of the Lord. 3. The related vb. hmm I, bring into movement and confusion [q.], rouse up [ni.] (> #2169) occurs in later Heb. and in Jewish Aram. with the meaning to confuse. The Arab. hamma means disturb, and the Ugar. nom. nhmmt means confusion, trouble. It is

uncertain whether this vb. occurs in the ni. The forms in question are probably from the vb. hwm. The vb. occurs 13x in the q. In most cases (10x) the Lord is the subj. of the vb. The religious use of the vb. is related to the concept of the Holy War, esp. for the fear God inspired in people. At the beginning of a battle the Lord causes confusion among the enemy and ensures the victory of his people. In Exod 14:24 the Lord is the subj. of the vb., where he causes confusion in the Egyptian army while they are pursuing the Israelites through the Red Sea. The vb. is frequently used in this kind of context (cf. Josh 10:10; Judg 4:15; 1 Sam 7:10; 2 Chron 15:6). In 2 Sam 22:15; Ps 18:14[15]; 144:6

lightning is the instrument used by the Lord to bring confusion to the enemy. In three instances the vb. is related to the tradition of the Jerusalem chaos and war against the nations. In Exod 23:27 the Lord promises that he will bring confusion to Israel’s enemies. In Deut 2:15 the Lord is again the subj., and the object is the people of the camp of Israel who disobeyed him. In this instance the nom. can mean to eliminate them in confusion, indicating that the people did not die a natural death, but that the Lord precipitated their death. In Jer 51:34 Nebuchadnezzar threw the people of God into confusion in the process of his victory over them. In Esth 9:24 Haman wanted to confuse the people as part of his strategy to destroy them. In Isa 28:28 the vb. has a different meaning. It is used for the driving of the wheels of a threshing cart over grain. 4. Other words for confusion. (a) The vb. dhm (# 1850) appears only in Jer 14:9, in the ni., with the meaning to be astounded, to be taken by surprise. The words

are part of a prayer directed to the Lord, stating that the Lord can never be, like a human being, at wit’s end. (b) The nom.

hogga’ (#2505) appears in Isa 19:17. HALAT translates it as

shame and the NIV as terror. It probably denotes the fear that the mention of Israel would cause among the Egyptians. The nom. retet appears only in Jer 49:24, where panic is the result of bad news. (c) The vb. Arp II (# 3071) appears only in Ps 57:3[4]. It points to what God

did with the pursuers of the poet. HALAT translates it as confuse and the NIV as rebuke. (d) The nom. tigrd (#9327) appears only in Ps 39:10[11]. The meaning is uncertain. The NIV translates tigrat yad°ka as the blow of your hand. For a complete discussion, cf. HALAT 1555. (e) The nom. t6‘d (# 9360) appears 2x in the OT. In Neh 4:8[2] it points to trou-

ble caused against Jerusalem by Sanballat and his colleagues. In Isa 32:6 a fool speaks in error about the Lord, meaning words that could lead people astray. Confusion, agitation: > bwk (be agitated, wander in agitation, # 1003); > bil (confuse, mix, # 1176); > bl‘ Ill (be confused, confused, # 1182); > hwm (throw into confusion, be in uproar, #2101); > kmr (agitated, # 4023); > ‘wh (disturb, distress, agitate, pervert, do wrong, # 6390);

1019

117 #2103) > p‘m (be disturbed, feel disturbed, #7192); #8104); > r‘m II (be agitated, be confused,

> rhb (assail, press, pester, alarm, confuse, #8307); > tmh (be benumbed, be stunned,

shocked, gaze, #9449) BIBLIOGRAPHY

THAT 1:502-4; TWAT 2:449-54; F. E. Greenspahn, Hapax Legomena in Biblical Hebrew, 1984. Harry F. van Rooy

2103 ANE

pn

117 (hwn), hapleg. consider easy, risk (# 2103); nom. ral (hén), wealth, possessions (# 2104).

Cognates include the Ugar. hyn, skillful, clever, and the Aram. h’wana’ ,wealth,

ability, strength. TDOT 3:364-65 rules against the Arab. hana, be or become light, in favor of the Syr. cognate hawnd’, understanding.

OT 1. The semantic field of wealth and riches consists primarily of three terms: ‘Sr, wealth, riches (in opposition to poverty), én, material possessions including riches, and n°kasim, possessions in general, including livestock, of which the first term is the most important. By contrast, the OT has a wide variety of words for poverty and oppression, indicating a greater familiarity with those conditions than with wealth (> ’eby6n, poor, # 36). 2. The nom. hén is derived from the root hwn, found only in the hi. (Deut 1:41b), with the meaning of either “to be easy, light” (BDB, 223), or “to be ready” (KJV and see TDOT 3:365-66, where E. Kutsch argues on the basis of the Jewish scholar Rashi for a derived meaning for the noun as “what stands ready,” namely possessions). In the prophetic section hdn is found in Ezek 27, the lament over Tarshish

(27:12, 18, 27, 33), emphasizing the great wealth and treasures of the city, which nevertheless will be destroyed by God (vv. 35-36). Shame will replace the great honor of the city. hén should also be read in Hab 2:5 (see J. J. M. Roberts, 112-13), following 1QpHab, to produce the reading, “How much more shall wealth deceive the arrogant person.” The sense is then that the reliability of the God-given vision concerning the future of the nation in Hab 2:2-3 is contrasted with the deceitfulness of wealth and power. 3. The remaining 22 instances of hén are found in the Writings, with nineteen of

these in Prov. As with ‘oSer and ‘air wealth is portrayed in both a negative and positive way. Ps 112:3 parallels hon and ‘OSer as the rewards of the person who fears God and obeys his commandments (v. 1), while Prov 8:18 has riches (‘6Ser), honor, wealth (hén), and righteousness (NIV prosperity) as the rewards of seeking after wisdom.

Prov 3:9 speaks about honoring the Lord “with your wealth” and promises overflowing barns and vats brimming with new wine (v. 10). dn belongs to the same semantic field as ‘Sr, with the only distinction being the fact that hdn is confined to Psalms and Proverbs. Prov 24:3-4 mentions the house built through wisdom, whose rooms are filled

with knowledge and rare and beautiful treasures (lit., all precious riches). Although material treasures may be intended here, one might also think of spiritual wealth. 4. hon is used in opposition to the poor (dal) twice in Prov 19:4 and 28:8, with the latter containing a warning against amassing wealth by means of exorbitant interest. A warning is also found in 11:4, where the sage writes that “wealth is worthless in

1020

“M(H 2116) the day of wrath, but righteousness delivers from death.” Money gained dishonestly will dwindle away (13:11); the rich trust blindly in their wealth (18:11); the stingy man, overeager to become rich, does not know that poverty lies in wait for him (28:22), and the companion of prostitutes squanders his wealth (29:3). In the biblical theology of wealth the dangers of riches gained for wrong motives or by wrong means are clearly revealed.

P-B 1. In the DSS the term hdén is used with the basic sense of possessions. So the property of a novice is kept apart from that of the full members of the community (1QS 6:17-22), underscoring the basic idea of the higher levels of purity to which a novice might aspire. Outside the community existed the realm of the profane, where even the priests of Jerusalem are accused of hoarding “‘wicked possessions” (CD 8:5 and 19:17). 2. In the RL, hén carries two meanings, the first is the biblical sense of possessions or wealth (PTalm Pe’a I 15d), and the second is the sense of natural fortune,

health, nature (Pesiqta Rabbati on Prov the NT, with a broadening of the idea 6:20). 3. In the LXX a variety of terms of property or possessions. In one case

3:9). We see here the same trend as evident in of wealth to include “spiritual treasure” (Matt

NT

terms are arked, with the general sense of

are used, such as ta hyparchonta with the sense (Ezek 27), the G uses no less than three different terms to render hén: plethos (27:18), dynamis (27:18), and ischys (27:12).

In the NT the most common

suffiency (of oil [Matt 25:9] or bread [John 6:7]) and contentment (Heb 13:5), thesauros, treasure (Matt 12:35), and ploutos, which with its various forms covers the sense of wealth and riches (Rom 9:23). Jesus has several hard sayings regarding the wealthy (e.g., Matt 19:23-26; Luke 6:24-26), and James warns against discrimination in the

church on the basis of wealth (James 2:1-7), before, prophet-like, he pronounces his woes on the rich (5:1-6). Clearly wealth brings with it inherent dangers, not least its ability to corrupt the hearts of those who place possessions above people! Riches, wealth: > hwn (consider easy, risk, #2103); ~ n*kasim (possessions, wealth, riches, #5794); > ‘Sr (be rich, become rich, make rich, # 6947) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDNT 6:323-25; TWOT 1:213; Anclsr 72-74; T. Donald, “The in the Wisdom Literature of Hebrew and Accadian,” OrAnt 3, Poor in the Psalms,” ExpTim 100, 1989/90, 15-19; P. Grelot, 12, 1962, 198-201; M. Hengel, Earliest Christianity, 1986; J.

Semantic Field of Rich and Poor 1964, 27-41; S. Gillingham, “The “La racine HWN en Dt. I 41” VT J. M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk,

N. Whybray, “Poverty, Wealth and Point of View in Proverbs,” ExpTim

and Zephaniah, 1991; R. 100, 1988/9, 332-36.

W. R. Domeris

2104 (hén, wealth, possessions), > #2103

2107 (hdséa‘, Hosea), ~ Hosea

2116

ia

1"

(hédad), nom. shout, war cry (# 2116). 1021

70 (# 2118) The word means to shout and occurs in war contexts, where the meaning war OT cry is appropriate (Oswalt, Isaiah 1-39, 1986, 344). In Jer 25:30, for instance, it is the Lord, the divine warrior (>), who shouts against his enemies. In Isa 16:9-10 (see also

Jer 48:33) Moab’s shouts have stopped because the fertility of their land has been removed.

> swh (shout, #7423); > srh (yell, call shrilly, raise the war-cry, # 7658); > rw‘ (shout, give war-cry, # 8131); > rnn (yell, shout [w.

Shout, (war-)cry, yell: > hédad (shout, #2116); joy], moan, # 8264)

Tremper Longman III

2117 (huyy‘dét, songs of praise), > # 3344

2118

mr

mr (hyh), q. become; happen; be; ni. happen, occur (# 2118).

ANE The vb. hyh is only attested in Heb., although a related vb., hwh, become (occurs only 5x: Gen 27:29; Isa 16:4; Eccl 2:22; 11:3; Neh 6:6) corresponds to the Aram. hwh (found 71x), which functions much like the Heb. hyh. OT

As the second most common

vb. in the OT, hyh occurs over 3500x, in the q.

stem all but 20x (where it appears as ni.). For a book by book statistical analysis, see THAT 1:477-78. Its primary meanings are “be, exist” (what has come into being) and “become, happen” (what is coming into being), although its specific nuance varies when it is juxtaposed with certain prepositions or employed in certain theological expressions. 1. Be/become. Boman (27-51; cf. THAT 1:478-79) contends that the OT has no

interest in static existence, but only expresses dynamic or moving existence. Consequently, hyh never occurs to express simple (static) existence. As Barr (58-72) points out, however, this dichotomy is forced and inaccurate. Most often Heb. utilizes a nom.

clause (two nom. elements juxtaposed without a copula; e.g., Yahweh

[is] king) to

express existence. Two other terms also express existence (yés, e.g., Gen 18:24 “What

if there are fifty righteous people in the city?”) or nonexistence (’ayin, e.g., Ps 14:1). (a) The vb. hyh only rarely functions as a copula. When accompanied by a predicate adjective, hyh expresses the quality/state of a person or thing (Gen 3:1, “the serpent was more crafty than...”; Gen 2:25, “the man and his wife were both naked”; cf. Neh 3:36), states a gnomic truth (Gen 2:18, “it is not good for the man to be alone”), or provides a description of a past event (Gen 1:2, “Now the earth was formless and empty”). At times hyh occurs in a clause juxtaposed to a nom. clause in which both express the same idea (Lev 11:10-11, “You are to detest them...since you are to detest them”; Lev 19:2, “Be holy because... am holy”). The inf. const. (most often lihyét, but

other inf. as well) commonly means “to exist, be present,” most often an enduring state or process lying in the future (TDOT 3:373). (b) When it occurs with certain prepositions, hyh combines with them to present a more specific nuance (as Barr contends [69-71], this meaning is the result of the juxtaposition of this vb. and prepositions, but is necessarily not part of the intrinsic meaning of the vb.). When it occurs with le, hyh signifies “to become” (Gen 2:7, “man became a living being”; cf. Gen 18:18; Deut 1:39; 1 Kgs 2:2) or “to belong to”

1022

mrt(# 2118) (Ezek 35:10, “these two nations will belong to me”; cf. Num 5:10; 30:6; Jer 3:1). The

combination hyh ‘al can either refer to driving back an attacking army (2 Sam 11:23) or signify the incumbency of a given task (Ezek 45:17), while hyh ’ah*ré connotes allegiance (2 Sam 2:10, “the house of Judah followed David”). In addition to the basic idea of nearness (to be with someone or something, Deut 22:2; 1 Sam 14:21; 25:16; et al.),

the expression hyh ‘im describes the presence (or penal absence) of Yahweh with his covenant people (see below). 2. Happen, come to pass, occur. (a) More frequently, hyh describes something that takes place. It refers to the arrival of evening (Gen 1:5), the experience of calamity (Amos 3:6) or fear (Gen 9:2),

or the spirit of Yahweh coming upon one of his servants. It also points to something that did not/will not come to pass (Isa 7:7; Jer 14:4; Dan 11:17; Amos 7:13). Most of

the ni. examples refer to something that happens/takes place (e.g., Exod 11:6; Deut 4:32; Neh 6:8). (b) Alongside d*bar yhwh/‘lohim (the word of the Lord), hyh ’el (came unto) occurs 118x as a technical expression for Yahweh’s revelation of his intentions to a prophetic or ruling figure (most abundant in Jer and Ezek; cf. THAT 1:439 for a fuller listing of these examples). (c) The third masc. sing. form of hyh (w*hayd [782x] and way*hi) occurs abundantly and serves to initiate or continue a narrative. The more common construction (way‘hi) primarily binds together sentences within a larger span of discourse (macrosyntactical or intersentential level; this expression introduces Josh, Judg, Ruth, 1 and

2 Sam, and Ezek), while w*hayd occurs on the interclausal (binding together clauses within a sentence) and macrosyntactic levels (IBHS, 634). In numerous instances w*hayd and way*hi do not require translation and serve to introduce clauses. For example, the literal rendering, “And it came to pass in the days of the judges ruling,” could be translated, “In the days when the judges ruled” (Ruth 1:1), or the clause, “It came to pass after these things,” could be rendered, “Now after these things” or “Sometime later” (Gen 22:20). 3. Primary theological significance. (a) Creation. In the creation account (Gen 1:1-2:4) Moses utilizes three forms

of hyh to emphasize the connection between Yahweh’s declarations and the fulfillment of his intentions. The juss. form (y*hi, “let it be/come to pass”) occurs 6x (Gen 1:3, 6 [2x]; 14-15 [3x]; two perfects with waw consecutive [w*hayd] in 1:14-15 continue the

juss. nuance) to declare Yahweh’s intention to create something. The waw consecutive + preterite directly corresponds to the jussive in 1:3 (“let it come to pass...then it came to pass,” first creative day) and functions as a summary statement for the second to fourth and sixth days (way*hi kén, “then it was so/came to pass so”). This intentional pattern echoes the affirmation by the psalmist that what Yahweh commands and brings to pass perfectly correspond (Ps 33:8[9]; cf. Isa 14:24). (b) Covenantal relationship. The vb. hyh figures prominently in the realization of covenantal blessings and curses. After choosing Abraham to father a nation of special purpose for him, Yahweh promises that this people will be as numerous as the stars in the sky (Gen 15:5) or sand on a beach (28:14; Hos 1:10) and would be like a watered garden (Isa 58:11; Jer 31:12) or a fruitful olive tree (Hos 14:6[7]). In the deut. presen-

tation of covenant curses, hayita/hay‘ta (you will be/it will be) occurs 7x to delineate

1023

rst(# 2118) the destructive nature of these curses. In other forms, hyh occurs repeatedly in the context of covenant curses (Lev 26:33, 37; Deut 28: 23, 40, 41, 44, 46, 65; 29:23; Isa 1:29; Jer 17:6, 8; 20:16; et al.).

The vb. hyh also occurs repeatedly in “covenant formula” terminology and the related promise of divine presence. From the time of his election of Abraham, Yahweh promised that he would be God for his chosen people (Gen 17:7-8). The second half of the covenant formula occurs for the first time in Exod 6:7, where Yahweh instructs Moses to tell the children of Israel, “I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God.” After this, the formula “I will be your/their God...will be my/his people” occurs 13x (Lev'26712; Jer 7:23 "147247Ft;30:223 51:1) 33732: 30shzek 1120, aa:

36:28; 37:23, 27), affirming the unique relationship enjoyed by Israel and their God. Affirmations of either half of this formula (your/their God, Exod 29:45; Lev 11:45; 22:33; 25:38; 26:45; Num 15:41; Deut 29:13; Ezek 34:24; “my/his people,” Deut 4:20; 7:6; 14:2; 26:18; 28:9; 29:12; 1 Sam 12:22; 2 Sam 7:23; Jer 13:11) serve as reminders

of this covenantal relationship. Out of the 20x Yahweh affirms or promises his presence to Israel (or an Israelite leader), hyh occurs 7x in the statement, “I will be with you” (Gen 26:3; 31:3; Exod 3:12; Josh 1:5; 3:7; Judg 6:16; 1 Kgs 11:38). Generally, the nom. clause construction (“I [am] with you,” Gen 26:24; 28:15; Isa 41:10; 43:2, 5; Jer 1:8, 19; 15:20; 30:11; 42:11; 46:28; Hag 1:13; 2:4) occurs when emphasis does not

lie on the promissory (and unrealized) nature of the covenant relationship (TDOT 3:378), while the hyh construction directs attention to the surety of Yahweh’s declarations. (c) Reception of divine revelation. As stated above, the expression “the word of the LORD came/happened to...” occurs abundantly throughout the OT. In addition to the fact that d*bar yhwh constitutes a technical term for prophetic revelation, its juxtaposition with hyh indicates that the phrase signifies more than the mere transmission of words from Yahweh to his messenger. Just as there is a direct correlation between the statement and fulfillment of Yahweh’s creative intentions (Gen 1), the “coming to pass” of “the word of the LORD” to the prophet carries great significance. Agreement between the announcement of his attentions and their fulfillment serves as the tangible criterion for genuine prophetic speech (cf. Deut 18:18-22). Yahweh’s announcement of his intentions constitutes his pledge that what he declares through his messenger will indeed take place. (d) Exod 3:14, meaning of ’ehyeh ’“Ser ’ehyeh. This passage contains one of the most problematic instances of hyh in the OT. The meaning of ’ehyeh and its function in the immediate context have caused significant discussion. The present entry can only offer an overview of that discussion. In response to Moses’ protest that he is not capable to serve as Yahweh’s instrument to deliver Israel from Egyptian bondage, Yahweh assures Moses of his presence (3:12, ’ehyeh ‘immak, “I will be with you”). The expres-

sion in question (’ehyeh “Ser ’ehyeh) is part of Yahweh’s answer to Moses’ second question: “What shall I tell them [if they ask, ‘What is his name?’]” (3:13). Moses is not concerned

whether the Israelites will ask about Yahweh’s

identity, but rather

that they will inquire into Yahweh’s character or nature (the interrogative particle mah inquires concerning quality rather than identity [as with mi]; cf. Buber, 48-55: Segal, 5). 1024

TT (#2118) (i) Existence. Following the LXX (egd eimi ho 6n), several scholars translate ‘ehyeh *“Ser ’ehyeh, “I am the one who is” (Schild, 296-302; Lindblom, 4-15), placing emphasis on the fact that Yahweh is the only one among the pagan gods who exists. Albrektson (17-22) points out that this translation does not correspond to normal Heb. usage (it would be an appropriate translation for “ni hii’). (ii) Causation. Albright (170-71) and others (e.g., Freedman [151-56]; cf. TDOT 5:513, n. 155 for other proponents) contend that a causative form hyh underlies both this expression and the divine name Yahweh and translate ’ehyeh “ser ’ehyeh, “I create whatever I create” (TDOT 5:516). However, there is no known example of a hi. hyh, and the present context focuses on Yahweh’s function as Israel’s redeeming,

covenant-keeping God rather than as their creator God (JSBE, rev. ed., 2:507). (iii) Divine name with explanation. Mettinger (34, following Schoneveld [89-98]) treats the first ’ehyeh as a divine name followed by the explanation “because I am.” Although the name he declares to Moses means “I am,” mortal humanity is to call him Yahweh “he is.” This divine name and its explanation (“[My name shall be] Ehyeh [I am] because I am’) emphasize the reality of God’s active and helpful presence in the form of a statement of confidence about the present and future. (iv) Assurance of divine intervention. A number of writers regard this expression as an example of well-known stylistic figure in BH, idem per idem. This figure normally expresses certain nuances of indeterminateness (Jotion, 599, §1580): e.g., Exod 4:13, “send the one you will send” = “send whomever you wish”; 2 Kgs 8:1, “dwell where you will dwell” = “dwell wherever you choose”; Exod 33:19, “I will

show compassion on whom I will show compassion” = “I will be gracious to whom I will.” Kaiser (321) argues that this figure can also express totality, emphasis, or intensity (“I am truly he who exists and who will be dynamically present then and there in the situation to which I am sending you”), although his examples are not convincing. Several proponents affirm that Yahweh sidesteps Moses’ question by his response; however, if the interrogative particle is concerned with significance rather than identity (see above), Yahweh’s response may not constitute avoidance. According to this view (as with Mettinger), the expression ’ehyeh ’“Ser ’ehyeh signifies Yahweh’s commitment to fulfill his redemptive intentions for the children of Israel. He will be to them what his deeds show him to be, an assurance quite relevant to an oppressed group of Hebrew slaves. The third or fourth alternatives offer the most helpful suggestions. (e) Exod 3:14-15, relationship of ’ehyeh ’“Ser ’ehyeh to Yahweh. Is Yahweh etymologically derived from hyh or do the two elements simply enjoy a paronomasic connection? Although the assonance of ’ehyeh...’ehyeh...’ehyeh...yhwh ties the two elements closely together, paronomasia (Beitzel, 5-20) does not sufficiently explain their juxtaposition. Even though Yahweh apparently derives from an archaic hwh (see ANE section above), an etymological relationship exists between the expression in Exod 3:14 (’ehyeh) and the divine name Yahweh in 3:15. For a detailed consideration of the divine name Yahweh, see Yahweh (# 3378).

At Qumran, several examples of the ni. form of hyh refer to God’s predestinaP-B tion of everything that happens (1QM 17:5; 1QS 3:15; 11:4, 11, 18; CD 2:10). Two of

the Targums emphasize Yahweh’s creative ability in their translation of Exod 3:14: Targum Neofiti 1, “And the Lord said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM.’ And he said: ‘Thus shall you say to the children of Israel: “The one who said and the world came

1025

SDM(#2121) into existence from the beginning; and is to say it again: Be, and it will be, has sent me to you’”’”; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, “And the Lord said to Moses, ‘He who said and

the world was, (who) said and everything was.’ Then he said, ‘Thus you shall say to the children of Israel “I-am-who-I-am-and-who-will-be has sent me to you.”’” NT The expression “I am” occurs in an absolute sense in John 6:20; 8:24, 28, 58, translating the G egd eimi. Christ’s use of this title draws on two sources, Exod 3:14-15 and Isa 40-55. The LXX translates the Heb. expression discussed above eg6 eimi ho on (Exod 3:14). God’s revelation of himself in Isaiah 40-55 also provides a conceptual background for the NT expression. The expression “I am Yahweh” (’*ni/ anoki yhwh) occurs 20x in this section of Isaiah, and a variant of this formula, “Iam he” (’“ni/ anoki hii’), occurs 8x (Isa 41:4; 43:10, 13, 25; 46:4; 48:12; 51:12; 52:6). The LXX customar-

ily renders this variant egd eimi. In Isa 40-55 this phrase constitutes Yahweh’s affirmation that he is the one who controls history (41:4; 48:12), forgives sin (43:25), sustains his people (46:4), and is the only true God (43:10-13). For Jesus to apply these words

to himself is tantamount to a claim to deity. Happening, meeting, attack: > ‘nh III (happen, #628);

> hwh II (become, #2093);

> hyh

(be, become, happen, #2118); > y‘d (appoint, appear, come, meet, # 3585); > ng‘ (touch, hurt, #5595); > pg‘ (encounter, attack, #7003); > pgs (meet, #7008); > gdm (be before, meet, confront, #7709); > qr’ II (happen, #7925); > qrh I (happen, build, odain, direct, select, # 7936)

BIBLIOGRAPHY ISBE, rev. ed., 2:204-8; TDOT 3:369-81; 5:500-521; THAT 1:433-43, 477-86; TWOT 1:213-14; B. Albrektson, “On the Syntax of 7°78 TWN TAN in Exodus 3:14,” Words and Meanings, 1968, 15-28; W. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, 1968; J. Barr, The Semantics of Bib-

lical Language, Paronomasia,”

1961; B. Beitzel, “Exodus 3:14 and the Divine Name: TrinJ NS

1, 1980, 5-20; T. Boman, Hebrew

A Case of Biblical

Thought Compared with Greek,

1960; M. Buber, Moses: The Revelation and the Covenant, 1958; C. Den Hertog, “De Naam van de God van de Profeten. Exodus 3:13-15,” Amsterdamse Cahiers voor Exegese en Bijbelse Theologie, 12, 1993, 38-61; D. Freedman, “The Name of the God of Moses,” JBL 79, 1960, 151-56;

C. Gianotti, “The Meaning of the Divine Name YHWH,” BSac 142, 1985, 38-51; C. Isbell, “The Divine Name 17°18 as a Symbol of Presence in Israelite Tradition,” HAR 2, 1978, 101-18; P. Jotion, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 1993; W. Kaiser, “Exodus,” EBC, 2:285-497; J. Lindblom, “Noch einmal die Deutung des Jahwes-Namens in Ex 3,14,” ASTI 3, 1964, 4-15; T. Met-

tinger, In Search of God, 1988; G. Ogden, “Time, and the Verb 77 in O.T. Prose,” VT 21, 1971, 451-69; C. Ratschow, Werden und Wirken. Eine Untersuchung des Wortes hajah als Beitrag zur Wirklichkeiterfassung des Alten Testaments, 1941; M. Reisel, The Mysterious Name of Y.H.W.H., 1962; E. Schild, “On Exodus 3:14, ‘I Am That I Am,’” VT4, 1954, 296-302; J. Schoneveld, “Proeve van een nieuwe vertalig van ‘ehje aSer ehje’ in Exodus 3:14,” NedTT 30, 1976, 89-98; M. Segal, The Pentateuch: Its Composition and Its Authorship, 1967. Michael A. Grisanti

iebeh 2121 aah COeias aR

52D°M (hékal), temple, palace (# 2121).

Hei hékal cee generally means temple, but in fifteen OT passages (e.g., 1 Kgs 21:1; ne 39:7; Dan 1:4) the sense is “palace.” Since a temple is often considered as God’s

1026

52°71(#2121) dwelling place, the distinction between palace and temple is only minor. The word hékal as palace is interchangeable with bayit, house; it refers primarily to royal palaces, e.g., the palace of Ahab (1 Kgs 21:1), the palace of the king of Babylon, (2 Kgs 20:18; 2 Chron 36:7; Isa 39:7), the palace of Nineveh (Nah 2:7). Other passages clearly refer to the royal residence: Ps 45:8[9]; 15[16]; 144:12; Prov 30:28; Isa 13:22; Amos 8:3; Dan 1:4; Hos 8:14 plural; Joel 3:5[4:5]—also in Bibl. Aram. (Dan 4:1, 29[26]; 5:5;

6:19; Ezra 4:14). If the main occupant of the “house” was the king, the building was called the king’s house, the “palace” (Gen 12:15; Jer 39:8). The royal official who had

supervision manager of refers to the 2 Kgs 10:5;

over the palace bore the title of “he who was over the house,” i.e., “the the palace” (1 Kgs 4:6; 16:9; 2 Kgs 15:5). In the NIV bayit frequently king’s house and the translation is consequently “palace” (e.g., 1 Kgs 4:6; 2 Chron 2:3). 2. There is no unique word for palace as the residence of the sovereign or of a high dignitary in Hebrew. However, words or expressions obviously referring to such edifices are translated palace (compare KJV and RSV). Thus the word ’appeden—Old Persian apaddna, meaning armory or treasury (“palace”)—is so used at Dan 11:45. 3. The word hékal has a rich variety of synonyms: bayit, house; bitan, palace

(Esth 1:5; 7:7-8); ’armon, a large luxurious dwelling place (’alman in Isa 13:22; harmén, palace, in KJV [Amos 4:3], transliterated in NIV). The word hékdil is usually translated palace in the KJV. It describes a fortified dwelling, usually a part of a royal complex. The ’arm6én has been conjectured to have been the administrative center of the Israelite monarchy. A large portion of the nation’s wealth was evidently deposited

there. Its capture was the chief aim of conquest and so substantial fortifications were constructed around the citadel so that the king and the loyal remnants of his army could resist capture even when the city had fallen. When predicting the overthrow of nations, the prophets specifically refer to the citadels of Babylon (Isa 25:2); Jerusalem (Isa 32:14; Jer 6:5; 9:21[20]; 17:27); Damascus (Jer 49:27; Amos 1:4); and Edom (Isa 34:13; Amos 1:12). Amos also speaks of the destruction of the citadels of Gaza (1:7), Tyre (1:10), Rabbah (1:14), Moab (2:2), Samaria (3:11).

One of the most complete citadels in Syria/Palestine, occupied in the period 900 to 600 BC, was excavated at Zinjirli (ancient Sam’al). Walls and towers surrounded the

three palaces and storehouses, and to enter the complex it was necessary to pass through two gates. In Palestine only meager remains of the citadel at Samaria have been discovered, but a smaller citadel built by King Jehoiakim at Ramat Rahel and most probably referred to by Jer 22:13-14 was found to be similar to that in Samaria. As at Samaria the citadel was fortified with a casemate wall constructed with regular masonry, and within the wall was a large courtyard, a storehouse, and a palace. On the evidence of excavations both Hazor and Megiddo in Solomon’s time had administrative buildings enclosed within citadel areas. Solomon chose a similar system at Jerusalem, where the citadel embraced the temple, the king’s palace (1 Kgs 3:1), the House of the Forest of Lebanon (7:2-5), halls and porches (7:6-7), a palace for Pharaoh’s daughter (7:8; 9:24), and courts (7:12). The palaces of Assyria, Babylon, and Persia accommodated the administration

for large empires and also considerable quantities of tribute. In addition to offices and magazines, temples were included in the palace complex, thus enabling the king to fulfill his religious duties to ensure the favor of the gods. Senior officials possessed their 1027

SDM(#2121) own residences, and other parts of the palace housed schools (Dan 1:4) for the princes, future civil servants, and priests. The wealth of the king was suitably displayed to visitors, and so public courtyards and the state rooms were richly decorated and lavishly furnished. Sometimes gardens of exotic plants were grown within the palace area (Esth 7:7-8). Palaces or citadels often represented the fortunes of a nation in the OT. The palace of the faithful nation possessed peace (Ps 122:7), while that of a sinful nation was destroyed (Jer 17:27; Amos 2:5) and becomes deserted (Isa 34:13-14). After the exile palaces are sometimes referred to as fortresses: bird (Jerusalem [1 Chron 29:1; Neh 2:8; 7:2]; Susa [Neh 1:1; Esth 1:2, 5; Dan 8:2], and Ecbatana [Ezra 6:2]); ‘appeden (KJV palace; NIV royal tents [#683]) in Dan 11:45 is the residence of the king of the North; and fird (palace [KJV], towers [NIV] in S of Songs 8:9 [#3227]). bird (#1072)

is a Persian loanword perhaps for palace, citadel, and means “stronghold, fort.” The word ’appeden is similar to the Old Persian word apaddna, meaning a columned hall,

and may in this case indicate large tents with many supports. fird is a restricted enclosure. There are biblical references to foreign palaces, such as the palace of Pharaoh (Gen 12:15), Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 1:4), Ahasuerus/Xerxes (Esth 1:5, 8), Artaxerxes

(Ezra 4:14). The luxury and splendor of the Persian palaces are described in Esther 1, and they are amply verified by excavations. For ornamentation and beauty, painted plaster was frequently employed in construction. Except for cut stones in the eras of Solomon and Ahab, construction in Israel was of rubble stone and plaster finish. The

commercial and political arrangements that Israel and Judah had with Mesopotamia and Egypt must have acquainted a number of the Hebrews with the palaces of these countries. In Palestine, excavations have uncovered foundations of large Bronze Age buildings as at Tell Beit Mirsim, Lachish, and Ai, so imposing that they apparently were palaces of rulers. Jeremiah makes mention of several parts of the Jerusalem palace (Jer 36:20, 22; 37:21).

A guard room is mentioned (Jer 38:6), which was destroyed

by Nebuchadnezzar.

Excavations at Tell el-Ful, Saul’s Gibeah, give evidence of strong fortification but show little trace of any luxurious living quarters. Saul’s palace had two rectangular walls over 30 m. (33 yds.) in length interconnected at the corners. Four strong siege towers projected outwards on each corner. Although small, the building was very durable. David’s dwelling in Jerusalem must have been imposing for its time since it was constructed of cedar; its builders were carpenters and masons sent by Hiram king of Tyre. Solomon’s palace was also built by Hiram’s artisans. It was more elaborate and contained a large amount of cedar hewn in Lebanon. Both David’s and Solomon’s palaces seem partially to have survived the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC (Neh 3:25), but the thorough destruction of Jerusalem by Titus AD 70 and by Hadrian in AD 135 meant that no remains of these palaces have been found. In Israel, Jeroboam and his successors would have had palaces. At the end of his seven-day reign in Tirzah, Zimri died by putting to the torch the king’s house over himself (1 Kgs 16:18). Zimri’s vanquisher and successor, Omri, commenced the building of a palace on the hill of Shomer, where he founded his capital, Samaria. Ahab, his son and successor, seems to have enlarged this palace. The excavations, which have uncovered a large number of ivory inlays from this palace, doubtless pointto the “ivory house” built by Ahab (1 Kgs 22:39). In turn, this helps to explain the house of

1028

52°71(#2121) ivory and the beds of ivory of Amos 3:15; 6:4. The royal palace measuring 89 by 79 ft. undoubtedly contained two stories (2 Kgs 1:2), a courtyard, and a shallow pool (possibly the place where Ahab’s chariot was washed [1 Kgs 22:38]). More than two hundred fragments of ivory inlay were found in a storehouse near the palace. These demonstrate Phoenician influence and preserve some of the finest art work discovered in ancient Israel. Ahab also built a second palace in Jezreel (1 Kgs 21:1). The palace in Samaria with the city was destroyed by the army of Sargon II in 722/21 BC. Not a trace remains of Solomon’s Jerusalem except for a few indications of the lines of its walls, so we are dependent on the literary record. The palace of the king was elaborate, but more emphasis is placed on masonry rather than on gold plating as in the case of the smaller temple. We have far less detail about it than the more important temple, and it is plain that the author of Kings did not give much information about the king’s private residence, since it was well known to him and far less accessible. The author often leaves out those very points that would be necessary for the reader to reconstruct the building, and much of the architectural terminology is obscure. But we may gather from the description that the buildings of Solomon formed one great whole. The group was contained within a single enclosure, made up of three courses of great hewn stones and a course of cedar beams above (1 Kgs 7:9, 12). Within this enclosure

lay all the separate buildings and more particularly the temple, which lay within a separate enclosure of its own, referred to as the inner court (1 Kgs 6:36). In Jer 26:10 this court is called the upper court (KJV higher); one went down from it through the new gate to the king’s house (Jer 26:10). The palace lay on a lower level than the temple, and we are probably to understand that the “great court” (in which the royal complex was housed) was lower than the temple court. Like the temple, the royal palace with its harem was surrounded by a wall of its own. This is called in the description of the buildings “the other court” (1 Kgs 7:8), but elsewhere (2 Kgs 20:4) the middle court. That in which the state buildings were situated was the outer court (from the standpoint of Isaiah’s narrative in 2 Kgs 20). The state buildings did not need to be shut off as did the palace and the temple, since the access to them was free to everyone. It seems likely that the great court enclosed the two inner courts on all sides so that the outer containing wall at no point coincided with any of the inner walls. The city of David, the palace of David, the palace of Solomon, and the temple of Solomon all lay on the eastern hill. The palace lay higher than the buildings that extended along the ridge south easterly and higher than the old city of David. As in the case in other royal cities in the ANE, the Solomonic enclosure was built at the edge of the city rather than in its center, and at its highest point, thus dominating the entire capital. Our evidence on Solomon’s royal palace in Jerusalem, which was obviously the largest building constructed by that king, is confined to the biblical descriptions combined with comparative archeological material. In | Kgs 7:1-12 the biblical record gives a brief account of the palace in question. Not much attention is paid to the secular palace since most of the descriptive material is given over to the building of the “house of the LoRD.” The palace, however, was larger in size and took longer to build. The text tells us that the building time was thirteen years. It seems clear from the description that the palace, often labeled “the king’s house,” was constructed within a “great court,” which probably separated it from the temple and other structures in the acropo-

lis. Inside the great court were built six units, which were introduced consecutively.

1029

521 (#2121) 1. The House of the Forest of Lebanon. This unit was nearly the same size as the temple. 2. The hall of columns, a rectangular hall of about 75 feet long and 45 feet wide. 3. The hall for the throne, also called the hall of judgment. This was the main

ceremonial hall of the palace. There the king’s magnificent throne would have stood. 4. The outer court still within the hall. Adjoining this court were the living quarters of the palace. 5. “Solomon’s own home where he was to reside” i.e., the king’s private abode. 6. A house for Pharaoh’s daughter, which was a separate dwelling unit within the palace, built for the famous wife of Solomon, probably the daughter of Pharaoh Siamun (D. Ussishkin, BA 36, 1973, 82). This unit may have included the living quarters for other wives and concubines as well. The House of the Forest of Lebanon was undoubtedly a prominent detached building. But it seems that the other five units were incorporated into one single structure (against attempts to suggest that the palace contained several separate buildings, each comprising one of the above units). The biblical account probably discusses the different units of the palace consecutively, beginning at the entrance and working towards the far side in the order in which they would be seen by anyone entering through the hall of columns. From there one entered the hall for the throne and then the other court and finally the living quarters surrounding the latter. The biblical records describe how Solomon brought artisans and building materials from the Phoenician kingdoms of Tyre and Byblos for the construction of the temple. The building descriptions of the temple accord well with our knowledge of contemporary Phoenician architecture and art, and it can be safely assumed that the architects and builders for the adjacent palace complex were also brought from Phoenicia. The hall for the throne was undoubtedly the most important room in the palace. In it King Solomon and his successors received visitors and granted audiences. The hall was also called the hall of judgment. The king’s throne standing in a prominent position inside the hall spoke for royalty, the king’s rule and authority, and his dynasty. An open hearth stood near and in front of the throne (Jer 36:22). The symbolic mean-

ing and importance of the royal throne is well illustrated by the case of the coup d’etat of 2 Kgs 11. When the infant Joash has been proclaimed king and anointed in the temple, he was hurried to the palace, where he sat on the royal throne, almost certainly

Solomon’s throne. Biblical Hebrew customarily uses the term throne as a symbol of monarchy (cf. 1 Kgs 9:5). The fact that the royal palace at Jerusalem was called, at least at a later date, a

winter house (Jer 36:22), probably to distinguish it from a summer residence, finds ready parallels. Lastly we have to mention that the walls of Solomon’s throne room were paneled in cedar from one side of the floor to the other. Solomon’s throne was placed on a dais approached by six steps. It was so magnificent that “nothing like it had ever been made for any other kingdom.” Its description is contained in 1 Kgs 10:18-20: “Then the king made a great throne inlaid with ivory and overlaid with fine gold. The throne had six steps, and its back had a rounded top. On both sides of the seat were armrests, with a lion standing beside each of them. Twelve lions stood on the six steps,

one at either end of each step.” The throne was probably made of wood, partly overlaid with sheets of gold and partly decorated with carved panels of ivory, often elaborately

1030

5D (#2121) carved, veneered to the wooden parts. The ivory decoration was the reason it was known as “a great throne of ivory.” Such a throne decorated with beautiful ivories in Phoenician style has only been recently discovered in a royal tomb at Salamis, in Cyprus. Probably the palace complex had two great portals, one leading from the city to the great court and the other to the temple and the king’s garden. It is probable also that a large amount of color would have been used in the decoration of these buildings, as adjuncts to gold and gilding, to which constant reference is made in Solomon’s account. Solomon’s palace in Jerusalem may have been his central and most magnificent building. The data hint at another palace at Gezer (Ussishkin, 94), and other palatial buildings are no doubt hidden elsewhere. Two palaces were excavated at Megiddo, one in the southern part and one in the northern part of the mound. The suggested reconstruction of the southern palace at Megiddo corresponds well with the biblical description of the Jerusalem palace. The scanty accounts of King Solomon’s palace allows us but a glimpse of this magnificent building of this glorious king. Perhaps we can now understand the reaction of Solomon’s most illustrious visitor (1 Kgs 10:4-5): “When the Queen of Sheba saw all the wisdom of Solomon and the palace which he had built, the food on his table, the seating of his officials, the attending servants in

their robes, his cupbearers, and the burnt offerings he made at the temple of the Lord, she was overwhelmed.” The progressive adornment of the palaces by earthly rulers lifted them to the levels of symbols of oppression and made Israel’s kings forget their dependence on God. God was the protector of the palace and its chief dweller (Ps 48:3) when faith occupied the king’s heart. But usually sumptuous palaces were accompanied by exploitation of the people. The presence of many ivory pieces in the ruins of Samaria (Amos 6:4) indicates the lavish use of this material in decoration, emphasizing the disparity between ruler and people. The prophets did not hesitate to single out the palace as symbolizing the king or to denounce him for his excesses. Jeremiah upbraided Jehoiakim for exploiting his people by building a great palace with spacious upper rooms (Jer 22:13-17).

When the king followed God, God would abide in the palace, i.e., would give his blessing on the king’s rule (Ps 48:3[4]), and the palaces of the city that followed God would be known as those that marked God’s blessings. To the end that all rulers in Israel should fear God, David declared that the palace was for God, i.e., the king was

only God’s viceroy, and justice was to be the palace inhabitant (1 Chron 29:1). On this basis David petitioned God that Solomon would build the palace. Palace, temple: > ’armon (citadel, #810); > bird (citadel, acropolis, #1072); — bayit I (house, dwelling, building, family, dynasty, # 1074); > hékal (palace, temple, #2121)

House, dwelling, tabernacle: — ysb (dwell, #3782); (settle, # 8905)

> bayit I (house, dwelling, building, family, dynasty, # 1074);

> ma‘6n II (den, dwelling, #5061);

> nwh I (rest, #5657);

> Skn

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Y. Aharoni, “Arad: Its Inscriptions and Temple,” BA 31, 1968, 2-32; W. G. Dever, “Solomonic

and Assyrian Period: ‘Palace’ at Gezer,” JEJ 35, 1985, 217-30; D. Ussishkin, “King Solomon’s ” BA 36, 1973, 78-105. Palaces, W. J. Dumbrell

1031

MID 2129) 2122 (hélél, morning star), > # 1332

2125 (hin, hin), > #406

2129

OT

Vi

M751 (hakkard), nom. bias (hapleg.; # 2129); < Dinkr I (pretend, be recognized, > #5795).

1. Isaiah charges that a bias or favoritism in judgment (hakkarat panim) that is

evident on the people’s faces (body language) testifies against them (Isa 3:9). The context here, reminiscent of the contexts for plh, treated differently (> #7111), implies

that the people parade their sinful lifestyle in defiance of God’s glorious presence (3:8). 2. The prohibition of discrimination, while dealing with distinctive treatment, is in the context of ethics and addresses specifically the issue of integrity. > Ethics: theology Elmer A. Martens

2133 OT

som

sor (Al’), ni. stray far from, be removed far off

(#2133),

The single occurrence of the vb. is in a ni. denom. from hal’d, out there, with

the meaning “be removed far off’ (B. K. Waltke, “Micah,” Minor Prophets, 1993, 2:687; IBHS 23.5). It is found in an oracle of salvation (“those driven off,’ Mic 4:7) and is textually dubious (see D. Hillers, Micah, Hermeneia, 1984, 54). Roaming, wandering, homeless: ~ hi’ (stray, be removed far off, #2133); > th (roam around, lead astray, # 3246); > ndd I (flee, stray, wander, # 5610); > nwd (sway, be homeless, # 5653); > nws (flee, #5680); > rwd (roam, # 8113); > Sgh (stray, err, go/do wrong, mislead, # 8706); > SwtI (roam, # 8763); > th (wander off, # 9494)

Elmer A. Martens

2136 (hillilim, praise offering, festival), > #2146

2141 (halik, step), > #2143 2142 (h*likd, walk, doings, caravan, procession), > #2143

597 (hik), q. go, walk, behave; pi. go, go about, walk, vanish; hi. bring, cause to go, lead; hitp. go to and fro, walk about, go up and down, walk along, behave oneself, depart (# 2143);

nom. 3°27 (haliho), step (#2141); nom. MDM (h"likd), walk, doings, caravan, procession (# 2142); yon (hélek), going, flow, visitor (#2144); "23 (mah‘lak), passage, distance, journey, access (# 4544); DOAN (tah*luka), festal procession (hapleg., Neh 12:31; # 9336). 1. Just as derek (“way”) is the most common nom. in the OT to use as a metaphor for life, so hik is the vb. most frequently employed to describe the act or

process of living. It occurs more than 1500x in all, with several hundred examples of a 1032

97 #2143) figurative rather than literal meaning. Ugar. hik and Akk. aldku offer essentially the same range of meanings. The few nominal derivatives that connote walking as life shed little theological light. For example, halik (“step”) is a hapleg, used in Job 29:6 to speak of the prosperous life. The related fem. nom. h“likd, procession, occurs with reference to the goings or ways of God (Ps 68:24[25]; Hab 3:6), to the orderly affairs of a household (Prov 31:27), and to the march of an army (Nah 2:5) (N. Waldman, “God’s

Ways,” 69). Finally, the form mah*lak appears in Zech 3:7 with the meaning “free access” or the like. Clearly, any conclusive theological significance of the lexeme hlk must be found in its verbal forms. 2. The vb. is attested as a figurative expression for the pursuit of human life in nearly all the major stems. Thus, the q., pi., and hi. alike describe the men and women living out their days in general or in obedience or disobedience to the divine principles designed to govern their lives on earth. David, for example, can say that though he walks through the valley of the shadow of death, that is, though his life is characterized by constant threat, he will fear no evil (Ps 23:4). In the pathway of life he trod, his enemies laid a trap (142:3[4]), but Yahweh knew his path and delivered him. Isaiah urged those who walk in darkness not to despair but to trust in God (Isa

50:10). To fear and obey God is to live life as God intended it—life compared to a walk along a road which, though dark at times, leads to a happy end for God’s own people. 3. More commonly hAlk refers to life lived in obedience or disobedience, that is, with reference to covenant standards. Even before Yahweh revealed the Law at Sinai,

he tested his people Israel in the wilderness to see if they would walk in his law or not (Exod 16:4). Once they entered into covenant with him, the expectation was that they walk according to its statutes (Lev 26:3; Deut 8:6; 11:22). If they did, they could antic-

ipate success in the Conquest and occupation of the Promised Land (Deut 11:23-25). In his early years Solomon was praised for walking in the statutes of his father David, an obedience described as loving Yahweh (1 Kgs 3:3). The Chronicler characterizes the life of Jehoshaphat in the same terms: he “sought the God of his father and followed (walked in) his commands” (2 Chron 17:4). Of his wicked son Jehoram, however, the record states that he did not walk in the ways of Jehoshaphat but in the way of the kings of Israel (2 Chron 21:12, 13). This was the way of covenant disobedience and

judgment. 4. It is the righteous ones who enjoy the blessing of life to the fullest, for righteousness goes before them in the way to provide firm footing for their steps (Ps 85:13[14]; cf. Prov 8:20). As they hold to the path in integrity, they demonstrate their right to serve God (Ps 101:6). At the same time they recognize their limitations and so walk in humility before the Lord (131:1). Ezekiel defines the just as those who have walked in God’s statutes and kept his ordinances (Ezek 18:9). True righteousness is thus grounded in a walk that adheres to covenant principles. It is that kind of lifestyle that will characterize the walk of all of God’s saints in the eschatological age (Isa 2:3). Such a walk is commonly expressed in the hitp. vb. stem (Speiser, 120-21). Disobedience to covenant demands is defined in terms of an improper walk, one according to the customs of the pagan world (Lev 18:3). This was the kind of walk undertaken by apostate Israel (Ps 81:12[13]), one Yahweh allowed them to take but which ran counter to his express wish and desire for them (v. 13[14]). As specific

1033

TON 2143) historical examples, certain kings of Judah are singled out. Abijam, son of Rehoboam of Judah, “committed (walked in) all the sins his father had done” (1 Kgs 15:3), as did

Amon son of Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:21). The walk of the latter was synonymous with idolatry and with repudiation of the ways of Yahweh. Again, a person’s walk is judged in terms of one’s commitment to covenant standards. 5. Jeremiah sums up the disobedient walk of God’s elect people by charging them with straying into bypaths (Jer 18:15). They had forgotten him and had worshiped other gods, thereby abandoning the old ways of covenant fidelity. Such deviation from the straight and narrow could lead only to disaster. As Ezekiel puts it, those whose hearts walk after abominable things will find their way turned back upon their own heads (Ezek 11:21). The walk of covenant disloyalty is a cul-de-sac, a route that brings its traveler face to face with personal lostness and aimlessness. 6. A special nuance of h/k occurs with the hitp. stem, which views walking or stepping as tantamount to the exercise of sovereignty. Whether this is expressed in literal or metaphorical terms, the symbolism of dominion remains the same. In its first occurrence with this meaning God is described as “‘walking in the garden,” a clear allusion to his appearance to Adam and Eve as their Creator and Lord (Gen 3:8). The same imagery is used in Job where God is said to walk (yithallak) on the “circle” (or “vault’”) of heaven (Job 22:14). Satan also walked about on the earth. On a human level (though with mythic and even primordial allusions) the king of Tyre is chided by Yahweh for having walked about in the midst of the stones of fire (Ezek 28:14). However the linkage between the king and the “anointed ... guardian cherub” (vv. 14, 16) is to be understood, it is evident that he/they were manifesting

incredible hubris by seeking to arrogate to themselves the sovereignty that belongs to God. The hitp. stem of the vb. A/k and the context of the entire pericope put this beyond any doubt. Historically the use of the hitp. as a code for dominion may be illustrated in the case of Abraham and that of the Israelites sent out by Joshua to reconnoiter the land. Upon his return to Canaan from Egypt, the patriarch was told to rise up and walk about through the land, for Yahweh was about to give him all the territory on which he trod (Gen 13:17). Joshua commanded the tribal leaders to send three men from each tribe to walk about through Canaan, an operation that was tantamount to the assertion of dominion over the land (Josh 18:4, 8). To walk about on the land, then, was to recog-

nize one’s claim upon it. The prophet Zechariah uses h/k in the hitp. 4x as a way of describing divine sovereignty. The four horsemen of the first vision are sent out by Yahweh to “walk to and fro through the earth” (Zech 1:10-11), and those of the seventh vision are dispersed on the identical mission (6:7). In each instance the result is the subjugation of the earth to Yahweh’s regency (1:11; 6:8). In the third use of Alk in this way, Zechariah describes the glorious return of redeemed Israel in eschatological times in these terms: “T will strengthen them in the LORD and in his name they will walk” (10:12). The walking here unmistakably refers to the final victory of God’s people and of their dominion over all their enemies (cf. v. 11). The collocation of the vb. Alk in its several stems with other morphemes, espe-

cially prepositions, is also theologically significant. For example, Moses threatens a curse upon the people of Israel if they are inclined “to follow (walk after)” (/aleket

1034

65m(#2146) ‘ah’ré) other gods (Deut 11:28). To “follow” or “walk after” is to suggest commitment of life and purpose (cf. also Judg 2:19; Ruth 3:10; 1 Kgs 11:10; 21:26; 2 Kgs 23:3; Jer

7:9). A similar idea is expressed by the preposition b + hlk. Israel is commanded to observe the statutes by “following (walking in)” them (/aleket bahem, Lev 18:4; cf. Deut 8:6; 13:5[6]; 30:16; Judg 2:22), and Solomon is commended for having done so (1 Kgs 3:3). Finally, to walk “with” (‘im) is tantamount to being identified with some-

one, either a wicked person (Job 34:8) or even God himself. Thus, Micah defines God’s utmost requirement as ‘“‘to walk humbly with your God” (Mic 6:8). Journey, going, marching, walking, wandering: ~ ’rh (be on the road, wander, #782); > ’SrI (walk straight, #886); > drk (tread, march, # 2005); > hAlk (go, walk, behave, # 2143); > zhi I (slide away, # 2323); > ys’ (go out, come forward, # 3655); > yrd (go down, go up, descend, # 3718); > massa‘ (setting out, #5023); > nht (march down, descend, settle, # 5737); > s’n (tramp along, tread, #6008); > ‘dh I (stride, #6334); > ‘Ih (go up, ascend, bring up, # 6590); > ps‘ I (step forth, march, #7314); caravan, # 8801)

> s‘d (step, march, #7575);

> Swr I (descend,

BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 3:388-403; THAT 1:486-93; TWAT 2:415-33; TWOT

HLK

1:216-17; N. Bronznick, “More on

’L,” VT 35, 1985, 98-99; M. Dahood, “Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography II,” Bib 45, 1964,

404; S. Paul, “Two Cognate Semitic Terms for Mating and Copulation,” VT 32, 1982, 492-94; E. Speiser, “The Durative Hithpa‘el:

A Tan-Form,” JAOS 75, 1955, 118-21; N. Waldman, “God’s

Ways—A Comparative Note,’ JOR 70, 1979, 67-72. Eugene H. Merrill

2144 (hélek, going, flow, visitor), > #2143

146

nam

hora (All IL), pi. praise; pu. be praised, praise-

worthy; hitp. boast, exult, be praised (# 2146); 2°’? 2M (hillilim), nom. praise offering, festival (#2136); Donn (mah‘lal), nom. praise, reputation (# 4545); SSRN (hill), nom. praise, renown (# 9335). T ANE. The vb. is widely attested: Ugar. hil exult; Akk. alalu, shout, acclaim, rejoice; Arab. halla utter a festive cry; Tigre hawlala, praise; Syr. hallel, praise.

OT 1. Praise, which is an expression of appreciation and a response to good qualities, has a place in completely human contexts. Thus, the wise wife is praised by her husband and community (Prov 31:28, 31). Self-praise is no commendation (27:2). The great cities of Damascus and Tyre were the object of praise (NIV “renown,” Jer 49:25; Ezek 26:17). 2. In an overwhelming number of cases in the OT, praise is rendered to God. This is the obligation of the living, taken away by death (Isa 38:18). The obligation rests on the community of Israel (Ps 22:23[24]) and passes to each generation in turn (78:4). Israel was chosen for God’s glory and praise (Jer 13:11) and to reflect his praiseworthiness in the world (Deut 26:19). God is essentially praiseworthy (Exod 15:11, REB “worthy of praise”; Ps 18:3[4]; 48:2; 96:4 [= 1 Chron 16:25]; 143573) He

has done “praiseworthy deeds” (Ps 78:4), specifically the basic deeds of salvation clustering around the Exodus (cf. Deut 10:21). In the psalms, and so in the Jerusalem

1035

55m(# 2146) temple (Isa 64:10[11]), the hymn is the primary vehicle of praise. In fact, hilld, “praise,” has the sense of a hymn in the heading to Ps 145 and elsewhere (H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 1-59, 26). The hymn typically consists of a call to communal praise and a statement of the ground of praise. For example, in Ps 113 God’s greatness and grace are in view, and in Ps 135 his goodness in electing Israel. Jerusalem is urged to praise God for a variety of blessings in 147:12-20. Ps 145 and 146 are a pair of solo hymns, intended to stimulate the congregation’s praise. In Ps 145 God’s covenant love is celebrated, and in Ps 146 his kingship.

3. How to praise God adequately was a challenge that was met in a number of ways. First, a promise of endless adoration was added to present praise. “I will praise the LorD all my life,” sang the soloist in Ps 146:2 (cf. 111:10; 113:2[3]; 145:2[3]).

Second, musical instruments and dancing could reinforce vocal praise (149:3; cf. 150:3-5). Third, a rhetorical call to praise could be issued to the rest of the world, in the spirit of Wesley’s hymn, “O for a thousand tongues.” Thus, in 117:1 “all you nations” are summoned to contribute their voices in response to God’s covenant love for Israel (cf. 66:2, 8). In 150:6 “everything that has breath” is urged to praise, in an appropriate ending for the Psalter. God’s praiseworthiness can only be matched by praise from “the ends of the earth” in 48:10[11] or from east to west in 113:3. Ps 148 calls for cosmic praise, from all the created entities in heaven (vv. 1-6) and on earth (vv. 7-14). Inartic-

ulate entities, such as the sun or wind, “praise” inasmuch as they fulfill the function assigned to them by the Creator and so witness to his self-revelation through them (cf. Isa 6:3).

4. The call to praise hall‘li-yah, “Praise Yah,” occurs in the Psalms either as a liturgical direction or as a literary designation. It has an initial position in Ps 111-112 and a final one in Ps 104; 105; 115-117, while it frames Ps 106; 113; 135; 146-150 at

beginning and end. 5. The root hil is also used in songs of thanksgiving, which celebrated the resolution of an individual’s crisis in answer to prayer (ydh I, > #3344). The giver of thanks in Ps 34:1[2], overwhelmed by appreciation of God’s help, declared at the outset “his praise will always be on my lips” (cf. 18:3[4] = 2 Sam 22:4). In Ps 40:3[4] earlier instances of divine deliverance are described in terms of their result: Yahweh put in the psalmist’s mouth “a hymn of praise to our God.”

6. Correspondingly, in the lament (gind I, > #7806), which pleads for God to intervene in a crisis that has beset the believer or the community of faith, praise finds a natural place as a closing element that promises thanksgiving if the present prayers are answered (Ps 35:18, 28; 63:5[6]; 71:14; 79:13; 106:47 [= 1 Chron 16:35]; 109:30). In 69:30-36[31-37] the vow of thanksgiving is developed into an extravagant promise of cosmic praise, to match God’s anticipated deliverance of Judah. Similarly, in 102:18-21[19-22] the psalmist looks forward to the fulfillment of prophetic promises of worship in a restored Jerusalem, when Gentiles join Israel in paying homage (cf. Isa 45:23-25).

7. Ps 22 has a different kind of anticipation of thanksgiving. The lament has been favorably answered (v. 21[22] mg.; Kraus, Psalms 1-59, 298; Craigie, Psalms 1-50, 200). Already by faith the psalmist in vv. 22-31[23-32] bursts into thanksgiving, before his crisis is resolved. He traces his praise back to God as cause (v. 25 [26]). He

1036

55m (#2146) plans a thanksgiving meal to which not only family and friends will be invited to share in his praise but also fellow sufferers, in order to encourage them (v. 26[27]). 8. Some lament petitions arid wishes are expressed in terms of the praise of

thanksgiving. In Ps 74:21 (“May the poor and needy praise your name”) divine vindication is sought, which would be a ground for praise (cf. 51:15[17]; 119:171). There is a more explicit movement of thought in 119:175: “Let me live that I may praise you”

(cf. 9:14[15]). 9. A third place for praise in the lament is the standard affirmation of trust in God. The troubled believer may bring a problem to him to resolve because of an existing relationship of faith. Yahweh is hailed, “O God, whom I praise” in Ps 109:1. The motivation for deliverance in Jer 17:14 is that “‘you are the one I praise.” “My praise is continually of you,” avows the lamenter in Ps 71:6 (NRSV) to back up his appeals (cf. 71:8; 119:164). God’s former or typical help may be cited in terms of praise (22:3[4]; cf. 106:2; Isa 63:7; Jer 20:13; Hab 3:3). In Ps 56:4, 10[5, 11] the “word” of

God that is praised is probably his general “promise” (REB) to deliver the oppressed (ct. 119:25), 10. The pervasiveness of praise in different types of psalms led to the book title thillim, “praises, hymns,” as distinct from our Greek-derived title, “Psalms.” The Heb.

title highlights the element of praise as relevant to all the changing scenes of life. 11. In prophetic oracles of salvation a new situation in which God’s people may reflect their salvation in praise is envisioned. God will call Jerusalem’s walls “Salvation,” and its gates “Praise” (Isa 60:18; cf. 61:11). Saving his unworthy people redounds to his praise (48:9). Israel’s destiny will be realized, as “the people I formed for myself that they may proclaim my praise” (43:21). Good harvests will be celebrated with praise (62:9; Joel 2:26). In saving his people Yahweh will prove himself truly God, the only one worthy of divine praise (Isa 42:8). Foreign nations will come,

“proclaiming the praise” of Yahweh (60:6). In reflection of Jerusalem’s relation to God, he will make

it “the praise of the earth” (62:7; cf. Jer 33:9; Zeph 3:19-20).

Mourners in Zion will exchange their despair for “a garment of praise” (Isa 61:3). In the eschatological hymn the prophet portrays coming salvation as if already present and summons the people to praise by faith (42:10, 12; Jer 31:7, REB). 12. From one perspective the books of Chronicles provide a commentary on Ps 84:4[5], “Blessed are those who dwell in your house; they are ever praising you.” Levites were responsible for providing choirs and music to praise God (1 Chron 16:4; 23:5; 25:3; 2 Chron 8:14; 31:2), accompanied by priestly trumpeters (2 Chron 5:13). They performed every morning and evening at the temple (1 Chron 23:30). Abundant examples are given of their ministry of praise: when the ark was installed in a tent at Jerusalem (1 Chron 16:4), when the ark was brought to Solomon’s temple (2 Chron 5:13), at the dedication of the temple (7:6), at Hezekiah’s service of rededication (29:30), and at his passover celebration (30:21). In 20:19-22 they engaged in anticipatory thanksgiving after Jehoshaphat’s lament over the attack of Moab and Ammon had received a favorable answer, and also at the ensuing battle. In 23:13 they “were leading the praises” at the acclamation of Joash as king. David engaged in a prayer of grateful praise for gifts for the projected temple (1 Chron 29:13). (> Chronicles: Theology) The books of Ezra and Nehemiah continue the praising role of the Levitical choirs and orchestra and the priestly trumpeters, notably at the service for the

1037

655 (#2147) foundation laying of the temple, to which the people responded with a cry of “praise to the LORD” (Ezra 3:10-11; cf. too, Neh 12:24, 46).

13. The vb. is used in the hitp., once in a pass. sense of being praised (Prov 31:30), but elsewhere in the sense of praising oneself and so boasting. Apart from negative, self-centered usage (e.g., 1 Kgs 20:11; Ps 49:6[7]; 52:1[3]; Prov 20:14; 27:1; Jer 49:4), it develops positively and joins the vocabulary of religious praise and appreciation. In Jer 9:23-24[22-23] a contrast is drawn between boasting about personal abilities and knowing God’s character and will. Those who “boast in idols” will ultimately be proved wrong (Ps 97:7). “My soul will boast in the LORD” is the claim of a wisdom poem (Ps 34:2[3]). A lamenter looks forward to the time when “all the upright in heart praise,” in echo of his thanksgiving. A prophetic call for national repentance holds out as an incentive the promise that Gentiles will be drawn to “glory” in Yahweh (Jer 4:2), while prophetic oracles of salvation envision God’s people glorying in him (Isa 41:16; 45:25). The q. of the vb. is used in the sense of the hitp., negatively in Ps 10:3 and positively in 44:8[9]. (2 Chronicles: Theology) 14. The nom. hillilim is used of a pagan vintage “festival” in Judg 9:27. In Lev 19:24 it refers to fruit as “an offering of praise.” P-B One of the duties of members of the Qumran community was to praise God “when distress is unleashed” (1QS 10:17; cf. OT 9 above). Human beings were created to praise God (1QH 1:30; 3:23); it is also the role of angels (1QM 12:1). The individual singer accompanied his song with “the pipe of praise” (1QH 11:23). God’s praiseworthiness should be reflected by all human beings (1QH 11:24; cf. OT 3). After the

eschatological battle the “hymn of return” would be sung in praise of God’s name (1QM 14:2, 12), and “praise of God” would be one of the inscriptions on the standards carried by the victorious army (1QM 4:14). NT

~ NIDNTT 3:668-76, 816-20.

Praising, singing, thanksgiving:

> hil II (praise, be praiseworthy, boast, exult, #2146);

> zmrI (make music, sing praise, # 2376); > ydh II (acknowledge, give thanks, praise, # 3344); > nwh II (praise, #5658); > ‘nh IV (sing, #6702); > psh I (break forth with or break into

singing, #7200); > rémém (exalt, # 8123a); > Sbh I (commend, praise, honor, # 8655); > Syr (sing, # 8876); > tnh (recite, commemorate, # 9480) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 3:404-10; THAT 1:493-502; TWAT 2:433-41; K. Luke, “Hallel—Its Meaning and Origin,”

IndES 13, 1974, 37-53. Leslie C. Allen

bb a 55m (nll Ul), q. be confused, 2147 Wea deluded; poel, make s.o. a fool; poal, foolish; hitpo., pretend to be mad, behave like mad (# 2147). misSsmcnalelon, folly, delusion (# 2099); MiS547 (hélelit), folly, delusion (# 2100).

ANE The meaning of All III may have derived from the Heb. hil II, “praise, rejoice,” which is attested by Akk. aldlu, “shout, sing, rejoice, boast,” Syr. hallel, “praise,” Ugar. hill, “shout,” and Arab. halla (IV), “sing joyfully to someone” (BDB, 237b; TDOT 3:412). Noting the meanings of Old Akk. ul, ull, ullanu, “negation, absence,

1038

O5m (#2147) weakling,” and the connection between Akk. ul and Heb. ’al, Cazelles (TDOT 3:412)

thinks that, originally, the Heb. h6/él is related to “Jil, both terms signify “nothingness, powerlessness.” It may be true that, in some occurrences, the hitpo. of hil signifies “negation, absence,” but Cazelles has definitely gone too far in basing his whole discussion of hil on this meaning alone. OT In the OT, the root All III occurs 15x as a vb., 5x as a nom. It is uncertain whether the word toh/d in Job 4:18 is a derivative of this root (HALAT 1559; cf. TDOT

3:411; Dhorme, Job, 1967, 53). 1. The vb. hil III has three shades of meaning. Firstly, the q. of hil III connotes one who is arrogant and boastful. In Ps 75:4[5] hd/‘lim is used in parallel with 5a ‘im, “wicked men,” and refers to those who boast. They are the wicked who lift their horns

on high and speak insolently against God (cf. 73:3). They scoff and speak with malice. Arrogantly they threaten oppression; they set their mouths against the heavens, and ‘their tongues strut through the earth (73:8-9). They will be punished and destroyed (5:6[7]; cf. 73:18-19; 75:8, 10). They are described as people whose words cannot be trusted, their hearts are filled with destruction, their throats are an open grave, and they flatter with their tongues (5:6, 9 [7, 10]). From these three passages, it is clear that in Psalms hdl‘lim refers to the proud who speak boastfully and act arrogantly towards God. Secondly, the hitpol. of H// III is used to describe one who behaves like a mad person or pretends to be mad. In the presence of the Philistines David changes his behavior and acts “like a madman” (All; 1 Sam 21:13[14]); therefore, King Achish responds by calling him “a madman” (Sg‘ is used 3x in 1 Sam 21:14-15[15-16]). It is also used to describe the effect of the Lord’s wrath on the nations. When the nations

drink the cup the Lord has for them, they will stagger and “go mad” (hil), like a drunkard who loses his ability and behaves abnormally (Jer 25:16; 51:7). On the day when the Lord punishes Babylon, even her idols will “go mad” (All) (50:38). Twice hil III is

used in a way rather different from its other occurrences to describe horses and chariots driven with an unusual speed or manner (46:9; Nah 2:4[5]). Thirdly, the po. of All is used to describe one who behaves in a way devoid of human intelligence. Job 12:17 says God turns judges, who are supposed to have wisdom, understanding, and discernment (vv. 13, 20), into fools. Extortion turns the wise into fools (Eccl 7:7). In view of the contrast between the hakam, “wise,” and the k‘sil, “fool,” in Eccl 7:4-6, hill may have a meaning close to ksi, be foolish. God frustrates the omens of liars and makes fools (hil) of diviners, turns wise men back, and makes their knowledge foolish (Sk) (Isa 44:25). In Ps 102:8[9], the m*hdlalay (poal part., lit. “those who make a fool of me’) are the psalmist’s enemies, who taunt and deride him (Allen, Psalms 101-150, 1987, 9,.n.9.b). After determining that the vb. A// in the Hymns from Qumran (1QH 2:36; 3:33; 4:8, 12, 17, 20, 21; 10:33) means “deceive,” Mansoor (RevQ 3, 1961/2, 263-64) sug-

gests that this meaning fits all the usages of h/l in Psalms. However, it is probably only true for Ps 5:5[6]; 102:8. 2. The nom. hdlélét and hélélat occur only in Ecclesiastes. Cazelles (TDOT

3:413) suggests the rendering of “worthless actions,” which describes the utter ineffectiveness of political wisdom.

Gordis

(Koheleth,

1951, 301) chooses

“madness”

to

describe “unbridled and unprincipled conduct, which results from the conviction that

1039

pr (#2150) life is meaningless and that there is no moral law operating in the world.” In Ecclesiastes the meaning of hd/él6t is close to that of siklit, folly, and opposite to hokmd, wisdom. The preacher applies himself to understand wisdom, hdlelét, and folly (1:17; 2:12; 7:25). In 9:3, hélélét is used together with ra‘, evil, to describe the condition of

the human heart. A fool begins by talking folly and ends in hélélit ra‘a, evil madness (10:12-13). In 2:2, the preacher brands §*héq, mirth, a form of m*hélal (poal part. ays Here the meaning is close to that of hdlél6t, which describes “madness.” Folly, fool, madness, shameless: > ‘wil I (foolish, fool, #211); > b‘r IV (be stupid, # 1279); > hil III (be confused, foolish, behave like mad, # 2147); > ksl I (be foolish, #4071); > lhh (behave like a madman, # 4263); > nbl II (act disdainfully, #5571); > skl (behave foolishly,

make foolish, frustrate, # 6118); > ¥g‘ (raving, crazy, #8713);

> pth I (be inexperienced, be naive, deceive, persuade, # 7331); > tpl I (talk nonsense, # 9520)

Bad, vicious, wicked: > zmm (plan, purpose, plan evil, #2372); > kilay (scoundrel, # 3964); > ‘wl I (act wrongly, #6401);

> sdh I (act intentionally, #7399);

> r“ I (be bad, injure,

# 8317); > rs‘ (act wickedly, unrighteously, be guilty, pronounce guilty, # 8399) Knowledge, discernment, shrewd, wisdom: ~ byn (understand, discern, #1067); > hkm (become wise, act wisely, #2681); > t‘m (taste, test, sense, discern, # 3247); > yd‘ I (observe, care about, # 3359); > nkr (pretend, be recognized, #5795); — ‘rm II (be cunning, be crafty, make crafty, # 6891); > skl I (have success, understand, make wise, act with insight, # 8505)

Wisdom, knowledge, skill: > byn (understand, discern, # 1067); > hkm (be wise, become wise, act wisely, # 2681); > yd‘ (understand, know, # 3359); > ysr I (admonish, correct, disci-

pline, #3579); > leqah (teaching, gift of persuasion, #4375); > m°zimméd, consideration, plan, evil plan, plot, #4659); > ‘oqgbd (cunning, craftiness, # 6817); > ‘rm II (be cunning, be crafty, make crafty, # 6891); > skl I (have success, understand, make wise, act with insight, # 8505); > tahbuldt (advice, guidance, # 9374) BIBLIOGRAPHY

IDB 3:220-21; ISBE 4:211-12; TDOT 3:411-13; TWOT 1:218-19; T. Donald, “The Semantic Field of ‘Folly’ in Proverbs, Job, Psalms, and Ecclesiastes,” VT 13, 1963, 285-92; S. A. Mandry,

There Is No God! (A Study of the Fool in the OT, Particularly in Proverbs and Qoheleth), 1972. Chou-Wee Pan

2150

mbeeher

DSM (him), q. beat, strike (#2150); nom. ninonn (mah‘lumét),

blows, thrashing (Prov

18:6; 19:29; # 4547).

ANE

In Ugar. him means “to strike” and “its subject is always a god or his emissary”

(M. Dahood, Psalms 101-150, AB, 1970, 311). There is also a cognate in Eth.

OT

1. The vb. Alm is used of striking people (Judg 5:26; Prov 23:35 || nkh), the

anvil (Isa 41:7), choice vines (Isa 16:8), and wood (Ps 74:6). It is also employed of

trampling down the vines (Isa 16:8). It can denote the beating of horses’ hoofs (Judg 3122) 2. It is used figuratively of striking someone in the sense of rebuke, “Let a righteous man strike (hlm) me—it is a kindness; let him rebuke (ykh) me-—it is oil on my head” (Ps 141:5). The words of the wise bring peace in the end, whereas those of the fool bring discord: “A fool’s lips bring him strife, and his mouth invites a beating (mah‘lumét)” (Prov 18:6).

1040

nandm 2153) 3. In an effective use of and an apparent play on him, this vb. is used of the threatening and hostile hoofs of Sisera’s horses, which strike the earth in battle against Israel, and shortly thereafter it is utilized of Jael’s striking Sisera himself in a deadly blow with a hammer (halmit; Judg 5:22, 26). 4. Isaiah applies the vb. to drunkards who sprawl on the floor, “Woe ... to that city, the pride of those laid low by wine!” (Isa 28:1; see Prov 23:35; for the textual problems in Isa 28:1, see Oswalt, Isaiah 1-39, 506-7). Beating, crushing, grinding: > b‘t (kick, # 1246); > dwk (pound, # 1870); > dk’ (crush, be crushed, # 1917); — dkh (be crushed, # 1920); > dgq (crush, #1990); > him (beat, #2150); > hbt (beat from, # 2468); > thn (grind, mill, #3221); > kt¥ (grind down, # 4197); > ktt (beat

fine, pound up, disperse, #4198); > mhs (beat to pieces, # 4731); > m‘k (press, squeeze, crush, # 5080); > ngp (strike, #5597); > nk’ (be whipped out, flogged out, #5777); > nkh (be hit, be battered, ruined, destroyed, #5782); > srr I (bind, tie up, # 7674); > r‘s (beat down, # 8320); > rss (crush, mash, break, # 8368); > Swp I (crush, # 8789); > Shg (grind down, # 8835) Cornelis Van Dam

2153

minon

minom(halmat), hammer (#2153).

ANE The root, hlm, with the meaning “to beat, strike,’ appears as a vb. in Ugar. (CML, 145) and Phoen. (sixth century BC Arslan Tash amulet, Gaster, 19). As a nom.,

halmiit may appear twice in a syllabic text from Ugar., PRU 6 141:4,5. This inventory list describes: “4 large ship’s hammers(?)” and “20 small hammers(?)” (so Huehnergard, 121; cf. PRU 6, 157 n. 11; Sivan, 222). OT

1. There are two words for hammer: patti and halmit. The former is more fre-

quent; usually it suggests a sledgehammer used to break stone, but at least once (Isa 41:7) it appears in the more delicate work of idol manufacture. halmiit’s single occurrence suggests its usage as a mallet used to drive a tent peg into the ground (cf. also maqgebet, which incorporates the usages represented by both pattiS and halmiit). halmiit occurs as a nom. only in the ancient poem of Judg 5:26. Jael reaches for a halmit in order to drive the “tent peg” into Sisera’s forehead. The appearance of halmit may be related to the cognate vb. him, which appears in the next line of the poem, describing how Jael “struck” Sisera. Hammer, hammered work: > halmit (hammer, #2153); > maggebet (hollow, hammer, # 5216/17); > migSa I (hammered work, #5251); > patti (hammer, # 7079); > rg‘ (hammer out, # 8392)

BIBLIOGRAPHY T. H. Gaster, “A Hang-Up for Hang-Ups: The Second Amuletic Plaque from Arslan Tash,” BASOR 209, 1973, 18-26; J. Huehnergard, Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription, HSS 32, 1987; D. Sivan, Grammatical Analysis and Glossary of the Northwest Semitic Vocables in Akkadian Texts of the 15th-13th C. B.C. from Canaan and Syria, AOAT 214, 1984. Richard S. Hess

2159

man

MAM (hmh), gq. make a noise, uproar, sound, be restless (#2159); yan (hamén), nom. noise,

crowd, agitation, bustle, turmoil (# 2162).

1041

rian(# 2159) ANE.

Sem. cognates include the Arab. hamay (the noise of camels), and hamhama

(animal noises, e.g., growls). An onomatopoeic origin for the word is likely. 1. Apart from hmh and hamén, the semantic domain of noise consists of two OT other terms, namely, gél (# 7754), voice or noise, of particular importance for its place within the theophanies of God or in relation to obedience to the spoken word of God, and 5’h (# 8616), nom. 5a’ dn (# 8623), the noise of a crowd (tumult).

2. hmh is not found in the Pent. and appears only once in the corpus of the Deuteronomistic historian and then in combination with q6l (1 Kgs 1:41). Adonijah is celebrating his claim to David’s throne, when Joab hears the noise (g6/) of a trumpet and then asks the meaning of all the noise in the city. Literally the Heb. reads, “Why is the voice (gl) of the fortress roaring (hmh)?” hamén is often rendered as multitude or crowd (e.g., Gen 17:4, 5; Ezek 39:11; Dan 10:6), but a significant number of times the word clearly implies tumult (e.g., 1 Sam 4:14; 14:19; 2 Sam 18:29; Ps 65:7[8]) or noise (the sound [g6l] of the abundance [ham6n] of rain, 1 Kgs 18:41). This combination of gol and ham6n (Jer 10:13) is common in the prophetic corpus. God thunders (gd/); the waters in heaven roar (hamén). One hears the noise (qdél) of the stamping of hooves and the rumbling (hamén) of chariot wheels (Jer 47:3). Ezekiel pronounces a woe against Tyre. God will put an end to her noisy songs (ham6n) and the music (g6l) of her harps (Ezek 26:13). A close parallel is found in the sharp prophetic critique of the Israelite cult by Amos, “Away with the noise (hamén) of your songs! I will not listen to the music (zimrd I, # 2379) of your harps” (Amos 5:23). In contrast to g6l, which plays a key role in the divine theophanies, the terms hmh and hamon are rarely used of the voice of God, and when applied to humans may better be rendered as noise than voices. The emphasis is on Amh as a loud roaring noise rather than as an intelligible sound. Most of the references deal with the onomatopoeic sound of natural phenomena. Jeremiah uses hmh of the futile noise of the waves against the boundaries placed by the creator God (Jer 5:22), and of God stirring up the sea so that its waves roar (31:35). By extension, Jeremiah speaks of the Babylonian army roaring like waves (6:23), a graphic description of a powerful army sweeping away all that stands in its path. But the Lord will destroy Babylon and silence her “noisy din” (so NIV), as the invading army who roars like crashing billows (55:11; Carroll, 852). Already, a mythological sense is present in these descriptions, which will later typify the apocalyptic visions of the enemies of Israel (see Carroll, 203; cf. Jer 50:42). 3. The metaphorical sense comes to the fore in those prophetic expressions that describe the emotions of God or the prophet. Of the love of God, Jeremiah writes, that his “bowels roar for him (Ephraim, signifying Judah),” which the NIV renders as “my heart yearns for him,” and BDB, 242, as “I thrill for him” (31:20). More accurately, Bright (275) and Carroll (600) speak of the feminine aspect found here in a mother’s compassion and yearning for her child, while Trible (Rhetoric of Sexuality, 45) offers a freer rendering, “My womb trembles for him.” The fear of the prophet regarding the fate of Jerusalem is expressed as “my heart roars” (NIV “my heart pounds in me,” Jer 4:19). Again, in the description of the punishment of Moab, God, or perhaps the prophet himself, weeps for Moab, and his heart laments (hmh) “like a flute” (Jer 48:31, 36). A close parallel occurs in Isa 16:11 (on the relationship, see Kaiser, Isaiah 13-39,

1042

rir (# 2159) 60-65), where God or the prophet exclaims that “his bowels sound like a harp” for Moab. 4. The Writings offer much the same use of hmh as the prophets. The term is used of emotions, so S of Songs (5:4) describes the woman’s emotion of sexual excite-

ment for her lover as her bowels (NIV feelings) are stirred for him. Onomatopoeic sounds occur in the description of the roar of water (Ps 46:3[4]), of people making a noise like that of a dog (Ps 59:6[7], 14[15]), of the heathen raging (Ps 46:6[7]), and of one’s soul being disturbed (in parallel to being downcast-Ps 42:11[12]; 43:5). hmh may also express the noise of a crowd, such as the hostile roar of the enemy (Ps 83:2[3]), or

simply the sound of a single voice, usually not melodious. Thus, Proverbs speaks of wisdom in the noisy (hmh) street raising her voice (q6/) and crying aloud (1:21), of the woman of affairs walking the streets, loud (hmh) and defiant (7:11), and Dame Folly calling to passersby, loud (mh), undisciplined, and foolish (9:13). We note here the skillful use of opposites. Both the g6/ of wisdom and the hmh of the adulteress attract men but for significantly different ends (cf. 7:14-20 and 9:1-6). Similarly the voice of wisdom and the noise of Folly (cf. 9:1-6 and 9:13-17) both call out to the simple (ignorant). hmh, in the latter instance describes an unharmonious noise, which may either attract or disturb the ear and which lacks true meaning. 5. In apocalyptic literature, noises like voices play an important part. Daniel speaks of the voice (g6/) of an angel like noise of a multitude (hamén) (Dan 10:6). Such loud voices recur repeatedly in apocalyptic writings; they form a part of the texture and are not necessarily of any significance in themselves. P-B The LXX uses the nom. echos (sound, noise, report) and the vb. eched (make a sound; see further NIDNTT 3:112) for several different Heb. words, of which hmh is one. Both the G terms cover generally inarticulate sounds like the blast of the trumpet (1 Kgs 1:41; Ps 46[45]:3). In the rabbinic writings, hmh and hamén follow the OT usage, with both the sense of crowd and tumult, while the Aram. hamna’ means multi-

tude (Tg Isa 13:4). In Qumran, hamén is used in a stereotyped formula with the mercy of God (e.g., 1QH 4:36, 37), for the assault of the enemy (1QH 2:12, CD 2:1), and for

the din of battle (1QM 1:11). NT Four NT uses of echos are for the roar of the sea (Luke 21:25), the sound of the wind at Pentecost (Acts 2:2), a trumpet blast (Heb 12:19), and a rumor (Luke 4:37). Noise, roar, voice: > g‘r (roar, shout, bellow, cry out, rebuke, reprimand, #1721); > hmh (make a noise, uproar, sound, be restless, #2159); > hmm (rumble, crush, #2169); > nhm (growl, groan, # 5637); > g6l (voice, sound, thunder, cry, #7754); > rgs (be restless, # 8093);

> ¥g (roar, # 8613); > §’A II (roar, # 8616) BIBLIOGRAPHY

NIDNTT 3:111-14; TDOT 3:414-18; J. Bright, Jeremiah, 1965; R. P. Carroll, Jeremiah, 1986; F.

M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 1973, 112-44; J. Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea, 1985; O. Kaiser, Isaiah 13-39, OTL, 1974; P. Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, 1978. W. R. Domeris

2162 (hamén, noise, crowd, bustle, turmoil), > #2159

1043

FN H#2166) 2166 #2159).

1. Found only in MT Isa 14:11 as hemyat n*balékd, “(resonating) sound of your OT (large/standing) lyre/harp,” this term does not of itself signify music (contra BDB 242b) but only “(resonating) sound.” Contra HALAT 240b 2., MT Prov 19:18 h*mitd,

“his being put to death” (hi. inf. const., mwt) should probably not be emended to hemyaté, his crying; cf. Prov 23:13-14. Nor need MT 1:21 hdmiyyét, those who stir (q. part. fem. pl., hmh; cf. sing., Isa 22:2; GKC §75v), be emended to hemyét, “places of [sounding the] alarm” (contra HALAT 240b-41a 3.).

2. The vb. describes the resonating sound of the lyre (Isa 16:11) and (double/reed-)pipes/shawms

3 P35)

(Jer 48:36), and the din of sea waves

(Isa 51:15; Jer 5:22;

#219).

P-B_ Mish. Heb. hemydé appears in qwl hmyyh, “the sound of a din” (Sipre Deut 43; cf. Jastrow, 355a). Musical instruments/terms: ~ gittit (musical instrument?, #1787); > hemyd (sound, din, #2166); — hil (make the pipe played, #2727); > hssr (make the trumpet sound, #2955); > ydbél (ram, # 3413); > kinnér (lyre, # 4036); > mén (string, # 4944); > m*na‘an ‘tm (rattle,

# 4983); > nébel II (unstringed instrument, #5575);

> ngn (play the lyre, #5594); > ‘aigab

(flute?, # 6385); > prt (improvise, #7260); > sll I (ring, quiver, #7509); > S6par (ram’s horn, # 8795); > Salz¥ I (musical instrument, # 8956); > Sema‘ I (sound, # 9049); > tpp (drum, beat,

#9528); > tq‘ (drive, thrust, clap one’s hands, blow trumpet, pledge, # 9546) Robert H. O’Connell

A16% ANE

man

nboan (h’mulla),

crowd (#2167).

nom.

noise, noisy crowd,

1. The root hml is well attested: Old Aram. hml, noise, uproar, turmoil, distur-

bance (DISO, 66; KAI 2:249); Ugar. hmlt, uproar, noise; tumultuous crowd, population (WUS, §845; UT, 8777); Akk. hamilitu > amilitu, mankind, population; Arab. gamala, nom. company, congregated body of people; or perhaps hamara, vb. loud trampling of the ground. 2. The root has a threefold range of meanings: noise, noisy crowd, crowd. This

metonymical relation between noise, crowd, and humankind is explicit in the Atrahasis Epic: “the noise (rigim) made by populous mankind (ameluti) has become too great for me” (CTBT 15 49 iii 6). Likewise, Ugar. hmit, tumultuous crowd, is used in parallelism with nim, “mankind” (CTA 3.3.:25). OT

1. The Heb. nom. h*mulla is from the common

Sem. root hml, noise, noisy

crowd (BDB, 242; KBL* 251; TWOT 1:506; BL, 467; Klein, 154). Some connect this rare nom. with more common noms.: hamén, noise, crowd, army (# 2162); h¢mulla >

h*minna > hamén (HAHAT", 184; HALAT 237; THAT 2:444) and hmh, sound, noise (# 2159): hmh > hamalla > h*mulla (TDOT 3:414, HALAT 237). However, it is best to treat these as different roots (HALOT 250-51).

1044

D7 #2167) 2. This nom. occurs only twice; in both cases, it is used in collocation with gol (sound, noise, roar, voice [> #7754]): I*gél h*mulld, at the sound of a crowd (Jer 11:16), and q6l h*mulld, sound of a tumultuous crowd (Ezek 1:24). The metonymical

relation between noise and noisy crowd, seen in the Sem. languages, is reflected in Heb. McKane states, “[It is] noise of some magnitude which can be compared with the hubbub of a military camp or to the thundering feet of an army on the march” (McKane, 250). 3. In Ezek 1:24 h*mulla appears in a series of similes describing the thunderous sound of cherubim wings. The phrase gl h*mulld is understood as the sound of tumult, in collocation with k°gél mah‘neh (a tumultuous sound like the sound of an encamped army [~ #4722]) by most translations (AV, RV, NASV, NIV) and many commentators (Allen, 9; Greenberg,

38; Zimmerli,

1:88). However,

if h’mulld is parallel to

mah*neh (army camp) and if MT is preserving four rather than three similes, gél h*mulla might denote the sound of a tumultuous crowd (tr. lit.):

When the creatures moved, I heard the sound (g6l) of their wings: like the roar (k*g6l) of rushing waters (mayim rabbim), like the voice (k°q6l)

of the Almighty (‘adda), like the sound (qé/) of a tumultuous crowd (h*mullda), like the rumbling (k°q6l) of an army camp (mah*neh).

4. Jeremiah compares the conflagration of Jerusalem with the burning of an olive tree. The nom.

h*mulld is often understood as noise of a destructive thunder

storm, as NIV: “With the roar (g6/) of a mighty storm (h’mulld) he will set it on fire” (Jer 11:16, NIV; Carroll, 272; J. Bright, Jeremiah, AB, 156). This could be connected to Arab. hamala, rain heavily, overflow, pour forth (Lane, 3045), or Arab. hamara, pour forth rain, hamaru, torrent of rain (Lane, 2900). However, others take g6l h*mulla as “the sound of a great crowd” (Holladay, 355; W. McKane, 250). The destruction

will be signaled by the noise of the attacking throng of Babylonians.

P-B The nom. hmlh does not appear in RL. However, it does appear in Mid. and Modern Heb. with nuances similar to those proposed above (Jer 11:16; Ezek 1:24): Mish. Heb. h’mulld, nom. noise, noisy crowd, multitude; Modern Heb. h*mulld, nom. tumult, hubbub; noisy crowd, crowd, camp (Klein, 154).

NT The NT term ochlos, crowd, parallels Heb. h‘mulld, noisy crowd, especially when it describes a noisy crowd shouting things to one another (Acts 14:14; 19:33; 21:34, 36) and needing to be quieted (19:35; 21:40; 22:22). Crowd of people, congregation, rabble: > “sapsup (rabble, #671); > hamén (noise, crowd, agitation, bustle, turmoil, # 2162); > h*mulla (noise, noisy crowd, crowd, # 2167); > sak (num-

ber, multitude, throng, # 6107); > ““sard (festive assembly, # 6809); > qhl (assemble, summon, #7735); > rigmd (noise, noisy crowd, # 8086) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 3:414-18; THAT 1:502-4; TWAT 2:444-49; TWOT 1:506; L. C. Allen, Ezekiel 1-19, WBC, 28, 1994; R. P. Carroll, Jeremiah, 1986, 272; G. Gerleman, “Die larmende Menge: Der Sinn des Hebraische Wortes ham6n,” Wort und Geschichte: Festschrift fiir Karl Elliger, 1973, 71-75; M.

Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20, 1983, 38; A. M. Habermann, “71727 DWM ya SYD yaANI -13aT” BethM 14:3[38], 1969, 86; W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1-25, 1986, 355; E. Klein,A Comrehensive

Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language, 1987, 154; L. Kopf, “Arabische Etymologien

1045

DY (# 2169/2170) ee

und Parallelen zum Bibelworterbuch,” VT 9, 1959, 254; W. McKane, Jeremiah 1-20, 1986, 250; W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 1979, 1:88. Gordon H. Johnston

ON 2169/2170 Dian nate); rout/confound, defeat

(hmm I/Il),

g. rumble over (as onomata-

poeic geminate); sha. crush (as iterative gemi(as idiom [by metalepsis], usually of holy war); ni.

resound (onomatapoeic: of city); be agitated, quake (iterative: of city, ground) (q. Jer 51:34 [hapleg.?] + 12x [hmm I]; ni. 3x [either < hwm/hym (so BDB 223a; KB 228b), or < hmm J (so HALAT 241a); cf. GKC §§67t, 72v]; #2170 [= 21697]; HALAT 241a). Lexically, hmm II (# 2170) may be regarded as indistinct from hmm I (# 2170) (so also Miiller, TDOT 3:421). ANE For this vb., both onomatapoeic reflexes, “rumble, grumble, roar,” and iterative reflexes, “tread, trample, crush,” are attested throughout the Hamito-Semitic range of languages. In its onomatapoeic senses, it appears in Arab. hamhama, mumble, mutter;

grumble; growl (Wehr, 1035a); Tigre, make noise, roar (TigrWb 6b); in the Egyp. nom. hmhm, roar (WbAS, 2:491, 2) and hmhmt, “war shout, quacking (of wild-fowl)” (Faulkner, 158); and in Demotic hmhm, roar (Erichsen, 275, 7). Among possible itera-

tive reflexes of Hamito-Semitic hmm, we may perhaps recognize Egyp. hb, tread, trample (a place) (WbAS, 2:486, 7), with its reduplicated form hbhb, annihilate, destroy (WDAS, 2:488, 1.2); and Demotic hm, trample (Erichsen, 275, 2).

Other possible cognates offer ranges of meaning that are attested only in lexical congeners of Heb. hmm, namely, hwm/hym, hmh, or nhm. The Ugar. nom. nhmmt has

been variously understood to derive from Ugar. *hmm, meaning confusion, anxiety (CML! 156a; WUS, # 846; cf. Heb. hwm/hym, agitate/disturb), from Ugar. *nhm, mean-

ing groan (Gray, 12, 34-35; cf. Heb. and Arab. nhm, groan), or from Ugar. nhm (+ superlative mt, death [cf. Jon 4:9]?), meaning (deep) slumber (UT, ## 778, 1621; CML? 152b; cf. Heb. nwm, slumber). Ancient Aram. hwm, in a construction with inf. abs. + hitpeel, has been understood to mean either to be troubled, anxious (D/JSO, 64; KAI, # 226) or to lament (Rosenthal, Part I/2, 3; KAI, # 226). Arab. hamma, to disquiet, trouble (Wehr, 1032b-33a), is akin to this semantic range.

OT Among OT uses of hmm, Isa 28:28 seems to offer an onomatapoeic use in explaining the grain-threshing process: “Bread [metonymy of product for raw material,‘grain’] may be ground (yidaq), but not fully; it may be threshed, when the wheel of his [1.e., the farmer’s] cart rumbles over (w*hamam) (it), but he would not grind it (y*duqgenni) (with) his horses!” (author tr.) (cf. move noisily, BDB 243a). The zoo-

pathic portrayal of Nebuchadnezzar as a serpent in Jer 51:34 seems to offer an example of an iterative meaning, grind, crush, which here, like the parallel use of ’k/ devour, plays on the amphibology between the literal denotations and metaleptical (military) connotations of these two terms: “Nebuchadnezzar king of Babel has devoured me (Q: ’“kalani) and crushed me (Q: h*mamani), making of me an empty vessel; he has

swallowed me as would the Sea-serpent, has filled his belly with my digestible parts, then has spewed me out” (author tr.) (*hiddihani < ndh; so BDB 188b; BHS)!” Pace HALAT 241a (and Stolz, THAT 1:520), it is not evident that this use of q. hmm in Jer

1046

Di (# 2169/2170) 51:34 ought to be interpreted as suck dry, exhaust (i.e., as etymologically related to Arab. hamma, consume, waste away).

The vb. is used idiomatically (by metalepsis) of Yahweh’s military routing in 2 Sam 22:15: “He shot arrows and scattered [them] (way/*]pisém); bolts of lightning and routed them (way[*]hummém)” (= Ps 18:14[15]; cf. Ps 144:6). In this regard, one may question whether Miiller was correct in postulating a meaning “drive” for the uses of this vb. in 2 Sam 22:15 (= Ps 18:14[15]) and Ps 144:6 (TDOT 3:420, 421), as though to suggest that it is the arrows that are “driven,” rather than the enemies who are routed

(cf. 2 Sam 22:18, 38-43, 48-49 [= Ps 18:17(18), 37-42(38-43), 47-48(48-49)], and the nine other uses of the q. vb. that portray Yahweh’s routing Israel’s enemies in holy war [e.g., Exod 14:24; 23:27; Deut 2:15; Josh 10:10; Judg 4:15; 1 Sam 7:10; 2 Chron 15:6])

(cf. Stolz, THAT 1:502-3). In Esth 9:24, the vb. is used idiomatically (by metalepsis) to mean defeat: “Haman...the enemy of all the Jews, had plotted against the Jews to destroy them (I°’abb*dam) and had cast the pur (that is, the lot) for their ruin and destruction (/’hummam il°’ abb*dam).” P-B___ Postbiblical Heb. uses hmm in the military sense, “rout” (Mekilta BeSallah, §5, on Exod 14:24), in the sense “confound” (Midr. Rabbah to Genesis, §55, on God’s

confounding Abraham to sacrifice his son), and in the sense “sweep” in h*mamdam k°b* makbéd, he swept them as with a broom (Midr. Rabbah to Lamentations, introduction,

interpreting BH hikbid, make honored, in Isa 8:23 by means of calques on both postbiblical Heb. kbd in pi./hi., make clean, swept [cf. hikbid in Midr. Rabbah to Numbers, §23, and Midr. Tanhuma, Mas‘e 13] and Aram. h*mam, stir up, sweep, in Tg. Isa 14:23); cf. also Yalqut on Isaiah, §282 (Jastrow, 355b, 607a). The use of Heb. hmm in

Sir 48:21b fits the idiomatic sense “rout, defeat.” Among the later onomatapoeic reflexes of Hamito-Semitic hmm, probably Copt. hmhm, roar, neigh (Crum, 682b; Cern®, 284), derived from Demotic and Egyp. hmhm, roar, offers a good example. As to iterative reflexes, Copt. (Bohairic) homhem, tread, trample (Crum, 682b; Cerny, 285), a reduplicated form of Copt. (Bohairic) hom, tread, trample, beat (Crum, 674b;

Cerny, 282), derived from Demotic hm, trample, and Egyp. hb, tread, trample (a place). Noise, roar, voice: ~ g‘r (roar, shout, bellow, cry out, rebuke, reprimand, #1721); > hmh (make a noise, uproar, sound, be restless, #2159); > hmm (rumble, crush, #2169); > nhm (growl, groan, #5637); > gdl (voice, sound, thunder, cry, #7754); > rgs (be restless, # 8093); > §g (roar, # 8613); > 5h Il (roar, # 8616) Confusion, agitation: ~ bwk (be agitated, wander in agitation, # 1003); ~ bil (confuse, mix, # 1176); > bl‘ III (be confused, confused, # 1182); > hwm (throw into confusion, be in uproar, #2101); > kmr (agitated, # 4023); > ‘wh (disturb, distress, agitate, pervert, do wrong, # 6390); + p‘m (be disturbed, feel disturbed, #7192); — rhb (assail, press, pester, alarm, confuse, #8104); > r‘m II (be agitated, be confused, #8307); — tmh (be benumbed, be stunned, shocked, gaze, # 9449)

BIBLIOGRAPHY J. Cerny, Coptic Etymological Dictionary, 1976; W. E. Crum, A Coptic Dictionary, 1929-1939; P. Derchain, “A propos de deux racines sémitiques *hm et *zm,” Chronique d ’Egypte 42, 1967, 306-10; W. Erichsen, Demotisches Glossar, 1954; R. O. Faulkner, A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, 1976; R. J. Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology, 3, 2d ed., 1965, 51-61 (on food preparation: cooking, grain cultivation, cereal grinding, and sieving techniques), 94-98 (on production of flour and bread), 145-55 (on grinding), 155-58 (on pounding); H. Fredriksson, Jahwe

1047

m0 (# 2188) en eT

als Krieger, 1945, 16-17; J. Gray, The KRT Text in the Literature of Ras Shamra, 1964; H.-P. Miiller, TWAT 2:449-54; ET: TDOT 3:419-22; G. von Rad, Der heilige Krieg im alten Israel, 5th ed., 1969, 12-13; ET: Holy War in Ancient Israel, tr. M. J. Dawn, 1991, 48-49; F. Rosenthal, Aramaic Handbook, 1967; F. Stolz, THAT 1:502-4; idem, Jahwes und Israels Kriege, ATANT

60, 1972, 20, 191.

Robert H. O’ Connell

2176 (hen, look, behold), > Particles

|

2180 (hinnéh, look, behold), > Particles

2182 (h*nahd, holiday, [remission of taxes?]), > #5663

2185 (h°napd, waving [of wave offering]), > #5677 2187 (has, hush! quiet!), > #2188

2188

non

MOM (Ash), hi. quiet people (# 2188); OF (has), interj. hush! quiet! (# 2187).

OT 1. The primary form here is the interjection, while the vb. is denom. with only one, or perhaps two occurrences (Num 13:30; possibly Neh 8:11). In general, both the vb. and the interj. have to do with quieting people in the presence of someone or some event of importance (Num 13:30 [Moses]; Judg 3:19 [Ehud’s supposed message]; Neh 8:11 [the reading of the Law]; Hab 2:20; Zeph 1:7; Zech 2:13[17] [the Lord]). In Amos, the call for silence is in the face of the terrible disaster facing the nation (Amos 6:10; 8:3). 2. A word with a similar connotation is Skt, hi. keep silence (# 6129). It occurs

once in Deut 27:9, where Israel is commanded to keep silence as Moses explains the significance of the Law. Rest, silence: > diimd I (silence, # 1872); > dmh II (come to an end, rest, be dumb, silent, # 1949); > dmm I (stand still, be motionless, silent, # 1957); > hp’ (do s.th. secretly, #2901); > hsh (keep silence, command to be silent, # 3120); > hrS II (be deaf, keep still, remain inactive, make silent, # 3087); > smt (silence, # 7551) John N. Oswalt

2198 (h*pugd, stopping), > #7028 700

sen

72

(Apk),

q. turn,

Overnien, destroy,

turn

around, transform, change; ni. turn oneself, turn

against, change; be turned, be overturned; hitp. turn this way and that, transform oneself; ho. be turned (# 2200); nom. "|Bi] (hépek), opposite, perversity (> #2201); nom. MBM (h*peka), overthrow (only Gen 19:29; # 2202); adj. *]B22(h*pakpak), devious (only Prov 21:8; #2203); nom. M2BMA(mahpéeka), overthrow (# 4550); nom. NDB (mahpeket), stocks (> #4551); nom. 2>°5MM (tahpaika), perversity, perverse thing

(> #9337).

ANE Phoen. hpk, overturn, Aram. (including Old Aram., Egypt., Jewish, Christian-Palestinian) ’hpk, Syr. hepak, Arab. ’afaka, Akk. abaku, turn upside down, upset,

1048

“5M (# 2200) abiktu, decisive defeat, massacre, carnage. Ugar. hpk, upset, is used in CTA 6 vi 28,

where Shapash warns Mot, the god of death, that El will overturn the throne of his

kingdom (cf. Hag 2:21). See CML’, 80. A similar use can be found in Phoen. (cf. KAI 1:2). See also Old Aram. (KAI 222 C:19-22), where the word is used of gods overturn-

ing a man and his house in judgment. OT 1. The word frequently describes God’s overturning the wicked in judgment. Elihu observed that God characteristically overthrows the mighty because of their wickedness (Job 34:25), while Prov 12:7 states: “Wicked men are overthrown and are no more.” Examples of this principle include the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19:25, 29), the threatened destruction of Nineveh (Jon 3:4), the punishment of God’s rebellious covenantal people (2 Kgs 21:13), and the eschatological judgment of the nations, when God will overturn the royal thrones and armies of the earth’s kingdoms (Hag 2:21-22). (Cf. the use of Akk. abiktu in military contexts. See CAD £:52-53:;) 2. The overturning (mahpéka) of Sodom and Gomorrah becomes paradigmatic in the OT. Moses warned Israel that rebellion against the covenant would bring divine judgment, the severity of which would rival the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Deut 29:23[22]). Amos reminded recalcitrant Israel that the Lord had treated some of the nation’s cities like Sodom and Gomorrah in an effort to get their attention (Amos 4:11). At the height of his despair, a disillusioned Jeremiah cursed the man who had announced his birth, praying that he “be like the towns the LORD overthrew without pity” (Jer 20:16). Overcome by the horrifying sight of judgment, the author of Lamentations declared: “The punishment of my people is greater than that of Sodom, which was overthrown in a moment” (Lam 4:6).

3. Hos 11:8 uses the vb. in an ironic manner to emphasize God’s great compassion for Israel. Though forced to judge his stubborn people, the Lord declares that he could never totally destroy Israel as he did Admah and Zeboiim (cities destroyed along with Sodom and Gomorrah, cf. Deut 29:23[22]). Instead, his heart (viewed anthropomorphically and idiomatically as the seat of God’s emotions and will) will be stirred, or changed (hpk, ni.), and he will stop short of annihilating them. By describing this inner divine change with the word hpk, which is used elsewhere of the overthrow of the cities of the plain, Hosea highlights the extent of the divine mercy. See Hans W. Wolff, Hosea, 1974, 201.

4. The word frequently describes God’s control over and powerful deeds in the natural realm, including those involving a radical transformation of the natural order. God causes earthquakes to overturn mountains (Job 9:5), unleashes floods that destroy the land (12:15), and controls the day-night cycle, turning the darkness into dawn (Amos 5:10). In the days of Moses he turned the waters of Egypt into blood (Exod 7:17, 20; Ps 78:44; 105:29), drove the locusts into the sea by changing the course of the

winds (Exod 10:19), transformed the sea into dry land so that his people might pass through it (Ps 66:6), and turned the rock into a pool so that they might be refreshed (114:8). In the stereotypical and hyperbolic language of judgment, the prophets describe the Lord as dimming the heavenly luminaries (Joel 2:31[3:4]) and transform-

ing Edom’s streams into pitch (Isa 34:9). 5. The vb. also describes God’s sovereign control over the human will and his transformation of conditions in human society. In the days of Moses he turned the

1049

“D7(#2201) hearts of the Egyptians “to hate his people,” so that he might destroy the Egyptians and thereby display his glory before all (Ps 105:25; cf. Exod 4:21; Rom 9:15-23). He transformed Balaam’s curse into a blessing (Deut 23:5[6]; Neh

13:2) and supernaturally

changed the mind of Saul so that he prophesied in an ecstatic manner (1 Sam 10:6, 9). Though his judgment turns joy into sorrow (Amos 8:10), he can restore the sick (Ps 41:3[4]) and replace the lament with a song of praise (30:11[12]). In the restoration of

his covenant people, he will transform their mourning into gladness (Jer 31:13). The nations will also experience his transforming power as he purifies their lips and enables them to offer genuine praise and worship (Zeph 3:9). 6. When used with Israel as subject, the vb. often carries a negative sense. Despite God’s gracious deeds on her behalf, the nation turned against him (hpk, [ni.], Jer 2:21). Rich oppressors perverted God’s standards of justice, turning them, as it were, into a bitter and poisonous plant (Amos 5:7; 6:12). Lying prophets changed or distorted God’s words by replacing them with their own (Jer 23:36). Change: ~ hpk (turn, destroy, change, #2200); > hip I (pass by, disappear, violate, change, renew, # 2736); > mwrI (be changed, exchange, # 4614); > Snh I (change, repeat, # 9101) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDNT 7:714-29; TDOT 3:423-27. Robert B. Chisholm

eau

aia

“]Br]

(hépek),

nom.

opposite,

perversity

(#2201); MDIBMM (tahpika), nom. perversity

(# 9337); < an (hpk), change, overturn (> #2200). ANE The Akk. vb. abdku is used in its various stems in varied contexts from the mid-second millennium BC onwards to describe things being upset or turned upside down (G pattern), uprooted or overturned (D pattern), and reversed or fallen face down (N; CAD A/1:8-10), while related noms. describe defeat and carnage (abiktu, ibid. 52-53; abkitu, ibid., 53). hpk is used in Phoen. concerning the desecration of a sarcophagus in the tenth century BC (KAI 1:2; ANET, 661) and in the Aram. of the eighth century BC of overturning a stele (KAJ 222 C:19, 21; ANET, 660). Here it is part of a punishment curse, in which the desecrator’s throne will be upset; his house also will be overturned, literally, attested “to put its underpart as its top.” An Imperial Aram. byform, ’pk, is attested in a late fifth-century BC copy of Ahigar; a case is made against one who is treacherous (’pk’), one who turns his words upside down (Lindenberger, 156-57), and one whose mouth the god El is called to

twist (’pk). In each of these latter cases, the principle of talio is in effect.

OT 1. The nom. hépek designates someone turning the natural order upside down. Once it is a figurative prostitute, Israel, who acts differently than regular practitioners of such a trade in that she pays her lovers rather than receiving payment from them (Ezek 16:34). Also, as topsy-turvy as clay that would claim equality with the potter, so misguided would be one who tries to hide anything from God (Isa 29:16). 2. tahpukét designates the abstract “perversity”; it is used most commonly in the Proverbs. It occurs only once elsewhere (Deut 32:20), where it describes unfaithful

1050

VW (# 2215) Israelites, who are also called unfaithful children. Parallelism of perversity with evil and deviousness is common (Prov 2:12, 14; 6:14; 8:13). The concept is contrasted with righteousness and faithfulness (Deut 32:20; Prov 10:31, 32). As to semantic field, perversity pertains to speech, lying, and perverting the words spoken (Prov 2:12; 8:13; 10:31, 32; 16:28, 30; 23:33). Perversion entails distortion of natural perceptions, just as alcohol distorts physical perceptions (23:33). Falsehood, perversity, wrong: ~ bd’ (invent, devise, lie, # 968); > hépek (opposite, perversity, #2201); > kzb I (lie, be a liar, deceive, #3941); > Iwz (let out of sight, go wrong way, # 4279); > slp (frustrate, overthrow, twist, mislead, # 6156); > sara II (rebellion, crime, revolt, falsehood, #6240); > ‘wi I (act wrongly, #6401); > ‘wt (make crooked, pervert, bent, # 6430); > “gS (be perverse, make crooked, # 6835) BIBLIOGRAPHY

J. M. Lindenberger, The Aramaic Proverbs of Ahigar, 1983.

David W. Baker

2202 (h*pekd, overthrow), > #2200

2203 (h*pakpak, devious), > #2200 2208 (hassald, deliverance), > #5911

2215

WI

“I (har), nom. mountain, hill (# 2215).

ANE The nom. is confined almost entirely to Heb., and cognate words are rare. The following forms occur occasionally in Northwest Semitic: Ugar. hr, EA harri, and Phoen. and Punic hr.

OT 1. Mountains have a distinctive significance in the OT in comparison with other phenomena of the natural world. Their very size and solidity suggested an image of extreme durability to the Israelites, with the result that the OT frequently associates mountains with what is permanent and unchangeable rather than with the more usual ephemeral characteristics of the physical world. Several OT books speak of “the ancient mountains” (Gen 49:26; Deut 33:15; Hab 3:6) as if they belonged to the very fabric of the earth, and of their “foundations” (Deut 32:22; Ps 18:7[8]) or “roots” (Job 28:9, Jon 2:6) on which the earth was made secure. The mountains are also extremely resistant to destruction and will be the last thing to disappear if the earth ever suffers the ultimate catastrophe (Ps 46:2-3[3-4]; Isa 54:10). Despite the emphasis on their longevity, the mountains are very much part of the created order. Explicit mention of Yahweh’s creation of the mountains is rare (Amos 4:13; Ps 65:6[7]; Prov 8:25), though such descriptions are notable for their sim-

ilarity to Gen 1:9-10, where the mountains were revealed as the water that originally covered the world receded. More frequently, however, the OT asserts that for all their

permanence and strength, mountains have no more defense than anything else against the potentially destructive effects of Yahweh’s presence. God has only to touch them and they quake and smoke (Ps 104:32; 144:5). They melt like wax or writhe before him, especially when God appears in theophany (Ps 97:5; Nah 1:5; Hab 3:10). God can even move them without their being aware of it (Job 9:5). Since even the mountains are

1051

“Wl (# 2215)

clearly subject to Yahweh’s control, they are also a convenient symbol of his control over all things (Isa 40:12). Though more enduring than God’s chosen people and sometimes called on to bear witness against them (Mic 6:1-2), the mountains like everything else are liable to divine judgment (Ps 18:7; Jer 4:23-26). One of the images of the world upside down motif in prophetic literature is the leveling or trembling of mountains (Ezek 38:20). In Isaiah the leveling of the mountains is part of the imagery of road construction in preparation for the coming of God’s salvation (40:4; 49:11).

2. This Hebrew view is in sharp contrast with the more general understanding of mountains in the ANE, which generally did not make any clear separation between the mountains and the world of the divine. The Ugar. texts in particular often refer to the mountains as the home of the gods. El and Baal, for example, were thought to live on individual mountains, and even Mot, the god of death, was associated with a subter-

ranean mountain. Baal’s home was on Mount Zaphon, actually Mount Casius in Syria, and the existence of the personal name ‘bdspn (“servant of Zaphon”’) suggests that this mountain was itself worshiped. Another variation on the same theme was that the great gods of Mesopotamia, like Enlil and Ashur, could be addressed as “great mountain.” The gods also held their great divine assemblies on mountains, according to both Syrian and Mesopotamian thought. On the other hand, not all deities were automatically associated with mountains. The Mesopotamians and the Syrians both made a distinction between “the gods of the lands” and “the gods of the mountains” (cf. 1 Kgs

20:23; 29): A mythological way of thinking is also represented in the OT. Though direct references do not occur frequently, it is probable that many Israelites were strongly tempted to adopt both the thinking and the language of their neighbors. The prophets and the psalmists responded to this in specific ways. Isaiah, for example, describes the impending fall of world powers by mocking their trust in the gods who live on the mountains. He portrays Babylon as falling from “the mount of assembly...the utmost heights of the sacred mountain” (Isa 14:13; Heb. b*har-m6 ‘éd b°yark‘té sapén) and the Assyrian king Sennacherib from “the heights of the mountains, the utmost heights of Lebanon” (Isa 37:24; cf. 2 Kgs 19:23; Heb. m’rém harim yark‘té I’banén). Conversely, Ezekiel refers to the pride of the king of Tyre by imagining him ascending ““God’s holy mount” in Eden (Ezek 28:14, 16). Ezekiel does not parody pagan concepts of mountains as Isaiah does but instead envisages the desecration of God’s own mountain. The idea of Eden as a mountain apparently derives from Gen 2:10, where Eden is the source of four rivers, though alternatively the idea might derive from an idealization of Zion or else represent an assimilation of Canaanite concepts. Third, a clear example of the assimilation of Canaanite terminology occurs in Ps 48:2[3], where Zion is described as “the utmost heights of Zaphon.” As in the previous examples, the reference is not to the usual Heb. word sa@p6n, north, but to the well-known Canaanite home of the gods, though this usage in Ps 48 may reflect the fact that Zion was located on the site of an earlier Canaanite sanctuary. The presence of this kind of language in the OT indicates the freedom the biblical writers exercised in the use of contemporary religious language, whether in ironic condemnation or as a way of absorbing foreign elements. As far as OT authors were concerned, however, the borrowing was confined to “literary stereotypes” (Talmon, TDOT 3:441) and did not extend to an uncritical acceptance of a mythological view about mountains.

1052

“7(#2215) 3. The OT did, however, frequently associate Yahweh with mountains. What is

more, the existence of such a belief was widely recognized since even the Syrians thought Israel’s gods (sic) were gods of the mountains (1 Kgs 20:23, 28). A clear distinction must be made, however, in order to understand Yahweh’s role as a deity who could be known on the mountains. On the one hand, Israel seems to have shared a com-

mon assumption appropriate to a universe conceived of in spatial terms that the mountains formed a natural meeting point between heaven and earth. It was a way of indicating that Yahweh was greater than all creation, and that to communicate with human beings he had to come down even to the highest place in the land. On the other hand, the OT diverges from the general ANE view in at least three ways. (a) Yahweh’s mountain theophanies were associated with specific historical events, such as the Exodus and the reign of David rather than with vague mythological beliefs. (b) Yahweh was never confined to any one mountain. Though he was closely linked with Sinai and Zion, Yahweh revealed himself at a variety of mountain locations, including Ebal and Gerizim (Deut 27:4, 12; Josh 8:30-33), Tabor (Judg 4:4; 5:5), Carmel (1 Kgs 18:20-39; 2 Kgs 4:25-27), Perazim near Jerusalem (2 Sam 5:20; Isa 28:21), and Moriah (Gen 22:2; 2 Chron 3:1). (c) Yahweh was not limited to any particular earthly location. He could make himself known wherever he chose, for in the OT “there is no place, not even a mountain, that is sacred in and of itself’ (Talmon, TDOT 3:436). The OT is

even dismissive about Yahweh’s earthly residence on Mount Zion. It was no more than his footstool, in the context of a majesty that even the highest heaven could not contain (1 Kgs 8:27; 2 Chron 6:18). Yahweh does, however, have a special association with Mount Sinai and Mount

Zion, above all because they are linked with the themes of theophany and covenant. Of the two, the OT attributes lesser significance to Mount Sinai, even though it symbolized the place of Israel’s origins where God was revealed himself and where he spoke to his people. Sinai is of limited interest outside the Pent., however, and even the name

is often replaced by Horeb or by general terms such as Paran, Seir, and Edom (Deut 33:2; Hab 3:3). Much of the imagery associated with Sinai became absorbed into Mount Zion, notably the various elements of theophany (Isa 4:5). Zion is in many ways regarded as Sinai’s successor, and within Israel’s covenant theology it acquired a degree of permanence that Sinai never possessed. It is the place where Yahweh lives forever (Ps 68:16[17]) and that will ultimately replace all other mountains (Isa 2:1-4; Mic 4:1-4). The imagery associated with Zion also developed separately from that of Sinai, emphasizing especially Yahweh’s role as both King and Creator. The use of the phrases “mountain of God” and “holy mountain” provides further testimony of the existence of these separate traditions. Whereas the former is applied exclusively to Sinai (Exod 3:1; 1 Kgs 19:8), the latter almost always refers to Zion (Ps 87:1-2; Isa LA 3* LEC Su)

4. Mountains in the OT have a range of symbolic meanings that derive partly from different aspects of Israel’s experience. The physical reality of the mountains led to their use as a metaphor for refuge (Ps 11:1; Ezek 7:16; Hos 10:8) and, conversely, for being lost and scattered (Jer 50:6; Ezek 34:6). Because the Palestinian highlands were generally well forested and had good grass cover, they also functioned as a picture of prosperity and fertility (Ps 72:3; Amos 9:13). On other occasions they represent large obstacles, an image that derives from the mountains to the north and east, which

1053

“7 (# 2215) marked Israel’s physical boundaries with their neighbors (cf. Arab. Zabal, mountain, and Heb. g‘bil, border, territory). This usage of obstacles is especially common in Isa 40-55 as a way of portraying objections to the prophet’s message (Isa 40:4; 49:11; cf. Zech 4:7). Another image associated with Israel’s mountain borders is the appearance on the horizon of a dust cloud created by messengers who, it is hoped, will bring good news (Isa 52:7; Nah 1:15). A further usage arises from the location of places of worship on mountains. Ezekiel especially condemned his fellow Israelites through his specific criticism of the mountains of Israel (Ezek 6:3; 33:28, etc.) as places of pagan idolatrous worship (Ezek 18:11, 15; NIV “mountain shrines”). An implied criticism about placing false trust in mountains may also be present in Ps 121:1, for true help can come only from the God who made the mountains in the first place. A unique personal description of a mountain as a symbol of inner strength and security may be present in Ps 30:7[8], if “my mountain” is a correct reading.

5. The prophetic hope often expresses the idea that God’s mountain will ultimately be supreme over all. This is explicit in Daniel’s vision (Dan 2:35, 44-45), where the kingdom of God is described as a mountain created without human interference. Many of the central features of the OT’s hope will take place at Zion, which will be restored to its true role as “the Holy Mountain” (Zech 8:3). There Yahweh will reign (Isa 24:23), because Zion is the place where God will achieve final victory over his enemies (Ezek 38-39; Zech 14:3-4), celebrate his final banquet (Isa 25:6), and abolish

death (Isa 25:7). It is small wonder that the mountains themselves are portrayed as singing for joy because of God’s promises (Isa 44:23; 55:12). 6. See also ’aséd, (mountain-)slope (# 844), referring to the hills of southeastern Judah leading to the Dead Sea (Josh 10:40; 12:8) and to Mount Pisgah (Deut 3:17; 4:49, etc.); battd, precipice, cliff (hapleg. in Isa 7:19; # 1431); gabnén, many-peaked (mountains) (hapleg. in Ps 68:15, 16 [16, 17], #1493); hibbél, rigging? mountain? (hapleg. in Prov 23:34, #2479); mérad, (mountain-)slope, hammered work? (# 4618); napa Il, yoke, hilly hinterland (of Dor) (#5865); nepet, hill? (hapleg. in Josh 17:11, # 5884); t6 ‘apét, peaks, horns, piles? (# 9361).

P-B For the most part, the same range of meaning continues in Mish. Heb. as in the OT, though the phrase “temple mount” (har habbayit) becomes more frequent. One development not found in the OT is the use of har for a distinguished person, especially the patriarchs. NT Some of the significant events in Jesus’ ministry occurred on mountains, especially his transfiguration, perhaps on Mount Hermon, and his ascension from the Mount of Olives, though the tradition that Calvary (NT Golgotha) was located on a hill is not supported in the NT. Jesus used the OT’s imagery of mountains as great obstacles in his teaching about faith (Matt 17:20; 21:21). The book of Revelation develops several eschatological references to hills in the OT, especially as a refuge from divine judgment (Rev 6:16; cf. Hos 10:8). The mountains and hills representing the earth and its rulers will be finally destroyed (Rev 8:8; 16:20; 17:9), however, to make way for the city of God and its mountain (21:10). > God, Sinai, Theophany, Zion: Theology

1054

NE DE a Je seca

A (# 2222) TE

Mountain, hill, high place: > bamd (cultic high place, # 1195); > gib‘GI (hill, # 1496); > har (mountain, hill, #2215); > y*rekd (thigh, rear portion of mountain, #3752); > ndép (height, #5679); > m‘sad (stronghold, # 5711); > ‘wz (take refuge, # 6395); > ‘lh, go up, ascend, bring up, #6590); > sir I (rock, boulder, #7446); > sapdn I (north, #7600); > rwm (be high, exalted, proud, # 8123); > Sgb (be high, fortified, protect, # 8435) BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABD 6:1040-41; TDOT 3:427-47; THAT 2:543-51; TWOT 1:224-25; R. J. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the OT, HSM 4, 1972; R. L. Cohn, The Shape of Sacred Space, AARSR 23, 1981; E. C. Kingsbury, “The Theophany topos and the Mountain of God,” JBL 86, 1967, 205-10; B. C. Ollenburger, Zion, the City of the Great King, JSOTSup 41, 1987; S. Talmon, “Har and midbar: An Antithetical Pair of Biblical Motifs,” Figurative Language in the Ancient Near East, 1987, 117-42; H. G. Q. Wales, The Mountain of God: A Study in Early King-

ship, 1953. Martin Selman

2221 (harbéh, great number, many, much), > # 8049

2222

an

2

(Arg), q. kill, murder, slaughter, massacre;

ni., pu. be killed (#2222); Y9M (hereg), nom.

slaughter, massacre, killing (# 2223); M171 (h’régd), nom. slaughter, killing (# 2224). ANE

TDOT 3:444-49 cites Old South Arab. and Moab. (KAI 181.11,16), where the

context indicates killing in battle. The root hrg is absent from Akk., Ugar., and Aram. OT

1. The vb. hrg occurs 167x in the OT (including Deut 13:10[9], so THAT 1:895;

but disputed by TDOT 3:449-50 following the LXX). Arg occurs throughout the OT from the earliest sections of the Pent. to the history of the Chronicler. The vb. is used of killing enemies in battle, of killing political opponents and personal rivals, of criminal acts, and of punishment for capital offenses. Human life, even more than other forms

of life, has a unique value in the sight of God. To take a life outside of the parameters set by God, therefore, requires some form of restitution. At times in the OT such a taking of life would be punished by the courts, at other times by the tribal practice of blood vengeance. Thus was Israel required to order her society in obedience to God’s justice. Most important, she was to take steps to curtail the ever-present danger of the cycle of violence, which still today threatens to destroy our fragile societies. 2. One context in which hrg is found is that of holy war and the practice of complete destruction (hérem). Thus Moses kills (annihilates) the people of Midian (Num 31:7, 17), and Joshua does the same to the inhabitants of Ai (Josh 8:24-28), leaving the

city a ruin—a place condemned by God. Significantly, the Moabite Stone uses Arg in the context of killing the enemy as “satiation” for the god Chemosh (lines 11-12), and slaughtering men, aliens, women, and slaves, “for I had devoted them to destruction to ~ Ashtar-Chemosh” (lines 16-17, see SBE 3:396). TDOT 3:452 argues for holy war as a primary context for hrg, but this is debatable. The multiplicity of contexts in which hrg occurs makes it difficult to elevate one above the others. 3. hrg is often used in the context of killing for revenge (e.g., Gen 34:25, when Simeon and Levi avenged the rape of their sister Dinah). Abimelech’s destruction of Shechem, although following the pattern of hérem (see his action of sprinkling salt on

1055

aint (#2222) the ruins in Judg 9:45), is done in revenge for their apparent treachery (Judg 9:24). Joab kills Abner as an act of blood revenge (2 Sam 3:30), but later (1 Kgs 2:5), the dying David will accuse him of avenging in time of peace blood that had been shed in war (so McKeating, Homicide in Ancient Israel, 51). The banishment of Cain, rather

than his execution, may suggest that fratricide was viewed in a different light and did not require a form of revenge. Presumably, under clan law the clan could not recompense itself (see I. Schapira, “The Sin of Cain,” in B. Lang, Anthropological Approaches to the Old Testament, 1985, 26-42). 4. In the Pent. hrg occurs most often in narrative contexts. In Exod 2:14, it marks the protective killing of the Egyptian by Moses, and in 13:5 Arg is used of the slaughter of the Egyptian firstborn. In legal contexts (only 7x in all) hrg is used of the punishment for apostasy (32:27) and for crimes like bestiality (Lev 20:15) and murder (see Exod 21:12-14, where hrg is used in a neutral sense as “kill,” while the adverb

“deliberately” makes the distinction between murder and manslaughter). In contrast to other ANE law codes (see ANET, 161-97), Israelite law forbade monetary compensation in the case of even an accidental human death (Num 35:31-32). McKeating (Homicide in Ancient Israel, 46) who traces the development of homicide from clan law through state law into sacral law (P), argues that under clan law motives were

unimportant and the issue was not punishment but fit recompense (the clan honor should be restored).

5. In the prophetic corpus, the nom. hereg (fem. h*régd) carries the sense of slaughter or a massacre. So Jer 19:6 speaks of “the Valley of Slaughter”—the ominous name for the valley of Hinnom (south of Jerusalem), where those Israelites who offered their children as sacrifice to false deities will themselves be slaughtered (7:32 adds that such sacrifice was neither required by God nor did it even enter his head!). Isa 30:25 speaks of the salvation of Israel and the destruction of her enemies on the Day of the Lord—“the day of great slaughter.” Amos 9:1-4 uses the vb. hrg to present the theme of God’s war against his people. For Amos, the declaration of war comes in response to the ruling class’s abuse of the poor (see R. B. Coote, Amos Among the Prophets, 1981, 32). The judgment will be final and none shall escape, for even in exile God will command the sword to seek them out (v. 4a). Ezek 8-11 and Hos 6:5 use the same theme but include a sense of hope for the remnant. 6. In the Wisdom corpus hrg is used of literal killing in war (Lam 2:21). The famous poem of Eccl 3 contrasts a time to kill with a time to heal (v. 3), while Ps 94:6 bitterly condemns the ruthless killers of the helpless widow, the orphan, and the alien. The psalm carries an extended sense of killing, which includes the idea of structural

violence, where there is a breakdown of law and order and the mechanisms designed to protect the innocent become instead the instruments of violence. Against this situation, God will arise to protect his own (Ps 94:14-15), and judgment will once more be founded on righteousness. hrg is also used in a metaphorical sense. So Prov 7:26 depicts the adulterous woman as a “slayer” of strong men. 7. Several others Heb. terms are often used rendered in Eng. as kill or slay: (a) The hi. of mwt, die

(> # 4637), which occurs some 201x and may be translated as “put

to death” (as in Lev 20:4 and 2 Sam 21:4), murder (Exod 1:16), or simply kill (1 Kgs

15:28; political assassination or regicide). (b) The ni. of ngh, smite (> # 5782), which occurs some 480x with the normal sense of “strike,” can come to mean kill as the Eng.

1056

rtWt (# 2225) ————

a

eo

ee

versions show—implying the striking of a mortal blow (cf. Exod 2:12; 1 Sam 21:9[10]). It may refer to homicide (Num 35:11), violent assault (1 Kgs 20:36), or battle (Judg 3:29). The two vbs. occur together in the phrase “strike down and kill” (2 Kgs

25:25) and in 2 Sam 14:7 are found in parallel with hrg. See also rsh (> # 8357); qtl (> #7779).

P-B In the LXX the vb. hrg is rendered by apokteind, meaning “kill,” and occasionally by other terms like phoneud, murder. The Gospels use apokteind in the normal sense of killing (e.g., Matt 10:28, John 5:18), as does Rev (E,9.,2°132 19221), Kill, murder, massacre: (murder, kill, # 8357)

~ Arg (kill, murder, # 2222);

> gl (murder, slay, #7779);

> rsh

BIBLIOGRAPHY B. S. Childs, Exodus, 1974; R. B. Coote, Amos Among the Prophets, 1981; B. Lang, Anthropological Approaches to the Old Testament, 1985; H. McKeating, “The Development of the law on Homicide in Ancient Israel,” VT, 1975, 46-68; K. Niirnberger, ed., Conflict and the Quest for Justice, 1991; A. Philips, Ancient Israel’s Criminal Code, 1970; G. V. Pixley, On Exodus: A Liberation Perspective, 1987. W. R. Domeris

2223 (hereg, slaughter, massacre), > #2222

2224 (h*régd, slaughter, killing), > #2222

ade

aa

11 (Arh), q. be(come) pregnant, conceive; pu.

be conceived (#2225); MM (hareh), either an

adj. “pregnant,”or a part. of hard (# 2226); 117) (hérén), childbearing (hapleg. in Gen 3:16; # 2228); TVA) (hérayon), conception (only in Ruth 4:13; Hos 9:11; # 2231).

ANE. Akk. erii/arii (AHw 1:72, 247; CAD 2:312-316; 4:325-26) and Ugar. hry (UT, no. 794). OT 1. Fundamental to biblical understanding is that God grants the gift of conception. This conviction is celebrated in the Psalms (113:9; 139:13), stated by the narrator in Ruth (4:13; cf. Jer 1:5), and is the preunderstanding for situations involving barren-

ness (e.g., Gen 25:21; > galmiid # 1678). As for the physical process, hrh often follows Skb, lie with, and precedes yld, bring forth, to describe the act and result of sexual intercourse. Thus, Abraham “lay” (5kb) with his concubine. She conceived (hrh) and gave birth (y/d). See Gen 16:4, 15; 19:35-37; 30:4-5; 38:2-3; 38:18, 27; 1 Sam 1:19-20; 2 Sam 11:4-5, 27; 1 Chron 7:23. Twice the sequence is “he took/married (/gh) ... she

conceived ... she gave birth to” (Exod 2:1-2; Hos 1:3), a sequence that suggests little time between the taking and the conceiving, or perhaps that the primary purpose of the taking was the conceiving. Twice the sequence is “knew ... conceived ... gave birth to” (Gen 4:1, 17). Once the sequence is “went into (bw’) ... conceived ... gave birth to” (Isa 8:13). In several places the first vb. of the triad, kb, is not present, (Gen 21:2; 25:21, 24; 29:32-34, 35; 30:7; 25; Judg 13:5, 7, 24; 2 Kgs 4:17; Isa 7:14).

2. Without exception, when the birth of a child is referred to, hrh is followed by some form of the vb. y/d, either immediately or later in the narrative. Thus, there is no 1057

mW (# 2225)

case in the OT of a woman conceiving but not carrying her child full term, for reasons of disease/injury to the fetus or abortion. There are two instances, however, in which

the mother dies while giving birth to her child, Rachel (Gen 35:16-20) and Eli’s daughter-in-law (and Phinehas’ wife, 1 Sam 4:19-22). 3. In all of the above instances the primary purpose of marriage in general and coitus in particular is reproduction. This emphasis in the OT is more akin to that of Gen 1 (“be fruitful and multiply”) than it is to that of Gen 2 (“a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh”). The principle behind Gen 2:24, presumably the programmatic statement vis-a-vis marriage in the OT, seems seldom to be reflected in marriages that are described in the OT era. 4. Who may conceive? By whom might one father a child? (a) Through one’s wife: Gen 4:1; 21:2; 25:21; 29:33; 30:23; Exod 2:2; Judg 13:3; 1 Sam 1:20; Isa 8:3; Hos 1:3, 6, 8. (b) Through one’s concubine: Gen 16:4; 30:4-5; 30:10. (c) Through one already married to another (2 Sam 11:5). (d) Through one’s daughter-in-law, disguised as a harlot (Gen 38:18), or daughters-in-law (Gen 19:36). 5. It is rare in OT narratives for a woman who conceives not to be named (Gen 38:3-5; exceptions are | Sam 4:19; Isa 8:3). This would suggest the idea that OT moth-

ers are people with identity, not faceless nameless individuals whose only function is to perpetuate the human race.

6. Conception/birth may result from either licit sex (the majority of cases) or illicit sex (Lot and his two daughters-in-law [Gen 19:36]; Judah and his disguised-as-a-harlot daughter-in-law Tamar [Gen 38:18]; David and Bathsheba [2 Sam 11:5]). The cases involving a man and his concubine (Gen 16:1ff.; 29; 30) should prob-

ably not be included as illustrations of conception via illicit sex. Not only is there no hint in the biblical narrative that such a procedure was sinful or scandalous, but ANE literature provides parallels to the custom of an infertile wife providing one of her slave girls to her husband to produce children for their marriage (Code of Hammurabi, laws 144, 146, 163; HSS Laws,” AASOR 10, such a provision, see a Neo-Assyrian text,

5, 67 [see Speiser, “New Kirkuk Documents Relating to Family 1930, 31-32]; for an Old Assyrian marriage contract that makes Lewy, “Old Assyrian Institutions,” HUCA 27, 1956, 9-10; and for Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 1975, 68-71).

7. In cases where hrh is used metaphorically, more often than not the reference

is to the conception of something evil; for instance, the conception of trouble (Job 15:35; Isa 59:4), the conception of lies (Isa 59:13), and the conception of chaff as a symbol of the unreal, the insubstantial (33:11). On one rare occasion a male used this

vb. to refer to himself. Again in a metaphorical use of hrh, Moses asked God during a trying time: “Did I conceive all these people?” (Num 11:12) This is part of a larger lament (11:10-15). They are the words of an overworked, exhausted, and frustrated

servant of God. Moses had already protested Yahweh’s identification of idolatrous Israel as “your [Moses’] people, whom you [Moses] brought up out of Egypt” (Exod 32:11). Moses reminded Yahweh that Israel was Yahweh’s people, whom Yahweh had brought up out of Israel (v. 11). He may as well have said: “They’re yours, not mine, Lord!” 8. Although hrh refers to the time of conceiving and carrying a child in the womb, the vb. or adj. or noun sometimes refers to the pain and physical discomfort that accompanies either the carrying or the delivering. In Isa 26:17 (an adj.) and in v. 18

1058

1

(# 2225)

(a vb.) Israel compares her painful experience under the judgment of God to that of a pregnant woman in labor. But however intense the pain, it is usually tempered by the joy of a newborn. Not so here, for these pains and groans, by which Israel could have brought salvation to the earth, have accomplished apparently little; all that Israel has done is to give birth to wind. 9. The hapleg. hérén, occurs in Gen 3:16: “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing” (“iss*bénék w*héronék). Here is another connection of pregnancy with pain. The text reads literally, “I will greatly increase your pain and your childbearing.” Almost all commentators on Genesis (e.g., Speiser, Westermann, Hamilton) read the Heb. expression as a hendiadys, “I will multiply/intensify your pregnancy pains.” One of the consequences of Eve’s choice to place her own will ahead of God’s will was that when delivering a child she would experience searing pain. To argue whether God here spoke prescriptively or descriptively of the consequences for disobedience is perhaps to raise a question or make a distinction that would be alien to the Hebrew mind. For another understanding of hér6én see Dahood (Bib 43, 1962, 545-46), who translates “I

will multiply your pangs and ‘your lust.’” See also W. A. VanGemeren, The Progress of Redemption, 1988, 91. 10. There is no instance of an abortion or a stillborn birth in the OT. There is one case, however, where an individual wished either that he had been aborted, still-

born, or never even conceived (Job 3:3). NIV’s rendering “may the day of my birth perish, and the night it was said, ‘A boy is born’ (horda)” misses a nuance of Job’s outburst. Job actually cursed, first, the day he was born (cf. Jer 20:14-15), and second, the

night he was conceived. In other words Job spoke of these two events in reverse of the normal order—birth: conception. This may be purely a literary feature (parallelism) or a reflection of the mix-up in Job’s emotions during this disturbing time in his life. 11. In a few cases there is a reference to the horrendous practice of “ripping open pregnant woman.” Such atrocities were carried out against Israel by outsiders (2 Kgs 8:12; Amos 1:13), by an Israelite bent on becoming king in retaliation for being shut out of a city (2 Kgs 15:16), and as a judgment of God upon sinful Samaria (Hos 13:16[14:1]). Ottosson (TDOT 3:459-460) quotes Widengren’s suggestion “that the purpose [viz., of disemboweling pregnant women] was ritual emasculation of the male fetus, a common practice among other Sem. peoples in their treatment of the enemy dead.” 12. Exod 21:22-25 is a law dealing with the case of an injury of a pregnant woman inflicted during a scuffle or brawl involving men. It is not clear whether the injury is deliberate or accidental. If the injury is serious, retributive justice is demanded. Nor is it clear whether what happens to the woman [lit.., “her children come forth’”’] refers to a miscarriage, a premature but healthy birth, or term delivery. Possibly the law deals with both a premature but healthy birth (v. 22b), and with miscarriage (vv. 23-25). This means that the /ex talionis is applied to the destroying of a fetus, for the fetus, at any stage, is a living being. 13. The prophet Isaiah gave to beleaguered Ahaz this sign in the midst of the king’s troubles: “the virgin will be with child (hrh) and will give birth to (yoledet) a son, and will call him Immanuel” (Isa 7:14). Clearly ydledet is a fem. part., while hrh may be interpreted either as an anomalous fem. part., a verbal noun, or an adj. LXX translates hrh as a future—en gastri lépsetai [lit., “will receive in the womb’”].

1059

mW (# 2225) Matthew (1:23) departs from the LXX of Isa 7:14 by reading en gastri hexei [lit., “will have in the womb”]. Either Matthew is adopting the idiom from elsewhere in the LXX, in which en gastri echein is a standard phrase for “become preganant” (Gen 16:11; 17:17; Judg 13:3, 7), or else he is using a variant G translation. This means that Isaiah’s

sign is either an imminent one (is pregnant and will shortly give birth) or a future one (will be pregnant, will give birth, e.g., NIV). A child born in Ahaz’s day will be a sign of God’s presence with Ahaz and a sign that shortly the threats of the kings of Israel and Syria will cease. The possibility remains, however, that the child born in Ahaz’s day does not exhaust the fullness of the sign promised by Isaiah, an interpretation clearly embraced by Matthew more than 700 years later (Matt 1:23). “No child born to a young woman in Ahaz’s day is proof of God’s presence at all times. But if a virgin overshadowed by God’s Spirit should conceive and give birth, it would not only be a sign of God’s presence with us. Better than that, it would be the reality of that experience” (Oswalt, Isaiah 1-39, NICOT, 211). (> Isaiah: Theology) 14. The pattern followed by Luke (but not Matthew) in the announcements of the birth of John the Baptist (Luke 1:5-25) and Jesus (Luke 1:26-38) follows the pattern of OT birth announcements, especially those of Ishmael (Gen 16:7-13), Isaac (Gen 17:1-21; 18:1-15) Samson (Judg 13:3-20), and Samuel (1 Sam 1:3-20). The pattern includes: (a) the appearance of an angel or the Lord to either father or mother; (b) fear on part of the person who is addressed; (c) the heavenly message about the forthcoming child; (d) an objection or doubt expressed by the addressee, or a request for a sign; (e) the giving of the sign or else reassurance. That Luke formulates the birth announcement of John the Baptist and Jesus in a way that closely resembles OT birth announcements does not cast doubt over the historical value of his narrative, however. Birth, conception, pregnancy: ~ ghh (draw out [from womb], # 1622); > hrh (be pregnant, conceive, #2225); > hbl IV (be pregnant, travail, #2473); — hyl I (be in labor, tremble, #2655); > hsp II (bring to premature birth, #3107); > tph II (bear healthy children, # 3254); > yhm (conceive, #3501);

> yld (bear, bring forth, be born, #3528);

> t’m (bear twins,

# 9298); > Adoption: Theology; ~ Genealogy: Theology Barren, childless, miscarriage: > galmiid (barren, # 1678); > népel (still-born child, miscarriage, #5878); > ‘agar (barren, childless, #6829); > “rir? (childless, # 6884); — Skl (be bereaved, bereavement, miscarry, # 8897) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 3:458-61; TWOT 1:223; P. S. Jackson, “The Problem of Exod 21:22-25 (lus Talionis),”

VT 23, 1973, 273-304, M. G. Kline, “Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus,” JETS 20, 1977, 193-201. Victor Hamilton

2226 (hareh, pregnant), > #2225

2228 (héron, childbearing), > # 2225 2231 (héray6n, conception), > #2225

2232 (h’risd, ruins), > #2238 2233 (h*risit, ruins),

1060

> #2238

ON (# 2238)

2238

ON (Ars), gq. demolish; tear down; break . through (intrans.); knock out (of teeth; Ps 58:6

om

[7]; par. nts); ni. be laid in ruins; pi. destroy (# 2238); 10°77 (h’risd), ruins (only in Amos 9:11; #2232); DIO’ (h*visaz), ruins (only in Isa 49:19; # 2233). ANE Cognates are found in Old South Arab., Moab., Arab., and Tigre (see TDOT 3:461). OT

1. The vb. hrs is found 43x, of which 30 are in q., 10 in ni. and 2 in pi. It

describes the tearing down of diverse structures such as altars (of Baal: g., Judg 6:25; also cf. vv. 30-32, where nts is used; of Yahweh: q., 1 Kgs 19:10, 14), cities (q., 2 Kgs 3:25; Isa 14:17), and fortifications (q., Ezek 26:4 [with Sht; > #8845], 12 [with nts;

> #5997]). This vb. can also describe actions like the breaking off of teeth (q., Ps 58:6 [7])/nts; > 5997). 2. Used of God, hrs can give expression to his wrath and judgment when he demolished the Egyptians in the Red Sea (q., Exod 15:7), tore down mountains (ni., Ezek 38:20), and devastated the cities of enemies (e.g., ni., Jer 50:15). Israel had to destroy utterly the inhabitants of Canaan (pi., Exod 23:24). God also judged his erring nation by destroying strongholds and cities (e.g., g., Lam 2:2, 17; Mic 5:11 [10]/krt; > #4162). He, however, promised to rebuild the habitations and lives of his people (e.g., ni., Ezek 36:35, 36; ni., Jer 31:40 [with nt5; > #6004]), but the wicked could

expect no such favor (q., Ps 28:5; Mal 1:4; cf. Job 12:14). (On tearing down and rebuilding see Jer 1:10 and 31:28; see further nts [> #5997], and W. Brueggemann, To Pluck Up, To Tear Down, 1988, 24-25.) Destruction, annihilation, devastation, disfigurement, ruin: ~ ’bd I (perish, #6); > ’éd (disaster, #369); — blq (devastate, #1191); ~ dmh IU (ruin, #1950); > dmm II (perish, # 1959); > hrs (demolish, #2238); > hbl Ill (treat badly, # 2472); > hlq II (destroy, # 2746); > ht’ (be destroyed, # 3148); > klh (be complete, perish, destroy, # 3983); > krt (cut, cut off, exterminate, cut a covenant, circumcise, # 4162); ~ mhh I (wipe off, wipe out destroy, # 4681); > nsh II (fall in ruins, # 5898); > nts (break up, # 5995); > nts (tear down, # 5997); > nts (root

up, pull down, destroy, #6004);

> p’h (dash to pieces, #6990);

> pid (ruin, misfortune,

#7085); > prr (break, invalidate, nullify, frustrate, foil, thwart, #7296); > sdh II (be devastated, #7400); > rzh (destroy, waste away, #8135); > Sdd (devastate, #8720); > Sht (become corrupt, ruin, spoil, #8845); > smd (be exterminated, destroyed, #9012); ~ tablit (annihilation, # 9318) BIBLIOGRAPHY

NIDNNT 1:462-71; TDOT 3:461-63. Cornelis Van Dam

2245 (hasma ‘iit, communication),

> #9048

2247 (hittik, melting), > #5988 2248 (hithabb‘rit, alliance), > # 2489

2252

ann

Sonn (htl), pi. deceive, mock (hapleg.; # 2252); (hapleg; mockery penn (A‘tulim), nom.

# 2253). 1061

Sm(# 2252) ANE Neither word is well attested beyond Arab. hatara, tempt with words. Singer (36:255-59) argues for a relationship between Heb. hil and Syr. hil.

1. The vb. is used in the context of Elijah’s contest with the prophets of Baal in OT 1 Kgs 18:27. At midday, after a morning of watching the prophets dance around the altar of Baal and plead with him to answer their cries, Elijah can no longer remain silent. He begins to taunt them. “‘Shout louder,’ he said. ‘Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.’” Laden with sarcasm and irony, Elijah’s remarks are clearly intended to belittle and berate Baal and his prophets. The intensity of his taunts moves beyond making fun to defamation. Elijah vilifies faith in Baal as futile, unmasks the foolishness of the false

prophets’ antics, and intimates the guilt they bear before Yahweh. 2. The nom. is used as part of a description of Job’s broken and disgraced condition: “My spirit is broken, my days are cut short, the grave awaits me. Surely mockers surround me; my eyes dwell on their hostilities” (Job 17:2). Dhorme (243) explains h‘tulim as a pl. abstraction: “the meaning ‘mockery’ is confirmed by Jewish tradition (cf. Thesaurus of Ben-Yehuda, 3:123).” Pope, however, following a cue from Dahood (Psalms I, AB 16:278-79), understands htlym as a reference to “the mounds (of the

nether world),” the passageway and place of departure from this life: “The Mounds loom before me, on the Slime-Pits my eyes dwell” (Pope, Job, AB 15:127, 128; cf. Tromp, Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether World in the Old Testament,”

BibOr, 1969, 21:54-55). The literary context and parallel structure render Pope’s suggestion attractive for Job’s sad estate would be graphically conveyed. However, such a translation understands htlym as derived from a root different from the one regularly rendered “mock.” What is clear is that

Job has nowhere to turn. Even from his friends,

instead of comfort and reassurance he expects nothing but mockery and derision. Job’s despair echoes the language of the lamenting psalmist (see Clines, Job 1-20, WBC 173393):

P-B In Sir 11:4, the vb. is used in an admonition against mocking the person who lacks attractive clothing. In 13:7, the vb. describes the attitude of the rich toward the poor. After the wealthy “have obtained through trickery what they want from you, they abandon you and ridicule you” (P. W. Skehan and A. A. Di Lella, “The Wisdom of Ben Sira,” AB 39, 1987, 253). The LXX of Job 17:2 completely diverges from MT. Dhorme (Job, 243) contends that LXX “had one hemistich only, but we give up the . attempt to find it in any traces of the Heb. text.” Vg. interprets h“tulim in Job 17:2 as “sins.” LXX translates the impf. of ht/ in 1 Kgs 18:27 by the aorist of myktérizo, the vb. used in Gal 6:7: “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he SOWS.” Folly, fool, madness, shameless: > “wil I (foolish, fool, #211); > b‘r IV (be stupid, # 1279); > All Ill (be confused, foolish, behave like mad, #2147); > ksl I (be foolish, # 4071); > Jhh (behave like a madman, # 4263); > nbl II (act disdainfully, #5571); > skl (behave foolishly, make foolish, frustrate, # 6118);

> pth I (be inexperienced, be naive, deceive, persuade, # 7331);

> ¥g‘ (raving, crazy, #8713); > tpl 1 (talk nonsense, # 9520) Mocking, ridicule, scoffing, stammering: > gdp (revile, blaspheme, # 1552); > Atl (deceive, mock, #2252); > hrp II (taunt, mock, insult, defy, #3070); — lys (scorn, talk big, mock, ridicule, #4329); > I‘b (jest, play, #4351); > I‘g (stutter, mock, deride, # 4352); > Iss (rebel,

1062

NNN (# 2254) scoff, #4372); > mwg (mock, scoff, deride, # 4610); > qls (disdain, scoff, jeer, # 7840); > shq (laugh, mock, rejoice, celebrate, dance, #8471); > tll (deceive, mock, trifle, #9438); > rt“ (mock, deceive, # 9506); > ta ‘tu ‘im (errors, mockery, #9511) BIBLIOGRAPHY

NIDNTT 3:341-42; TDNT 4:796-99; TWOT 1:225; D. J. A. Clines, Job 1-20, WBC

17, 372; E.

Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job, 1984; F. C. Fensham, “The Stem htl in Biblical

Hebrew,”

VT 9, 1959, 310-11; A. D. Singer, “The Derivation of Hebrew Onn” JOR 36, 1945-46, 255-59. Tim Powell

2253 (h*tulim, mockery, > #2252

2254

ANE

nnn

Nn

(Att),

(# 2254).

pol.

overwhelm

with

reproach

Arab. hatta, vb. damage a reputation (HALAT 247).

OT This vb. occurs only in Ps 62:3[4]. It is used in a complaint, asking how long an enemy will heap reproach on God’s people. This complaint is caustic because of the ruthless intent of the enemy. BDB and many translations take this word from the root hwt, shout at, threaten, assail (> #2109). Rebuke, reproof, shame, threat: #1721);

> g‘r (roar, shout, bellow, cry out, rebuke, reprimand,

> htt (overwhelm with reproach, #2254);

> zhr II (be warned, warn, #2302);

> hrp

II (taunt, mock, insult, defy, #3070); — ykh (dispute, reason together, prove, judge, rule, reprove, # 3519); > khh II (rebuke, # 3909) John E. Hartley

1063

1) (# 2260)

2256 (w’*, and, but, then), > Particles

2260 ANE

1

T1 (waw), nail (# 2260).

There are no ANE cognates for this word (HALAT 246).

OT _waw occurs 13x in the OT. All of these occurrences are in four chapters of Exod (Exod 26; 27; 36; 38). In every instance, it refers to the silver and gold hooks to which the curtains in the tabernacle were fastened. P-B_ Ascan be expected, based on OT usage, the term “hook” (Aram. wawa’) occurs in rabbinic writings concerned with Exod (e.g., Midr. Exod. Rabbah; the Mekilta Targ.

Exod. 38.28 in passim). Tabernacle, tent, temple: > ’dhel (tent, tent-dweller, #185); > d*bir # 1808); > m6é‘éd (meeting-place, assembly, tent of meeting, # 4595b); #5219); > miskan (sanctuary, #5438); > paroket (curtain in front of > sukkd (tabernacle, tent, hut, shelter, #6109); > Aaron: Theology; > Theology

I (Most Holy Place, > miqdas (sanctuary, Most Holy, #7267); Priests and Levites:

BIBLIOGRAPHY TWOT 1:230. K. Lawson Younger, Jr.

7261

=r

“WT (wazar),

nom.

unjust;

laden

with

guilt

(# 2261); hapleg. (Prov 21:8). ANE Cf. Arab. wazara, to burden oneself with a crime; wazira, to be burdened with guilt; wizru, crime; or zawira, to be wrong, dishonest.

OT The KJV rendering of the first half of this verse, “The way of man is froward and strange” (w@zdar), regards the wa as a conjunction rather than part of the nom. This understanding of the construction does not provide a suitable parallel for Prov 21:8b. Driver (185) emends the MT by dropping the initial waw (also adding a 3ms suff. to derek and relocating ’i¥ to the front of the line) and derives za@r from Arab. zawira,

1064

“11 # 2261) inclined; zawwara (Il), falsified; ziiru, falsehood. He translates the line, “The man whose way is crooked is false (zar).” Snijders (69, n. 96) also drops the initial waw but derives the resultant nom. from Heb. zar, here translated as “outsider,” or “deviating (untrustworthy) man” (cf. Greenstone, 224, “The way of [the usual] man is changeable

and strange”’). It seems best to derive wazar from Arab. wazara/wazira/wizru (see above) and translate the expression derek ’i§ wazar, the way of the man of guilt/guilty man (NIV, cf. NASB, NKJV, NRSV). The Proverbs writer contrasts this guilty man, whose way is devious, with the upright man, whose way is pure/innocent.

P-B The LXX renders the word in a rather general way with skolia, crookedness, devious ways. Guilt, evil, unrighteousness:

> ’5m (become guilty, incur guilt, bear guilt, pronounce guilty,

# 870); > dam (blood, bloodshed, blood-guilt, murder, # 1947); > wazar (unjust, laden with guilt, #2261); > hwb (be the cause of guilt, #2549); — héf’ (sin, guilt, punishment of sin,

# 2628); > nqh (be free, exempt from guilt, remain unpunished, # 5927); > rs‘ (act wickedly, unrighteously, be guilty, pronounce guilty, # 8399) BIBLIOGRAPHY G. Driver, “Problems in the Hebrew Text of Proverbs,” Bib 32, 1951, 173-97; J. Greenstone,

Proverbs, With Commentary, 1950; W. McKane, Proverbs, OTL, 1970; L. Snijders, “The Meaning of za@r in the Old Testament,” OTS 10, 1954, 1-154.

Eugene Carpenter/Michael A. Grisanti

1065

Tat (# 2272)

2269 (z°’éb I, wolf), > #9478

9972

=3)

“aT

(zbd),

gq. make

someone

a gift, endow

(hapleg.; Gen 30:20, # 2272); TAT (zébed), nom. gift (hapleg.; Gen 30:20, # 2273). ANE Syr. z‘bad, to give; zebda’, gift; Old S. Arab. zabada, to give; zbd, gift; Arab. zabada, to give. A number of Heb. and ANE proper names derive from this verbal root (cf. HALAT 250).

OT In Gen 30:20 the vb. and its cognate nom. make their only appearance in the OT, where Leah expresses gratitude that Yahweh had given her this gift, another son (Zebulun). Gift: > ’ahab (gifts of love, charm, # 172); > zbd (endow, # 2272); > mgn I (deliver, # 4481); > nadan II (gift, wages of love, #5621); > ntn (give, present, offer, #5989); > skr II (hand

over, # 6127); > sbt (give, #7381); > Salmonim (gift, # 8988)

> Shd (give a gift, #8815); > Say (gift, present, #8856); MichaelA. Grisanti

2273 (zébed, gift),

> #2272

2279 (z°bib, fly), > # 6856

728A

mot

M3t (zbh), vb. q. slaughter, slaughter for communion

sacrifice,

offer;

pi.

sacrifice,

offer

(#2284); Mat (zebah I), nom. communal sacrifice (# 2285); MATa (mizbéah), altar

(> #4640).

ANE 1. Akk. has a term zibu, food offering, which is thought (at least by some scholars) to be cognate with Heb. mizbéah (see, e.g., AHw, 1525, and Levine, Presence,

115-17). For example, in an Old Babylonian text we have this line: ana DN (divine name) u DN ... dariS isimu zi-bi elliitim, “(who) has decreed that pure food-offerings (be given) in abundance forever to DN and DN” (CAD Z, 105). The vb.

1066

Mot (# 2284) zebi also occurs, but is most likely “a case of West Semitic borrowing into Assyrian” (Levine, 1974, 115). There are those who are hesitant to accept the etymological connection between these terms in Akk. and the Heb. (and WestSem.; note the weak mid-

dle rather than end of the nom.). If there is a link it is relatively remote. As CAD puts it, “The Heb. zabah, Aram. d’bah, Ugar. dbh, which refer only to slaughtered animals as

sacrifices, may represent, if the etymology is correct, a specialization of the meaning different from what it was in Akkadian” (CAD Z, 106). The difficulty is that, normally, this term refers to some sort of slain offering in WestSem., not just any kind of food offering. However, this etymological connection has been strengthed by the occurrence of the Ugar. expression dbh §mn mr (mn rgh), “an offering of oil of myrrh; [of oil of mixed spices]” (see UT 3:20 with duplicate 173:22; R. E. Whitaker, A Concordance of the Ugaritic Literature, 1972, 179; and the remarks in Levine, 1974, 116 n. 2). Simi-

larly, in the Punic tariffs we find the following expressions: (a) w‘l zbh sd wul zbh mn, “and for a sacrifice of game and for a sacrifice of oil” (KAJ 1:16 line 9; cf. R. S. Tomback, A Comparative Semitic Lexicon of the Phoenician and Punic Languages, SBLDS 32, 1978, 92), and (b) ’m zbh sd ’m zbh Smn, “or (as a) sacrifice of game or (as a) sacrifice of oil” (KAJ 1:15 line 12; cf. Tomback, 92; and the remarks in Levine, 1974, 116).

Thus, it appears that zbh could be used in the more generic sense of sacrifice and was not limited to the slaughtering of animals for a sacrificial meal (see below). 2. The normal use of this term in Ugar. (cf. also Phoen., Punic, Aram., and

Heb.) is the same as in the HB, where it refers to a “sacrifice of slaughtered sheep, goat or cattle to create communion between the god to whom the sacrifice is made and the partners of the sacrifice, and communion between the partners themselves” (HALOT 262b). For example, early in the Ugar. Keret Epic the god EI instructed distressed Keret: “Lift up your hands (to) heaven (and) sacrifice (vb. dbh) to the bull El your father, make Baal to come down with your sacrifice (nom. bdbhk), the son of Dagon

with your game” (CML, 84, lines 75-79a). Both the nom. and the vb. are also well attested in all sorts of religious ritual texts and contexts at Ugarit (Tarragon, 56; cf. also Pope, Miller, etc.), and the fact that in Ugar. as well as in Heb. the vb. and nom. dbh, sacrifice, has as derived nom. mdbh(t), altar, argues for its sacral focus in both lan-

guages (Milgrom, “Profane Slaughter,” 1). 3. For Phoen. and Punic see the numerous references in R. S. Tomback,

A Com-

parative Semitic Lexicon of the Phoenician and Punic Languages, 91-93, where the meanings are given as the vb., slaughter, and the nom., sacrifice, sacrificial priest, and in combinations like, “the month of the sacrifice of Shamash (the sun-god),” and “the sacrifice of PN son of PN,” referring to the sacrifices of individuals and families to various deities. A few texts are particularly interesting: “I brought slain offerings (zbh) to all of the images. As an annual slain offering (zbh ymm)—large cattle, and in the season of ploughing—small cattle, and in the season of reaping—small cattle” (KAI I, # 26, line AIII 1, 6; see the discussion in Levine, 1974, 133 and other references given in TDOT 4:21-22). The relationship between this and the annual slain offering in 1 Sam 1:21; 2:19; and 20:6 seems obvious (ibid., 132-35; see OT sec. 5 below). 4. In the Old Aram. Zenjirli dialect we have another extended passage where the Aram. vb. zbh, do sacrifice, and the nom., sacrifice, refer to the need to honor the

1067

Mat (# 2284) god Hadad (the inscription is on a statue of Hadad) and pray for Panammu, the king, by offering sacrifices. Now, if one of Panammu’s sons should grasp the sceptre and sit on my throne and maintain power and do sacrifice (wyzbh) to this Hadad, and should say, “By thee I swear, and do sacrifice (wyzbh) to [this Hadad],” whether in this way he does sacrifice (yzbh) to Hadad and invokes the name of Hadad or in another, let him then say, “May the soul of Panammu [eat] with thee, and may the soul of Panammu drink with thee. .. .” If (however), [any] of my sons should grasp the sceptre . . . do sacrifice (wyzbh) [to this Hadad, and should not] remember the name of Panammu ... his sacrifice (zbhh), may he not look favourably upon it, and what he asks may Hadad not give him. . . . (J. C. L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, 2, 1975, 66-69, Il. 15-23)

The connection between offering sacrifices to the god and the king eating along with him is significant. The zbh was certainly conceived of as a meal, at least for the gods. 5. The same root appears in Arab. in the same or similar sense as in Heb. with similar derivatives (e.g., dabaha, slaughter, sacrifice; dibh, slaughter; dibh, sacrifice,

and madbah, slaughterhouse, altar). See also OSA dbh (HALOT 262 and Ryckmans) and Eth. zebh, sacrificial animal (HALOT 262). For descriptions of broader ANE parallels to zbh in Egyptian and Babylonian culture, see TDOT 4:13-18. OT 1. The zebah was “a sacrifice of slaughtered sheep, goat or cattle to create communion between the god to whom the sacrifice is made and the partners of the sacrifice, and communion between the partners themselves” (HALOT 262). Much of the ANE cognate literature as well as internal OT usage supports this understanding of the term and the ritual institution to which it refers.

Canonically, the root zbh occurs first as a means of concluding or ratifying the covenant commitment between Jacob and Laban in Gen 31:54a, “He (Jacob) offered (zbh) a sacrifice (nom. zebah) there in the hill country and invited his relatives (Laban, etc.) to a meal.” The only other occurrence in Gen is 46:1, “So Israel set out with all that was his, and when he reached Beersheba, he offered (zbh) sacrifices (nom. zebah) to the God of his father Isaac,” possibly as a means of dream incubation: “And God

spoke to Israel in a vision at night and said, ‘Jacob! Jacob!’ ‘Here I am,’ he replied” (46:2; see also 1 Kgs 3:4-5, where the vb. zbh is used but the action is to offer up burnt

offerings, not zebah, cf. 2 Chron 1:6 and possibly also 1 Kgs 9:1-3). Before Sinai this root continues to be used in general for sacrifices to the Lord (Exod 3:18; 5:3, 8,.17; 8:8[4], 26-29[22-25]; 10:25) and, specifically, for the “Passover sacrifice” (Heb. zebah pesah, Exod 12:27). At Sinai, before and/or during the construction of the tabernacle and its altar, such sacrifices were offered for the celebration with Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law (Exod 18:12), and for the illegitimate calf festival in 32:8 (cf. 34:15). The law, in fact,

included regulations for such sacrifices to continue at solitary altars even after the tabernacle had been constructed (20:24, “Make an altar of earth for me and sacrifice [zbh]

on it your burnt offerings [‘6/d, # 6592] and fellowship offerings [Xelem, # 8968]”; see the full discussion under mizbéah, # 4640, in contrast to, e.g., TDOT 4:21-29). Numer-

ous references to this practice can be found in the historical books referring to 1068

Mt (# 2284) legitimate sacrifices to the Lord (e.g., 1 Sam 6:15; 9:12-13; 16:2-5; 20:6, 29), illegitimate sacrifices to the Lord (e.g., 1 Sam 15:15, 21-22; 2 Kgs 16:15), and sacrifices to

other gods (e.g., Judg 16:23; 2 Kgs 10:19, 24). For a full discussion of legitimate worship at solitary altars in the OT even after the tabernacle and the temple had been established see mizbéah (# 4640), and for the historical reality of a system of sacrifice external to the sanctuary as opposed to the one that functioned within the sanctuary (i.e., the tabernacle and the temple), see the general article on “Offerings and Sacrifices.” The issue arises primarily in relation to the centralization of the sanctuary in Deut 12 and, in specific, zbh in 12:6, 11, 15, 21, 27. zbr is used in vv. 6, 11, and 27 for sacrifices offered at the central sanctuary, but vv. 15

and 21 use it when referring to profane slaughter, “Nevertheless (i.e., in spite of the concern for centralized worship after there is rest in the land, vv. 9-14), you may slaughter (zbh) your animals in any of your towns and eat as much of the meat as you want, as if it were gazelle or deer, according to the blessing the LORD your God gives you. Both the ceremonially unclean and the clean may eat it” (cf. below). 2. The vb. occurs 134x in the OT, 112x in q. and 22x in pi. The basic meaning of the q. vb. is to slaughter. There are a few cases in which it might refer to nonsacral slaughtering of animals (e.g., Num 22:40; Deut 12:15, 21; 1 Sam 28:24; 1 Kgs 19:21; see HALOT 262), but this has been disputed (Milgrom, 1976, 2-3, 13-17; Ezek 34:3

seems to be the only clear instance of nonsacral zbh). Milgrom, in fact, argues that in Deut 12:15 and 21 the point of using the vb. zbh was to clarify the fact that the actual slaughtering of the animal was to be done in the same manner as that performed in the sanctuary (ibid., 14-15; cf. Sht, slaughter, # 8821). In any case, the overwhelming pat-

tern of usage for zbh is undoubtedly sacred slaughter, whether individual or communal sacrifices, and whether legitimate, illegitimate, or idolatrous.

The pi. can refer to multiple legitimate sacrifices (i.e., the iterative pi.; 1 Kgs 8:5; 2 Chron 5:6; 30:22), but is most often used for illegitimate Yahwistic worship

(e.g., 1 Kgs 3:2-3), or idolatrous worship (e.g., 11:8; see the discussion in Milgrom, 1976, 2; Snaith, 1975, 243-44. who suggests a privative pi. in such cases, in which case

the vb. itself means to slaughter illegitimately). 3. The vb. is, therefore, used almost exclusively of slaughter for a communal sacrificial meal (see above), but it is also used: (a) for sacrificing children to idols (Ps

106:37; Ezek 16:20), (b) metaphorically, for slaying idolatrous priests on their own altars (1 Kgs 13:2 with 2 Kgs 23:20), and (c) metaphorically, for slaughtering the rebellious nations in judgment as a feast for the scavenger birds (Ezek 39:17-19; see also probably Zeph 1:7-8, which seems to include the Day of the Lord judgment on rebellious Judah; cf. also Rev 19:17-21 below; cf. also the nom. in the same way, Isa 34:6; Jer 46:10).

The most frequent objects of the vb. are the animal victims of sacrifice (e.g., Num 22:40; 1 Kgs 8:63) and the cognate nom. zebah (e.g., Gen 31:54; 46:1; Lev 17:5; Deut 33:19), but in one case it takes an unusual compound object: “sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings” (Exod 20:24). Burnt offerings were, by nature, not slaughtered for communal meals (see ‘01d, # 6592). It is possible that, since

the two objects are so close together in this verse, it was felt appropriate to simply let the vb. for one do double service for both. Moreover, there seems to have been a slight tendency to use zebah and/or zbh as a general term for offering (see, e.g., 1 Kgs 3:4 and

1069

Fat (# 2284) 1 Chron 1:6, OT sec. 1), much like the common present-day lumping together of the various offerings and sacrifices under the heading of “sacrifices.” 4. The nom. occurs first in Exod 24:5 in the combination z*bahim Slamim, sactifices, peace (fellowship) offerings, as a category of offerings used to ratify the Mosaic covenant (cf. also

1 Sam

11:15 for the exact same combination).

Similarly,

there are numerous instances of the sing. or pl. of zebah standing in construct to Xlamim, apparently meaning sacrifice(s) of peace offering(s) (see, e.g., in the sing. const. Lev 3:1, 3, 6, 9, etc., and in the pl. Exod 29:28; Lev 7:32, 34; etc.). This suggests that the s“/amim, peace offering, was a variety of zebah, sacrifice, (Milgrom, 1991,

218). The actual implications that one derives from this combination depends on how one views the term §*/amim as a sacrificial term: Does it refer to personal or communal well-being, communion, fellowship, or peace, or could it mean, for example, concluding offering (> Selem, # 8968).

5. There was a custom of the pious in ancient Israel to practice regularly “the annual sacrifice to the LORD” (1 Sam 1:21; cf. also 2:19; 20:6, 29) for the “whole clan” (20:6; cf. chs. 1-2, and possibly also 9:12-13; Amos 4:4; TDOT 4:21-22). It seems to have been practiced in other areas of the ANE as well (see above). This was normally a

time of both solemn worship and joyous celebration before the Lord. The problems between Hannah and Peninnah regarding Hannah’s barrenness spoiled the party in 1 Sam 1 (note that Elkanah was a pious Levite who lived in Ephraim; cf. 1 Sam 1:1 with 1 Chron 6:28, 33-34).

It was important to avoid “a house full of feasting (zbh), with strife (rib, # 8189 and # 8190)” (Prov 17:1b) and “sacrifices offered to lifeless gods” (lit., “sacrifices of the dead,” Ps 106:28; cf. Deut 26:14), such as those engaged at Baal Peor, which

provoked the Lord to anger (Ps 106:29; cf. Num 25). Instead, the people should offer “sacrifices of righteousness” (Deut 33:19; Ps 4:5[6]; 51:19[21]). There are four proposed interpretations of this last expression: (a) sacrifices “offered in nghteousness by the righteous” (BDB, 257b), (b) “correct sacrifices” (HALAT 262b), (c) “sacrifices of victory” (see the summary of arguments and literature cited in Levine, 1974, 135), and

(d) “slain offerings given as a rightful gift” (.e., that which is rightfully claimed by the Lord from what the Israelites have; ibid., 135-37). When sacrifices (zbh) or peace (fellowship) offerings (S/mm) or both together

occur as a pair with burnt offerings (‘o/d), the combination focuses on two primary and complementary aspects of the overall sacrificial system both in the sanctuary and at solitary altars; namely, gift and communion, respectively (> “Offerings and Sacrifices” for a full discussion).

P-B

1. The vb. and nom. of zbh occur a total of 31x in the Qumran Temple Scroll.

The main concerns are: (a) that idolatrous sacrifices be avoided (11QT 2:13-14; Yadin 2:3; cf. Exod 34:10-16, esp. v. 16); (b) that they sacrifice the Passover before the evening service (11QT 17:7; Yadin 2:74; cf. Exod 12:6); (c) that the sacrificial por-

tions of the priests and the common people not be mixed in the temple lest they profane the holy portions of the priests through the common people eating them (11QT 37:5-14, Yadin 2:157-60; cf. Lev 22:14-16); (d) that only skins of clean animals that

had been offered in the temple be used to bring offerings of wine and other food stuffs into the temple (11 QT 47:7-14; Yadin 2:203-4); (e) that they not sacrifice at altars with Asherahs and pillars beside them (11QT 51:20; Yadin 2:230; Deut 16:21-22); (f) that

1070 °

Mat (# 2284) they not sacrifice pregnant or blemished animals to the Lord, and if the latter are the firstborn, they should treat them as wild game and consume them within their own gates (11QT 52:3-12; Yadin 2:232-34; cf. Deut 17:1; Lev 22:26-28); (g) that they slaughter no clean animal outside the temple when they are within three days journey of the temple, in which case it should have been offered first to the Lord at the temple,

and no blemished animal within thirty stadia of the temple lest they pollute the temple with it (11QT 52:13-21; Yadin 2:234-36; cf. Deut 12); (h) that the shoulder of the peace (fellowship) offering lamb go to the Levites, not the priests (11QT 60:7; Yadin, 272; cf. Deut 18:1-8 and the discussion under frimé, tribute, contribution, # 9556) and

(i) that a foreign slave wife may not eat from a “sacrifice of peace offerings” until seven years after her marriage to her Israelite husband (11QT 63:15; Yadin 2:286; an expansion on Deut 21:10-14). 2. Elsewhere at Qumran, the Pesher (Commentary) on Habakkuk uses the vb. in explaining Hab 1:16a, “Therefore he sacrifices to his net and burns incense to his dragnet.” The interpretation given is that the Babylonians “sacrifice (zbh) to their standards and worship their weapons of war” (1QpHab 6:4; Vermes, 286). In the Damascus Document there is a rule: “No man shall sell clean beasts and birds to the Gentiles lest they offer them in sacrifice” (the vb.; CD 12:9; Vermes, 96). In another context the nom. is used in quoting Prov 15:8, “The LORD detests the sacrifice of the wicked, but

the prayer of the upright pleases him” (NIV; CD 11:20, Vermes, 96). The Community Rule speaks of atoning for guilt and sins “without the flesh of holocausts and the fat of sacrifice” by following the rules of the community (1QS 9:4; Vermes, 74). One section of the War Scroll lists the High Priest and his vicar, the

twelve chief priests, the twenty-six leaders of the priestly divisions, the twelve chiefs of the Levities, the chiefs of the tribes, heads of families, and leaders of divisions with

their men as those “men who shall attend at holocausts and sacrifices to prepare sweet-smelling incense for the good pleasure of God, to atone for all the His congregation, and to satisfy themselves perpetually before Him at the table of glory” (LQM 2:5-6; Vermes, 106).

3. The predominant rendering of the vb. and the nom. in the LXX are thyd, offer sacrifice (83x), and thysia, offering, sacrifice (135x), respectively. Like zbh, these rituals included the burning of portions to the god(s) (TDOT 4:18). During the early G period in Palestine (the second century BC) the G thysia took hold in Palestine and, for orthodox Jews, to eat of such pagan offerings was an abomination (ibid.). 2 Macc 6:7-8 records the practice of trying to force the Jews to eat such sacrificial meat, “On the monthly celebration of the king’s birthday, the Jews were taken, under bitter con-

straint, to partake of the sacrifices; . . . a decree was issued to the neighboring Greek cities, that they should adopt the same policy toward the Jews and make them partake of the sacrifices” (Metzger, 274).

All of 2 Macc 6-7 is given over to this chapter in Jewish history. One Eleazar, a highly respected old scribe, refused to do so to the point that when his respectful captors tried to avoid executing him by giving him clean meat and asking him to pretend that it was the abominable meat, he refused on the grounds that this would lead many to suppose that he gave in to the alien religion. Thus, he died (6:18-31). According to 4 Macc 5:1-3, “The tyrant Antiochus, . . . ordered the guards to seize each and every Hebrew and to compel them to eat pork and food sacrificed to idols. If any

1071

Fiat (# 2284)

were not willing to eat defiling food, they were to be broken on the wheel and killed” (Metzger, 314). This, of course, provides important historical background for the dispute over eating meat offered to idols in the NT (see the discussion in ‘elem, peace offering, # 8968). 4. The Mishnah has an entire tractate given over to z°bahim (Danby, 468-90) and scattered references elsewhere. The primary concerns are the elegibility of particular animals, handling of the blood, the place of slaughtering sacrifices, the problem of confusing one offering with the other (e.g., guilt versus sin versus peace offerings, etc.), the order of the various kinds of offerings, the eating of the sacred portions, and

even the rabbinic view of the history of sacrificial procedures in OT Israel (for the latter see Zebahim 14:4-10; Danby, 489-90).

NT 1. Any attempt to survey the major NT terms for offerings and sacrifices will include some that can be isolated with relative ease. The vb. thy, slaughter, sacrifice an animal is used 14x in the NT referring to: (a) nonsacrificial animals killed (John 10:10; Acts 10:13; 11:7) and prepared for a wedding feast (Matt 22:4) or some other kind of celebration (Luke 15:23, 27, 30), (b) the slaughter of the Passover lamb (Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7; 1 Cor 5:7), and (c) offerings to pagan gods (Acts 14:13, 18; 1 Cor 10:20). 2. The nom. thysia, sacrifice, offering, act of offering (cf. the vb. above) occurs

29x: (a) referring back to specific OT passages (Matt 9:13; 12:7; cf. Hos 6:6; Acts 7:41; cf. Amos 5:25; Heb 10:5, 8; cf. Ps 40:6[7]; Heb 11:4; cf. Gen 4:3-5); (b) as a pair

with “burnt offering,” referring specifically to sacrifices not fully consumed on the altar (Mark 12:33; Luke 13:1); (c) for the fulfillment of OT sacrificial regulations (Luke 2:24) or festival celebrations (1 Cor 10:18); (d) for idolatrous sacrifices (Acts 7:41); (e) metaphorically referring to the Christian’s life commitment to the Lord (Rom 12:1; Phil 2:17, for a libation, drink offering; 1 Pet 2:5), financial support of others in ministry (Phil 4:18), and offerings of praise and goods works to God (Heb 13:15-16); (f) referring to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross (Eph 5:2); and (g) to the priestly obligation to offer sacrifices for the people (Heb 5:1; 8:3; 9:9; 10:1, 11), including Christ, who, as our high priest according to the order of Melchizedek, offered himself as a sacrifice for us (Heb 7:27; 9:23, 26; 10:12, 26).

3. The word most commonly used for offerings to idols is eidélothyton, normally translated “meat offered to idols” (9x in the NT: Acts 15:29; 21:25; 1 Cor 8:1, 4, 10; 10:19; Rev 2:14, 20; cf. bomos in Acts 17:23). See ANE above and elem, peace

offering, # 8968, for the intertestamental background and NT dispute regarding meat offered to idols. 4. There are many possible references to Jesus as a Passover sacrifice in the NT (see, e.g., John 1:29, 36; 1 Pet 1:19; Rev 5:6, 8, 12-13; 6:1). However, the most certain

of them all is in the exhortation to purity in 1 Cor 5:7, “Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.” In the context Paul uses this to rebuke the Corinthians for not removing an evil man from their church fellowship. The Passover sacrifice was associated with the removal of leaven from every Jewish household (see Exod 12:15-20; cf. Mishah Pesahim

1072

1-3). Therefore, the leaven image could be used to refer to the

Mot (# 2284) polluting effect of one evil man in the midst of the congregation. Since Christ has already been sacrificed, it was certainly time now to get rid of the leaven. For the relationship of Jesus’ Last Supper to the Passover ritual meal and his enactment of the ritual of body and blood as the peace offering/covenant ratification sacrifice for the new covenant (Luke 22:19-20;

1 Cor 11:25: cf. Exod 24:3-8 for the

OT background), see ‘elem, peace offering, # 8968. 5. The final battle in Rev 19:17-21 is referred to as “the great supper of God” for all the “birds flying in midair” (v. 17), who would come to “eat the flesh of kings, generals, and mighty men, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, small and great” (v. 18). The conclusion of the matter there is that, ‘all the

birds gorged themselves on their flesh” (v. 21). This NT motif, of course, derives from the OT references to the slaughtering of those nations that rebel against the true God (e.g., Ezek 39:17-19; see OT sec. 3). Offering,

sacrifice:

> ‘azkdrd (sign-offering, #260);

> ’ii%eh (offering by fire, #852);

> ’asam (guilt offering, # 871); > zbh (slaughter, sacrifice, # 2284); > hatta’at (sin offering, # 2633); ~— tbh (slaughter, #3180); > minha (gift, present, offering, sacrifice, #4966); > ma“sér (tithe, #5130); > ndr (make a vow, #5623); > nwp I (move back and forth, wave, # 5677); > nskI (pour out, be consecrated, libation, #5818); > ‘dla I (burnt offering, # 6592);

> “risa (meal/dough offering, # 6881); > gorban (offering, gift, #7933);

> ShtI (slaughter, > frimd > Offering: Theology; — Priests and

# 8821); > Selem (settlement sacrifice, # 8968); > tamid (regular offering, #9458);

(tribute, contribution, #9556); Levites: Theology

> Aaron: Theology;

BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 4:8-29; G. A. Anderson, “Sacrifice and Sacrificial Offerings (OT),” ABD, 1992, 5:870-86;

idem, Sacrifices and Offerings in Ancient Israel, HSM, 41, 1987; C. Brown, “Sacrifice, First Fruits, Altar, Offering,” NIDNTT, 3:415-38; H. Danby, The Mishnah, 1933; M. Dijkstra, “The Ritual KTU 1.46 (=RS 1.9) and Its Duplicates,” UF 16, 1984, 69-76; G. B. Gray, Sacrifice in the OT, 1971 (1925); D. Gill, “Thysia and 5*lamim: Questions to R. Schmid’s Das Bundesopfer in Israel,” Bib 47, 1966, 255-62; J. E. Hartley, Leviticus, WBC, 1992; H.-J. Klauck, “Sacrifice and Sacrificial Offerings (NT),” ABD, 1992, 5:886-91; B. A. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord, SJLA 5, 1974; idem, Leviticus, The JPS Torah Commentary, 1989; idem, “Prolegomenon” to G. B. Gray, see above; B. M. Metzger (ed.), The Apocrypha of the OT, Revised Standard Version, 1977; J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, AB, 1991; idem, Numbers, The JPS Torah Commentary, 1990; idem, “Profane Slaughter and a Formulaic Key to the Composition of Deuteronomy,” HUCA 47, 1976, 1-17; P. D. Miller, “Prayer and Sacrifice in Ugarit and Israel,” Text and Context: OT and Semitic Studies for F. C. Fensham, JSOTSup 48, 1988, 139-55; M. H. Pope, “A Divine Banquet at Ugarit,” The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays: Studies in Honor of W. F. Stinespring, 1972, 170-203; G. Ryckmans, “Le sacrifice dbh dans les inscriptions safaitiques,” HUCA

13, 1950-1951, 431-38; N. H. Snaith, “Sacrifices in the Old Testament,” VT 7, 1957,

308-17; idem, “The Verbs zbh and Sahat,” VT 25, 1975, 242-46; J.-M. de Tarragon, Le culte a Ugarit, 1980; G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 3d ed., 1987; M. Weinfeld, “Social

and Cultic Institutions in the Priestly Source Against Their Ancient Near Eastern Background,” Proceedings of the Eight World Congress of Jewish Studies, 1983, 95-129; J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel, 1878, ET 1885; G. J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT, 1979; Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll, vols. 1-2, 1983. Richard E. Averbeck

1073

S31 (#2290) 2285 (zebah I, communion sacrifice), > # 2284

ees ices

S31 (zbl), q. exalt, honor (#2290); PAT (z*bul Il),

nom./adj.

exalted,

high,

magnificent

(# 2292). ANE

Although Gamberoni (TDOT 4:29) contends that there is no semantic continu-

ity between the Akk. zb/ and Heb. root zbi, some propose an Akk. root (zabalu) carrying the basic idea of “lift up, bear” i.e., honor someone. The root is found in the title of

several Ugaritic gods (Gamberoni, TDOT 4:30). One of the Ugar. titles of Baal is “Exalted/Prince, Lord of the Earth” (UT, 393, No. 815), while the sea god Yam is called “Exalted/Prince Yam” (Virolleaud, Syria, 1935, 185). Phoenician uses this root in the name D‘/’zbl, Baal is exalted. KJV translated the vb. dwell and the nom. dwelling, habitation, but this interpretation is no longer accepted. OT

1. The vb. is found only in Gen 30:20, “Then Leah said, “God has presented me

with a precious gift. This time my husband will treat me with honor (zb/), because I have borne him six sons.’ So she named him Zebulun.” The vb. refers to Leah’s desire that Jacob would “honor” or “exalt” her, because previously he had loved Rachel more than Leah (29:30-31). Drawing from a related Akk. root (zubulli) Speiser (Genesis, 1964, 229-31) suggested the meaning “gift, bridegroom’s gift” (see Assyrian Laws, A. 30.29; 31.2), but 30:20 hardly. presents the right time for such a gift to be given, for

Leah was married long before this and had just given birth to her sixth son. 2. The nom./adj. forms are used 5x. It is used by Solomon in his dedication prayer for the temple in Jerusalem as he describes God’s dwelling place as a magnificent/exalted temple, “I have indeed built a magnificent temple (bét z°bul) for you, a place for you to dwell forever” (1 Kgs 8:13; 2 Chron 6:2). The temple represents God’s exalted heavenly abode, from where God acts in mercy toward his people. It denotes his throne, “Look down from heaven (S@mayim) and see from your lofty throne (z*bul), holy and glorious. Where are your zeal and your might? Your tenderness and compassion are withheld from us” (Isa 63:15). The z*bul is also the place of the sun and moon which witnessed God’s victorious battles on behalf of his people, “Sun and moon stood still in the heavens (z‘buld) at the glint of your flying arrows, at the lightning of your

flashing spear’ (Hab 3:11). Finally, the word stands in contrast to Sheol, the place of the wicked. When the wicked go to Sheol they will be consumed and will be “far from their princely mansions” (Ps 49:15). 3. It is possible that Baal-Zebub (= “Baal fly”), the name of the god of Ekron (2 Kgs 1:2, 3), is a distortion of Baal-zebul (“Baal prince,” see H. Ringgren, Israelite Religion, 1966, 42, n. 7; T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, WBC, 1985, 8). For the name Zebul

(z‘bul I), Abimelech’s representative in Shechem, see Judg 8:28-41. P-B The G word beelzeboul or its variant beelzeboub is a name used in the NT to refer to Satan (Matt 10:25; Rev 12:9). In several contexts the Pharisees accuse Jesus of casting out demons by the power of the devil, Beelzebul, possible meaning originally, “the exalted god Baal” (Matt 12:24, 27; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:18). This name was probably derived from the Canaanite god Baal-zebub (see above). The LXX and Josephus

1074

IT (# 2293) (Ant. ix:19) translate zebub with muian (“flies”), hence “lord of the flies.” In the NT this name for Satan is transliterated. Exaltation, pride: > g’h (rise up, be exalted, #1448); # 1467); > géwd I (pride, # 1575);

> gbh (be high, exalt, be haughty,

> ns’ (lift, raise high, pardon, bear, exalt o.s.,

#5951)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 4:29-30; W. F. Albright, “Zabal Yam and Thaphit Nahar in the Combat Between Baal and the Sea,” JPOS 16, 1936, 17-20; M. Davis, “Zabal (Gen xxx.20),” VT 1, 1951, 59; W. Foerster, “‘BeedCeBovr,” TDNT, 1:605-6; F. C. Fensham, “A Possible Explanation of the Name

Baal-Zebub of Akron,” ZAW 79, 1967, 361-64; M. Held, “The Root ZBL/SBL in Akkadian, Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew,” FS Speiser, 90-96; M. Metzger, “Himmlische und irdische Wohnstatt Yahwes,” UF, 2, 1970, 139-58. Gary V. Smith

2292 (z°bul Il, exalted, magnificent),

2293 ANE.

at

> #2290

t (za), nom. peel/skins of grapes; seed, kernel

(# 2293).

Jew. Aram. zwg’.

OT This hapleg. occurs in combination with harsannim (> # 3079), unripe grapes, and develops in greater detail and emphatically the abstention of the Nazirite from eating anything whatsoever from the grapevine (Num 6:4). This development from a general prohibition to a more detailed prohibition in the same subject area is relatively common in the OT. NT The LXX renders zag as gigartou, pressed olives/bunch of grapes, and harsannim as stemphyllon of a grape stone, i.e., a grape seed. Grapes:

~> ’eXk6l I (cluster[s] of grapes, # 864);

> b°’us (sour, unripe, wild grapes/berries,

# 946); > zag (peel/skins of grapes, seed, kernel, # 2293); > harsan (unripe grapes, # 3079); > ‘énab (grapes, cluster of grapes, # 6694); > peret (fallen grapes/berries, # 7261) Eugene Carpenter

2294 (zéd, proud, presumptuous),

> # 2326

2295 (zad6én, presumptuousness, insolence),

> # 2326

2296 (zeh, this), > Particles

2298 ANE.

ait ty

i

(zahab), nom. gold (# 2298).

The word occurs in Arab., dahab, OSA, dhb, Tigre zahab, and Aram. d*hab

(Zenjirli Inscription: zhb) (Kedar-Kopfstein, 32). Highly valued for its metallurgical and aesthetic qualities, gold, whether in its natural state or worked or alloyed with other metals, was in demand throughout the ANE to make ornaments, jewelry, coins, and casings for wooden or metal objects. It was used in gifts, tribute, and international trade and was also employed in medicine and magic (Kedar-Kopfstein, TDOT 4:35-36).

1075

DT # 2298) zahab, which occurs only in the singular, sometimes in the construct or with OT pronominal suffixes, is used 385x (HALAT; Kedar-Kopfstein, 32). A cognate root, shb, seems to be used in two passages (Lev 13:30, 32, 36, where it describes the yellow

color of a leper’s hair; and Ezra 8:27, where it refers to a fine bronze or copper as precious as gold). A precise definition of the various synonyms is difficult (ketem, paz, hariis, beser, and s‘gér), but the evidence suggests that these terms were used for stylistic reasons and not because of any technical distinctions (Kedar-Kopfstein, 35).

—

1. Two passages refer to gold in its raw state. Gen 2:11-12 eulogizes the gold of the land of Havilah, whose location is uncertain. In a hymn about the inaccessibility of wisdom (Job 28:1-28), human technological genius, though spectacularly successful when it comes to extracting precious minerals from the earth’s remote depths, is depicted as being powerless in the realm of divine knowledge (28:1, 6, H. Anderson, 248; May and Metzger, 638-39). Wisdom cannot be secured by the strenuous and hazardous means of mining material treasures; by these precious and exotic metals and stones themselves; or by any amount of human ingenuity, ability, courage, and persistence. However, according to v. 28, possibly a later addition, even though divine wisdom is beyond one’s grasp, human beings may attain a kind of practical wisdom through “‘the fear of the LORD,” i.e., dutiful devotion to God and devout service (Habel, 151; Bergant, 140-41; Gibson, 198; Janzen, 189; cf. Irwin, 402; MacKenzie and Mur-

phy, 481-82). Various techniques for producing and working gold were used in the ANE after the transition from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age (Kedar-Kopfstein, 35). Several grades of gold are noted (tahdr [pure]; t6b [good]; sagiir [refined, solid, see below]; parwayim [possibly a place-name that came to be used in the sense of a superlative for finest gold; see Williamson, 207-8]). Regrettably, our knowledge of ancient metallurgy

is at present insufficient to determine the characteristics of these refined products (see Dillard, 28). Many passages deal with the use of gold in the manufacture of jewelry and ornaments (cf. e.g., Exod 3:22; 11:2; 12:35; Job 42:11; Prov 11:22; 25:11-12; S of

Songs 1:11; Eccl 12:6). Several techniques were used to work gold, including hammering (e.g., Exod 25:18 [migsda]), hammering out (e.g., 39:3 [rgq‘]), beating (e.g., 1 Kgs 10:16 [Sahit]), and soldering (Isa 41:7 [debeq]). As Kedar-Kopfstein (37) has pointed out, the gold subjected to such methods was used in the form of gold leaf (Exod 39:3 [pahé hazzahab]) or drawn into gold thread for brocade (28:6, 15).

2. Gold was considered a precious metal and symbol of wealth (see Gen 13:2; 24:35; Num 22:18; 24:13; Deut 8:13; 17:17; Josh 22:8; 2 Sam 21:4; 1 Kgs 20:3, 5, 7; 22:48[49]; 2 Kgs 7:8; 20:13; 2 Chron 1:15; 8:18; 9:10, 21; Job 3:15; 28:17; 31:24; Ps 19:10[11}; 72:15; 119:72, 1275:Prov 22:1;Bce)] 2:8: Isa 2:7: 60-90: bzek 2] 22> aan

The precious metal was used in the manufacture of symbols of royal power, including a scepter (Esth 4:11), a crown (2 Sam 12:30; Esth 8:15; Zech 6:11), and overlay for the

throne (1 Kgs 10:18). However, gold can easily become the object of a misplaced confidence (Job 31:24). Worship of wealth is as great an iniquity as worship of false gods (31:24-28). Wealth may become a snare, a delusion, a mere consequence of rapacity (McKane, 566). Reputation is infinitely more valuable than wealth, and engaging personal qualities are incomparably better than silver or gold (Prov 22:1). Gold has the power to corrupt (e.g., Achan’s action, Josh 7). No amount of gold can avert destruction or afford protection when the wrath of God has been stirred (Lam 4:1; Ezek 7:19;

1076

371 (# 2298) Zeph 1:18). Gold cannot buy everything. No amount of gold can equal or purchase divine wisdom (Job 28:17; cf. 28:28). Devotion to the law of God, which bestows life,

wisdom, and joy, is infinitely more precious than vast quantities of the finest gold (Ps 19:10[11]; 119:72, 127). 3. Gold frequently figures in passages dealing with booty. There are many references to taking gold as spoil of war (Josh 7:21, 24; 22:8; 2 Sam 8:7; 1 Kgs 14:26 [par. 2 Chron 12:9]; 2 Kgs 14:14 [par. 2 Chron 25:24]; 24:13; 25:15 [par. Jer 52:19]; Ps 105:37; Ezek 38:13; Joel 3:5[4:5]; Dan 11:8). Sometimes, the gold (and other items)

taken as spoil by Israel was consecrated exclusively to Yahweh, either by choice (see 2 Sam 8:11; 1 Kgs 7:51 [par. 2 Chron 5:1]; cf. 1 Kgs 15:15) or by command (Josh 6:19, 24). Zech 14:14, which uses classical holy war traditions and is written in an apocalyptic style, announces that when all those nations oppressing Jerusalem are destroyed on the day of Yahweh, their wealth, including gold, will be collected as spoil (> hérem, ban, banned, # 3051).

4. Gold was not only exchanged for property (see 1 Chron 21:25, according to which David purchased the site of the projected temple for 600 shekels of gold) or traded for other goods that were in demand (Ezek 27:22). It was also used for gifts of one kind or another. According to those passages dealing with the spoliation of Egypt (Exod 3:22; 11:2; 12:35) the Egyptians, when requested by the Israelites at God’s command, gave costly gifts to their former slaves (probably jewelry, but, as Noth [1966, 93], Hyatt [138-39], and Durham

[147] point out, the general term k*/é may not refer

exclusively to jewelry). Possibly these items were donated as a friendly gesture, as the temporary loan of adornments for a religious feast, as provisions for God’s people so that they could manufacture the tabernacle and its furniture, as payment for services rendered, as compensation for ill treatment, as spoil rendered to conquerors in acknowledgment of defeat, or simply out of gratitude to be rid of those whose presence had caused such havoc in Egypt (see Stalker, 213; Childs, 175-77).

Items of gold were given as presents to Isaac’s future wife, Rebekah (Gen 24:22, 53a), either as a sign of an impending marriage proposal (Maher, 138) or as a grateful response to the girl’s cheerful readiness to provide refreshment (Westermann, 1985, 387). Gifts were also given to the family to cover the payment for the bride (Gen 24:53b). A gold chain, often conferred on Egyptian officials in recognition of eminent service, was among the symbols of authority said to have been given by Pharaoh to Joseph on the occasion of the latter’s investiture as grand vizier or prime minister of Egypt (Gen 41:42; Skinner, 1969, 469-70; von Rad, 377; Davidson, 247; Westermann,

1986, 94-95). Heads of state received precious gifts that sometimes included gold for a variety of reasons, such as: straightforward diplomacy (1 Kgs 10:2, 10, 25 [par. 2 Chron 9:1, 9, 24]); buying peace (2 Sam 8:10 [par. 1 Chron 18:10]); payment for ter-

ritory ceded in order to raise cash (1 Kgs 9:14); bribery to win allegiance and/or military support (1 Kgs 15:18-19; 2 Kgs 16:8); payment for medical treatment (2 Kgs 5:5 [see Montgomery and Gehman, 374; Jones, 415, who think that Naaman’s huge gift was for the Israelite king; however, others, e.g., Begg, 176; Nelson, 177-78, maintain

that it was for Elisha]); payment of tribute to a conquering army (2 Kgs 18:14; 23:35). Throughout the ANE, it was common to honor a god with donations of gold, silver, precious stones, and other expensive presents (cf., e.g., Dan 11:38). Costly gifts of gold were frequently dedicated to Yahweh and to his service (e.g., Exod 25:3; 35:5,

1077

Mt (# 2298) 22; 2 Sam 8:11 [par. 1 Chron 18:11]; 1 Kgs 7:51; 1 Chron 22:14; 29:2-5, 7; Ezra 2:69;

Neh 7:70-72[69-71]). In a passage describing a holy war against Midian (Num 31:1-54), wrought articles of gold plundered from the enemy were given to the high priest in support of the sanctuary to make atonement, presumably on account of ritual defilement by the dead (31:50-52) (May and Metzger, 206). If the precious ornaments and other objects referred to did not belong to the common stock and so were not subject to levies for priests and levites according to a fixed formula, then this gift of private booty would have been a voluntary offering of thanksgiving for protection and victory in battle (Dummelow,

119; Snaith, 1964, 267; Sturdy, 217; Budd, 332; Olson,

206). Such an offering may also have been made to appease the divine anger for having taken a census ([cf. Exod 30:11-16]; see Kennedy, 366; Wade, 228; Noth, 1968, 232), and/or for errors in the taking of spoil (Budd, 332).

A gift from the Philistines by way of reparation, which consisted of five golden tumors and five golden mice according to the number of the lords of the Philistines (1 Sam 6:4, 17; however, v. 18 records a much higher number of golden mice/rats), seems to have been informed by the psychology of sympathetic magic (cf. Bennett, 276; Caird, 906; Brockington, 320; Hertzberg, 58; Wevers, 1971a, 158; Payne, 289; May and Metzger, 338; Klein, 60). By driving from their territory the symbols of their

affliction, the Philistines would have hoped to rid themselves of the affliction itself. The spread of bubonic plague is usually attributed to a flea carried by rats, and the Philistines seem to have associated the tumor-creating disease afflicting them with rodents (probably rats; see NEB; REB; NIV; JB; May and Metzger, 338).

5. Gold was sometimes used in expensive building projects. Solomon is said to have used gold extensively in the construction of the temple and the royal palace. Lavish use is said to have been made of gold overlay in the construction of the temple and many of its furnishings (1 Kgs 6:20-22, 28, 30, 32, 35; cf. 2 Chron 3:4-10; 4:7-8,

20-22, which, though a shorter account of the building of the temple than that found in 1 Kgs, has an even greater reference to gold ornamentation [see Coggins, 156]). On the grounds that some of these references to gold plating in the temple are absent from LXX and that later descriptions of the temple and its contents make no mention of gold plating (cf. 2 Kgs 14:14; 16:17; 18:16), some scholars (e.g., Burney, cited by Jones, 169) argue that the references to gold plating in | Kgs 6:20b, 21, 22, 28, 30, 32b should be deleted as secondary. The claim that the whole of the inside of the temple, both outer house and inner shrine, was covered with gold (1 Kgs 6:20-22) has been variously understood. Some think it is the result of the embroidering of tradition. De Vries (96; cf. Skinner, 1893, 112-13; Snaith, 1954, 58; Jones, 169, 171; Montgomery and Gehman, 152, 156; Nel-

son, 43-46) argues that the picture of “Jerusalem the Golden” is the figment of a later author’s imagination. Others are of the opinion that the reference in vv. 20-22 is to a thin gilding with liquid gold (Gray, 1970, 170; cf. Snaith, 1954, 58). Among those passages describing the opulence of the Solomonic temple, 1 Kgs 7:48-50 is thought by some to constitute a late expansion based on the Exodus account of the tabernacle (Montgomery and Gehman, 183; Jones, 190-91; McCarter, 1988b, 311; cf. Skinner, 1893, 136-37; Snaith, 1954, 67; Wevers, 1971b, 187; LaSor, 331; de Vries, 11%); Objects located in the nave (the incense altar, the table for the bread of the Presence, the lampstands, the flowers, lamps, tongs, cups, snuffers, basins, dishes, firepans, and

1078

It # 2298) door sockets) were all made from gold, i.e., probably overlaid with gold (Mauchline, 342; cf. Montgomery and Gehman, 183). As Nelson (46) points out, the repetition of the words “fine/pure gold ... gold’”.at the end of each v. and half-v. in 1 Kgs 7:48-50 creates the impression of limitless wealth. Gold also figures prominently in 1 Chron 28:11-19, which recounts how David gave Solomon the final plans for the construction of the temple and its furnishings. Another significant passage that is dominated by the word gold (de Vries, 138) is 1 Kgs 9:26-10:29, which records that many of Solomon’s own possessions were made of fine gold (cf. 2 Chron 9:13-21). For example, he owned 500 shields of beaten gold, zahab Sahit, (1 Kgs 10:16-17). These would have been either overlaid (see Dummelow, 219) or inlaid (see LaSor, 334) with gold. Solomon is also reported to have made a great ivory throne overlaid (or inlaid; see Gray, 1970, 265; LaSor, 335) with

the finest gold (zahab miipaz, v. 18). The implements used in the Palace of the Forest of Lebanon were of specially refined, or solid gold (zahab sagiir, v. 21). Even the king’s drinking vessels are said to have been made of gold (v. 21). How was the gold for Solomon’s building projects obtained? According to 1 Chron 29:1-9, which is concerned to show that the temple was basically David’s achievement (see North, 371), David made a huge gift by dedicating his own private treasure to this building project and, following his generous example, the community leaders made substantial contributions of gold and other precious metals and stones. Much of the gold used in the construction process was obtained through the taxation of caravans and through profits from state monopolies or franchises (1 Kgs 10:15; see de Vries, 139). Some was acquired by ceding twenty cities in Galilee to Hiram, king of Tyre, who paid 120 talents (about 4.5 tons) of gold (9:10-14). According to 9:26-28 (cf. 10:11), Solomon built a fleet of ships, and the sailors manning the vessels traveled to Ophir (location unknown, but possibly in southern Arabia; see Dummelow, 218; Elmslie, 164; Snaith, 1954, 95-96; Mauchline, 342-43; Gray, 1970, 256; McCarter, 1988b, 313; cf. Montgomery and Gehman, 212; Jones, 220) and brought back 420 tal-

ents (over 15 tons) of gold to their king (the gold of Ophir was renowned and highly prized; see 1 Chron 29:4; Job 28:16; Ps 45:9[10]; Isa 13:12). In one year Solomon received 666 talents of gold (1 Kgs 10:14). While some scholars (e.g., Millard;

Kitchen) argue that the gold attributed in the OT to Solomon is entirely consistent, both in use and extent, with what archaeologists have discovered about the ANE, many others (e.g., Montgomery and Gehman, 205, 211, 219, 221, 225; Wevers, 1971b, 189; Walsh, 167-68; cf. LaSor, 334; Gray 1970, 262, 264; Jones, 212, 214, 221, 227-28)

think that the description of Solomon’s unparalleled wealth (and wisdom; see 4:29-34[5:9-14]) and of the fabulous amounts of gold used in his building projects is greatly exaggerated. 6. Gold was frequently used in the manufacture of religious articles. There are numerous references to the use of gold in the construction and furnishing of the tabernacle in Exod 25-40, a section that is as theologically important as it is technically detailed. To emphasize both the splendor of the structure and its furnishings and the splendid generosity of Israel, Exod 38:24, thought by many to be a late addition (see

Driver, 392; Rylaarsdam, 1091; Davies, 1967, 251; Noth, 1966, 278-79; Stalker, 239; Gray, 1971, 67), records that all the gold that was given in the voluntary offering for the construction of the sanctuary amounted to 39 talents and 730 shekels, i.e.,

1079

IIIT (# 2298) approximately 2,210 pounds (Sellers, 832-33; Durham, 490) or, using the different equivalence favored by Scott (38-39), 1,800 to 1,900 pounds (cf. Durham, 490; Hyatt, 331; Childs, 637). Craftsmen, such as Bezalel, the master artisan of the dwelling, were both divinely selected and empowered (Exod 35:32; Clifford, 58). Bezalel was

equipped by the Spirit of God with exceptional creative ability to design and manufacture works of the highest craftsmanship, including working (‘sh; > #6913) in gold (the same vb. is used of working in gold in Exod 28:6; 31:4; 1 Chron 22:15-16; 2 Chron 2:7[6], 14[13]). The most sacred object in the dwelling was the golden plate

covering the top of the box in which were stored the two tablets of law. Upon this plate, kapporet (> #4114), God was enthroned invisibly; here he met with the people and spoke to them through the mediation of Moses (Exod 25:10-22). An acacia incense altar was overlaid with pure gold (Exod 30:1, 3; Num 4:11; cf. Lev 4:7), although this is thought by many not to have existed before the Exile (cf., e.g., Snaith, 1967, 196; Budd, 49). Among the precious dedication gifts offered by each of the twelve tribes on each of twelve consecutive days following the setting up of the tabernacle by Moses was a golden dish weighing ten shekels, i.e., just under 5 oz. Troy weight (Num 7:14, 20, 26, 32, 38, 44, 50, 56, 62, 68, 74, 80, 84, 86). The fact that each tribe submitted exactly the same amount and type of offering underscores the unanimous support for the tabernacle and its priesthood and a shared commitment for the worship of Yahweh (Olson, 187-88). The craftsmanship of the lampstand, the menorah, which was hammered work of pure gold, migsd, is described in Exod 25:31-40; 37:17-24; Num 8:4 (cf. Exod

27:21; Lev 24:2-4). The fact that it was made all of one piece suggests that sheet gold, or gold foil, was used and shaped by a rubbing process over a wooden form (Meyers 1976,

587;

1992,

142).

The

lampstand,

simply

functional,

may,

given

its

seven-branches, here represent the sun, moon, and the five planets known to antiquity (see Snaith, 1964, 257), the life-giving power and light of God’s presence (Rylaarsdam, 1026; Cole, 193; Durham, 364-65; Meyers, 1976, 587; 1992, 142; Olson, 188),

the people of Israel shining with divine truth (Driver, 261), or perfection (Cole, 193), or it may have symbolized the fertility that comes from God (Clifford, 57), possibly in the form of a sacred tree (McCarter, 1988a, 151; Clifford, 57; cf. Meyers, 1976, 587;

1992, 142; Durham, 364). Gold also figured prominently in the regalia of priests (Exod 28). Thus, for example, a plate of pure gold engraved with the words “HOLY TO THE LORD” was fastened

to the front

of the high priest’s

turban

(Exod

28:36;

cf. Lev

8:9; Ezek

21:26[21:31]; Zech 3:5). Its primary purpose was the apotropaic one of removing, compensating for, or protecting against the sin of those offering sacrifices (Exod 28:38; Noth, 1966, 225; Davies, 1967, 216; Clements,

183; Clifford, 57), but it may

also have functioned to sanctify the offerings that were brought (McCarter, 1988a, 152), or else to signify that the wearer (and through him all Israel) belonged to Yahweh or was specially consecrated to his service (Rylaarsdam, 1044; cf. Davies, 1967, 216; Hyatt, 285; Cole, 202; Durham, 388-90).

Other references to the use of gold in the manufacture of religious utensils include 2 Chron 24:14 and Ezra 1:2-11; 8:24-30. Ezra 1:2-11 refers both to the gifts (including gold) donated for the purpose of refurnishing the temple in Jerusalem and to the restitution by Cyrus of the sacred vessels of gold (and silver) that had been

1080

Tt # 2298) confiscated by Nebuchadnezzar. According to 2 Kgs 24:13, these vessels had been cut in pieces by the Babylonian conqueror of Jerusalem when he plundered the temple. 7. Gold was used in the manufacture of idols and other objects that were venerated. Israel’s neighbors had idols of wood, stone, silver, and gold (cf. Deut 29:17[16],

where these items are contemptuously referred to by the terms Siggiiséhem, their abominations, and gilluléhem, their objects of dung). Idols may be lovingly made and lavishly decorated with gold (cf. Isa 40:19; 46:6; Jer 10:4, 9; Hab 2:19; Ps 115:4; 135:15) and silver, but, being made by human hands, they are motionless, mute, vacuous, and

without life or power.

To worship them is both absurd and futile (Ps 115:3-8;

135:15-18; Isa 40:12-31; 46:1-13; Jer 10:1-16; Hab 2:18-19).

Yahweh worshipers were expressly forbidden to make gods of silver or gold (Exod 20:23); commanded to destroy by fire the graven images of the pre-Israelite inhabitants of Canaan and not to covet the silver and gold on them (Deut 7:25); and frequently warned that idolatry was an insidious and contagious danger that, if succumbed to, would lead to divine anger, curse/rejection, deprivation, dispersion, and exile (see Davies, 1964, 281; Stuart, 54). Gideon made “an ephod,” i.e., some kind of image (see Moore, 232; Dummelow, 165; Strahan, 264; Schofield, 310; May and

Metzger, 305), from the golden earrings included in the rich booty taken from the Midianites (Judg 8:24-27). This object, though it may well have been intended originally for divining the will of Yahweh (cf. e.g., Gray, 1967, 314), not only seduced Gideon and his family into apostasy, but became the object of an idolatrous cult for “all Israel” (v. 27b, which, however, some scholars [Moore, 231, 233; Cooke, 97; Smith, 143; cf. Strahan, 264; Gray, 1967, 314] regard as an editorial addition).

Hosea complains that faithless Israel has abused Yahweh’s gift of gold by using it either to the service of Baal or to make an image of Baal (Hos 2:8[10]; cf. 8:4-6; 13:2; see Pusey, 16; margin of RV; Mays, 35, 41; Wolff, 31, 37; Andersen and Freed-

man, 242-44). Those who have made idols of silver and gold are warned that they have done so to their own destruction (8:4b). Moreover, the calf of Samaria, a false god (cf. Deut 32:21) made by human hands, will be reduced to splinters (Hos 8:6) or will go up in flames (JB; RSV, n.; NRSV, n.; Stuart, 126, 128, 133). The reference here is proba-

bly to the calf at the royal sanctuary of Bethel (Mays, 118; Wolff, 140; McCarthy and Murphy, 225) or to the calves of Bethel and Dan (Pusey, 52; cf. Andersen and Freedman, 492-93), which was/were considered Samaria’s own.

When Yahweh manifests his mighty presence among the Israelites, the idols of silver and gold will be thrown away in disgust and terror because of their impotence to help those who manufactured and worshiped them (Isa 2:20; cf. 31:7; Ezek 7:19; Zeph 1:18; see Dummelow, 415; Kelley, 197). When Yahweh intervenes in graciousness

and mercy to guide his people after they have been given the bread of adversity and the water of affliction, they will return to their allegiance to Yahweh, repudiate idolatry, and defile and scatter their silver-covered graven images and gold-plated molten images (Isa 30:22). (> Idolatry: Theology) Even at Sinai, impatient and apostate Israel violated the second commandment (Exod 20:4-6) and annulled the covenant made in chs. 19-24. Aaron, succumbing to pressure from the rebellious people, who demanded “gods who will go before us” (32:1), fashioned a molten calf from their gold earrings (on the difficult syntactical and exegetical problems raised by v. 4a, see Childs, 555-56). Only after Moses’ successful

1081

It (# 2298) intervention was reconciliation between God and people effected: Yahweh renounced his intent to annihilate the people (32:7-14, 30-34), agreed to accompany them on their journey (ch. 33), and restored the covenant relationship with them (ch. 34). Whereas

Aaron was too weak to restrain the flagrantly disobedient people, Moses was a sufficiently robust mediator and selfless intercessor to placate and restrain even God (Childs, 570). The reference to Moses’ burning the golden calf with fire (Exod 32:20) has created difficulty. Some (e.g., Wolff, 140; Clements, 208) think that the object that was

burned was either a wooden pedestal or a wooden core plated with gold (for two alternative interpretations, see Hyatt, 308). Some scholars (e.g., Perdue) have argued that

vv. 4, 20, and 24 lack uniformity and that this is an example of the kind of inconsistencies that indicate the chapter’s composite nature. However, others (e.g., Loewenstamm, 1962; 1967; Fensham) have drawn attention to a Ugar. parallel to the burning, grinding, and scattering of a golden calf. A pericope in the Baal Myth describes the mutilation and obliteration of Mot by Anat in which three similar vbs. occur in the same order (the translation of some of the vbs. in the Ugar. text is, however, a contentious issue; see Perdue, 240-41; Loewenstamm,

1975, 339-41). Important lessons are

drawn by tannaitic exegeses of the golden calf episode: When Israel commits serious sin, it merits the severest punishment, even loss of its highly elevated status; but genu-

ine repentance releases the power of atonement, which enables the people to receive the forgiveness of God (Mandelbaum). In their response to the calf manufactured by Aaron—“These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt!” (Exod 32:4, 8)—the people use the same words with which Jeroboam I is reported to have led the northern kingdom into apostasy when he introduced one calf of gold at Bethel and another at Dan (1 Kgs 12:28-29) and elevated these shrines to national significance in an attempt to counteract the politicoreligious influence of Jerusalem. These objects probably consisted (as Keil [198], Jones [258], and others suggest) of kernels of wood covered with gold plate. Given that bulls were symbols of male fertility among the Canaanites, the effect if not the intention of Jeroboam’s installation of the golden calves in these ancient shrines was to confuse and mislead (de Vries, 162). Scholars disagree about the relationship between Exod 32 and 1 Kgs 12, and about whether the bulls referred to in these narratives were

understood to be images of Yahweh himself or pedestals for the invisibly present God. However, in both passages, the conflict seems to be about legitimate and unacceptable modes and symbols of worship (McCarter, 1988a, 154). The attempt to worship Yahweh by means he has prohibited is more destructive and alienating than a straightforward shift of allegiance to other or foreign gods (Durham, 421-22). 8. The process by which gold is refined is sometimes used metaphorically. The exacting nature of God’s testing (bhn, # 1043) of human hearts is likened to the way refiners separate gold from impurities in a furnace (Prov 17:3; McCreesh, 458). Yahweh tries human motives, separates the spurious from the genuine, and ascertains the

real character of human beings as opposed to what they profess to be (McKane, 511). This proverb may refer solely to God’s knowledge of character (Dentan, 313), without involving the idea of suffering as a purifying discipline, which is found in other, mainly prophetic, texts, in which Yahweh is likened to a refiner or to a refiner’s fire (e.g., Job 23:10 [though see Peake, 221; Andersen, 210]; Ps 66:10; Isa 1:25; 48:10; Jer

1082

3M (# 2298) 6:29; Zech 13:9; Mal 3:2-3; Sir 2:5; a number of passages [including, e.g., Jer 17:10; Ps 17:3] use the same figure of a refiner testing metals, but not necessarily for the purpose of purifying by means of suffering). In Prov 27:21, the process by which gold is refined is likened to the rigorous and reliable processes used by a community to determine an individual’s reputation (McKane, 608; other, less likely, interpretations are listed by Martin, 175). P-B

The vb. zhb, glitter, is found and the ho. part. miiz‘hab, miiz‘hebet is used with

the meaning gold-embroidered. The nom. forms zahab, gold, gold coin, and zahabi, goldsmith, jeweler, also occur (Jastrow 1:381). Gold:

~ ’6pir (gold of Ophir, # 234); > beser I (gold ore, # 1309); > zahab (gold, # 2298);

> hari I (gold, #3021); > ketem (gold, #4188); > sagir (pure gold, # 6034); > paz (pure gold, # 7058); > srp (melt, smelt, refine, #7671)

BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 4:32-40; TWOT 1:236-37; F. I. Andersen, Job: An Introduction and Commentary, NCBC, 1976; F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Hosea: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB, 1980; H. Anderson, “The Book of Job,” in The Interpreter’s One-Volume

Commentary on the Bible, 1971, 238-52; C. T. Begg (and J. T. Walsh), “1-2 Kings,” in NJBC, 1990, 160-85; W. H. Bennett, “I and II Samuel,” in Peake, 1920, 273-93; D. Bergant, Job, Eccle-

siastes, 1982; L. H. Brockington, “I and II Samuel,” in Peake, 1964, 318-37; W. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 1990; P. J. Budd, Numbers, WBC,

1984; G. B. Caird, “The First and

Second Books of Samuel: Introduction and Exegesis,” in JB, 1953, 2:853-1176; A. F. Campbell (and J. W. Flanagan), “1-2 Samuel,” in NJBC, 1990, 145-59; B. S. Childs, Exodus: A Commentary, OTL, 1974; R. E. Clements, Exodus, 1972; R. J. Clifford, “Exodus,” in NJBC, 1990, 44-60; R. J. Coggins, The First and Second Books of the Chronicles, 1976; R. L. Cohn, “1 Samuel,” in

HBC, 1988, 268-86; A. Cole, Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC, 1973; M. D. Coogan, “Joshua,” in NJBC, 1990, 110-31; G. A. Cooke, The Book of Judges, ICC, 1918; E. L.

Curtis and A. A. Madsen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles, 1965; R. Davidson, Genesis 12-50, 1979; G. H. Davies, “Deuteronomy,” in Peake, 1964, 269-84; idem, Exodus: Introduction and Commentary, 1967; R. C. Dentan, “The Proverbs,” in The Interpreter’s One-Volume

Commentary on the Bible, 1971, 304-19; R. B. Dillard, 2 Chronicles, WBC, 1987; S. R. Driver, The Book of Exodus, 1953; J. R. Dummelow, ed., A Commentary on the Holy Bible, 1909; J. I. Durham, Exodus, 1987; W. A. L. Elmslie, The Books of Chronicles,

1916; F. C. Fensham, “The Burning of the Golden Calf and Ugarit,” JEJ 16, 1966, 191-93; J. W. Flanagan (and A. F. Campbell), “1-2 Samuel,” in NJBC, 1990, 145-59; J. C. L. Gibson, Job, 1985; J. Gray, Joshua, Judges and Ruth, NCBC, 1967; idem, J & II Kings: A Commentary, OTL, 2d, rev. ed., 1970; idem, “The Book of Exodus,” in The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, 1971, 33-67; N. C. Habel, The Book of Job, OTL, 1975; H. W. Hertzberg, J & I Samuel: A Commentary, 1974; J. P. Hyatt, Exodus, NCBC, 1971; W. A. Irwin, “Job,” in Peake, 1964, 391-408; J. G. Janzen, Job, 1985; G. H. Jones, J and 2 Kings. Volume 1: 1 Kings 1-16:34, NCBC, 1984; C. F. Keil, The Books of the Kings, KD, 2d ed., ca. 1872; P. H. Kelley, “Isaiah,” in BBC, 1972, 5:149-374; A. R. S. Kennedy, Leviticus and Numbers, 1910; K. A. Kitchen, “Where Did Solomon’s Gold Go?” BARev 15, 1989, 30; R. W. Klein, 7 Samuel, WBC, 1983; W. S.

LaSor, “1 and 2 Kings,” in NBC, 1972, 320-68; S. E. Loewenstamm, “The Ugaritic Fertility Myth: The Result of a Mistranslation,” JEJ 12, 1962, 87-88; idem, “The Making and Destruction of the Golden Calf,” Bib 48, 1967, 481-90; idem, “The Making and Destruction of the Golden

1083

Ent (# 2299) Calf—A Rejoinder,” Bib 56, 1975, 330-43; P. K. McCarter, “Exodus,” in HBC, 1988, 129-56 (1988a); idem, “1 Kings,” in HBC, 1988, 305-22 (1988b); D. J. McCarthy and R. E. Murphy,

“Hosea,” in NJBC, 1990, 217-28; T. P. McCreesh, “Proverbs,” in NJBC, 1990, 453-61; W. McKane, Proverbs:

NJBC,

A New Approach, OTL, 1970; R. A. F. MacKenzie and R. E. Murphy, “Job,” in

1990, 466-88; M. Maher, Genesis, 1982; I. J. Mandelbaum,

“Tannaitic Exegesis of the

Golden Calf Episode,” in A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History, 1990, 207-23; G. C. Martin, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs, 1908, J. Mauchline, “I and II Kings,” in Peake, 1964, 338-56; H. G. May and B. M. Metzger, eds., The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1973; J. L. Mays, Hosea: A Commentary, OTL, 1969; C. L. Meyers, “Menorah,” in IDB, sup. vol., 1976, 586-87; idem, “Lampstand,” in ABD, 1992, 4:141-43; A.

R. Millard, “Does the Bible Exaggerate King Solomon’s Golden Wealth?” BARev 15, 1989, 20-29, 31, 34; J. A. Montgomery and H. S. Gehman,A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings, ICC, 1967; G. F. Moore, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges, 2d ed., 1918; J. M. Myers, J Chronicles: Introduction,Translation, and Notes, 1973; R. D. Nelson, First and Second Kings, 1987; R. North, “The Chronicler: 1-2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah,” in NJBC, 1990, 362-98; M. Noth, Exodus: A Commentary, 1966; idem, Numbers: A Commentary, 1968; D. T. Olson, “Numbers,” in HBC, 1988, 182-208; D. F. Payne, “1 and 2 Samuel,” in NBC, 1972, 284-319; A. S. Peake, Job, 1905; L. G. Perdue, “The Making and Destruction of the

Golden Calf—A Reply,” Bib 54, 1973, 237-46; E. B. Pusey, The Minor Prophets With a Commentary, 1891; G. von Rad, Genesis:

A Commentary,

1972; J. C. Rylaarsdam, “The Book of

Exodus: Introduction and Exegesis,” JB, 1952, 1:831-1099; J. N. Schofield, “Judges,” in Peake, 1964, 304-15; R. B. Y. Scott, “Weights, Measures, Money and Time,” in Peake, 1964, 37-41; O. R. Sellers, “Weights and Measures,” in IDB 4:828-39; J. Skinner, J & II Kings, 1893; idem, A

Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, 2d ed., 1969; R. H. Smith, “The Book of Judges,” in The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, 1971, 135-49; N. H. Snaith, “The First and Second Books of Kings: Introduction and Exegesis,” JB, 1954, 3:1-338; idem, “Numbers,” in Peake, 1964, 254-68; idem, Leviticus and Numbers, 1967; D. M. G. Stalker,

“Exodus,” in Peake, 1964, 208-40; J. Strahan, “Judges,” in Peake, 1920, 256-70; D. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, WBC, 1987; J. Sturdy, Numbers, 1976; S. J. de Vries, ] Kings, WBC, 1985; G. W.

Wade, “Numbers,” in Peake, 1920, 213-30; J. T. Walsh (and C. T. Begg), “1-2 Kings,” in JBC, 1990, 160-85; C. Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A Commentary, 1985; idem, Genesis 37-50: A Commentary, 1986; J. W. Wevers, “The First Book of Samuel,” in The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, 1971, 155-69 (1971a); idem, “The First Book of the Kings,” in The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, 1971, 181-96 (1971b); H. G. M. Williamson, J and 2 Chronicles, NCBC, 1982; H. W. Wolff, Hosea, Hermeneia, 1974.

Robin Wakely

wee ANE

eae

Ont (zhm), pi. make s.t. loathsome (hapleg., Job

33:20, # 2299).

Syr. zhm, be greasy, dirty, smell like bad fat; Jewish Aram. zhm, be dirty, to

stink (pa‘el, to create aversion, to sicken); Arab. zahima, to be dirty, to stink.

OT

The vb. zhm occurs once in the MT (Job 33:20), where Job declares that his

physical affliction has caused him to despise food. The Sem. cognates’ meaning (be dirty, be smelly) occasions the nuance of disgust or repulsion. The pi. form signifies a

1084

“WIT (# 2302) declarative-estimative sense (“he thought it....”; cf. JBHS, 400). Since Job’s pain robbed him of the possibility of enjoying the pleasures offered by food, he loathed food. The suffixed form, w‘zih“mattii, is unique and has caused various commentators

to suggest zih*md as an emendation (e.g., Dhorme, 498). Since the object of the vb. is only one word removed, an anticipatory suffix seems unnecessary (e.g., “his being is disgusted by it, by bread’’). Gordis (376) regards the suffix as an indirect object (i.e., an ethical dative): “his soul loathes food for itself.” Several scholars suggest that zim also occurs in Job 6:7b (replacing MT hémmda [“they”] with zhmh; e.g., Clines,

159; Hartley, 131, n. 8; Rowley, 69; Smick, 903;

Dhorme, 80). The juxtaposition of zhm and “food” in Job 33:20 and the nearly identical writing of the Paleo-Heb. letters yod and zayin (the word preceding hémmd ends with yod in certain historical periods [Smick, 903]), supports this suggestion. Consequently, this line could be translated, “They are like food that is loathsome to me” (NRSV). P-B In Mish. Heb., zim means to be offensive because of smell or filth (q.); to make something smell (pi., to repel vermin) or to declare unfit for cultic service; to become unfit through offensiveness (hi.); to sicken (pa‘el), and to empty the bowels or become offensive (ithpe‘el) (Jastrow, 382). Contempt, disdain, disgust, loathing: > bwz (show contempt for, #996); — bzh (be contemptible, think lightly of, despise, # 1022); > bhl (become tired of, disdain, # 1041); > g‘I (abhor, be defiled, fail, # 1718); > zhm (make s.t. loathsome, # 2299); > zwr III (be offensive, # 2320); ~ zil I (be frivolous, be despised, #2361); > znh II (feel a dislike for, # 2389); > zara’ (sickness, nausea, #2426); — hnn II (be stinking, loathsome, #2859); > yq‘ (turn aside, # 3697); > nq‘ (disengage, # 5936); > qwt (feel disgust, #7752); > qll (be slight, swift, appear trifling, treat with contempt, #7837); > swt II (slight, despise, # 8764); > Sqs (make o.s. detestable, # 9210); > t‘b (be detestable, be loathed, loathe, abhor, # 9493) BIBLIOGRAPHY

D. Clines, Job 1-20, 1989; E. Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job, 1967; R. Gordis, The Book of Job, 1978; F. E. Greenspahn, Hapax Legomena in Biblical Hebrew, 1984; J. Hartley,

The Book of Job, NICOT, 4:843-1060.

1988; H. Rowley, Job, 1970; E. Smick, “Job,” in EBC,

1988,

Michael A. Grisanti

2302

saya

“Wit (zhr IL), ni. be warned; hi. warn (# 2302).

ANE Syr. z‘har, be clear, bright, take heed, warn, shine brightly; BAram. shine, look out, guard, explain, caution, take heed, be warned.

OT

‘har,

1. In ni. zhr means “be warned” (Ezek 33:6); most often it means “take warn-

ing” (3:21; 33:4-5). According to Ps 19:11[12], God’s servant takes warning from the ordinances God has given. The hi. means “to warn.” God gave a man of God, a prophet, most likely Elisha, insight into the movements of the Syrian army. That prophet in turn warned the king about the movement of the Syrian army, and this saved the king of Israel from significant losses on several occasions (2 Kgs 6:10). 2. Fifteen out of twenty-one occurrences of this root come in two passages in Ezekiel in which God delineates Ezekiel’s prophetic role (3:17-21; 33:3-9). As a

1085

=f (# 2307) watchman Ezekiel is to faithfully deliver the message that God has given him in order to warn the wicked of the danger they are about to face. The prophet executes his responsibility by warning the people. If any of the people suffer harm, Ezekiel, nevertheless, is guiltless, because he has fulfilled his obligation as watchman. But if he fails: to warn them of God’s planned punishment and someone dies unrepentant, God will hold him responsible for that death. The prophet has a greater opportunity to bring about change between God and his people than a watchman, for on hearing the intended punishment the people have an opportunity to repent and thus move God to turn from executing the punishment. 3. When Jehoshaphat appointed new judges at Jerusalem, he instructed them to warn the people who brought cases before the court about matters of the law, lest they incur guilt before Yahweh (2 Chron 19:10). Perhaps this text sheds light on an unusual usage of this root in Exod 18:20. Jethro offers Moses a program on how to alleviate the congestion of cases that come before him as judge. Under the reform one of Moses’ duties is to teach (zhr) the Israelites about the statues and the law. The translation of

zhr as “teach,” however, presents a double anomaly; it is the only usage of zhr in the Pentateuch and the only biblical reference where the context favors the meaning “instruct.” If this word comes from zhr II, the meaning may be something like “enjoin” on them (NJPSV). The point is that Moses is to lead the people to understand that they are now bound by the statutes; this emphasis may be due to the fact that it is Moses’ father-in-law, a Midianite, who is offering this advice. Otherwise this word in this text comes from a root other than zhr II. 4. In a few passages English translators render this root a little lighter than “warn,” 1.e., “be careful, be advised.” Qohelet cautions the young student about the

mass of books that are available (Eccl 12:12); nevertheless, “warn” is appropriate here. Earlier Qohelet speaks about an old and foolish king who will no longer accept any counsel or warning (4:13). Warning, being stronger than counsel, pictures more sharply this king’s deafness to any advice, even advice intended to prevent him from encountering harm. The Persian king uses this term as a mild, but definite, warning that his servants are not to act negligently in the matter at hand (Ezra 4:22 [Aram.]). Given that this term occurs in a letter sent by one of the most powerful totalitarian monarchs, the nuance warn is present in the term.

P-B_—

zhr IL is attested once in Sir 35:22, but not at Qumran.

Rebuke, reproof, shame, threat: > g‘r (roar, shout, bellow, cry out, rebuke, reprimand, #1721); > Att (overwhelm with reproach, #2254); > zhr II (be warned, warn, #2302); > hrp

II (taunt, mock, insult, defy, #3070); reprove, #3519);

— ykh (dispute, reason together, prove, judge, rule,

> khh II (rebuke, # 3909)

BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 4:41-46.

John E. Hartley

es

=

21 (zwb), q. flow (# 2307); 34t (zdb), nom. discharge (# 2308).

1086

=} (# 2307) co

a ee ee

Ls

Ee

a

ANE Sem. cognates are attested in Akk. zabu, dissolve, ooze; Syr. dwb, flow out; and in Arab. daba.

OT 1. There are two major usages of zwb. One occurs for the first time in Exod 3:8, where it describes the Promised Land of Canaan as a land “flowing with milk and honey.” This expression appears some 15x in the Pent. (Exod 13:5; Lev 20:24; Num 14:8; Deut 6:3) and 5x elsewhere in BH (Josh 5:6; Jer 11:5; 32:22; Ezek 20:6, 15; cf.

also Sir 46:8). It describes the agricultural and pastoral abundance of the land of Canaan. It is particularly appropriate to the highlands, where Israel first settled, with their orchards for the production of date honey and their grazing lands for cattle and goat herds. Cf. the description in the early second millennium Egyptian text of Sinuhe’s visit to Canaan and the land of Yaa: “Plentiful was its honey.... There was no limit to any (kind of) cattle” (ANET,

19b). (> halab, milk, #2692;

> d°bas, honey,

# 1831) 2. The second major usage of zwb is its description of bodily discharges. It occurs in the context of a curse (2 Sam 3:29), in reference to those who are to be sent

away from the camp (Num 5:2), and in reference to any descendant of Aaron who has such a discharge (Lev 22:4). These references should be understood in light of its usages in Lev 15. There it appears 13x as a vb. and 10x as the nom. z6b. Verses 19-24 describe a woman’s menstrual discharge of blood and the seven-day period of uncleanness associated with it. Verse 25 mentions a discharge of blood outside of menstruation and defines a period of uncleanness equal to the time of this discharge. The discharge of men that causes uncleanness is detailed in Lev 15:2-15. This is generally agreed to describe a discharge of unspecified fluid from the male sex organ, defined as basar, flesh (> # 1414). This term is used to describe what flows from the

male organ in vv. 2-3 as well as the female organ in v. 19. While most would define this as a sexually communicated disease such as gonorrhea (Wenham, 217-18), Kinnier

Wilson objects, arguing that venereal disease is not attested in the ANE. On the basis of the cuneiform evidence and that of paleobotanical studies, he suggests an identification with the disease bilharzia (or schistosomiasis). This disease is prevalent through-

out the modern Middle East. It is caused by a parasite that infects the urinary tract and is associated with hematuria and “stones” (Kinnier Wilson, 357-58; cf. also Levine,

92-93). 3. Of the other occurrences, two describe the wilderness wanderings and the way in which water flowed from a rock after it was split open (Ps 78:20; 105:41). These texts may remember the events of Num 20:11, although the vb. describing the flow of waters from the rock there is wayyés°’a (‘‘and [waters] came out”). A similar referent is envisioned in the New Exodus described in Isa 48:21. There zwb is used to describe God’s provision of water from a rock in the wilderness. The usage in Jer 49:4 of ba“maqim zab, valleys so fruitful, is more difficult. The question is how to understand the particle zab? The LXX (30:20) omits it completely (cf. Carroll, 799). If the MT is a conflate (Janzen, 20), then Holladay’s recon-

struction is possible: “of your ebbing strength” (b*‘imgék hazzab, 366). Holladay assumes that the k and h were misread as y and m in the paleo-Heb. script. He follows Dahood (166-67), who understands ‘mq to take the Ugar. meaning, “strength.” He translates, “Why boast of your strength, your ebbing strength?” A second solution is found in Duhm (353). He divides (zb), so that the first letter (z) represents zeh, this, and

1087

m1 (#2312) the second letter (b) serves as a preposition before ‘imgék, i.e., “that is, in your valley.” Whichever solution is followed, the zab from the root zwb is omitted from the text.

P-B_ In the Damascus Rule 5.7 the nom. is used to refer to those who lie with a woman who sees “the blood of her discharge (zwb).” The forms zwb and mzwbw occur in fragments of the purification ritual 4Q512 x.1, xi.2. 11QT xlv.15 also mentions the nom., with reference to a man who “purifies [himself] from his discharge (mzwb).” As in Leviticus, this person is to allow seven days for purification. Dripping, flowing, trickling:

> ’égel (drop, # 103); > dlp I (drip, # 1940);

> zwb (flow,

# 2307); > trd (continuous dripping, # 3265); > mar II (drop, # 5254); > ngr (flow, gush forth, pour out, #5599); > nzl (flow, trickle, #5688); ~ ntp (drip, pour, #5752); > ‘rp I (drip, # 6903); > pkh (trickle, # 7096); > rwayd (overflow, #8122); > ryr (flow, #8201); > rss I (moisten, # 8272); > r‘p (drip, flow, rain, # 8319) Disease—plague: ~~ deber I (bubonic plague, #1822); — fhorim (plague, #3224);

> maggépa (plague, #4487); > nega‘ (plague, affliction, #5596); — resep I (pestilence, # 8404); > sr‘ (suffer from skin disease, # 7665). For related entries > hlh I (become weak, tired, ill, #2703); > Plagues: Theology Uncleanness, defilement, pollution: > g’/ II (be defiled, desecrate, stain, # 1458); > hnp I (be godless, be defiled, #2866); — tm’ (be/come ceremonially unclean, defile o.s., desecrate, # 3237); > piggil (unclean meat, # 7002) BIBLIOGRAPHY

R. P. Carroll, Jeremiah:

A Commentary, OTL, 1986; M. Dahood, “The Value of Ugaritic for

Textual Criticism,” Bib 40, 1959, 164-68; B. Duhm, Das Buch Jeremia, 1903; W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah 2, Hermenia, 1989; J. G. Janzen, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah, HSM 6, 1973; J. V. Kinnier Wilson, “Medicine in the Land and Times of the Old Testament,” 337-65 in T. Ishida, ed., Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays, 1982; B. Levine, Leviticus: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation, Commentary, The JPS Torah Com-

mentary, 1989; G. J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT, 1979. Richard S. Hess

2308 (z6b, discharge), > #2307

23h2 OT

ny

Mil (zawit), nom. corner (# 2312).

As the “corners of the altar” (Zech 9:15) were full of blood when sacrifices

were given to God, so he will fill his people with joy and thanksgiving when he gives them victory over their enemies. The only other occurrence is a wish that daughters of Israel be securely placed like the corner (pillars or stones) of a temple or palace (Ps 144:12; note other imagery for security and prosperity in the context): Border, boundary, corner, edge, rim: ~ gbi I (bound, border, # 1487); — zawit (corner, # 2312); > kandap (wing, skirt, outermost edge, # 4053); > karkob (rim, edge, # 4136); > mhh II (border on, #4682); > swg II (border by, #6048); > pé’a I (corner, #6991); > pinnd (corner, # 7157); > sad (side, #7396); > séla‘ I (side, rib, side-chamber, # 7521); > gés (limit, boundary, # 7891); > gdaseh (end, border, #7895); > gs‘ II (made with corners, # 7910) Gordon H. Matties

1088

Ost (# 2313)

ad

2

eatach banrae,on 531(zw), q. weigh, pour out, lavish (# 2313).

ee vb. occurs s only in Isa 46:6. For a discussion on weights > Sql, weigh, cick out, pay, # 9202. Jerry E. Shepherd

2315

mT

au (zwn), q. provide (for), supply (with); nourish(?) (hapleg. + Job 36:31?; #2315; HALAT 256a); nom. yi (maz6n), provision(s); possessions (2x + Ps 144: 13(2); # 4648; HALAT 535b). Perhaps etymologically related to the Heb. collective nom. ’azén, possessions(?); implements(?).

ANE A cognate for this lexeme may be found in Akk. zananu B, “provide (for); supply (with)” (CAD, Z, 43b-45a; = zandnu II in AHw 3:1510a). The OSA collective nom. m’dn (< nom. ’dn 4), tentatively translated “dependents(?)” (Biella, 7), may better be rendered “possessions” (cf. Rabin re South Arab. "dn, possessions), especially since this sense better parallels that of m’hdt, “prize,

booty,” in its only attested usage (... Jth wm’dnh wm’hdt[h. . . “its. . . and its possessions(?) and its booty,” C7S 506/2). Indeed, the latter may be related to the Heb. collective nom. ’Gzén, possessions(?); implements(?) in Deut 23:13[14] (also a hapleg.): “And you shall have a spike/spade among your possessions(?)/implements(?).”

OT All three possible OT uses of the Heb. vb. may be disputed. The MT of Jer 5:8 has K mizdanim, supplied/nourished (ho. part. < zwn), but the Q recommends myuzzanim, excited, lustful (pu. part. < yzn[?]). The v. is further complicated by the probability that MT maskim is a defective spelling either for ma’*Sikim, having genitalia, testicles (cf. ’efek in Lev 21:20; BDB

1013a; KB 968b) or moSkim, things that

draw/seduce (i.e., genitalia). Perhaps the best translation option should parallel the ironic juxtaposition in v. 7 of Yahweh’s gracious supply of Jerusalem’s needs and its adultery: “They are (well-)nourished, lusty stallions, each neighing for his neighbor’s wife” (author tr.; cf. NAB, NIV, REB, NRSV). In any case, the v. combines a metaphorical comparison between men and stallions, with an idiom for males in heat.

In Job 36:31, so as to restore a supposed synthetic parallelism with the B-colon, “he gives food in plenty,” several have proposed the emendation of yadin, “he goyerns/rules,” to yaziin, “he supplies/nourishes”—trendering the A-colon: “For by them [i.e., clouds, showers] he supplies/nourishes the nations” (cf. HALAT, JB, NAB, REB).

Yet, while the emendation is attractive to some, others have found no compelling textual or contextual warrant for making it, preferring: “For by them [i.e., showers, thunder, lightning] he judges the nations” (cf. NIV, NRSV). The nom. form mézin in Prov 17:4 may be excluded from consideration, since it is most likely a defective spelling for ma’*zin, gives ear (< ’zn). The Heb. nom. ma&z6n seems to denote “provision(s)” in general, conventionally referring to food (Gen 45:23), but perhaps also to implements of war (2 Chron 11:23; cf. vv. 11-12). For MT Ps 144:13 mizzan ‘al-zan, “one sort and another,” HALAT proposes maz6on ‘al-maz6n: i.e., “(Our garners/barns [m°zawénii] will be filled) with one provision upon another”—yet, the emendation is unnecessary.

1089

Dit(# 2316) Biblical Aram. attests the hitpeel yitf*zin in the description of Nebuchadnezzar’ s dream of the great tree from which every creature “was provided for/nourished” (Dan 4:12[9]). Both uses of nom. mazén denote “provision(s),” each time referring to food

(Dan 4:12[9], 21[18]). Mish. Heb. attests a vb. zwn, provide, outfit; sustain (with food), and nom. P-B_ forms z6ni/z6nit, belt; armor, zay(y)in, armour, and maz6n, sustenance, food; meal (Jastrow, 387b, 388a,b, 393b, 395a, 754a); Jewish Aram. has the vb. zwn (I), support;

nourish; and nom. forms z6nita’, (laborer’s) apron; z*yayna’ (I), weapon; ornament; m‘zona’, sustenance, food, meal; and m‘zénitd, support, comfort (Jastrow, 387b, 393b,

754a,b); Syr. has the vb. zwn/zan,

supply provide, give food to, and nom. forms

zayiina’, one who supports, feeds; a guardian, zaynda’, armor, weapons, furniture; zayenta’, repast, victuals; and maziina’, support, food, victuals (Payne Smith, 113a, 115a, 262a). Eating, food, sustenance, taste: > ’k/ (eat, consume, devour, # 430);

> brh I (eat portions,

take rations, # 1356); > basar (meat, food, flesh, # 1414); > gzr II (cut, slaughter, tear, prey, # 1616); > zwn (provide, supply, #2315); > t‘m (taste, test, sense, discern, # 3247); > krh III (serve, banquet, offer up, #4127); > Jht II (devour, #4266); > /hm (thing to be swallowed, choice morsel, delicacy, # 4269); > [hk (lick up, #4308); > lhm II (feed on, eat, #4310); > lt (swallow, make/let swallow, # 4358) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDNT 1:642-45; W. F. Albright, “A Supplement to Jeremiah: The Lachish Ostraca,” BASOR 61, 1936, [10-16] 13 n. 5; H. Bauer, OLZ 29, 1934, 801; J. Payne Smith, ACompendious Syriac Dictionary, 1903; C. Rabin, “Etymological Miscellanea,” ScrHier 8, 1961, (384-400) 387; A. van Selms, “Food,” JSBE 2:327a-3 la. Robert H. O’Connell

7316

oT

iT (zw‘), q. tremble, quake, be afraid; pilp. (part.) oppress (#2316); MYUW/AWT (zwa‘a or za“wd), nom. trembling, fright (# 2317/2400). OT 1. The vb. (zw‘) occurs only 5x in the OT: 3x in 2:7) and 2x in the Aram. portion of the book of Daniel conveys the basic idea of fear or terror that is manifest Both occurrences in the book of Daniel are found

Heb. (Esth 5:9; Eccl 12:3; Hab (Dan 5:19; 6:26[27]). This vb.

bodily by shaking or quaking. as synonyms for d*hal, fear

(# 10167). 2. The nom. z“wa‘d occurs 8x (Deut-28:25; 2 Chron 29:8; Isa 28:19; 4x in Jer [15:4; 24:9; 29:18; 34:17]; Ezek 23:46). In Deut 28:25 and Ezek 23:46 a transposition

of consonants appears in the text as za “wd, while variation in the pointing of the nom. is common. Israel is warned that disobedience to the terms of the covenant will result in curses (Deut 28), such as that Israel will “become a thing of horror [za“wd] to all the kingdoms on earth” (28:25). The subsequent occurrences of this nom. reflect either the impending threat or the present reality of this particular covenantal curse occasioned by the sinful disobedience of Israel. Fear, dread, terror: > ’Gyom (terrible, awesome, majestic, #398); > ’émd (terror, dread, # 399); > bhl (be dismayed, terrified, dismay, terrify, hasten, hurry, # 987); > b‘t (overtaken by

1090

“Vit (# 2318) —————

a

a

dr

rnin

ag

ye

et

sudden terror, stupefied, be terrified, assail, # 1286); > gwr III (be afraid of, dread, stand in awe,

# 1593); > d’g (be anxious, concerned, fear, dread, # 1793); > zhl Il (fear, be afraid, # 2324);

> hrd (tremble, shudder, startle, # 3006); > htt (be shattered, dismayed, terrified, scare, terrify, > ygr (fear, dread, terror, #3336); > yr’ I (fear, be afraid, held in honor, #3707); > yrh (be afraid, terrified, paralyzed with fright, # 3724); > ‘rs (be alarmed, terrified, dreadful, dreadful, be in terror, #6907); > phd I (tremble, be in dread, # 7064); > qws I (feel disgust, frighten, cause dread, # 7762) Shaking, terror, trembling: > g‘¥ (rise and fall noisily, swell, surge, # 1723); > zw‘ (tremble, quake, be afraid, #2316); — ll II (shake, quake, tremble, #2362); > halhald (shaking, trembling, anguish, #2714); > hrg (come out trembling, #3004); — Ard (tremble, shudder, startle, # 3006); > yr‘ (tremble, be fainthearted, # 3760); > mwt (waver, reel, stagger, shake, reel, #4572); > m‘d (slip, slide, shake, totter, #5048); > nwd (shake, totter, waiver, wander, mourn, flee, #5653); > nwt (shake, quake, #5667); > nw‘ (shake, tremble, stagger, totter, wave, #5675); > n‘r II (shake, shake off, #5850); > smr (shudder, have goose-bumps, bristle, # 6169); > ‘iw‘im (distortion, stagger, dizzy, #6413); > pwgq I (stagger, wobble, reel, totter,

# 3169);

# 7048); — phd I (tremble, be in dread, #7064); > pls (shudder, shake, tremble, #7145); > qws | (feel disgust, frighten, cause dread, #7762); > rgz (agitate, quiver, shake, excite, rouse

up, agitate, # 8074); > rnh I (rattle, # 8261); > r‘d (tremble, shake, tremble, # 8283); > r‘I I

(brandish, make to quiver, # 8302); > r‘s I (quake, shake, leap, # 8321); > rpp (shake, quake, rock, # 8344); > r’tét (terror, panic, trembling, # 8417); > s‘rI (be afraid, terrified, bristle with horror, # 8547) M. V. Van Pelt/W. C. Kaiser, Jr.

2317 (zwa‘G, trembling, fright), > #2316

2318

vali

“V} (zwr J) q. press, wring out (# 2318).

OT 1. This vb. appears 4x and is used of actions (whether in a literal or figurative context) by human beings and animals. It first appears in Judg 6:38 where, although the surrounding threshing floor is miraculously left dry, Gideon squeezes out dew from the fleece and drains it (msh, > #5172) into a bowl. In Isa 1:5-6 the prophet graphically portrays the nation of Judah as desperately sick because of sin: the infection of the sores has not been pressed out (v. 6; NIV cleansed). The two other occurrences speak

of crushing eggs. As part of the divine self-revelation of his unlimited power and wisdom

in creation to Job, Yahweh

mentions

the case of the ostrich, which foolishly

leaves her eggs exposed to the danger of being smashed under the feet of other animals (Job 39:15). In Isa 59:5 the prophet offers a metaphoric description of the wicked of Judah, whose eggs are deadly and bring forth poisonous snakes when crushed. 2. Related words include: ’kp (press hard, > #436); ’/s (press hard upon, ~ #552); mis (squeezing, > #4790); m‘k (squeeze, > #5080). The first two roots convey the idea of “press” in the sense of driving someone to do something. mis

appears only in one verse (Prov 30:33), yet is utilized 3x in parallel clauses to describe the results of a wringing motion (NIV churning, twisting, stirring up). The last vb., m‘k, occurs in Lev 22:24 (q. part. pass.) and alludes to the mutilation of a sacrificial animal, presumably castration by crushing the testicles. In Ezek 23:3 the term (pu.) denotes squeezing or fondling a woman’s breast (cf. v. 8); another possible occurence

is found in v. 21, although a textual emendation is required (I‘ma‘an to either l’ma‘ék

1091

Vt # 2319) pi. inf. const., or lim ‘6k, q. inf. const.; see BHS, NIV text and note). Both cases speak

of the elect people’s figurative promiscuity in Egypt, where they sought to be caressed by a foreign faith and culture. In 1 Sam 26:7 Saul’s spear is pressed into the ground.

Pressure, squeezing: > ’kp (press hard, # 436); > ’/s (press hard upon, #552); > zwr I (press, wring out, #2318); > zrr I (press out [wounds], #2452); > lhs (press, #4315); > mis (pressing, #4790); > m‘k (press, squeeze, crush, # 5080); > msh (squeeze out, drain, #5172); > psr (urge, press, push, #7210);

> sht (squeeze, to press out grapes, # 8469) M. Daniel Carroll R.

wes)

ANE

WwW

“t (zwr ID, q. turn away, turn aside; ni. disen-

gage oneself from; ho. be estranged, alienated (# 2319).

The Arab. zwr, incline toward, turn away, is a cognate.

OT Of its three verbal forms, the vb. zwr II occurs in the OT less than 6x. Usually the vb. has a metaphorical rather than physical sense, as when one turns (zwr) from one’s spiritual or social environment. The wicked begin early, even while in the womb, to go astray (Ps 58:3[4]). God’s people are estranged (ni.) from God through their idols (Ezek 14:5; cf. Isa 1:4). The part. in the ho., “I am a stranger” (Ps 69:8[9]), is in mean-

ing a synonym of nokri, alien (> #5799). Turning, apostasy, returning, faithlessness, repentance: > zwr II (turn away, #2319); > hmg (turn aside, #2811); > yq‘ (turn aside, #3697); > ng‘ (disengage, #5936); > sbb (turn, go round, surround, # 6015); > swr (turn aside, # 6073); > pnh (turn to the side, # 7155); > Sth (turn aside, # 8474); > Swb I (repent, turn, return, revert, withdraw, #8740); > tqipd

(turning point, # 9543)

BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 4:52-58.

J. A. Thompson

2320 ANE

at

Vit (zwr IID, q. stink, be offensive (# 2320).

_AKk. zéru, to hate; Arab. dyr, to stink, to hate; OSA dyrt, dung; Mish. Heb.,

Jewish Aram. dwr, to manure a field by letting cattle stay on it overnight. Most of the major lexical sources identify three homonymic verbal roots (zwr I, II, III; BDB, 266;

HALAT 256; LHA, 206-7), although they categorize the root under consideration differently (zwr II; BDB, 266; TWOT 1:238; zwr III; HALAT; THAT 1:520; LHA, 206; cf. Clines, 429; Rowley, 135; Dhorme, 277; Blommerde, 87, Wernberg-Meller, 323).

Snijders (“Meaning,” 14-17; TDOT 4:57; cf. Driver, 124; Hartley, 288-89, n.14) argues for only two instead of three homonymic roots and subsumes the root considered here under the semantic nuance turn aside, go away, be strange (which he cites as zwr II). Gordis (202) posits that “abhorrent” is possibly understood as an extension of the meaning “be strange.” OT

The occurrence in Job 19:17 is sometimes related to zwr II, be strange, hence be

abhorrent, in a derived sense (Snijders, 14-16). However, the parallel with hnn II and 1092

Smt (# 2323) the existence of various Arab. cognates belonging to the semantic field of stink suggests a distinct root (Wernberg-M@gller; HALAT 256). The subj. of the vb. is riah, which most take to be Job’s bad breath, arising from his illness. Such a comment is possible but would be unique, and D. J. A. Clines (448) argues that the verse is a comment on Job’s réah, his vital spark, now stinking (i.e., repulsive) because of his presumed sinfulness. Clines draws attention to a similar metaphor in the Egyptian “Dispute Over Suicides” (ANET, 405-7). It is possible that the poetry was intended to be read both ways. The vbs. zwr III and hnn Il, be stinking, loathsome (# 2859), occur in the par. bicola of this verse; both signify the loathsome/repulsive nuance. Smell, stench: > b’s (stink, become odious, #944); > zwr III (stink, be offensive, # 2320); > znh I (become foul-smelling, #2395); > hnn II (be stinking, loathsome, # 2859); > srh II (stink, spoil, #6244); > sah*nd (stench, # 7462); > rwh B (smell, # 8193); > Smell: Theology

BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 4:52-58; THAT 1:520-22; A. Blommerde, Northwest Semitic Grammar and Job, 1969; D. Clines, Job 1-20 1989; E. Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job, 1967; S. Driver, The Book of Job, 1921; R. Gordis, The Book of Job, 1978; J. Hartley, The Book of Job, NICOT, 1988; H.

Rowley, Job, NCBC, 1976; L. Snijders, “The Meaning of TI! in the Old Testament: An Exegetical Study,” OTS 10, 1954, 1-154; P. Wernberg-Mller, “A Note on 11f ‘To Stink,’” V7 4, 1954, 322-25. Michael A. Grisanti/Philip Jenson

ont (zhl 1), q. glide away, creep (into a hiding place); Deut 32:24; Job 32:6; Mic 7:17 (# 2323).

OT Two of the three uses of this vb. (Deut 32:24; Mic 7:17) refer to “crawling things,” to vipers and snakes respectively. If zhl of Job 32:6 comes from this root and not from zhl II, be afraid (> # 2324) (see E. Dhorme, Job, 475), it speaks of Elihu’s

extreme self-effacement, which forced him to approach his peers with the trepidation of a lowly serpent (cf. Habel, The Book of Job, OTL, 1985, 449). Journey, going, marching, walking, wandering: ~ ’rh (be on the road, wander, #782); > ’SrI (walk straight, # 886); > drk (tread, march, # 2005); > hilk (go, walk, behave, #2143); > zhl I (slide away, # 2323); > ys’ (go out, come forward, # 3655); > yrd (go down, go up, descend, # 3718); > massa‘ (setting out, # 5023); > nht (march down, descend, settle, # 5737); > s’n (tramp along, tread, #6008); > ‘dh I (stride, # 6334); > ‘lh (go up, ascend, bring up, # 6590); > ps‘ I (step forth, march, #7314); > s‘d (step, march, #7575); > Swr I (descend, caravan, # 8801) Eugene H. Merrill

aa SDE ee, 0

| ANN (zhl Il), q. fear, be afraid (# 2324). A

This Heb. word occurs only in Job 32:6, used as a synonym with yr’, fear, be ee to express the intimidation of Elihu as he spoke out against Job and his friends. This root “appears to be a Canaanite form attested in Ugar. dhl, ‘fear,’ and Aram. d‘hél, ‘fear, worship’” (Hartley, 433, n. 21). Its Aram. cognate (# 10167) occurs 6x in the

Aram. portion of the book of Daniel: 4x in the context of a vision or dream (Dan 2:31; 1093

WT (# 2326) 4:5[2]; 7:7, 6:26[27]).

19) and

2x with

reference

to Yahweh’s

universal

dominion

(5:19;

Fear, dread, terror: ~ ’Gyom (terrible, awesome, majestic, #398); > éma (terror, dread, # 399); > bhi (be dismayed, terrified, dismay, terrify, hasten, hurry, # 987); > b‘t (overtaken by sudden terror, stupefied, be terrified, assail, # 1286); > gwr III (be afraid of, dread, stand in awe, # 1593);

> d’g (be anxious, concerned, fear, dread, # 1793);

> zhi II (fear, be afraid, # 2324);

~ hrd (tremble, shudder, startle, # 3006); > htt (be shattered, dismayed, terrified, scare, terrify, #3169); > ygr (fear, dread, terror, #3336); > yr’ I (fear, be afraid, held in honor, # 3707); > yrh (be afraid, terrified, paralyzed with fright, # 3724); > ‘rs (be alarmed, terrified, dreadful, dreadful, be in terror, # 6907); frighten, cause dread, # 7762)

> phd I (tremble, be in dread, # 7064);

> qws I (feel disgust,

BIBLIOGRAPHY J. E. Hartley, The Book of Job, NICOT, 1988; C. Rabin, “Hebrew zhl,” JOS 2, 1972, 352-68. M. V. Van Pelt/W. C. Kaiser, Jr.

7326

=)

1°T (zyd), q. act presumptuously, be arrogant; hi. prepare food, be arrogant, act presumptuously (# 2326); TT (zéd), adj. proud, presumptuous (# 2294); Qua (zad6n), nom. presumptuousness, insolence (# 2295); ilige: (zéd6n), adj. raging (hapleg. in Ps 124:5; #2327); TT] (nazid), boiled food, stew (> #5686); Aram. Tit (zwd), ha. act arrogantly (hapleg. in Dan 5:20; # 10225). ANE Within this complex of ideas Scharbert (TDOT 4:47) finds two different roots (zwd and zyd) that need to be distinguished because they have different meanings in Arab. and Aram. zwd is related to the idea of preparing food (not to boil or be hot), while zyd (the main idea related to this study) signifies exaggerated, arrogant talk, presumptuous acts, insolence.

OT 1. The vb. is used 10x in the Heb. text, plus once in the Aram. section of Daniel. In one case the vb. zwd refers to Jacob’s preparing food for Esau (Gen 25:29). The choice of this word may include an ironic hint that Jacob’s preparation of food was a presumptuous act that would enable him to take the blessing from Esau (A. P. Ross, Creation and Blessing, 1988, 449-50). 2. The meaning of the vb. is connected to individuals or nations who presume to have authority or rights that are not legitimately theirs. This may involve an attitude or behavior that ignores or rejects the validity of God’s authority to control Israelites by his laws (Neh 9:29). God warned the Israelites to listen to and follow his will as taught by the priest and reported through judges in the law courts because they were his repre-

sentatives, who functioned to protect the God-given rights of each individual (Deut 17:12-13). To assume that these officials had no authority, that God had not spoken

through them, and that the rights of each individual were not important to God would be an act of arrogant presumption. The false prophets, who claimed a right to speak for God when he had not spoken to them, were even more presumptuous (18:20-22). It is also presumptuous to assume personal credit for military power over another nation instead of recognizing God’s authority to control such events (Jer 50:29-32). When Pharaoh repeatedly hardened his heart (not when the gods of Egypt

1094

“WT (# 2326) rebelled, as Durham, Exodus, WBC, 244) and refused to allow the children of Israel to leave after each plague was removed (Exod 7:13; 8:19, 28-29, 32; 9:17, 27-28, 34-35),

he was denying God’s right to claim the Israelites as his sons (4:22) and his possession (see 19:5-6). Pharaoh did not humble himself (10:3) but presumed that he, as king of Egypt and a god, had the authority to keep God’s covenant people as his slaves. 3. Presumption is assuming that God will bless even though one is not doing what God approves. This is illustrated in the Israelites’ initial refusal to trust the Lord and enter the land at Kadesh Barnea because they feared the giants. Later when God told them that they would die and not enter the land (Deut 1:26-40), the people presumptuously tried to do so, though it was no longer their God-given inheritance (1:43). They assumed that God would give them victory in this holy war, but since God was not with them (1:42), they were defeated. The nom. zadén (used 11x) shows that there is a fine line between true faith in God and presuming upon the grace of God. An authentic act of faith that is based on past experiences with the living God (David defeated the lion and the bear, 1 Sam 17:34-37) may appear to be presumptuous to those who do not see with an eye of faith (David’s brothers, 17:28). David’s optimism was not based on a presumptuous evaluation of his own battle skills but his confidence that God would judge anyone who reproached the name of God (17:36, 43, 45). False assumptions based on human strength or security (the Edomites presumed their impregnable location at Petra was safe, Jer 49:16; Obad 3) were no protection to the proud. Even confidence and faith in God’s grace, if it is not accompanied by righteousness, will not save on the Day of the . Lord (Ezek 7:10). Disgrace (galén, ~ #7830) is the reward of those who have an exaggerated opinion of their self-importance (zad6n), but the modest gain wisdom (Prov 11:2). 4. Carelessness or a lack of attention toward important principles, like the needs or rights of other people, may inadvertently lead to habitual attitudes that are arrogant, scoffing, and insolent—attitudes that are more calloused than mere presumptuousness (Prov 13:10; 21:24). Although the adj. zéd (found 13x, 6 in Ps 119) can refer to presumptuous sins that one is unaware of (19:13[14]), it more frequently describes arrogant and insolent people (not “godless” as RSV;

119:21, 51, 69, 78, 85, 122), who

assume that they do not have to follow God’s laws. They arrogantly mock those who follow God’s instructions and attempt to take away the rights of the godly by violent acts (insolence and ruthless acts are connected in 86:14; Isa 13:11). The hardened and insolent may reject God’s offer of grace (Jer 43:2) or become so hardened and callous that they think it is vain to serve God (Mal 3:13-14). Their twisted minds imagine that God will reward them with blessings (3:15). These arrogant people will burn with fire on the day of God’s judgment (4:1[3:19]). P-B _ The translation of this root in the LXX is hybris, insolence, violence, pride (6x); hyperéphania, arrogance, presumptuousness (5x); asebés, ungodly (7x); plus several other terms (TDOT 4:49-50). In Qumran materials the enemies of the community are

condemned because they act presumptuously with premeditation by opposing the will of God. The NT does not use Aybris to mean arrogance, but is closer to Josephus and

Classical G in giving the word the idea of violence, ill-treatment, insolence. The NT idea of pride or arrogance is carried by hyperéphania / hyperéphanos (6x). Several times it is placed next to other words meaning arrogance in a list of vices that

1095

Tt (#2329) Christians should avoid (Mark 7:21; Rom 1:30; 2 Tim 3:2), including James 4:6 and 1 Peter 5:5, which quote Prov 3:34 (“God opposes the proud [/ésim]’) to encourage a

humble attitude among the believers in the early church. Arrogance, pride, presumption:

> g’h (rise up, be exalted, # 1448); > zyd (act presumptu-

> sil (lift up, exalt, # 6148); > ‘pl (swell, lift up, #6752); > ‘ataq (old, arrogant, # 6981); > phz (be reckless, arrogant, #7069); > rwm (be high, exalted, proud, # 8123); > Sahas (pride, # 8832) > yahir (haughty, #3400);

ously, prepare food, #2326);

BIBLIOGRAPHY

G. Bertram, “Hochmut und verwandte Begriffe im griechischen und hebrdischen Alten,” WO, 1964, 29-38; R. M. Gula, “Sin: The Arrogance of Power,” Reconciliation 1, 1987, 63-83; N. H.

Snaith, “The Snare of Pride,” ExpTim 165, 1954, 345-46.

Gary V. Smith

2327 (zéd6n, raging), > #2326 2328 (ziz I, small (ravaging) creatures of the field),

2329 ANE

> # 6856

TT (ziz Il), breast (hapleg. [# 2329]); Isa 66:11,

eA 5

ll Sod I, breast (> # 8718).

The Akk. cognate zizu, teat, is used in a text describing a worshiper sucking the

breasts of the goddess Ishtar (Cohen, 46); Arab. zizat.

OT According to Isa 66:11, formerly humiliated Jerusalem will miraculously become a source of security and prosperity to her restored people, who are depicted as nursing at mother Zion’s breasts. Breast:

> dad (breast, # 1843); > ziz II (breast, # 2329); > gisSurim (breast-bands, # 8005); > Sad (breast, # 8716)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

H. R. Cohen, Biblical Hapax Legomena in the Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic, 1978, 46. Robert B. Chisholm

2338

5

Bip

mip? |

(cigét),

flaming

arrow

(zéq Il), flaming arrow (# 2415).

(#2338); ) PT)

,

ANE In Akk., there are two terms similiar to zéq II and zigét: zagtu, pointed (weapons), and zigtu / ziqu B “torch” (see CAD 21, 63, 133-34). Also cf. Syr. “flash of lightning.” (See HALAT 254, 263.)

OT 1. zigét occurs 2x in Isa 50:11, which the NIV translates: “But now, all you who light fires and provide yourselves with flaming torches (zig6r), go, walk in the light of your fires and of the torches (ziqét) you have set ablaze.” Besides Isa 50:11, zigét occurs in Sir 43:13 with the nuance “lightning.” 2. zéq occurs only in Prov 26:18-19: “Like a madman shooting firebrands or deadly arrows is a man who deceives his neighbor and says, ‘I was only joking.’”

1096

Tt (# 2339) P-B

The term zig, comet, is found in Jewish Aram.

Bow, arrow, archery: > ’aspd (quiver, # 880); > zigét (flaming arrow, # 2338; zéq Il, flaming

arrow, #2415); > hés (arrow, #2932; hés? I, arrow, #2943); > thh (distance of bowshot, # 3217); > yéreh I (archer, # 3452; méreh I, archer, # 4619); > yeter II (bowstring, # 3857); > geSet (bow, # 8008; gassat, archer # 8009; gd¥et, bow, # 8000); > rbb II (shoot, # 8046; rab

Ill, archer, # 8043);

> rbh Il (archer, # 8050); > rl? (quiver, # 9437). K. Lawson Younger, Jr.

2339

ne5

MtPets (zayit), > olive (# 2339).

tree, ’ olive

orchard,

?

olive

ANE zayit is related to Ugar. zt (olive tree, olive) and to Arab. zait (oil) and zaitiin (olive tree), see HALAT, 257. OT

1. Olives are significant in the OT because they were one of the three primary

staples of life in the Promised Land (Goor, Fruit, 93): “For the LORD your God is

bringing you into a good land—a land with...olive oil” (Deut 8:7-8). The other two primary staples were grain and grapes. So one of the devastating acts of a tyrannical king was to “take the best of your fields [grain] and vineyards [grapes] and olive groves [olives] and give them to his attendants” (1 Sam 8:14). This triad of basic staples is fre-

quently expressed as “grain, new wine and [olive] oil” (e.g., Hos 2:8; Joel 2:19; Semen, olive oil [> #9043]). The fixed order of the triad follows the fixed order of the har-

vest: grain in late spring, grapes in early fall, and olives in late fall. Olives were harvested by beating on the trees with sticks to knock the olives off (Deut 24:20; Isa 17:6; 24:13; Zohary, Plants, 56).

2. zayit refers to an olive (Deut 28:40b; Mic 6:15) or to an olive tree (Judg 9:8-9; Zech 4:3, 11). In the phrases zayit Semen, olive of oil (Deut 8:8), and zayit

yishar, olive of oil (2 Kgs 18:32; yishar I, oil [> # 3658]), the relationship is genitive of effect (Waltke, Syntax, §9.5.2c): “olive trees that produce oil” (see Dalman, AuSP,

4:162 and HALAT, 258, “oil-rich olive trees’’). In the phrase Semen zayit (Exod 27:20; 30:24; Lev 24:2) the relationship is genitive of species (Waltke, JBHS, §9.5.3g): “oil,

that of the olive.” 3. Because olives were one of the three primary staples, they figure prominently in blessing and curse formulas. Disobedience could lead to discipline in the form of devoured olive trees (Amos 4:9). Failure to keep the covenant would result in failed olive crops (Deut 28:40; Mic 6:15). God, however, would always preserve a remnant comparable to the few olives left on the tree after the harvest (Isa 17:6; 24:13). This righteous remnant would rejoice in the Lord in spite of the most devastating circumstances, the failure of the olive crop (Hab 3:17-18). Repentance would mean restoration, and Israel’s splendor would once again be like that of an olive tree (Hos 14:7), and the olive trees themselves would again bear fruit (Hag 2:19). 4. Fearing the Lord would result in the blessing of children compared to olive branches (Ps 128:3). A righteous man compares himself to an olive branch (52:10), and the wicked are likened to an olive tree that has lost its blossoms and that will therefore bear no fruit (Job 15:33). .

1097

rot (# 2342) 5. In the vision recorded in Zech 4 two olive trees flank a lampstand (vv. 2-3).

Zechariah’s perplexity, evidenced by his thrice-repeated question, “What are these?” (vv. 4, 11, 12), is echoed in the multiplicity of interpretations offered by commentators. The interpretation of M. Kline (84-96), which best accounts for the details of the text and the larger biblical context, is summarized here. As olive trees are a source of oil for various uses, these two olive trees are the source of oil for the lampstand (v. 12). So the

olive trees as “sons of oil” are not “anointed” (receiving oil, i.e., priest and king) but “anointers” (dispensing oil). Since anointing was the function of the prophet, the prophetic ministry is in view. John develops this image in Rev 11, where the two olive trees are two witnesses (vv. 3-4) who, as in Zech 4:14, “stand before the Lord of all the earth.” The lampstand then symbolizes the community of God’s people in their light bearing/witnessing function (see also Baldwin, Zechariah, 124). This function was car-

ried out in the old covenant primarily through the temple, the rebuilding of which is the concern of Zechariah (see 4:6-10). (> Zechariah: Theology) 6. The name Mount of Olives (har hazzétim; > #2339a) occurs for the first time in Zech 14:4. This hill, lying to the east of Jerusalem, must have been sufficiently covered with olive trees to have earned its name. On the Day of the Lord, the Lord will stand on the Mount of Olives, facing enemy-occupied Mount Zion (v. 2). He will fight against the enemy (v. 3) and at the same time provide deliverance for his people (vv. 4-5), Olive: > gargér (ripe olive, # 1737); # 3658).

— zayit (olive tree, olive, #2339);

— yishar I (oil,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT, 4:58-62; J. Baldwin, Zechariah, 1972; A. Goor and M. Nurdock, The Fruits of the Holy

Land, 1968; M. Kline, Images of the Spirit, 1980; J. Klotz, “The Vine, the Fig Tree, and the Olive: A Study in Biblical Symbolism,” CJ 6, 1980, 256-60; K. Strand, “The Two Olive Trees of Zechariah 4 and Revelation 11,” AUSS 20, 1982, 257-61; M. Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 1982. Mark D. Futato

2341 (zak, clear bright, innocent, clean), > #2342

9342

=5}

mot (zkh), vb. q. be pure;

pi. cleanse,

speak

justly, acquit; hitp. clean oneself (#2342), TT (zkk, byform of zkh, HALOT 269b), vb. q. be bright, innocent; hi. cleanse (# 2348); mt (zak), adj. pure, clean (#2341); TD 151 (z°kokit), nom. glass (#2343); DT (zaki), BAram. nom. fem. purity, innocence (hapleg. in Dan 6:22[23]; # 10229). ANE

1. This root is extensively attested in the Akk. vb. zakii, become clean, clear,

light, free; (D-stem) to cleanse, clear of impurities, the adj. zakii, clear, clean, cleansed, refined, pure, free of claims, and the nom. zakiitu, clear and definite information, clean-

liness, exemption (CAD Z, 23-32). In Akk., however, it is used almost exclusively for the physical cleansing of produce, etc., not metaphorically. 2. There are a few occurrences of this root in Official Aram. (DNWSI, 320-21), and in later Aram. it is written both zkh and dkh (Jastrow, 307, 399), the latter being a well-known phonetic variation between Heb. and Aram. words (see, e.g., Heb. zahab, gold, but Aram. d*hab, and the remarks in TDOT 4:62). OSA has dky, be pure; to

1098

MoT (# 2342) cleanse (HALOT 269a and TDOT 5:62), and Classical Arab. has both forms, meaning to be pure, flourish (ibid.).

OT 1. Semantically, there does not appear to be any essential difference between the two byform roots combined here. It is interesting, however, that in two poetic passages where these vbs. stand in parallel with each other, zkk is literal and zkh is metaphorical (TDOT 4:63 refers to these as transitional passages between the literal and figurative meanings of these combined terms). According to Job 25:4-5, “How then can a man be righteous before God? How can one born of woman be pure (zkh)? If even the moon is not bright and the stars are not pure (zkk) in his eyes” (cf. also the same variation in 15:14-15). The one occurrence of the nom. 7kdkit, glass, crystal,

suggests a basic meaning of clear, bright, for the root, “Neither gold nor crystal can compare with it (i.e., wisdom), nor can it be had for jewels of gold” (28:17). 2. The vb. zkh (8x or 9x) predominates over zkk (4x), but both are used in literal as well as figurative contexts. zkh occurs 5x to 7x in the q., depending on whether one reads Mic 6:11 as aq. (MT) ora pi. (HALOT 269a) and whether one emends the text in Jer 11:15 to read this vb. (see below). In Mic 6:11 the NIV follows the pi., “Shall I

acquit (zkh) a man with dishonest scales, with a bag of false weights?” If we take the q. pointing, it could mean “shall I be pure with (i.e., tolerate)” or “can I regard as pure (the man) with” (Allen, 376, n. 55). According to the BHS textual note f-f, Jer 11:15b is definitely corrupt. The NIV follows the MT and translates, “When you engage in your wickedness, then you rejoice (see ‘/z, rejoice, # 6600).” Among other things, the BHS textual note suggests changing the vb. to zkh (’z, then, at the beginning of the line would become the first part of the vb.), which would yield the translation, “Shall I declare you pure?” The LXX renders it, “Will you escape these things?” apparently reading the vb. ‘iz (take refuge, be safe, # 6395; see Carroll, 272, for a summary of

these and other possibilities). The q. vb. means basically be clean, blameless, innocent. It can refer to God’s

innocence when he judges the sinner (Ps 51:4[6]) and a human being’s lack of innocence before God (Job 15:14-15; 25:4-5; both zkh and zkk in both passages, cf. above). The pi. vb. means cleanse, acquit someone of wrongdoing, “Surely in vain have I kept my heart pure (pi. of zkh); in vain have I washed my hands in innocence” (Ps 73:13; cf. Prov 20:9). According to Ps 119:9 it is by following the guidance of God’s Word that a young man can “keep his way pure.” Isa 53:10a is difficult. NIV translates following the MT reading (i.e., pi. of dk’, oppress, crush, #1917): “Yet it was the Lorb’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer.” Gressmann once proposed an emendation to the pi. of a vb. zk’ (= zkh) plus the addition of the prep. “from” to the following vb., yielding a translation such as “cleansed him from his sickness/suffering” (see HALOT 221a). The hitp. occurs in Isa 1:16, “wash and make yourselves clean (zkh). Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong.” The hi. is used in Job 9:30-31, “Even if I washed myself with soap and (cleansed) (zkk) my hands with washing soda, you would plunge me into a slime pit so that even my clothes would detest me.” 3. The religious and ethical meaning predominates in the adj. zak, pure, clean; clear (11x; TDOT 4:63). There are, however, several concrete usages: “Command the

Israelites to bring you clear (zak) oil of pressed olives for the light so that the lamps may be kept burning” (Exod 27:20; cf. 30:34; Lev 24:2, 7).

1099

“>t (# 2349) It can refer to one who lives a pure life of righteousness (Job 8:6; cf. 33:9; Prov 21:8) and, in fact, is used in exhortations to such righteous living, “Even a child is

known by his actions, by whether his conduct is pure and right” (Prov 20:11). Underlying all of this is the question of one’s motives: “All a man’s ways seem innocent (zak) to him, but motives are weighed by the LORD” (Prov 16:2). Job claimed that his “prayer is pure” (Job 16:17) and, according to Zophar, he claimed that his beliefs were “flawless” (11:4). . The Aram. adj. z@kii, pure, clean, occurs only 1x in the OT, in Daniel’s words to King Darius from the lion’s den: “My God sent his angel, and he shut the mouths of the lions. They have not hurt me, because I was found innocent (z@ki) in his sight. Nor have I ever done any wrong before you, O king” (Dan 6:22[23]).

P-B The vb. zkh occurs nowhere in the Qumran Temple Scroll, but 5x in other sectarian documents. According to the Manual of Discipline, no person could eat of the “pure Meal” of the communal fellowship “until his deeds are purified from all falsehood and he walks in perfection of way” (1QS 8:18; Vermes, 73). Moreover, the property of those “who have not purified their life by separating themselves from iniquity” could not be merged with the community of the faithful (1 QS 9:9; Vermes, 74). Anyone who was unwilling to submit wholeheartedly to the covenant of God and his precepts was unable to enter the community. Furthermore, such a person “shall neither be purified by atonement, nor cleansed by purifying waters, nor sanctified by seas and rivers, nor washed clean with any ablution. Unclean, unclean shall he be” (1QS 3:4). The latter passage is reminiscent, for example, of 1 Sam 15:22, “Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed 51:16-19[18-21]; Mic 6:6-8, etc.).

NT

is better than

the fat of rams”

(cf. also Ps

Much terminology for purity of life in the NT corresponds closely to the meta-

phorical usages of this root word in the OT and postbiblical literature (cf. thr # 3197). Clean, pure: ~ brr I (purge out, sort, keep pure, sift, # 1405); > zkh (be pure, clean oneself, # 2342); > hap | (pure: clean, # 2899); > thr (clean, cleanse, purify, # 3197) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 4:62-64,; TWOT 1:240-41; L. C. Allen, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah, NICOT, R. P. Carroll, Jeremiah, OTL, 1986.

1976;

Richard E. Averbeck

2343 (z°kokit, glass), > #2342 2344 (z°kiir, what is male), > # 2351

2345 (zakiir, remembrance),

> # 2349

2348 (zkk, pure, clean), > # 2342

7349

=>)

“D1 (zkr I), q. remember, reflect on, commemorate; ni. be remembered, invoked; hi. mention,

invoke, praise, give evidence, bring a memorial offering (# 2349); MIDTS Cazkard), 1100

“DT (# 2349) nom. offering over which God’s name was invoked (> #260); VDT (zakir), remembrance (# 2345); D1 (zéker), nom. remembrance, proclamation, name (# 2352): y31 (zikkaron), nom. remembrance, memorial (#2355); “VYDNa (mazkir), secretary, recorder (# 4654). ANE

The vb. is well attested. Phoen. zkr and skr, Aram. zkr and dkr, and Eth. zakara

all mean “remember.” Akk. zakaru is a vb. of speaking, signifying “declare, mention, invoke, swear.” Old South Arab. and Arab. dkr means both “remember”

and “men-

tion.” In Ugar. the root occurs only in personal names.

OT 1. The root and its derivatives have crucial roles in the OT. On the human level, the words embrace reflection, especially on what is in the past. Such reflection may lead to regret or relief, or more actively appreciation and commitment. God’s remembering has to do with his attention and intervention, whether in grace or in judgment. Religious worship is the context where human and divine usage come together, in the fellowship of praise and blessing. Remembering can refer to worrying or consoling reflection or to reasoning. The rich person does not “reflect” on the brevity of life (Eccl 5:20[19]). Thinking about the wicked prospering is disturbing (Job 21:6). Remembering present affliction means

being engrossed by it (Lam 3:19-20). On the other hand, the exiles are exhorted to remember Yahweh (Jer 51:50; cf. Zech 10:9). The young in their pleasures are to remember their Creator and so to take him into account (Eccl 11:9-12:1). Job is urged to “consider” that the innocent are never punished (Job 4:7) and to remember to praise

God’s work rather than criticize him (36:24). Remembering God’s past dealings with Israel suggested that the present rupture in the covenant relationship was Israel’s fault, not his (Mic 6:4-5). It also showed his sovereignty over history and so leads to a monotheistic conclusion (Isa 46:9). Remembering God’s laws brings encouragement (Ps 119:52). Remembering his name at night means turning to him in prayerful meditation (Ps 119:55; cf. 63:6[7]). To remember God’s greatness is an antidote to fear (Neh 4:14[8]; cf. Deut 7:18). To remember Zion (Ps 137:6) is to be committed to the city of

God and appreciate all it stands for. The vb. is even applied to the future, in the sense of bearing in mind the predictable consequences of sin (“reflect on,” Isa 47:7; “consider,” Lam 1:7). 2. In many of the cases with human subjects, changes of life situation stir up memories of relief or nostalgia. Thus, Zophar assured Job that, if he repented, he would recall his present troubles “‘as waters gone by” (Job 11:16). On the other hand, Israel complained in the desert about its lack of the varied diet that they remembered eating in Egypt (Num 11:5). The exiles missed worshiping in Jerusalem and engaged in a sort of funeral lament (Ps 137:6; cf. 42:4[5]). In the lament of Ps 77 the initial reaction to Israel’s downfall is one of frustration: God’s earlier salvation was now a missing element (Ps 77:3[4], 5[6]; see NRSV). The death of an individual or community carries with it the fate of being forgotten (Job 24:20; cf. Ps 83:4[5]; Jer 11:19; Ezek 21:32[37]; 25:10; Zech 13:2).

3. Eschatological promises speak of past or present phenomena or experiences being transcended and no longer remembered. The ark would be superseded and not missed (Jer 3:16). The exiles were not to dwell on God’s past saving acts, which would be eclipsed by his new work of redemption (Isa 43:18). Jerusalem, personified as a

1101

“OT (# 2349) bride, was to remember no more the humiliation of her exilic widowhood (54:4). In the

new heavens and earth the former things that brought sorrow will be forgotten (65:17). 4. Remembering can connote gratitude. Abigail urged David to remember her in his future time of blessing, after she had brought food and wine to him and his men

(1 Sam 25:31). Not remembering someone’s former benefits is condemned in the OT as an act of ingratitude. Joash forgot Jehoiada’s former help when he killed his son (2 Chron 24:22). Nobody remembered the poor wise man who saved his city (Eccl 9:15). At the divine level, Israel in the desert forgot the power of God displayed in the Exodus (Ps 78:42; 106:7; cf. Judg 8:34; Neh 9:17; Isa 57:11). Unfaithful Jerusalem

failed to remember the ignominious origins from which God had rescued it (Ezek 16:22, 43). After sinning against God, Israel is urged to remember and appreciate his past grace: “Is this the way you repay the LORD?” (Deut 32:5-7). 5. Rather than denoting simply a mental process, remembering frequently induces present action, like tying a knot in a handkerchief. In fact, the tassels on the Israelites’ garments were to remind them of God’s commands and so to obey them (Num 15:39-40). The purpose of Joseph’s appeal to the chief butler to remember him was that he would get him released from prison (Gen 40:14). To remember God’s precepts leads to obeying them (Ps 103:18). Keeping the leprosy regulations was motivated by the reminder of God’s striking Miriam with leprosy (Deut 24:9; cf. Num 12:10). Challenging Israel to remember God’s past saving deeds was tantamount to a call to praise (Ps 105:5; 1 Chron 16:12). In Deut memory plays a major role as a positive constraint. The Israelites’ historical experience of being slaves in Egypt is urged as a reason to include their slaves in the Sabbath rest and in the Feast of Weeks (Deut 5:15; 16:12), to release their slaves in the seventh year (15:15), to leave part of their

crops for the underprivileged (24:22), and generally to respect their right to justice (24:18). Further, in 8:2 God’s dealings in the desert are meant to stimulate Israel to

obedience, while in 8:18 the reflection that Israel’s prosperity is God’s gift is an incentive to obey and stay loyal to him, rather than worshiping other gods. In 9:7 the exhortation to remember Israel’s continual rebellion in the desert introduces a long narrative of sin and grace, which culminates in a passionate call for obedience (10:12-13). In the

book of Ezekiel remembering past sin is a powerful impetus for good. The exiles were to remember how they had personally grieved God in their preexilic history and so come to a true sense of God’s will (Ezek 6:9). Moreover, their resettlement in the land

was to be marked by remorse for their bad lifestyle when they were there before, the act of remembrance serving as an incentive to new loyalty (16:61, 63; 20:43; 36:31). 6. Remembering God is often a dynamic phenomenon that leads to the situation of the believer or the believing community being transformed, especially in the Psalms. Recalling God’s past saving work becomes a bridge from a grim present to a blessed future. In Ps 77:11[12] his saving activity at the Exodus is seen to be relevant to Israel’s disastrous situation and an implicit promise that the God who saved them will save again. In 143:5 the recollection of God’s past salvation changes despair into hope and prayer. Jonah, at death’s door, remembered God and turned to him in a prayer for rescue (Jon 2:7[8]). In Ps 78:35 seeking God in repentance is triggered by memories of God as Savior. Similarly, in Isa 63:11, after sinning and being punished, Israel is represented as recalling the Exodus and turning back to God, while in Zech 10:9 those of

Israel still in exile were to remember God and turn to him again in faith, as a prelude to 1102

“DT (# 2349) their return to the land. Many of these examples focus on the Exodus not simply as an event in history but as a window through which to glimpse God’s redemptive will for his people and individual believers in every generation. To this end the Exodus was to be personally remembered in the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Exod 13:3; Deut 16:3). 7. So closely is remembering associated with action that at times it functions as ‘a synonym for action of various kinds. In Amos 1:9 Tyre’s not remembering its treaty with Israel means to disregard or break it. In Ps 109:16 not to remember to show kindness to the needy connotes neglect to do so. To forget God as Savior in Isa 17:10 is to forsake him for alien gods. For the Transjordan tribes remembering Moses’ command to fight alongside the other tribes until the whole land was won (Josh 1:13; cf. Deut 3:18-20) connotes obedience. Similarly, to remember the Torah is to obey it (Mal 4:4[3:22]; cf. Isa 64:5[4]). To remember the Sabbath day (Exod 20:8; cf. “observe,”

Deut 5:12) is to observe it by abstaining from work. The remembering of the Feast of Purim (Esth 9:28) refers to its celebration. 8. All the preceding examples relate to human recollection. The vb. often has God as subject, especially in prayers. Samson so prayed in his helplessness, asking for renewed strength (Judg 16:28). Hannah, praying for a son, asked God to remember her (1 Sam 1:11). Nehemiah, in a series of prayers that punctuate his memoirs, requested that his work might stand as a memorial to his service for God and his fellow Jews. Evidently he had enemies who gave him no credit for his dedicated labors and sought to undo them. So he committed to God both his own work (Neh 5:19; 13:14, 22, 31)

and the opposition he had encountered (6:14; 13:29) (see H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, xxv-xxviii). In intercessory prayer for Israel’s survival Moses reminded God of his promises to the patriarchs (Exod 32:13; Deut 9:27). In Ps 132:1-10 (cf. 2 Chron 6:42) the reigning king prayed for blessing on his reign for David’s sake and was given a favorable reply in vv. 17-18. 9. An appeal to remember frequently features in lament petitions. In Ps 106:4-5 the psalm leader interrupts a communal lament, praying to be included in Israel’s coming salvation. Specific appeals are made to God’s commitment to the covenant (25:6-7; 74:2; Jer 14:21), to the dishonor God is suffering (Ps 74:18, 22; 89:50-51[51-52]), to

his compassion for human frailty (89:47[48]; Job tion (Lam 5:1-20) or to his mercy (Hab 3:2), to 10:9), and to his scriptural promises (Neh 1:8, 119:49). Past loyalty to God is sometimes pleaded

7:7), to sympathy for human afflicGod’s previous personal care (Job with reference to Deut 30:2-4; Ps in individual laments (2 Kgs 20:3 =

Isa 38:3; Jer 18:20). God is reminded of injustice Judah has suffered in Ps 137:7 (cf. Jer

15:15). In Ps 88:5[6] the lamenter compares his low level of life with being dead and so outside God’s remembering care. In Job 14:13 Job quaintly asks God to let him shelter in Sheol, out of reach of his anger, and remember him when the danger was past. 10. Narratives record God’s favorable response to crises and/or to petitions associated with it (Gen 8:1; 19:29; Exod 2:24); childlessness is reversed in Gen 30:22;

1 Sam 1:19. Hymns celebrate his active remembering, whether motivated by the cove-

nant (Ps 98:3; 105:8, 42; 106:45; 111:5; cf. 9:12[13]; 115:12) or compassion (78:39;

103:14; 136:23). God’s mindfulness in blessing humanity is praised in 8:4[5].

11. In promises God’s faithfulness to his covenant is affirmed (Gen 9:15; Lev Ezek 16:60; cf. Exod 6:5; Num 10:9; Jer 31:20). 45; 26:42,

1103

—

“DT (# 2349) 12. Divine remembering can have negative overtones of accusation or punishment. God laments Israel’s short-lived devotion in Jer 2:2. Sinners are warned that God remembers their sins, storing them up for judgment (14:10; Hos 7:2; 8:13; 9:9), or are urged to interpret disaster in this way (Jer 44:21). A curse urges that punishment of the family’s earlier sins should be inherited (Ps 109:14). In a communal lament this very fate is deprecated (79:8). Petitions that an individual’s or the community’s own sin be not remembered are offered in Ps 25:7; Isa 64:9[8]. In Ezekiel assurances are given that the previous sins of repenting sinners will not be remembered against them (Ezek 18:22; 33:16), and warnings are given that earlier good behavior of backsliders will not count to their credit (3:20; 18:24; 33:13). God promises to forgive and forget his peo-

ple’s sins in Isa 43:25; Jer 31:34. 13. The hi. or causative form of the vb. occasionally relates to memory. In 2 Sam 18:18 Absalom is said to have no son to carry on his memory. In 1 Kgs 17:18 fear is expressed that the prophet in God’s name will “bring” hidden sins “to light” (REB) and exact punishment for them. In Ps 87:4 God promises to “record” foreign nations on the register of his people. However, the normal meaning of the hi. is to mention in speech (e.g., Gen 40:14; 1 Sam 4:18; Isa 19:17), especially the name of God or other gods (Exod 23:13; Josh 23:7; Isa 62:6; Amos 6:10; cf. the ni. in Hos 2:17[19]).

The servant in Isa 49:1 describes God’s commission in terms of his mentioning his name (cf. Acts 9:10-11). It often refers to invoking God in worship (e.g., in Isa 26:13 [REB]; 48:1). God causes his name “to be invoked” at the sanctuary (Exod 20:24, REB). The task of the Levites was to “invoke” God (1 Chron 16:4, NRSV), whether in

praise or in “petition” (NIV), and the term reappears in the headings to Ps 38 and 70. Thus, it also means to praise the beloved in a love song (S of Songs 1:4) or to cause a king’s name to be celebrated ( 45:17[18], NRSV). Ps 20:7[8] affirms that “we boast” (REB) of Yahweh’s name, instead of chariots or horses. In Ps 71:16; Isa 12:4; 63:7 God’s attributes are proclaimed in praise.

14. The hi. also has two special meanings. First, in Isa 66:3 it is used of bringing incense as a memorial offering (‘azkard: see below). Second, it can have a forensic flavor. In 43:26 God challenges the exiles to “cite” him “to appear” (REB) or to “‘accuse” him (NRSV). In Ezek 21:23[28] Nebuchadnezzar’s divination shows Jerusalem’s guilt as legal proof (W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 1:438, 445), while in Ezek 21:24[29] Judah by its sins had also presented such evidence. In 29:16 Egypt’s role was to attest Judah’s guilt. Similarly, in Num 5:15 the purpose of the grain offering used in the ordeal of the wife

accused of adultery was to expose or “draw attention” to her guilt. 15. The nom. zéker refers to remembrance when it is associated with death. Evildoers and Israel’s enemies suffer the fate of not being remembered at the time of death (Exod 17:14; Deut 25:19; 32:26; Ps 9:6[7]; 34:16[17]; 109:15; Isa 26:14). On the

other hand, wisdom teaching promises that the righteous will always be remembered (Ps 112:6; Prov 10:7). Ecclesiastes provocatively asserts that not even the righteous have lasting remembrance after their death (Eccl 9:5). Like the Akk. zikru, the term is also used in human contexts as a parallel and synonym of “name” or “fame” (Prov 10:7; Hos 14:7[8]).

16. When used of God, this latter meaning also applies (Exod 3:15; Ps 30:5; 97:12; 102:12[13]; NRSV “name”; 135:13; Isa 26:8; Hos 12:5[6]). This usage is devel-

oped from a basic meaning of invocation or proclamation and corresponds to the hi. of 1104

“OT (# 2349) the vb. In Ps 6:5[6] the parallelism indicates that the meaning is not remembrance but praise (Childs, 71; Schottroff, 294-95). In Esth 9:28 recounting the message of Purim seems to be in view (Childs, 72). To “celebrate” God’s goodness in Ps 145:7 is to engage in proclaiming it in worship. Similarly, in Ps 111:4 the zéker that God established for his wonders denotes proclamation of the Exodus (Childs, 22; Schottroff, 193); 17. The nom. zikkarén has at least three meanings. First, like zéker, it can mean remembrance: Eccl 1:11; 2:16 denies that the dead are remembered. Second, it is a memorandum, record, or “something to be remembered” in itself (Exod 17:14), such as the scroll (séper, > #6219b) of remembrance in which God lists his true people’s names (Mal 3:16). The most common sense is a memorial or reminder of something else. It is applied to religious objects, even to pagan symbols in Isa 57:8. The twelve

stones at the Jordan (Josh 4:7) were a monument to God’s bringing Israel’s twelve tribes into the land. The two onyx stones and twelve gems on the high priest’s ephod and breastpiece (Exod 28:12, 29; 39:7) were a means of bringing the names of the twelve tribes into God’s presence for his blessing. The bronze censers used by Korah and his followers were hammered into an overlay for the altar as a reminder to Israel that only Aaron’s family could be priests (Num 16:40[17:5]). The gold looted from the Midianites was put in the sanctuary as a permanent thank offering for the victory (Num 31:54; cf. also Zech 6:14). The_term is also applied to festivals and rites of worship. The Pass

ple’s Offerings ev 23:24

was a memorial or commemoration of the maodue Exod

12:14

kee] 10

(cf. The ape calls that signaled the autumn celebration (cf. as 29:16) probably likewise r este th Id take note

way as phylacteries, reminding God’s people to obey his Torah. The “reminder offering” in Num 5:15, 18 is explained in the text as a reminder or way of establishing the

guilt of innocence ofthe wile suspected of adultery. InNeh 2:20 the meaning of

zikkaron is uncertain. It is best taken as an invocation or proclamation, like zéker. Sanballat and his fellow leaders had no right to engage in worship in Jerusalem. 18. The nom. ’azkard (NIV “memorial portion, memorial offering”) is used of certain offerings. In form it is an Aram. aphel inf. used as a nom. Like the Heb. hi. vb., it seems to refer to the invoking of God’s name, in this case, over the part of an offering that was burned in sacrifice as distinct from the rest that was given to the priests (Schottroff, 334-38). It is used of different types of grain offering in Lev 2:2, 9, 16; 5:12; 6:15[8]; Num 5:26. In Lev 24:7 it is applied to the frankincense placed beside the showbread and later, representing the bread, burned on the altar as an offering (cf. Isa 66:3). P-B___In the Qumran writings there are three interesting uses. As in the Ps, in 1QH 4:35 remembering God (in this case, “the might of your hand and the greatness of your compassion”) gives the individual believer new confidence. The blowing of trumpets in battle so that God might remember and rescue in Num 10:9 is quoted in 1QM 10:7

and applied to the eschatological war. The cultic trumpets of Num 10:10 are also applied thus: one set of trumpets was to be inscribed “reminder of vengeance in God’s appointed time” (1QM 3:7; 7:13; 16:4; 18:14). In 1QS 10:5, however, Num 10:10 is 1105

“D1 (#2351) echoed with reference to the festivals and holy days. The promise that God will remember the covenant with Israel’s ancestors in Lev 26:45 is claimed by the community in CD 1:4; 6:2 (= 6QD 3:5). NT

~~ NIDNTT 3:230-47.

Forgetting: > nxh I (forget, #5960); Name:

> skh I (forget, # 8894)

~ é@m I (name, reputation, renown, # 9005)

Offering, sacrifice: > ’azkard (sign-offering, #260); — ’isSeh (offering by fire, # 852): > ’asam (guilt offering, # 871); > zbh (slaughter, sacrifice, # 2284); > hatta’at (sin offering, #2633); — tbh (slaughter, #3180); > minha (gift, present, offering, sacrifice, #4966); > ma“sér (tithe, #5130); > ndr (make a vow, # 5623); > nwp I (move back and forth, wave, # 5677); > nsk I (pour out, be consecrated, libation, #5818); > ‘ola I (burnt offering, # 6592); > “risé (meal/dough offering, #6881); > gorban (offering, gift, #7933); > Sht I (slaughter, # 8821); > Selem (settlement sacrifice, # 8968); > tamid (regular offering, #9458); > frima

(tribute, contribution, #9556); > Aaron: Theology; > Offering: Theology; ~ Priests and Levites: Theology Praising, singing, thanksgiving: ~ hil II (praise, be praiseworthy, boast, exult, #2146); > zmr I (make music, sing praise, # 2376); > ydh II (acknowledge, give thanks, praise, # 3344); > nwh II (praise, #5658);

> ‘nh IV (sing, #6702);

> psh I (break forth with or break into

singing, #7200); > rémém (exalt, # 8123a); > 5bh I (commend, praise, honor, # 8655); > Syr (sing, #8876); > tnh (recite, commemorate, # 9480) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 4:64-82; TWAT 2:571-93; P. A. H. de Boer, Gedenken und Geddchtnis in der Welt des Alten Testaments, 1962; B. S. Childs, Memory and Tradition in Israel, ‘Gedenken’ im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament, 2d ed., 1967.

1962; W. Schottroff, Leslie C. Allen

2351 ANE

720

“>t (zakar), male (# 2351); W131 (z*kair), what is male (# 2344); 3/4 (n’qeba), female (#5922).

1. Cognates in the Sem. languages for zakar are abundant: Aram. dkr, Arab.

dakar, Old South Arabic dkr, and Akkad.

zakru (CAD Z, 23) and zikaru (CAD Z,

110-12), all meaning “male.” 2. Cognates for n°gébd are much fewer. The nom. is formed from the Heb. vb. ngqb, pierce (2 Kgs 18:21), bore (a hole) (2 Kgs 12:9[10]); in past part. with the meaning “riddled/pierced bag” (Hag 1:6), i.e., a bag with holes in it. Cf. also the Heb. Siloam Inscription, “And this is the way in which it was cut/pierced through (Angbh)” (ANET 321; KAI 1, 189:1). Thus, it would seem that n°gébd refers to the sexual organ of the female.

OT

1. Almost always the animal sacrifice/offering that is brought before Yahweh is

a male (Lev 1:3, 10; 4:23; 9:3; 23:19; Num 6:14; 15:24; 28:19, 22; 29:5, 8, 13, inter

alia). This does not imply any inherent superiority of the male over the female. Rather, it is more likely that the male animal was used more frequently in offerings because economically it was more expendable, unlike the female, which supplied milk and off-

spring.

2. In only one of the offerings, the fellowship/peace offering may the individual bring before Yahweh an animal from the herd/flock that is “male or female” 1106

“D1(#2351) (Lev 3:1, 6). This may be due to the fact of the unique nature of this offering—an animal sacrifice offered to God by the worshiper as a sacred meal from whose meat the offerer partook. A restriction on the animal’s sex is, therefore, unnecessary. If one assumes that the choice of a male animal for other sacrifices reflects the dominance of the male sex in Hebrew society, then one would have to conclude that those sacrifices that permit the use of only male animals (i.e., the burnt offering) have a higher status than those that allow both male and female animals (i.e., the peace/fellowship offering). 3. Occasionally a female animal is designated as the sacrificial animal (Lev 4:28, 32, the sin offering of a member of the community, and cf. Num 15:27). This is in contrast to the sin offering of a leader, which is a male goat (Lev 4:23). Thus, the commoner brings the more valuable animal (see par. 1 above), while the leader brings one

of less value. This may be explained by the fact that a commoner “is likely to keep only female animals, which provide sustenance, and only if he could afford it would he

retain a single male for breeding. The chieftain, by contrast, could well afford to keep several males in his flock” (Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, AB, 252).

4. A woman’s length of uncleanness after giving birth to a female is twice that after giving birth to a male. After giving birth to a zakar, the mother is unclean for 7 days (Lev 12:2), and it is 33 days until she is declared pure again (Lev 12:4). After giving birth to a n°qébd, the mother is unclean for 14 days (Lev 12:5). Does the doubling of the purification period for the birth of a female translate into the inferiority of the female sex? Not necessarily, for “greater defilement is not necessarily an indication of less social worth. Hence, a corpse defiles more than a dead pig, the latter more than a dead frog” (Gruber, 43, n.13).

5. The redemption price of a male is about twice that of a female (Lev 27). The scale is as follows:

30 shekels (Lev 27:4)

4 shekels.(Lewio1:6) 15 shekels (Lev 27:7)

Why this difference between male and females? Possibly “gender differentiation may be linked to productivity, it being presumed that a male could earn more than a female” (Levine, Leviticus, JPS Torah Commentary, 1989, 193). 6. Unlike Gen 2, which uses ’#¥, man/husband, and ’issa, woman/wife, Gen 1:27 uses the terms zakar and n°qgébd. The former are social terms, the latter biological terms. Furthermore, the line “male and female he created them” follows the line “in the

image of God he created him.” They precede the line, “God blessed them and said to them, ‘be fruitful and increase in number, fill the earth.’” Three significant points emerge. (a) The pl. of v. 27 (“male and female he created them”) argues against any 1107

151 (# 2360) concept of androgyny. (b) Both male and female must equally be bearers of the divine likeness image. (c) Sexuality may be seen in both biological terms (Gen 1) and psychosocial terms (Gen 2).

7. The nom. z*kir, what is male, occurs in the phrase, “three times a year all the men are to appear before the Sovereign LORD” (Exod 23:17; 34:23; Deut 16:16). This prescription in no way relegates women to second class status. Rather, the exclusion of women from participation in the national pilgrimage festivals may have been motivated by a desire to dissociate biblical religion from pagan, fertility practices in which women played a highly visible role. NT Paul teaches in Gal 3:28 that neither ethnic distinctions (Jew/Greek), cultural distinctions (slave/free), or distinctions of sexuality (male/female) may serve as dis-

criminatory criteria for admission to or exclusion from the church of Jesus Christ. Male: > ’adam (Adam, people, # 132); > ’i¥ I (man, husband, # 408); > ’*nd6s I (men, single man, #632); > ’asi¥ (man, #861); > geber I (young man, # 1505); > zakar (male, #2351); > m‘tim I (men, people, #5493); > na‘ar (boy, # 5853) Female: ~ ’iss@ (woman, #851); > g*bird/g*beret (lady, queen, mistress, # 1485/1509); > na“ra I (girl, #5855); > n°qéba (female, #5922); > pileges (concubine, # 7108); > Sidda (lady, # 8721) Offering, sacrifice: > ‘azkard (sign-offering, #260); — ’issSeh (offering by fire, #852); > ’asam (guilt offering, # 871); > zbh (slaughter, sacrifice, #2284); > hatta’at (sin offering, # 2633); — tbh (slaughter, #3180); > minha (gift, present, offering, sacrifice, #4966); > ma“sér (tithe, #5130); > ndr (make a vow, # 5623); > nwp I (move back and forth, wave, # 5677); > nsk I (pour out, be consecrated, libation, #5818); > ‘ola I (burnt offering, # 6592); > “risa (meal/dough offering, # 6881); > gorban (offering, gift, #7933); > Sht I (slaughter, # 8821); > Selem (settlement sacrifice, #8968); > tamid (regular offering, #9458); > friima (tribute, contribution, #9556); > Aaron: Theology; > Offering: Theology; > Priests and Levites: Theology

BIBLIOGRAPHY K. Barth, Church Dogmatics 3/1, 1958; L. L. Barufaldi and E. E. Culpepper, ““Androgyny and the Myth of Masculine/Feminine,” Christianity and Crisis 33/6, 16 April 1973, 69-71; P. A. Bird,

““Male and Female He Created Them’: Gen 1:27b in the Context of the Priestly Account of Creation,” HTR 74, 1981, 129-59; C. Boomsma, Male and Female, One in Christ, 1993; C. Green,

“Liberation Theology? Karl Barth on Women and Men,” USQR 29, 1974, 221-31; M. I. Gruber, “Women in the Cult According to the Priestly Code,” in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel, ed. J. Neusner, 1987, 35-48; P. Jewett, Man as Male and Female, 1975; P. Trible, God and the

Rhetoric of Sexuality, 1978. Victor P. Hamilton

2352 (zéker, remembrance, proclamation, name), > #2349

2355 (zikkarén, remembrance, memorial), > #2349 2359 (zullit, vileness), > # 2361

2360 1108

ort

9171 (calzal), shoot of vine (#2360).

551(#2361) OPH sulhts word is found only 1x and seems to refer to the shoot of the vine before the onset of fruit: “before the harvest ... he will cut off the shoots (zalzal, # 2360) with pruning knives” (Isa 18:5). Shoot, bud, growth, sprig, sprout, tendril: > ’éb (shoot, #4); > géza‘ (shoot, stump, # 1614); > zalzal (shoot of vine, #2360); > hdter (rod, shoot, # 2643); > yoneget (shoot, stripling, # 3438); > n‘tix6t (tendrils, shoots, #5746); > néser (sprout, shoot, #5916); > smh (sprout, spring up, grow, prosper, make grow, #7541)

Larry Walker

2361

by

6S) (zll 1), q. be frivolous, be despised; hi. treat

lightly (#2361); M1} (zullat 1), nom. vileness

(hapleg., Ps 12:8[9], #2359). ANE

Mish. Heb. zil, to despise; Jewish Aram., Christian Pal. Aram., Sam., Syr. zil,

contemptible; Mand. zil, to be of low value, be contemptible; Eth. z/l, unbridled; OSA dll; Arab. dalla, to be mean; Jewish Aram. zillita’, low opinion; Mish. Heb., Jewish Aram. z6l, low price; Syr. z‘lala’, zallilita’, foolishness, thoughtlessness, baseness.

OT 1. The vb. z/l I occurs 8x and means to be despised or regard something lightly. Four instances (q.) condemn gluttony, a practice that squanders food because the glutton does not appreciate its value. Deut 21:20 and Prov 23:20-21 link together drunkards and gluttons. This kind of behavior is reprehensible and brings poverty (Prov 23:21), heaps disgrace upon one’s father (28:7), and, as one of the habits of a rebellious son, receives the death penalty (Deut 21:20). The two remaining q. instances and the two hi. occurrences more directly signify the “treat lightly” nuance. In Jer 2:36 Yahweh indicts his chosen people for their penchant for unfaithfulness (NRSV—‘“How lightly you gad about, changing your ways’). They treat lightly the changing of allegiances, thereby cheapening (rather than honoring) their relationship with Yahweh. This interpretation presupposes the reading tazell? (with LXX, Vg., Syr.) rather than MT’s téz‘/? (interpreted as a contraction of te’z‘li, from ’zl, to go about). Yahweh offers to restore Jeremiah to his prophetic function (Jer 15:19) if he will repent and speak noble or worthy (yaqar) words rather than worthless ones (z/l; Yahweh’s estimation of Jeremiah’s immediately preceding complaint [vv. 15-18]). The writer of Lamentations depicts Jerusalem’s shame by describing a woman stripped of her clothing before spectators (Lam 1:8). However, it is not simply the enemies who mocked, but those who had formerly held her in high regard (kbd, note contrast between zi/ and kbd). God’s people bemoan their experience of being despised (Lam 1:11). 2. The form zullit (hapleg.) in Ps 12:8[9] is best regarded as a nom., vileness, worthlessness, although scholars have offered a number of other solutions. Driver

(152; cf. Gunkel, 43, 45) regards the form as a vb., zdlalta, you hold vile. Dahood (75)

identifies it as a nom., pits, based on a hypothetical root, nzl. Wernberg-Mgller (70) suggests g°zelat, stolen goods, in light of LXX. Leveen (51) and March (611) slightly

adjust the MT reading from z/wt to mz/wt (based on different argumentation). Both liken the resultant word to a hapleg. in 2 Kgs 23:5 that signifies astral bodies.

1109

551 (# 2362) The nuance of vileness (rather than pits, stolen goods, or astral bodies) coheres

well with the argument of the psalmist. The psalm begins and ends by viewing the comprehensive extent of vileness (an inclusio—12:1[2] mibb‘né adam, 12:8[9] libné ‘adam, among men). Facing this threat (12:8[9], “On every side the wicked prowl, as

vileness is exalted among humankind” [NRSV]), the psalmist prays for deliverance. Yahweh affirms that he will protect his own regardless of what the wicked might do or say (12:5-6[6-7]). Contempt,

disdain,

disgust,

loathing:

> bwz

(show

contempt

for, #996);

> bzh

(be

contemptible, think lightly of, despise, # 1022); > bhAl (become tired of, disdain, # 1041); > g‘l (abhor, be defiled, fail, # 1718); > zhm (make s.t. loathsome, # 2299); > zwr III (be offensive, # 2320); > zil I (be frivolous, be despised, #2361); > znh II (feel a dislike for, #2389);

> zara’ (sickness, nausea, #2426);

> hnn II (be stinking, loathsome, # 2859); > yq‘ (turn > qwt (feel disgust, # 7752); > qil (be slight, swift, appear trifling, treat with contempt, # 7837); > Sw II (slight, despise, # 8764); > Sqs (make o.s. aside, # 3697); > nq‘ (disengage, # 5936);

detestable,

#9210); > t‘b (be detestable, be loathed, loathe, abhor, # 9493)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

TWOT 1:244; A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms, 1972; M. Dahood, Psalms I, 1966; G. Driver, “Notes on the Psalms. I. 1-72,” JTS 43, 1942, 149-60; H. Gunkel, Die Psalmen, 1986; J. Leveen, “Textual Problems in the Psalms,” VT 21, 1971, 48-58; W. March, “A Note on the Text of Psalm 12:9,” VT 21, 1971, 610-12; P. Wernberg-Meller, “Two Difficult Passages in the Old Testa-

ment,” ZAW 69, 1957, 69-73. Michael A. Grisanti

2362 ANE

OT

bbs

55? (zi Il), ni. shake, quake, tremble (# 2362).

Arab. zalzala, to make quake; Syr. zunzala, earthquake.

= _zil ILoccurs only 3x in the OT (Judg 5:5; Isa 64:1[63:19], 3[2]). The ni. form of

the vb. is used in Isa while the q. form is used in Judges. However, in conformity with the two instances in Isa, the ni. form is to be preferred in the Judges passage. The aorist pass. rendering of the LXX as esaleuthésan further supports a ni. form (cf. the Pesh., Targum, and BDB,

272). In each instance the vb. zi// II describes the shaking of a

mountain caused by Yahweh’s theophanic presence. In the book of Judges Deborah (~) and Barak recount in a song of praise the victory of Yahweh over the Canaanites. In Isaiah, however, it is used in the form of a petition—a plea for Yahweh to deliver his

people through a theophanic act of such magnitude that the mountains, a symbol of firmness, will be dislodged. The single occurrence of a derivative form, zalzal, occurs

in Isa 18:5, which in the pl. is translated as “shoots” (NIV, NRSV) or “sprigs” (NASB). Since it is used figuratively to describe Yahweh’s destruction of Assyria, the rendering “trembling shoots” might better characterize the Assyrian response to Yahweh’s wrath. Shaking, terror, trembling: > g‘s (rise and fall noisily, swell, surge, # 1723); > zw‘ (tremble,

quake, be afraid, #2316);

~ zil II (shake, quake, tremble, #2362);

— halhald (shaking,

trembling, anguish, #2714); ~ hrg (come out trembling, #3004); > hrd (tremble, shudder, startle, #3006); > yr‘ (tremble, be fainthearted, # 3760); > mwt (waver, reel, stagger, shake, reel, #4572); > m‘d (slip, slide, shake, totter, #5048); > nwd (shake, totter, waiver, wander, mourn, flee, #5653); > nwt (shake, quake, #5667); > nw‘ (shake, tremble, stagger, totter,

1110

may >t 2363) I

ea

eS

ar

De

a

ee

wave, #5675); > n‘r Il (shake, shake off, #5850); > smr (shudder, have goose-bumps, bristle, #6169); > ‘iw ‘im (distortion, stagger, dizzy, # 6413); > pwq I (stagger, wobble, reel, totter, # 7048);

— phd I (tremble, be in dread,

# 7064);

> pls (shudder,

shake, tremble, #7145);

> qws | (feel disgust, frighten, cause dread, #7762); > rgz (agitate, quiver, shake, excite, rouse #8261); > r‘d (tremble, shake, tremble, # 8283); > r‘I I up, agitate, # 8074); > rnh I (rattle, (brandish, make to quiver, # 8302); > r‘¥ I (quake, shake, leap, # 8321); > rpp (shake, quake, rock, # 8344); > /tét (terror, panic, trembling, # 8417); > §‘rI (be afraid, terrified, bristle with horror, # 8547) Fear, dread, terror: > ’aydm (terrible, awesome, majestic, #398); > ’émd (terror, dread, # 399); — bhi (be dismayed, terrified, dismay, terrify, hasten, hurry, #987); > b‘t (overtaken by sudden terror, stupefied, be terrified, assail, # 1286); > gwr III (be afraid of, dread, stand in awe, # 1593); > d’g (be anxious, concerned, fear, dread, # 1793); > zhl II (fear, be afraid, # 2324);

> hrd (tremble, shudder, startle, # 3006); > htt (be shattered, dismayed, terrified, scare, terrify, > yr’ I (fear, be afraid, held in honor, #3707); > yrh (be afraid, terrified, paralyzed with fright, #3724); > ‘rs (be alarmed, terrified, dreadful, dreadful, be in terror, #6907); > phd I (tremble, be in dread, # 7064); > gws I (feel disgust, frighten, cause dread, # 7762) Roaming, wandering, homeless: > hi’ (stray, be removed far off, #2133); > t‘h (roam # 3169); > ygr (fear, dread, terror, # 3336);

around, lead astray, #3246);

> ndd I (flee, stray, wander, # 5610); > nwd (sway, be homeless,

# 5653); > nws (flee, # 5680); > rwd (roam, # 8113); > Sgh (stray, err, go/do wrong, mislead, # 8706); > swtI (roam, # 8763); > t‘h (wander off, # 9494) BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Globe, “The Text and Literary Structure of Judges 5, 4-5,” Bib 55, 1974, 174-75; E. Lipiski,

“Judges 5, 4-5 et Psaume 68, 8-11,” Bib 48, 1967, 185-206; R. D. Patterson, “The Song of Deborah,” in Tradition and Testament, J. S. and P. D. Feinberg, eds., 1981, 123-60. M. V. Van Pelt/W. C. Kaiser, Jr.

2363

mayor

maydr

(zal‘@pa),

nom.

rage,

hunger-pangs

(#2363); < *YT (cpl), vb., be enraged, or

quadriliteral root? (> #2406).

OT Asameteorological word only Ps 11:6, riiah zil‘apét, scorching wind. The context (“fiery coals, burning sulphur”) denotes God’s punishment on the wicked, reminding one of Gen 19:24. P-B Sir 43:17 zal“pét sapén, raging northwind, occurs in the context of God’s wisdom seen in creation. In 1QH V 30 z/‘wpwt signifies commotions. Wind, storm: ~ zal ‘apd (scorching [wind], # 2363); > haziz (cloud, strong wind, thunderclap, # 2613); > yém II (wind, storm, breath, # 3428); > m‘zarim (north-winds, #4668); > siipd I (destructive wind-storm, whirlwind, # 6070); > s‘h (calumniate, rush [storm], # 6185); > riiah (wind, Spirit, # 8120); > r‘m I (storm, thunder, # 8306); > s‘r II (carry off in a storm-wind,

# 8548) Manfred Dreytza

2365 (zimmé I, plan, foul deed), > # 2372

2367 (z°mord, branch, tendril), > #580; #2367 2369 (zamir I, song), > #2376

1111

DYot (# 2372) 2370 (zamir II, pruning), > #2377

e3i2

Dia}

O73 (zmm), q. think, plan, purpose, devise, plan evil (#2372); Mat (zimma I), nom. plan, foul

deed (#2365); M3TfA (m’zimma), nom. consideration, resourcefulness, plan, evil plan, plot, cleverness, discretion (# 4659). Aram. z’mam, think, plan, refute; zimmd, thought, plan, cunning plan; Syr. zam, ANE sound, buzz; Arab. zamzama, murmur, hum.

OT 1. Positively the vb. stands for putting together a plan or strategy to act on, such as considering a field and then purchasing it (Prov 31:16). The use of the vb. with I’ + inf. points to the resolve to initiate the action planned (Gen 11:6; Deut 19:19; Ps 31:13[14]; Zech 1:6; 8:14, 15). In Ps 17:3 zammdti may be an inf. spelled irregularly

for “my thinking,” but many emend the MT to read zimmat? (“wicked schemes in me”;

cf. TDOT 4:88). 2. In Ps 31:13[14] and 37:12 the vb. has a negative meaning for the plotting of the wicked against the righteous. In Prov 30:32 it is parallel “to act as a hardened fool” (nbl II, > #5571). After the Flood when the various peoples had a common language, God feared that they would accomplish everything they planned (Gen 11:6); the implication of this text is that their plans would be for evil as they designed a culture for their own glory. 3. In several texts the vb. has God as subj. both for his plans to punish his people (Jer 4:28; 51:12; Lam 2:17; Zech 1:6; 8:14) and for his plans to bless his people (Zech 8:15).

4. The nom. m*zimmd may stand for “discretion” or “resourcefulness,” a trait that augments

a wise character; however,

if this trait is undisciplined by wisdom,

it leads to knavery. One of the goals of teaching proverbs is that a youth may learn discretion (Prov 1:4 [Il ‘ormda, shrewdness {> #6893}, and da‘at, knowledge {> #1981}; same parallel in 8:12]). Lady Wisdom claims to have this quality, by which she enables humans who seek her to rule well (8:12). Ben Sira likewise applies this term for the resourceful rule of renowned Jewish princes over the Gentiles (44:4).

This quality preserves a youth from pursuing an evil path, even though strongly enticed to do so by the persuasive rhetoric of one who delights in perversity (Prov 2:11-12; ll band, understanding; 5:2). No wonder a student is exhorted to keep this quality (|l tuSiyyad, sound judgment), which promotes life and adorns one’s character (3:21). This nom. is also used in relationship to Yahweh. That none of Yahweh’s purposes can be thwarted is the conclusion to which Job came after his severe trial (Job 42:2). Jeremiah says that Israel has gone so far in sinning that God’s anger will not be cooled until he has executed his plan of punishment (Jer 23:20 = 30:24). This text adds that in the last days the hearers will understand, meaning that God expresses his anger discretely. In 51:11 Yahweh’s purpose is to take vengeance against the Babylonians for destroying his temple. 5. The nom. m‘zimmd often denotes evil plans or schemes. Anyone given to making plans for evil is both hated in the community (Prov 14:17) and condemned by God (12:2). In the law any one who commits perjury incurs the very penalty that would have been pronounced against the one plotted against if convicted (Deut 19:16-19). 1412

DIT (# 2372) Those who trust God, however, should not be deeply irritated when evildoers carry out their wicked schemes with initial success (Ps 37:7). In Prov 24:8 a person who calculatingly devises evil schemes is called “an intriguer” (ba‘al m‘zimm6t; tr. of McKane, Proverbs, OTL, 1970, 248, 399). Astonishingly the wicked may even go so far as to devise evil plans against God (Ps 139:20; cf. 10:4); nevertheless, they will not succeed (21:11[12]). As would be expected, those who execute evil schemes are not welcomed by God in the temple, neither will their vows and offering sacrifices remove their guilt, especially when offered with an evil intent (Jer 11:15; cf. Prov 21:27 [zimmé)]).

6. In Job 21:27 the nom. m*zimmd (‘| mah¥*bét, plans) is uniquely used for a line of argument in theological debate that, being built on false premises, is presented with the primary purpose of putting down a person who has a nontraditional outlook on an issue. 7. The nom. zimmd usually refers to evil plans or schemes; only in Job 17:11 does it have a positive use for “plans,” the desires of the heart. This nom. is used for

mischief that borders on doing wrong and which is a delight to fools (Prov 10:23). Prov 24:9 states that a foolish scheme is a sin. Thus, in devising such schemes one stands far

from God’s law (Ps 119:150). 8. The nom. zimma is predominantly used to depict certain acts as shameful and repugnant to God. Murder against pilgrims on their way to Shechem, for example, is declared to be shamefully repugnant (Hos 6:9). Bloodthirsty men have their hands full of wicked schemes as their right hand grasps bribes (S6had; > # 8816; cf. Ps 26:10). A villain plans wicked schemes or plots to bring the poor to ruin by false testimony most likely given at court (Isa 32:7). In another example, the base citizens of Gibeah of Benjamin abused a visitor’s concubine all night, resulting in her death, and were consequently judged to have done a disgraceful and wanton (n*bald) act (Judg 20:6). 9. The nom. zimmda occurs a few times in a declaratory formula used to pronounce certain sexual relations as potently defiling. Such acts include a man who has intercourse with a woman and her daughter (Lev 18:17; cf. 20:14). A parent’s turning a daughter into a harlot incurs the same disgrace (19:29). Job employs this formula to condemn lusting after another woman (Job 31:11). In Ezek 22:11 this nom. is used to condemn a man’s making his daughter-in-law unclean. Such lewd acts were so defiling that over the course of time they so polluted the Promised Land that it disgorged its inhabitants (cf. Lev 18:24-30; 20:22-23). 10. Using zimmé4 to establish a clear tie with the priestly usage noted in the last paragraph, Jeremiah, and especially Ezekiel, accused Israel and Judah of committing lewd acts in their pursuit of other gods and false political alliances. These prophets wanted to get across to the people how repugnant their behavior was to God (Jer 13:27 [|| ni’upim, adulteries; > #5539]; Ezek 16:27, 43, 58; 22:9, 11; 23:21, 27, 29, 35, 44, 48[2x], 49; 24:13). Jeremiah employs the phrase zimmat z‘niit (lewd prostitution or shameless prostitution [NIV]; zh I, > #2388) for Jerusalem’s wicked ways (Jer 13:27), and Ezekiel constructs the phrase ’isS6t hazzimma (lewd women) to character-

ize the blatant unfaithfulness of Israel and Judah (Ezek 23:44). Israel’s practices were so lewd that even the daughters of the Philistines were ashamed at her ways (16:27). Assuredly, God held his people responsible for such despicable practices in his threats to vent his wrath against them in order that the land might become clean again (16:58; 23:48-49; 24:13).

1113

7 G# 2374) P-B

In the Qumran hymns the nom. m‘zimmd usually means evil plans or schemes

(1QH 2:16; 5:10); however, it is used for God’s purpose being without deceit in 1QH

4:21. In 1QS 11:6 occurs the phrase mzmt‘rmh (prudent discretion). The nom. zimmda refers to evil schemes; 1QH 5:6 says that these schemes are formed in the imagination (ysr). The vb. is used with the sense “devise against” (1QH 4:10, 26). Plan, thought, meditation, scheming: > ’zn II (weigh, consider carefully, #264); > bd’ (devise, imagine, #968); > higgaydn (melody, thought, # 2053); > zmm (plan, purpose, plan evil, #2372); > hms II (think, invent, # 2804); > hb (count, compute, calculate, think, plan, #3108); > yéser I (frame of mind, disposition, #3671); ~ ‘st I (think, consider, #6951);

~ sthda (meditation, study, # 8491); > S*‘ippim (disquieting thoughts, worries, # 8546); > tar ‘it (thought, # 9569)

Folly, fool, madness, shameless: > ’‘wil I (foolish, fool, #211); > b‘r IV (be stupid, # 1279); > hill Tl (be confused, foolish, behave like mad, #2147);

(behave like a madman, # 4263); make foolish, frustrate, #6118);

> ksl I (be foolish, #4071);

> nbl II (act disdainfully, #5571);

> lhh

> skl (behave foolishly,

> pth I (be inexperienced, be naive, deceive, persuade, # 7331);

> Sg‘ (raving, crazy, # 8713); > tpl I (talk nonsense, # 9520) Wisdom, knowledge, skill: > byn (understand, discern, #1067); wise, act wisely, # 2681); > yd‘ (understand, know, #3359);

~ hkm (be wise, become

> ysr I(admonish, correct, disci-

pline, # 3579); > leqah (teaching, gift of persuasion, # 4375); > m*zimmd, consideration, plan, evil plan, plot, # 4659); > ‘ogbd (cunning, craftiness, # 6817); > ‘rm II (be cunning, be crafty,

make crafty, # 6891); > skl I (have success, understand, make wise, act with insight, # 8505); > tahbuldt (advice, guidance, # 9374)

BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 4:87-90.

John E. Hartley

374

7

{aT (zmn), only pu., to be set, appointed (of time) (# 2374); Tfat (z'man), nom., specified time, time

period (# 2375). Aram. loanword; only in late texts.

ANE The peoples of the ANE did not have the philosophical interest in the concept of time that is characteristic of the Greek thinkers. Rather, the passage of time was generally perceived as the succession of events. The nom. z‘mdan has cognate forms in Arab. zeman/zaman, Eth. zaman, Akk. simanu, and in Egypt. smn (a loanword from Akk.). All mean a point in time when an event occurs. The Aram. nom. z‘man (# 10232) occurs frequently in Bib. Aram. It can mean a point in time, especially when referring to a coincidence of events, as in Ezra 5:3: “At that time, Tattenai came” (cf. also Dan 4:36[33]: “At that time, my reason returned”; and 3:7-8, where the Chaldaeans bowed down before the golden image when they heard the sound of musical instruments). It can also refer to a predetermined period of time, as in 2:16, where Daniel requests a

period of time to determine the meaning of the king’s dream; and 7:12, where the existence of three human empires was allowed to continue for a period of time. More frequently, however, it refers to a predetermined moment or hour. Daniel would kneel to pray for Jerusalem three specific times a day (6:10[11], 6:13[14]). The specified times—1.e., the events of human life (birth, death, seasons, festivals) and human his-

tory (the rise and fall of kingdoms)—are predetermined by God (2:21), and attempts of human monarchs to change the times are characteristic of hubris and offensive to God 1114

at # 2374) (7:25). There is also a predetermined time when the kingdom of God will be established on the earth (7:22), so the righteous can know that their suffering is only temporary. God will intervene at the proper moment. OT 1. The nom. often means a specified point in time. Esth 9:27 relates the tradition that an ordinance established that Purim would be celebrated for two days “according to their specified time” (kizmannam), and 9:31 reiterates that the days were set aside “in their specified times” (bizmannéhem), meaning at the time set aside for the observance of the feast. In Eccl 3:1, the nom. is used to introduce the idea that “for everything there is a set time,” the nom. occurring in parallelism with ‘ét (appointed time). The v. precedes a section (3:2-8) naming various activities that epitomize human existence, from birth to death, stating that each has its appointed time (‘ét). We do not have here an expression of fatalism or a belief in the cyclical repetition of human history (see Gordis, 218, for various interpretations). There is a mild sense of predestination,

i.e., that the time for certain events have been determined by God and are beyond human control (cf. Scott, 221). But mostly, the passage expresses an appreciation for appropriateness that is common to the biblical Wisdom tradition. God makes each of life’s activities fitting or pleasant (yapeh) for its proper time (3:11; Wolff, 89-92). 2. The nom. also means a set duration, or length of time, in Neh 2:6. Here, after

Nehemiah had requested leave to go to Jerusalem, the king had asked him how long he would be gone and when he would return. Nehemiah replied and “gave him a time.” The context demands that the time refers not to a set date, but to a predetermined duration. The nom. has the same meaning in the Aram. text of Dan 2:16 and 7:12. P-B The nom. is widely attested in postbiblical Heb. It is used in the Heb. text of Sir 43:7 in synonymous parallelism with mé‘éd, appointed time (> #4595). The nom. does not appear in the major DSS, but in the Mishnah, z‘mdan largely replaces ‘ét as the usual word for time. It is used with the same meanings as in Aram.: a set time, a time

period, or even a season. It also appears in a number of idiomatic expressions, e.g., bizman Se-, when, if. Time: ~ ’dbéd (ever after, #7); > ’dpen (right time, # 698); > gil I (stage of life, # 1636); > zmn (be appointed, # 2374); > ‘dlam (long time or duration, # 6409); > ‘ét (time, # 6961); > pa‘am (foot, step, time, #7193); — peta‘ (instant, #7353); ~— tamid (continuance,

unceasingness, regular offering, # 9458) Time and Eternity: Theology BIBLIOGRAPHY

J. Barr, Biblical Words for Time, 1962; S. DeVries, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow: Time and History in the Old Testament, 1975; Gordis, Koheleth—The Man and his World, 1955, DUSs J. Muilenburg, “The Biblical View of Time,” HTR 54, 1961, 225-71; R. Murphy, Ecclesiastes, WBC, 1992; R. B. Y. Scott, Proverbs-Ecclesiastes, AB, 1985; N. Snaith, “Time in the Old Testament,” in F. F. Bruce (ed.), Promise and Fulfilment, 1963, 175-86; R. N. Whybray, Ecclesiastes, NCBC, 1989, 65-67; H. W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament, 1973.

Anthony Tomasino

2375 (z°man, time), > # 2374 1115

“Wat (# 2376)

ek

cli

“73

(zmr

I), pi. make

music,

sing

praise

(#2376); TMT (camir 1), nom. song (#2369);

M731 (zimra I), nom. music, singing (# 2379), “ViaTta (mizmér), nom. psalm (# 4660).

ANE This root is well attested, including Akk. zamaru, zamara, blow a wind instrument.

OT

sing, play music; Arab.

1. The basic meaning of the vb. is playing a musical instrument in the context of

worship, usually a stringed instrument (“make music,” Ps 33:2; 98:5; 144:9; 147:7),

but also a percussion instrument (149:3). More often it has the developed sense of singing to a musical accompaniment (cf. 71:22-23). The nom. zimrd is used both of music (Amos 5:23) and of accompanied singing (Isa 51:3). In Exod 15:2; Psa 118:14; Isa

12:2 (NIV “my song”), it is more probably to be related to the third root, with the sense “might” (NRSV) or “defence” (REB). The less common

nom. zamir means

a song

accompanied by music, and so does the nom. mizmdr, generally rendered “psalm.” 2. The range of usage reflects that of h/l, praise, on a smaller scale. Both the vb. and the nom. zimrd are used to introduce communal hymns in extended calls to praise (Ps 33:2; 66:2, 4; 68:4[5]; 81:2[3]; 95:2; 105:2; 135:3; 147:1) or a renewed call to

praise in a double or multiple hymn (47:6-7[7-8]; 68:33; 98:4-5; 147:7; 149:3). In Isa 12:5 the vb. introduces a prophetic eschatological hymn, and in Judg 5:3 a victory song. In the individual hymn sung before the congregation it is used both in the initial self-exhortation to praise (Ps 146:2) and in concluding praise (104:33). It reflects an endeavor to praise God adequately by calling for universal praise (66:4; 68:32[33]; 98:4) or by pledging permanent praise (104:33; 146:2). The very use of music is intended to amplify praising voices. 3. In individual thanksgiving songs the vb. sometimes introduces praise for deliverance from enemies (Ps 9:1-2[2-3]; 138:1). It features in a concluding expression of thanksgiving at 18:49[50] (2 Sam 22:50). Likewise, in Ps 30:12[13] it is used in a final statement of praise, as an opportunity afforded by God’s deliverance. A device to augment praise appears in the calls to the congregation to join in the praise (9:11[12]; 30:4[5]). 4. In laments the vb. is found in a closing promise to give thanks, if God answers the prayers (Ps 7:17[18]; 57:7-9[8-10] = 108:1, 3[2, 4]; 59:17[18]; 61:8[9]; 71:22-23;

144:9). Somewhat similar is the promise in 21:13[14], after a petition for

God’s gift of victory made on the king’s behalf. The vb. features in anticipatory thanksgiving in 75:9[10], after a divine oracle and its explanation in vy. 2-8[3-9].

5. In prophetic contexts the nom. zimrd appears in an oracle of salvation for Zion in Isa 51:3 (“singing”) and in the prophetic critique of worship in Amos 5:23. The nom. zamir, song, features in two eschatological hymns (Isa 24:16; 25:5). It also occurs in 2 Sam 23:1, introducing David’s last words, and in Job 35:10. 6. The nom. mizmor is restricted to the headings of fifty-seven of the Psalms, indicating that they were sung to musical accompaniment. The English rendering comes from the LXX psalmos, derived from the vb. psalld, pluck a stringed instrument.

P-B One of the duties of members of the Qumran community was to sing with knowledge (1QS 10:9). In the Hymns there are pledges to sing of God’s acts of 1116

“Wat (# 2377) eo ea a

a

covenant love (1QH 11:5) and, when distress is removed, to sing with “the harp of salvation” (1QH 11:23).

NT

~ NIDNTT 3:668-676.

Praising, singing, thanksgiving: ~ hil II (praise, be praiseworthy, boast, exult, #2146); ~ zmr I (make music, sing praise, # 2376); > ydh II (acknowledge, give thanks, praise, # 3344); > nwh Il (praise, #5658); > ‘nh IV (sing, #6702); > psh I (break forth with or break into singing, #7200); > rdmém (exalt, # 8123a); > sbh I (commend, pase) honor, # 8655); > Syr (sing, # 8876); > tnh (recite, commemorate, # 9480) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 4:91-98; TWAT 2:603-12. Leslie C. Allen

377

=")

“Vat (zmr ID, q. prune; ni. be pruned (# 2377); mat (z‘mérd), nom. branch (#2367); ft (zamir I), nom. pruning, trimming (# 2370); Mati (mazméra), nom. vine knife (# 4661); Tra Tl(m‘zammeret), nom. snuffer, wick-trimmers (# 4662). ANE The vb. is well attested throughout the ANE, e.g., Ugar. zbr, prune; Arab. dialect zabbara, prune. The most important occurrence of zmr II is found in the Gezer calendar, where it clearly refers to the pruning activity during the time of the grape harvest (KAI 2:182). OT 1. zmr IL occurs only 3x in the OT, 2x in the q. and 1x in the ni. with a passive meaning. In Lev 25:3-4 the ordinances concerning the Sabbath year are given. Once the Israelites had entered Canaan, they were supposed to practice agriculture for six years, whereas the description of the agricultural activities here is limited to sowing,

pruning, and harvesting, and does not cover the complete spectrum of agricultural land use (for a discussion of the sabbatical year law within the agricultural life of Iron Age Israel, cf. Hopkins, 200-202). In the seventh year all these activities were to cease, and the land was meant to rest. The pruning of the vines usually was carried out before leaving in winter, and it was regarded as the essential operation in the process of vine cultivation, since the following crop depended on it (Hopkins, 228). The other occurrence of zmr II (ni.) in the OT is found in Isa 5:6 as part of the “Song of the Vineyard,” in which Israel is likened to a vineyard. After it has not yielded the expected crop, God abandons it and discontinues its cultivation. Pruning and hoeing (the NIV translates “cultivated” instead of “hoed,” which appears too unspecified) are regarded as the essential parts in the cultivation of the vineyard. 2. zamir II occurs only in S of Songs 2:12, where it is understood to refer to the time of pruning. However, in v. 11 it is said that the winter is over, which does not seem to be a likely time for pruning, as observed above (cf. also Isa 18:5). Thus numer-

ous translations (including the NIV) have preferred to read zamir I and translate it with “singing” (> # 2369). 3. mora as a derivative of zmr II refers to a branch, and more specifically, to

the branch of the vine. In Num 13:23 it refers to the branch of the vine with a single cluster of grapes on it, brought back by the men who were sent out to explore Canaan.

1117

“Wat(# 2378)

The four remaining occurrences are all found in prophetic literature. In Isa 17:10 the prophet uses the polemic imagery of a garden planted in homage to foreign gods in which Israel plants imported vine branches, which is ultimately idolatry. In Ezek 8:17 the holding of a vine branch towards the nose (MT has corrected from an anthropomorphic “my [i.e., God’s] nose” to “their nose”) is used as a gesture of utter provocation against God. In 15:2 Israel is likened to the useless branch of the vine in a forest. In Nah 2:3 God promises the restoration of Israel after their vine branches have been stripped. Since the vine branch is an integral and familiar object of Israel’s agricultural existence, it lends itself to figurative usage as displayed by these occurrences in prophetic literature. 4. mazméré occurs as a terminus technicus 4x in the OT and refers to the vine knife or pruning hook that was used for pruning. It was a small knife with a sickle-shaped point, which could also quickly be converted into a weapon (UISBE 4:986), as described in Joel 3:10. In opposite fashion, Isa 2:4 talks of the conversion of a spear, i.e., an instrument of war, into a pruning hook, which is representative of more peaceful activities (cf. also Mic 4:3). In Isa 18:5 God uses a vine knife as an instrument of his judgment against Cush. Generally, the pruning knife appears to be denotative of the sphere of peace, although in a figurative sense it can refer to God’s acts of judgment. 5. The term m*zammeret refers to one of the golden snuffers that were part of the temple utensils and were used for trimming the wicks of the lamps (1 Kgs 7:50; 2 Kgs 12:14; 25:14; 2 Chron 4:22; Jer 52:18).

P-B__In

Talmudic literature (e.g., Sabbat 73b; Lev Rabbah, section 9) zmr is used

with the same meaning as in the OT, i.e., prune (Jastrow, 405). At Qumran zmr only occurs as zmr I.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ISBE 4:986-87; KAI 2:181-82; HALAT 261-63, 536; TWAT 8:493-98; TWOT 1:245; O. Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel, 1987; D. C. Hopkins, The Highlands of Canaan, SWBA 3, 1985. Trimming: ~ zmr II (prune, #2377); > ksm (trim hair, #4080); > krsm (make cropped, trimmed off, #4155); > gsh I (trim off, maim, shorten, scrape, #7894); > gss (cut off, trim, cut

off, cut to pieces, #7915) Martin G. Klingbeil

2378

mle)

“Wat (zemer), gazelle (# 2378).

OT —_zemer has been variously classified as camelopardalus, Ovis musimon, or Oryx algazel, and is rendered with kamelopardalis in the LXX. It is found only in Deut 14:5, which NIV translates as “mountain sheep.” The zemer is listed among the animals Israel was allowed to eat. Deer, gazelle:

> ‘ayyal/’ayyala (deer, # 385/0387);

(roebuck, # 3502);

> zemer (gazelle,

> ya‘él V/ya““ld I (ibex, #3604, 3607);

# 2378);

> yahmar

> ‘Oper (fawn of a gazelle, deer,

# 6762); > sbi Il/s*biya (gazelle, # 7383, 7386) Michael S. Moore/Michael L. Brown

1118

MDT #2380) 2379 (zimré I, music, singing), > # 2376

] M7 imra ID, nom. strength (# 2380 [accord-

2380 PORES ‘ : vet ing to NIVEC, the word occurs only in Gen 43:11, where it has the meaning best products, but HALAT, which takes the root to be zmr III, identifies four occurrences of this nom.]). ANE The root occurs in Arab. d‘amara, drive on; damir, damir, brave, gallant, valiant, bold, courageous, doughty; ddimr[un], strong; in Ugar. dmr, soldier; in Amor. names (e.g., Zimrilim, see Huffmon, 187-88); and in OSA ddmr, where the meaning is shelter, screen, shade, protect, guard, defend, secure; mdmr, man, husband.

OT

1. The word w*zimrat in the phrase ‘ozzi w°zimrat yah (Exod 15:2a) is problem-

atic in both form and meaning. Many emend w‘zimrat to w‘zimrati (see, e. g., Talmon),

although some maintain that this is methodologically unsound, given that the word occurs 3x (Exod 15:2; Ps 118:14; Isa 12:2) in identical form in the same formula (see Good; Durham, 206; Allen, 121). The text of Exod 15:2a has been translated in differ-

ent ways. If one were to follow the many scholars (e.g., BDB; RSV; JB; NIV; Delitzsch, 222; Driver, 1953, 133; Skinner, 1909, 103; Gray, 230; Buttenwieser, 659, 677; C. A. and E. G. Briggs, 406; Rozelaar, 224; Davies, 1967, 128; Loewenstamm; Good; Weiser, 722, 727; Honeycutt, 389; Durham, 199, 201; Kraus, 393; Anderson, 801; Barth, TDOT 4:94; Oswalt, 290, 293; Motyer, 129) who take the root of zimrd to be zmr I, which in the pi. means to make music (in praise of God), then one would trans-

late “The LORD/Yah is my strength and (my) melody/song,” a reading that is supported by Sam. Pent. and Vg. If this be the correct translation, then “The LORD is ... (my) song” means either that Yahweh is the subject of the song or that he is the reason for the rejoicing (Honeycutt, 389). However, others (see HALAT; Holladay, 90; Thomas, 48; Kissane, 1960, 140, 142; 1964, 538; Eaton, 271; Mays, 378; Watts, 181-83; Seitz, 113; Wildberger, 499-500, 504; NRSV; NEB; REB) take the word to mean strength, protection, or

defense and translate the phrase as “The LORD is my strength and (my) might/protection/defense.” In favor of the argument that zimrd means fortress, protection, might, or defense (see, esp., Gaster; Parker; Freedman, 200; Allen, 119, 121), it may be pointed

out that this reading not only fits the context perfectly (Cole, 123), but is supported by LXX (skepastés, covering, shelterer, protection). Cross and Freedman (243, n. b), followed by Allen (121; cf. Dahood, 1973, 74; 1970, 154, 158) maintain that the meaning

“protection/defense” is further supported by South Arab., North Israelite, and Amorite proper names (cf. Gaster; Noth, 176; see, further, the literature cited by Loewenstamm,

465, n. 3). Moreover, even Loewenstamm

(464) concedes that the ideas of strength and

song seem to be completely disparate, being neither synonymous nor congeneric. Attempting to explain the affinity between the two concepts of ‘6z and zimrda, Loewenstamm (467) argues that one of the main functions of zimra (which he translates “[my] glory”) was to extol Yahweh’s ‘dz (strength), which manifests itself in his mighty deeds. The praise of Yahweh’s ‘6z in cultic music, he continues, may be described as giving God ‘dz. He concludes that ‘éz and zimra denote the psalmist’s strength and glory, the source of both being Yahweh (468). But the case made by Loewenstamm 1s

119

MDT(#2380) flawed, as Parker has shown. Parker (376) rightly points out that the unit that must be considered is not just the first colon of Exod 15:2, but the bicolon of which it is a part, ‘ozet w°zimrat yah way’hi-li lixa‘d. One would expect zimrd to be synonymous with ‘6z and y*si‘d. Certainly, there are other examples in the OT of a synonymous pair of words joined by the conjunction in one colon with a further synonym in the parallel colon (Parker, 376).

Moreover, there are good reasons for positing the existence of a root dmr/zmr, protect, in certain areas of Northwest Semitic (see Parker, 373-74, 377-79). The emphasis in the first half of Exod 15:2 is on the irresistible divine warrior’s salvific power, which the rest of the song illustrates by focusing mainly, but not exclusively (see Clements, 90-93; Childs, 243-53), on the events at the Sea of Reeds. Exod 15:1-21

may not have thematic or chronological unity (on the wide range of suggestions concerning the form, structure, and date of this composition, see Durham, 202-5), but it

does have theological unity; the overall emphasis is not on any specific event or even series of events, but, rather, on Yahweh’s saving presence, which rescues, protects, and

establishes his people (Durham 210; cf. Fretheim, 165-70). 2. Resigned to the fact that Benjamin was to accompany his brothers on their second journey to Egypt, Jacob busied himself with the task of organizing propitiatory gifts to assure the favor of the grand vizier of the land (Gen 43:11-12 [these vv. remind

the reader of 37:25-28 which describe the Ishmaelite caravan to whom Joseph was sold]). The phrase (miz)zimrat ha’ ares, which occurs in Gen 43:11, is variously translated: “the choice fruits of the land” (RSV; NRSV); “the land’s finest products” (JB);

“the produce for which our country is famous” (NEB; REB); “the best products of the land” (NIV; TEV; Westermann, 116, 122; Hamilton, 543); and “the land’s best products” (Speiser, 325). Davidson (261) thinks that a(nother) purpose served by offering a

gift of the produce for which the country was famous would have been to authenticate the brothers’ claim that they came from Canaan. According to Driver (1916, 353) and Skinner (1969, 480) the word zimrda occurs only here and is of uncertain meaning. On the ground that the corresponding root in Aram. means to wonder, Driver suggests that Heb. zimrd may mean admirable or estimable things and considers “choice fruits” to be a fair paraphrase. According to BDB (275), zimra here is a hapleg. which, though of uncertain meaning, is probably to be translated “choice products.” Some take zimrd in Gen 43:11 to be from the root zmr I. If this be correct, then

it may mean “the praise of the land,” i.e., the choicest, most praised, prizewinning fruits of the land (see Whitelaw, 483; Davies, 1970, 274). Some (e.g., Dillmann, cited by Skinner, 1969, 480; cf. Davies, 1970, 274) suggest that the root is zmr, prune, and

that zimrd here means “(the) pruning(s).” However, those (e.g., HALAT; Holladay, 90; Herbert,

1962, 137; von Rad, 387), who take the word to be strength, strengths, or

powers, used here with the unusual sense “the best products,” are probably closest to the mark. BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 4:91-98; L. C. Allen, Psalms 101-150, WBC,

1983; A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms.

Vol. 2: Psalms 73-150, NCB, 1972; J. Barton, Isaiah 1-39, OTG, 1995; C. A. and E. G. Briggs,A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms. Vol. II, ICC, 1960; M. Buttenwieser, The Psalms Chronologically Treated With a New Translation, 1969; B. S. Childs, ExoA Commentary, OTL, 1974; R. E. Clements, Exodus, CBC, 1972; R. A. Cole, Exodus: An

dus:

1120

}1 #2385) Introduction and Commentary, TOTC, 1973; F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman, “The Song of Miriam,” JNES 14, 1955, 237-50; M. Dahood, Psalms II: 51-100. Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 1973; idem, Psalms III: 101-150. Introduction, Translation, and Notes With an Appendix on the Grammar of the Psalter, AB, 1970; R. Davidson, Genesis 12-50, CBC, 1979; G. H. Davies, Exodus: Introduction and Commentary, Torch, 1967; idem, “Genesis,” in BBC, 1970, 1:101-304; F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Psalms. Vol. III, KD, 2d ed., 1885; S.R. Driver, The Book of Genesis, 10th ed., 1916; idem, The Book of Exodus, CBSC, 1953; J. 1. Durham, Exodus, WBC, 1987; J. H. Eaton, Psalms: Introduction and Commentary, Torch,

1972; D. N. Freedman, Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: Studies in Early Hebrew Poetry, 1980; T. E. Fretheim, Exodus, Interp, 1991; T. H. Gaster, “Notes on ‘the Song of the Sea’,” ExpTim 48, 1936, 45; E. M. Good, “Exodus XV 2,” VT 20, 1970, 358-59; G. B. Gray,A Critical and Exeget-

ical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah. Vol. I: Introduction, and Commentary on I-XXVIL ICC, 1975; V. P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis Chapters 18-50, NICOT, 1995; A. S. Herbert, Genesis 12-50: Introduction and Commentary, Torch, 1962; idem, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah Chapters 1-39, CBC, 1973; W. L. Holladay,

A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old

Testament, 1971; R. L. Honeycutt, “Exodus,” in BBC, 1970, 1:305-472; H. B. Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts, 1965; O. Kaiser, Isaiah 1-12:

A Commentary, OTL, 1977;

E. J. Kissane, The Book of Isaiah Translated From a Critically Revised Hebrew Text With Commentary. Vol. I (I-XXXIX), 1960; idem, The Book of Psalms Translated From a Critically Revised Hebrew Text With a Commentary, 1964; H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 60-150; A Commentary,

1989; S. E. Loewenstamm, “The Lord Is My Strength and My Glory,” VT 19, 1969, 464-70; J. L. Mays, Psalms, Interp, 1994; J. A. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An mentary, 1993; M. Noth, Die israelitischen Personennamen, 1928; J. N. Isaiah Chapters 1-39, NICOT, 1986; S. B. Parker, “Exodus XV 2 Again,” R. D. Patterson, “The Song of Redemption,” WTS 57, 1995, 453-61; G.

Introduction & ComOswalt, The Book of VT 21, 1971, 373-79; von Rad, Genesis: A

Commentary, OTL, 3d ed., 1972; M. Rozelaar, “The Song of the Sea (Exodus XV, 1b-18),” VT 2, 1952, 221-28; R. B. Y. Scott, “The Book of Isaiah Chapters 1-39: Introduction and Exegesis,” in JB, 1956, 5:149-381; C. R. Seitz, Isaiah 1-39, Interp, 1993; G. T. Sheppard, “Isaiah 1-39,” in HBC, 1988, 542-70; J. Skinner, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah Chapters I-XXXIX, CBSC, 1909; idem, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, ICC, 2d ed., 1969; E. A. Speiser, Gen-

esis: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 1964; S. Talmon, “A Case of Abbreviation Resulting in Double Readings,” VT 4, 1954, 206-8; D. W. Thomas, The Text of the Revised Psalter, 1963; J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1-33, WBC, 1985; A. Weiser, The Psalms:

A Commentary,

OTL, 1965; C. Westermann, Genesis 37-50: A Commentary, 1986; T. Whitelaw, “Exposition and Homiletics,” in Genesis, Pulpit, new ed., 1909; H. Wildberger, Isaiah 1-12: A Commentary, Continental, 1991; G. E. Wright, Isaiah, LBC, 1965.

Robin Wakely

2385

0)

{1 (zan), kind, sort (# 2385).

ANE szan is an Aram. loanword derived from the old Persian zanna (HALAT, 263). zan has a broader range of meaning in Aram. than is evident from the OT, e.g., zan is used in the sphere of the natural sciences to translate min in Vg. Onk. U:11, 12,.21,. 24,

25; 6:20; 7:14. —_zan occurs 3x in Heb. (2 Chron 16:14; Ps 144:13 [2x]) and 4x in Aram. (Dan OT 3:5, 7, 10, 15). The use is the same in each text: zan has the sense “kind/sort,” as in “all

1121

331 # 2387) kinds/sorts of.” Unlike min, zan is not used in the OT in the sphere of the natural sciences. P-B

In Sir 37:28 and 49:8 zan is used with the same sense as the above texts.

Kind, sort: > zan (kind, sort, # 2385); > min (kind, variety, # 4786) BIBLIOGRAPHY

J. Payne, “The Concept of ‘Kinds’ in Scripture,” JASA 10, 1958, 17-20. Mark D. Futato

2386 (znb, destroy the rear-guard), > # 2387

2387 ANE Sem. danab.

331 cognates:

231 (zanab), nom. tail (#2387); 3J1 (znb), pi. destroy the rear guard (# 2386).

Ugar. dnb; Akk. zibbatu;

cf. Syr. diimb‘ta,

d’niibta’, Arab.

OT 1. Inthe OT zandab appears 11x and the pi. denom. vb. appears 2x. Moses’ grabbing the serpent by its tail (Exod 4:4) is a dangerous act, requiring on his part faith in the Lord. On the Samson story of the three hundred foxes, Samson tied their tails in pairs and attached a torch to their tails, letting them loose in the Philistine fields of grain (Judg 15).

2. The nom. zanab is often coupled with ré’s5, head, as a merism to signify how all leaders are deceptive, elders (head) as well as prophets (tail; Isa 9:15-16). The idiom

may also be used contrastively, according to which the head (God’s blessing on his people) may become the tail (God’s curse on his people; Deut 28:13). 3. Furthermore, zanab appears in a merism with ‘dd, log, burning stick (> # 202), to denote the leaders (Rezin and Pekah) of whom Ahaz was afraid, but who were not to be feared, because they were after all tails that were burning like pieces of wood (Isa 7:4). J. Oswalt comments, “They are merely the smoking ends of sticks where a bonfire had been” (The Book of Isaiah, 1986, 200).

4. Contrary to the majority of the occurrences where the tail represents the lack of power, zanab of the b*hémot is extraordinarily stiff (Job 40:17). 5. The pi. vb. from the root znb, which appears in Deut 25:18 and Josh 10:19, has the sense of “destroy the rear guard.” Animals: ~> b*hémd (quadrupeds, #989); ~ zanab (tail, #2387); > h*zir (pig, #2614); > hayyd | (animal, # 2651); > keleb (dog, #3978); — ‘akbar (mouse, # 6572); > s‘pardéa‘ (frog, #7630); > gippod (hedgehog/owl?, #7887); > rms (creep, swarm, #8253); > srs (swarm, teem, # 9237); > tan (jackal, #9478); > Reptiles: Theology; see the Index for Birds; Camel; Deer; Donkey; Dove; Flock; Gazelle; Insects; Lion; Maggot; Snake, etc. N. Kiuchi

2388

rit

rd} (znh I), gq. commit fornication, act as a harlot pee a oy gees : have illicit intercourse; pu. be solicited for pros-

titution (hapleg.); hi. cause to commit fornication or prostitution, commit fornication

1122

rat (# 2388) (# 2388); 351 (zdnd), (q. part.) prostitute, harlot (# 2390); 073533 (z‘niinim), nom. prostitution (#2393); Ni3t (znat), nom. prostitution, unfaithfulness (#2394); nw (tazniit), nom. fornication (metaphorical) (# 9373): ANE

The vb. is widely attested: Arab. zena, commit fornication; Aram. zana’, Eth.

zamawa; Tigre, zanna, all meaning commit fornication. The ancient law codes refer to harlots, who frequent public squares. Marriage to one was possible, and the resulting children were legal heirs (Lipit-Ishtar, # 27, 30; CH 181). OT

1. The root znh and its derivatives occur 135x in the OT; most of the 94 vb.

forms are in the q. (once in pu. and 9 in hi.). The q. part. is used 34x as a nom. Two-thirds of the occurrences of the root and derivatives are in a metaphorical sense, mostly in the prophets Hos, Jer, and Ezek (47x in Ezek alone). tazniit occurs only in Ezek 16 and 23. 2. znh is a broad term for sexual misconduct, including adultery (n’p; > #5537), and may at times be synonymous with adultery. znh has two related but distinct meanings: to fornicate or have illicit sex, and to practice prostitution, i.e., offer sex for hire. In the OT, fornication describes illicit sex by a female that violates a rela-

tionship with a male, either a husband or father (cf. Bird), for which the penalty is death (Gen 38:24; Lev 21:9; Deut 22:21; Hos 2:3). The q. part. zénd unequivocally

refers to a prostitute, especially when preceded by isSa4, woman of prostitution (Gen 38:15—Tamar;

Lev

21:7; Josh 2:1; 6:17, 22, 25—Rahab;

Judg

11:1—Jephthah’s

mother; Judg 16:1—Samson’s friend; 1 Kgs 3:16; Prov 6:26). znh normally occurs with fem. subjects. It is used with masc. forms only when referring to a nation (Deut 31:16; Ezek 23:43) or in the hi. stem (Lev 19:29). ’etnan by itself or ’etnan z6nda (wages/hire of a prostitute) makes the nature of the true prostitute clear (Deut 23:18[19]; Ezek 16:31, 34, 41; Hos 9:1; Mic 1:7). Prostitution draws legal censure for

it defiled (All) the woman and/or land (Lev 19:29; 21:14), and priests were not to marry a zona (Lev 21:7, 14), but there was no legal penalty as there was for fornication. Each usage of znh must be evaluated independently on the basis of the literary context and social setting to determine its meaning. In many cases illicit sex, not sex for hire, is in view. 3. In the Wisdom literature the prostitute who works for a fee is not as bad as another man’s wife with adulterous intentions (Prov 6:26). Some understand the foreign woman designations (zard or nokriyy@) to be references to prostitutes (Freedman and Andersen, Hosea, AB 161; Yee), but the various contexts suggest an adulteress is in mind, as modern Eng. translations render the words (2:16; 5:3, 20; 6:24; 22:14, but

2B). 4. The most common and important usage of the root zh is metaphorical. Since it referred to illicit sex, especially in violation of a covenantal relationship (betrothal or marriage), it could be used to refer to covenantal unfaithfulness on Israel’s part, since this covenant came to be viewed as a marriage (Hos 2). This use occurs in legal texts (Exod 34:15, 16; Lev 20:5), historical narrative (Judg 2:17; 8:27, 33; 1 Chron 5:25),

and the Ps (73:27; 106:39). The prophets Hos, Jer, and Ezek exploit it to the fullest. The distinction between illicit sex and sex for hire is not clear in the metaphorical usage. The promiscuous wife (fornicator) is little different from the one who sells sex for a price. The promiscuous idolatry of Israel and Judah was like both. Israel was

1123

mt (# 2388) controlled by a promiscuous spirit (Hos 4:12; 5:4). She had sold sex for hire (2:5[7]).

Judah was no better, waiting like a prostitute for her lovers along the road (Jer 3:1-3). The idolatry being attacked was the Canaanite cult that Israel and Judah had adopted. If the cult included sacred sex, then the power of the metaphor was grounded in real sexual misconduct as well (Hos 4:13-14).

5. Ezekiel incorporated the znh metaphor into his two expanded historical analogies of the foundling who was rescued, married, but turned against her husband (ch. 16), and of the two sisters who turned to aggressive prostitution (ch. 23; cf. Jer 3:6-12). He sees not just idolatry as unfaithfulness, but foreign alliances as well (16:26, 28; 23:5, 7). Their idolatry was like prostitution but worse, for rather than accepting pay for favors, Israel paid for them herself (16:31-34)! Ezekiel understood Israel’s idolatry not only in terms of covenant unfaithfulness, but also in sacral terms. It violated Yahweh’s purity and defiled the nation. Thus Ezek associated the metaphor with such sacral terms as abomination (t6‘@bd), holy (qddes), become unclean (tm’), and profane (All) (16:2, 43; 23:7, 13, 17, 30). He could have very well been influenced by

Lev 19:29. This transforming of the metaphor into the sacral sphere shows Ezek’s concern for the holiness of the people as well as their faithfulness. 6. In several places the words gadés and q‘désa are commonly translated as sacred or shrine prostitutes (Gen 38:21, 22; Deut 23:17[18]; 1 Kgs 15:12; 22:46[47];

2 Kgs 23:7). But recent research has suggested there was no such class of people in ancient cultures, if we mean indiscriminate sex for hire, and that this class of people is better understood as some kind of (not clearly understood) cult functionary (Oden, Westenholz, contra Astour). P-B

Prostitution was widely condemned in Judaism, in Sir (9:6; 19:2; 23:23; 41:17,

20), T. 12° Patr.(esp. T. Reub.5:5;, 6:1; TF. Levi 9:95. 1; Jud. 15:2;518:2); by Josephus (Ant. 4:206), and by Philo (On Joseph 42; On the Special Laws 3:51). In the Talmud

prostitution becomes the term applied broadly to any kind of sexual misbehavior (b° ilat z°niit, intercourse of prostitution). It is condemned at length and eloquently (Gittin 81b; Sanhedrin 82a; ‘Aboda Zana 17c; Yebamot 59b etc.). The DSS warn against fornication (1QS 1:6; 4:10; CD 2:16; 4:17, 20). The LXX renders znh by the word group porneud. NT

_ porneuo and its related noms. (55x) mirror the OT usage of zh, both in literal

and metaphorical meanings. Prostitutes were well known in Palestine in Jesus’ day, but his forgiving spirit toward them sharply contrasted with the Jewish leaders (Matt 21:31-32). General sexual immorality (porneia) is condemned throughout the NT by Jesus (Matt 15:19; Mark 7:21), Paul (2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5; 1 Thess 4:3), the early church (Acts 15:20, 29), and John (Rev 2:21; 9:21). Paul’s struggle with

sexual immorality in the Corinthian church was vigorous (1 Cor 5). The sexually immoral will not inherit the kingdom (1 Cor 6:9; Eph 5:5) nor enter heaven (Rev 21:8; 22:15). It draws such heavy censure because it is a sin against the body (1 Cor 6:18), and the Christian cannot unite the body with a prostitute’s (6:16-17). The metaphorical use of the porneud group also mirrors the OT, referring to idolatry; however, it is not used of the church, but of pagan nations. This usage occurs only in Rev (mostly chs. 17-19) and is applied to that great prostitute, Babylon (17:1, 5, 15, 16; 19:2), the symbol of all enmity toward God. The nations who have religious

1124

mat (# 2389) and commercial intercourse with this prostitute receive God’s terrible judgment (14:8; 17:2, 4; 18:3, 9; 19:2). (See NIDNTT 1:497-501; TDNT 6:579-95.) Adultery: > n’p (commit adultery, idolatry, #5537) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 4:99-104; THAT 1:518-20; M. Astour, “Tamar the Hierodule: An Essay in the Method of

Vestigial Motifs,” JBL 85, 1966, 85-96; P. Bird, “‘To Play the Harlot’: An Inquiry into an Old Testament Metaphor,” in Peggy Day, ed., Gender Difference in Ancient Israel, 1989, 75-94; O. E. Collins, “The Stem ZNH and Prostitution in the Hebrew Bible,” diss. Brandeis, 1977; G. H. Hall, “The Marriage Metaphor in Jeremiah 2 and 3,” diss. Union Theol. Sem., Virginia, 1980; R.

Oden, “Religious Identity and the Sacred Prostitution Accusation,” in The Bible Without Theol-

ogy, 1986, ch. 5; J. G. Westenholz, “Tamar, gedeSa, qadiStu, and Sacred Prostitution in Mesopotamia,” HTR 82, 1989, 245-65; G. A. Yee, “‘I Have Perfumed My Head with Myrrh’: The Foreign Woman in Proy 1-9,” JSOT 42, 1989, 53-68.

Gary H. Hall

ene ANE

dt (znh ID), q. feel a dislike for (hapleg., Judg 19:2, # 2389).

a)

Akk. zeniim, to be angry, hate. The Akk. vb occurs in a number of passages in

contexts of marital difficulties and lovers’ quarrels (Cohen, 130). OT _ Several scholars (Boling, 273-74; Burney, 459; Cohen,

130; Gray, 373; Cun-

dall, 193) regard znh in Judg 19:2 as znh II because it seems to connote anger (NRSV) rather than zmh I, commit fornication (NASB, NIV; > #2388). The readings in LXX

and Tg. support this suggestion. Several other factors favor this interpretation. The concubine’s father’s attitude suggests that nothing serious had happened (19:4), and the Levite’s soothing words (19:3) suggest that a heated argument rather than immorality had occasioned their separation. Finally, znh I is not construed elsewhere with ‘al. Burney (459) and Boling (274) suggest that a scribe wrote zh erroneously for z‘p, be angry. However, in light of the Akk. cognate, this emendation is unnecesary. Contempt,

disdain,

disgust,

loathing:

> bwz

(show

contempt

for, #996);

—~ bzh

(be

contemptible, think lightly of, despise, # 1022); > bhl (become tired of, disdain, # 1041); > g‘l (abhor, be defiled, fail, # 1718); > zhm (make s.t. loathsome, # 2299); > zwr III (be offensive, # 2320); — zil I (be frivolous, be despised, #2361); > znh II (feel a dislike for, #2389);

> zara’ (sickness, nausea,

# 2426);

> hnn II (be stinking, loathsome, #2859);

> yq‘ (turn

aside, # 3697); > ng‘ (disengage, #5936); > qwt (feel disgust, #.7752); > qll (be slight, swift, appear trifling, treat with contempt, # 7837); > Swt II (slight, despise, # 8764); > Sqs (make o.s. detestable, #9210); > t‘b (be detestable, be loathed, loathe, abhor, # 9493) BIBLIOGRAPHY

R. Boling, Judges, 1975; C. Burney, The Book of Judges, 1918; H. Cohen, Biblical Hapax Legomena in the Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic, 1978, A. Cundall, Judges: An Introduction and Commentary, 1968; J. Gray, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth, 1967.

Michael A. Grisanti

2390 (z6nd, prostitute, harlot), > # 2388

1125

Mat (# 2395) 2393 (z‘niinim, prostitution), > # 2388 2394 (zniit, prostitution, unfaithfulness), > # 2388

2395

mPa

Mt (znh I), hi. become foul-smelling (# 2395)...

ANE Related to an Arab. cognate, the meaning become foul or stink may be deduced for znh | (HALAT 264; but see G. B. Gray, Isaiah 1-27, 327). OT The only occurrence is in Isa 19:6, where it contributes to the vivid evocation of judgment on Egypt. The Nile will dry up, thus resulting in a stink from the rotting vegetation in the irrigation channels. The anomalous

form, he’eznihii, may be a scribal

confusion of the Heb. hi. and Aram. aphel stems (GKC 53p). 1QIs* hznyhw reads the ordinary hi. hiznthii. Smell, stench:

> b’s (stink, become odious, #944); > zwr III (stink, be offensive, #2320); > znh I (become foul-smelling, #2395); > hnn II (be stinking, loathsome, # 2859); > srh II (stink, spoil, # 6244); > sah“nd (stench, #7462); > rwh B (smell, # 8193); > Smell: Theology

BIBLIOGRAPHY

G. Grogan, “Isaiah,” EBC, vol. 6, 1986; E. J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, 1970. P. Jenson

7396

mot

Fiat (znh (# 2396).

Il) q. reject;

ANE

Cognates in Arab. and Akk. have been suggested.

OT

1. Of the 19 occurrences of this vb., all but

hi. declare

rejected

5 have God as subject. Ten times

this takes place in Psalms, where God is said to reject the king (“anointed one,” 89:38[39]), the psalmist alone (43:2; 88:14[15]), or the psalmist and the community as a whole (44:9[10], 23[24]; 60:1[3], 10[12]; 74:1; 77:7[8]; 88:14[15]; 108:11[12]; all in q.). Elsewhere there is the threat that if Yahweh’s people forsake him, he will reject (hi.) them (1 Chron 28:9). Following the destruction of the temple, Jeremiah said that Yahweh had rejected his altar (Lam 2:7). There was hope, however, for the same prophet promises that the rejection is not forever (3:31); Zechariah says that Judah will be as though Yahweh had never rejected her (Zech 10:6). In light of the latter two texts and the inviolable nature of covenant promises in general, it is clear that znh does not mean irremedial and final rejection. 2. With a human subject, znh speaks of the rejection of the Levites as priests by Jeroboam (2 Chron 11:14), the removal of sacred objects from the temple by Ahaz (29:19), and, most significantly, Israel’s rejection of what is good (Hos 8:3). In response, the prophet commands the people to reject what is evil, namely, the calf-idol (v. 5). In this passage, the good refers to the covenant relationship and all of its benefits to Israel. The prophet commands the people to reject the idols, the very manifestation of covenant infidelity, for only in doing so can there be reconciliation between Yahweh and his people.

1126

aa i nh

Pat (# 2397) ol

P-B- Late Heb. znh adds the meanings “loathe” (q.) and “declare unclean” or even “polish” (both hi.). NT Paul speaks of the impossibility of God rejecting his people, the vb. apotheo being employed (Rom 11:1-2). Rejection, refusal, disgrace, shame: # 2396), > m’n (refuse, #4412);

~ gdp (revile, blaspheme, # 1552);

> znh II (reject,

> m’s I (reject, refuse, # 4415); > n’s (reject, disdain, treat

disrespectfully, #5540); > n’r (abandon, renounce, #5545); > slhI (despise, reject, # 6136) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDNT 1:448; TDOT 4:105-6; TWAT 2:619-21; Y. Yaron, “The Meaning of M31,” VT 13, 1963, 237-39. Eugene H. Merrill

2397 ANE

pat

jst (znq I), pi. jump before (hapleg.; # 2397).

Syr. z‘naq, shoot, hurl, sling; Arab. nazaga, jump.

OT In the blessing of Moses, Dan has great potential for strength; yet he is still so nervous, he jumps back in fear before a viper (Deut 33:22); this reading is based on F. Cross and D. Freedman’s interpretation of basan as “viper,” based on Ugar. bin (JBL

67, 1948, 208). In another possible reading of the picture is that of a lion’s cub springing from a covert. Jumping, leaping, skipping: ~ g/s (skip, jump, # 1683); > dws (dance, # 1881); > dig (leap, # 1925); > znq I Gump before, # 2397); ~ ntr II (start, spring, #6001); > sld (jump, spring, # 6134); > pws (skip, leap, #7055); > pzz II (be quick, agile, hop, #7060); > rgd (skip, leap, # 8376); > Sqq (run about, jump, # 9212) John E. Hartley

MYT (zé‘d), nom.

sweat, perspiration (hapleg.;

4399 me #2399); YT (yeza‘), nom. sweat, perspiration (hapleg.; # 3472); NY (da‘at Il), nom. sweat, perspiration (hapleg. # 1983). ANE 2é‘G also occurs with the meaning sweat in Mish. Heb., Aram., Syr. du ‘ta’, Akk. zu ‘tu, ziitu. yeza‘ occurs in Eth. as waz; da‘at II] is found in Ugar. as d'‘t.

OT

1. The hapleg. nom. zé‘d occurs in the theologically significant account of the

Fall and the curse in Gen 3:19. Because of Adam’s sin, God cursed the ground so that

it would no longer produce food as easily as before the Fall. Now, human beings would arduously toil and labor to receive a harvest of the ground. Work, however, was not given as a curse. Human beings were originally designed for work (Gen 1:28-30; 2:16), but the Fall brought misery and corruption upon humankind and nature, resulting in a painful, wearisome labor. Therefore, in this context, “sweat (of the face)” signifies a

cursed labor. 2. The nom. yeza‘ only appears in Ezek 44:18, in discussing the proper materials for the priestly garments to be worn in Ezekiel’s temple (Ezek 40-48). Ezek 44:17 specifies flax linen as the clothing materials for the head and body of the priests and 27

“YT(#2402) expressly forbids animal wool as clothing material because “they (the priests) must not wear anything that makes them perspire” (i.e., a garment that would produce sweat, 44:18). The outward appearance of the priests represented the inward state of the soul; hence, in performing priestly duties in the inner court, cleanliness was essential. Bodily impurities such as sweat, representing uncleanness and defilement, would blemish the image of cleanliness (cf. T. P. Terumot 8:C 45d, “All sweat which derives from humans is poison which causes death, except for sweat from the face”). Priests, there-

fore, were to wear garments of linen and avoid garments of wool. 3. In Isa 53:11, HALAT proposes to read da‘at III, sweat, instead of the tradi-

tional reading da‘at I, knowledge (> # 1981). The verse has variant readings, and scholars have proposed several emendations. Assuming HALAT proposed reading da‘at III, sweat, instead of da‘at I, knowledge, and emending the vb. r’h, see, to rwh, be sated, one might translate the verse, “Out of the anguish of his soul he will sated, he

will be satisfied with his sweat.” HALAT proposes this reading based on the perceived parallelism of da‘at III (sweat) to the nom. ‘amal (anguish). While these proposed readings and emendations are ingenious, they have no textual or versional support. To emend this text based on this proposed hapleg. is completely unnecessary. Instead we should read da‘at I, knowledge: “Because of the anguish of his soul, he will see ‘life’ (following 1QIsa®, LXX) and will be satisfied; in his knowledge the righteous one, my servant, will justify many.” P-B In later Jewish literature zé‘d is used for a variety of moistures, including sweat, vapors, mildew, rain, and liquids of fruits. Labor, trouble, toil: > hy/ I (be in labor, tremble, #2655);

> yg“ (be tired, # 3333);

> hI

(become tired, #4206); > mas (tribute, tax, forced labor, # 4988); > sbi (carry, bear a burden, # 6022); > ‘bd (work, serve, worship, # 6268); > ‘ml (labor, toil, #6661); > sara I (misery, anguish, affliction, trouble, #7650) BIBLIOGRAPHY ISBE 4:671; G. Dalman, AuSP, 1:514; J. Miiller-Bardorff, “Schweis,” BHH 3, 1749. Russell Fuller

5

2402

vet

WUTadele (2° Er) little (# 2402); ’ WT {i matter (# 4663).

Fat

(miz‘ar), > small

OT Z‘‘ér is only found in three passages (Isa 28:10, 13; Job 36:2), miz‘ar in four (Isa 10:25; 16:14; 24:6; 29:17). Each of these texts refers either to a small quantity or to a short time period. s‘r is a root of like meaning (s‘r, > #7592), of which some scholars feel z‘r is a variation. Little, trifle, insignificant: > ’@s II (little, trifle, #837); > dll I (be small, unimportant, # 1937); > z°‘ér (little, #2402); > hwr II (become less, #2579); > hsr (diminish, decrease, deprive, #2893); > hrh II (disappear, be few in number, #3014); > m‘t (be few, diminish,

become small, few, #5070); > s‘r (be trifling, insignificant, become trifling, # 7592); > gtn (be small, trifling, make small, #7781); ~ Skk (go down, abate, allay from upon, # 8896); > Sémes

(little, # 9066) 1128

re

a

AT

ED

eg

ee ne

ar 1 (# 2403) red a er

BIBLIOGRAPHY

TWAT 6:1083-87 (esp. 1083-84); TWOT 1:248-49. M. Daniel Carroll R.

2403

Ph

YT (z‘k), ni. be extinguished, Job 17:1 (hapleg.; # 2403).

OT = zk may be a byform or textual corruption of d‘k, be extinguished (> # 1980), which occurs 9x, mostly in the Wisdom literature, usually in the metaphorical sense of the extinguishing of life (Job 18:5, 6; Prov 13:9; 24:20). Extinguishing: > d‘k (snuff out, extinguish, vanish, # 1980); > z‘k (be extinguished, # 2403); > kbh (be extinguished, put out, # 3882) Gary H. Hall

2404 ANE

Det

OT (z'm), q. be angry, curse; ni. part. angry

(#2404); nom. OY (za‘am), anger (# 2405).

In Arab. zagama V means speak in anger, while the meaning in OSA is quarrel

and in Syr., find fault.

OT The vb. occurs mainly with God as subject, and the object is usually personal. In Num 23:7-8; Mic 6:10 the meaning is curse, and this is possibly also the case in Isa 66:14; Zech 1:12; Mal 1:4.

P-B_ At Qumran the form z‘wm (pass. part.) occurs in a curse formula on the analogy of ‘rir (1QS 2:7; 1QM 13:4-5). Curse: > ’/h I (swear, curse, put under oath, #457); > ’rr (curse, be cursed, # 826); > brk (bless [euph. for curse], # 1385a); > gdp (revile, blaspheme, # 1552); > z‘m (be angry, curse, #2404); > ngb (pierce, bore, distinguish, curse, #5918); — gbb (curse, #7686); — qil (be slight, swift, appear trifling, treat with contempt, # 7837); > Curse: Theology BIBLIOGRAPHY

S. H. Blank, “The Curse, Blasphemy, the Spell, and the Oath,” HUCA 23/1, 1950-51, 73-95; H. C. Brichto, The Problem of “Curse” in the Hebrew Bible, 1963; T. G. Crawford, Blessing and

Curse in Syro-Palestinian Inscriptions of the Iron Age, 1992; W. Schottroff, Der altisraelitische Fluchspruch, 1969.

Robert P. Gordon

2405 (za‘am, anger), > #2404

ALT (z‘p I), q. rage (# 2406); a) (za‘ap), nom. 2406 ail rage (# 2408); F\YT (za ‘ep), adj. raging (# 2409); MEY 71 (zal ‘apa), scorching (wind) (> # 2363).

ANE.

The root is found in Jew. Aram. and Syr., in Sam., and in Arab. (7DOT 4:111).

1. The basic meanings of this vb: are, be out of humor, vexed, enraged (BDB) OT or, be embittered against (KB). This is confirmed by the nom. za‘ap, storming, raging,

1129

FT (# 2407) rage. The latter is used of the raging of the sea in Jon 1:15; elsewhere it refers to raging anger; of the king’s anger, which is like the growling of a lion (Prov 19:12); and of Yahweh’s anger against the Assyrians (Isa 30:30). In Mic 7:9 the prophet warns his enemy not to rejoice over him in his experience of Yahweh’s anger, for it is a right response to sin but it will be replaced by light and deliverance (vv. 8-10). In these instances the meaning is “just anger,” rather than uncontrolled rage. 2. In Chron the case is different. Oded warns the army of Israel that although Yahweh acted in anger (hémd) against Judah, “‘you have slaughtered them in a rage (za‘ap) which reaches to heaven” (2 Chron 28:9). Asa is criticized in 16:10, for he

“was angry (k‘s) with [Hanani] the seer...; he was so enraged (z‘p) that he put him in prison.” In 26:19 both nom. and vb. are used in a similar way: Uzziah was angry (z‘p) because Azariah the priest opposed him in his burning incense in the temple, and “while he was raging (za‘ap) at the priests...leprosy broke out on his forehead.” It is possible that this represents a characteristically late usage, but there is insufficient evidence to establish this. 3. The adj. z@‘ép, which is used of King Ahab’s sulking rather than raging in 1 Kgs 20:43; 21:4, is closely related to this secondary meaning of the vb. Anger, rage, wrath: > ’np (be angry, #647); > z‘m (curse, be angry, # 2406); > z‘p I (rage, # 2406); > hémd (rage, #2779);

> hrh I (be hot, become angry, #3013); > k‘s (be irritated, angry, #4087); > ‘br I (show anger, #6297); > qsp I (become angry, # 7911); > rgz (shake, agitate, # 8074); ~ Anger: Theology Wind, storm: ~ zal ‘apd (scorching [wind], # 2363); > haziz (cloud, strong wind, thunderclap, #2613); > ydém II (wind, storm, breath, #3428); > m*zarim (north-winds, # 4668); > siipd I (destructive wind-storm, whirlwind, # 6070); > s‘h (calumniate, rush [storm], #6185); > riah (wind, Spirit, #8120); > r‘m I (storm, thunder, # 8306); > s‘r II (carry off in a storm-wind, # 8548) Mike Butterworth

2407

pp)

FLT (zp (# 2407).

Il),

look

wretched,

look

pitiful

OT 1. The vb. occurs twice in the sense of “look dejected.” In Gen 40:6 it describes the state of Pharaoh’s butler and baker: they were z6“pim. Joseph asks them (v. 7), “Why are your faces so sad (ra ‘tm)?” (cf. Prov 25:20; Neh 2:2). They explain that they have had dreams that they cannot interpret. “Anger” (z‘p I) does not fit the context. They may have been angry at being put in prison, but they are more likely to be perplexed, frustrated, or dismayed at having uninterpretable dreams. 2. In Dan 1:10 the word describes the way the faces of Daniel and his friends might look if the chief of eunuchs allows them to be vegetarian. Again “angry” (z‘p I) is not appropriate, but the concern is that they may be “in poorer condition” (RSV) than the other youths. 3. It may be that the ancient Hebrews, as modern psychiatrists, recognized some important connection between anger and depression. We have insufficient evidence upon which to develop this connection. Depression, discouragement: ~ ’at I (depressed mood, depression, #351); > z‘p II (look pitiful, #2407); > k’h (be disheartened, frightened, # 3874); > khh I (become expressionless,

1130

pL 1 (# 2410) ee

rh

ee

colorless, be disheartened, # 3908); > mwg (melt, reel, waver, lose courage, # 4570); > mss (waste away, melt, dissolve, lose courage, #5022); ~ sir‘d (depression, discouragement,

# 7667); > rph (become slack, lose heart, discourage, # 8332); > Syh (melt away, be in despair, # 8863) Mike Butterworth

2408 (za ‘ap, raging), > # 2406

2409 (za ‘ép, raging), > # 2406 7410

Spt

put (2'q), 4. call for help, call to arms, assemble, utter a plaintive cry, proclaim; ni. be summoned, rally together; hi. summon, raise cry of lament (# 2410); PMT (z°‘aqa), nom. a plaintive cry, call for help (# 2411). ANE The vb. is found once in Aram. (APFC 71.17), where it refers to a shout or cry in a fragmentary text (DISO, 79). It is known in Samaritan Aram. and Arab.

OT _ 1. In the OT 2z‘q is a dialectical variant of s‘g (THAT 2:568); both forms are found throughout the OT, though in the Pentateuch the forms of s‘g are found 27x, while z‘g (q.) is found only at Exod 2:23 and z°‘aqd at Gen 18:20. In the refrain of Ps 107 the form s‘g is found 2x (vv. 6, 28) and the form z‘g 2x (vv. 13, 19); both forms appear interchangeably in other contexts as well (1 Sam 4:13, 14; 2 Sam 19:28[29]; Jer 48:3, 4, etc.). At times the MSS vary in form for the same word (e.g., Judg 4:3), a phenomenon that should be regarded as an orthographic variant. 2. In the greatest number of occurrences the q. and the nom. refer to a cry of need or distress (Prov 21:13; cf. Isa 33:15d); the q. is found 58x in the MT and the

nom. 18x. The cry is often one of urgent prayer (2 Chron 20:9; 32:20; Joel 1:14); it may be one of alarm and fear (1 Sam 5:10; 28:12[13]), or the outcry of outrageous wrongs (Gen 18:20). Often the cry of distress is that of pain and lamentation. Tamar, after having been raped by Amnon, walked along crying out loud in her torn royal garment, her hands on her head, which was covered with ashes (2 Sam 13:19). At the news of the death of Absalom David wept, buried his face in his hands, and cried out (19:4[5]). The Philistines will cry out and wail before the destruction of the conquering armies (Jer 47:2; cf. Isa 14:31); Moab will wail and cry because she is laid waste (Jer 48:20; cf. 48:31, 34; Isa 15:4-5, 8). Hosea admonishes Ephraim because they do not cry out to the Lord, but instead wail and gash themselves because of the destructive judgment that is coming upon their crops (Hos 7:14). The function of the beds in relation to wailing may be a mourning ritual or a separate cultic act (Andersen and Freedman, 474), but the rituals of laceration are mentioned.

3. The term z‘g is frequently associated with large-scale calamity. In the visions of the destruction of Jerusalem Ezekiel cries out in alarm and lamentation at the decimation of the entire city (Ezek 9:8; 11:13; cf. 21:12[17]). He describes the funeral

dirge of Tyre in terms of the mourning rituals of ashes on the head, shaving of the hair, wearing of sackcloth, bitter weeping, and a loud outcry (27:29-32). The leaders of the nations wail, cry out, and roll in the dust because the day of their slaughter has come (Jer 25:34). At the edict to liquidate all the Jewish people Mordecai rends his garments, puts on sackcloth, and cries out in a loud and bitter voice (Esth 4:1). The feast of Purim

1131

PPT(#2410) en was established as a memorial to remember their fasts and their outcries (9:31); z°‘aga is here translated lamentations in the NIV, because that was the nature of their cry. Isaiah looks forward to the day when there will no longer be the sound of weeping or cry-

ing (Isa 65:19). Lamentation is in essence a cry of distress, whatever other acts may accompany it. This is also true of the cry of the nations at the time of their destruction. Most interesting in this regard is the extensive use of Isa 15-16 in Jer 48:29-38a, in the oracle against Moab (Holladay, 346-55; cf. Wildberger, 605-11). Lamentation was universally common. It is noteworthy that the use of the Isaiah material by Jeremiah does not add appreciably to the mockery, mourning, and desolation otherwise present in Jeremiah; it may be that in later times there was a sense of kinship in such tragedy (Holladay, 355), but it may also be that the natural similarity simply led to expansions of the lament poem. 4. The ni. is found 6x to indicate the loud cry by which an army is assembled; the G has a variant interpretation at Judg 6:34, treating it as q. with Gideon as subject, much as Jepthah in Judg 12:2. The cry of Jehoshaphat in battle has been interpreted as a similar rallying call (1 Kgs 22:32), but the Chronicler takes it to be a call of prayer to the Lord (2 Chron 18:31). The hi. is used on two occasions to describe the assembly of an army (Judg 4:10, 13; 2 Sam 20:4-5). In Job 38:9 the hi. appears to be the equivalent of the q. (Gordis, 401); Zech 6:8 is more of a military context, though a single individual is addressed, while Jonah 3:7 is the cry of judgment with the sense of assembling the city to hear it. P-B This orthographic form of outcry is common in later Heb., the Tgs., appears to be common in the QL, particularly in relation to the translation biblical terms. In the Temple Scroll it occurs once in reference to the outcry enemies (11QT 59.6) and twice in the last section, which refers to the cry

and Syr. It of various of defeated of the rav-

ished maiden quoting Deut 22:24, 27 (11QT 66.2, 7). In the Job Tg. it is in a fragmented text as a translation for the cry of Job in 30:28 (11QtgJob 17.5), in 39:25 (11QtgJob 33.6) as a translation for the shout of battle, and in 38:7 (11QtgJob 30.5) for

the cry of the sons of God at the creation of the stars. It is also found in one of the festival prayers (4Q509 28 1.3). d

Groan, sigh, growl: > ’nh (sigh, groan, # 634); > ’ngq (groan, # 650); > hgh I (groan, moan, sigh, meditate, muse, chirp, mutter, # 2047); > hagig (groan in prayer, # 2052); > z‘q (cry, howl, wail, #2410); > n’q (groan, # 5543); > nhm (growl, groan, # 5637); > nwh II (groan in anticipation, # 5664); > p‘h (groan in childbirth, # 7184); > §’g (roar, # 8613) Lament, mourning: ~ ’b/ I (mourn, observe mourning rites, #61); > ’nh I (lament, # 627); > bkh (weep, bewail, # 1134); > dm‘ (shed tears, # 1963); > z‘q (call for help, call to arms, assemble, utter a plaintive cry, #2410); > nhh I (lament, #5629); > spd (sound of lament, mourn, #6199); > qdr (be dark, mourn, #7722); > gina I (dirge, #7806); > Lament: Theology BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 4:112-22,; THAT 2:568-75; F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Hosea, AB 24, 1980, 474-75; R. Gordis, The Book of Job, 1978, 401; W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah 2, Hermeneia, 1989,

346-55; H. Wildberger, Jesaja, BKAT 10, 1978, 3:605-11.

A. H. Konkel

2411 (z°‘aqd, plaintive cry, call for help), > # 2410

1132

NBT(# 2413)

any

nel

NET

(zepet),

_| (#2413).

nom.

bitumen,

pitch,

asphalt

ANE Jew. Aram. zipta’, zipta’, zépa’; Syr. za/efta’ (from which, perhaps has come Akk. zibtu); Arab. zift; Eth. zeft; cf. the denom. vb. in Jew. Aram. and Arab. zpt, pitch, to coat with pitch, tar, bitumen. The use of “bitumen” was noted in the great Ziggurat of Ur.

OT — The word is found twice. In Exod 2:3 it compliments hémar. These two materials are used to waterproof the little basket (tébd) in which Moses was placed. The difference between the two materials is not clear. They seem to be similar and some agree that they should be translated as bitumen, though possibly they were different forms (see LXX). Here the significance of their use is to preserve Moses. In Isa 34:9 Edom is warned that her streams will be turned into flowing and her land will become “burning pitch” bitumen, when God judges her. This recalls the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18:27-28; cf. 14:10). P-B In Sir 13:1 a person who touches pitch (zpt; LXX pissés) became defiled. It is not clear why. Its parallel is eq: 1] to associating with a proud man. The LXX translated the word with asphaltopissé in Exod 2:3, a compound word possibly intended to cover both Heb. words (hémdr/zepet; asphaltos/pissés), indicating their nearly synonymous meaning. It uses pissés, pitch, only in Isa 34:9 twice. The DSS in 1QH 3:31 mentions “inheritance of pitch/bitumen” nhly zpt. In Jew. Aram. the synonyms, zipta’, zipta’, zépa’, all meaning pitch, pitch-coating, are attested (Jastrow 1:408). Pitch, bitumen: ~ zepet (pitch, #2413); (bitumen, asphalt, # 4109)

> hmr V (cover with pitch, #2814);

> kdper II

BIBLIOGRAPHY

IDB 3:820; NBD 2:143-44; TWOT 1:249.

Eugene Carpenter

\r

Pt (zéq I), nom. chain, fetter, pl. ziggim (# 2414). Related forms: B’PTS (“ziggim), nom. chains

(used as handcuffs); only in Jer 40:1, 4 (#272); neck-irons (hapleg, Jer 29:26; #7485).

3°38 (sindg), nom.

iron collar,

OT 1. The literal meaning of zég. In Nahum’s oracle against Nineveh, he recounts how the Assyrians had humiliated the Egyptians by putting their leaders in chains (Nah 3:10). The Assyrians were well known for this inhumane treatment as their own records demonstrate. 2. The figurative meaning of z@g. The word “chain” may denote subjugation and suffering. It even has the sense of divine retribution. Isaiah comforts God’s oppressed people with the image of the enemies of the kingdom being bound in chains (Isa 45:14). Similarly, the psalmist portrays the Lord’s kingship as a reversal of the oppressors, whose kings will be bound “with fetters (ziggim) ... with shackles of iron (kab‘lé barzel)” (Ps 149:8). Elihu uses the metaphor of chains for suffering and divine

#133

IPT (# 2416) discipline on account of sin — chains (ziggim), cords of affliction (hab‘lé-‘oni) (Job 36:8-9). 3. The word ““ziggim is another form of zéq/ziggim (see HALAT 266). The Babylonians placed the Judeans in handcuffs and waited for official orders at a holding camp at Ramah. When Nebuzaradan, the captain of the guard, arrived one month after the fall of Jerusalem (2 Kgs 25:3, 8), he found the prophet, Jeremiah, “bound in chains”

(Jer 40:1). Because King Nebuchadnezzar had given specific instructions regarding the well-being of the prophet (39:11), Nebuzaradan released Jeremiah immediately (40:4) and placed him under the protection of Gedaliah, the governor, at the governor’s residence in Mizpah (39:14; 40:6).

4. sindg may also be related to ziggim, though the etymology and meaning are uncertain (HALAT 958-59). In his correspondence with the exiles, Jeremiah revealed

his familiarity with the written prophecy of the false prophet, Shemaiah, who had charged the Jerusalem leadership with the responsibility of locking Jeremiah up in “stocks (mahpeket) and neck-irons (sindq)” (Jer 29:26). Chain, fetter: > ’sr (bind, imprison, fetter, hitch, #673); — zéq I (chain, fetter, #2414); > harsodb (chain, fetter, #3078); > kebel (shackle, #3890); > migbalét (chains, #4456); > mahpeket (stocks, #4551); > mosér (fetters, chains, #4591); — sad (stocks, shackles, # 6040); > phh (be captured, chained, #7072); > rtq (be bound, # 8415); > SarS*ra (chain,

# 9249) T. Desmond Alexander

2415 (zéq Il, flaming arrow), > # 2338

2416

TP?

WPT (zqn), q. be old; hi. grow older (# 2416); }/PT

(zaqan), nom. beard (> #2417); }PT (zagen),

elder, der. from zaqan, beard (> # 2418); }/2T (zdgen), nom./adj. a person of advanced age, old age (#2419); MJT (zignd), old age (#2420); B7JPT (z°qunim) old age

(#2421).

ANE

we

The root zgn has related forms with similar meanings in Aram., the Sam. Pent.

(zaganna), and postbiblical Heb. It is related to Arab. dign, old man; it is cognate with Akk. zignu, bearded.

OT 1. The nom. zaqan, beard, occurring 19x in the OT, was a sign of maturity. Length may have added to the significance of beards, since there were laws against clipping them (Lev 19:27; 21:5). However, these restrictions may also be explained as stipulations directed against certain pagan rituals or customs. On occasion shaving was a means of appeasing the gods and invoking their assistance (Jer 48:37). To shave the beard or head was an embarrassment or a sign of humiliation (2 Sam 10:4; Isa 15:2); in Isa 7:20 the image of shaving off all the hair depicts the thoroughness of the Assyrian

conquest. Shaving was also a sign of mourning (Jer 41:5). The cleansing rite of a leper included cutting off all one’s hair before washing, since hair could harbor bacteria (Lev 14:9). 2. The most common nom. related to the verbal forms of zgn is zagén, elder, which occurs 187x in the OT. z@gén is used in two specific ways: (a) it is used to connote old age (Gen 18:12; 19:31; 25:8; 35:29; 44:20; etc.), frequently in contrast to 1134

IP? G 2416) young men (Gen 19:4; Josh 6:21; etc.), and implies being past one’s prime; or (b) it is a technical term referring to an elder or leader of a community (Gen 19:4; Lev 19:32; 1 Sam 28:14; Isa 9:15[14]; 47:6; etc.). The second usage is clearly related to the first,

since in ANE culture older men were given authority and leadership because of their accumulated wisdom and experience. They were to be honored (Lev 19:32) and younger men were to show deference by waiting until the older person had spoken (Job 32:4). 1 Sam 2:31 adds further significance in that a sign of cursing was to kill all the old men of a house so that their strength and wisdom were destroyed. The biblical text mentions “elders” among the Egyptians (Gen 50:7; Ps 105:22), Moabites and Midianites (Num 22:4, 7), Gibeonites (Josh 9:11), and Israelites (Exod 3:16).

It appears that as far back as the Egyptian captivity the Israelites were led by elders (Exod 3:16), and it is commonly accepted that this concept originated in the Hebrew patriarchal family institution. If this is true, then it appears that leadership in Israel by the elders experienced a brief hiatus when Moses assumed command until Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, suggested that he institute a similar kind of ruling body to help him judge the people. Initially we are not told how many men were chosen, but in 24:1 the number of elders is said to be seventy. They were later empowered by the Spirit of God to help Moses lead the nation (Num 11:25). Once the Israelites settled in the Promised Land, it appears that each city also had its own elders who sat at the city gate to attend to certain internal matters (Deut 21:19; 22:15), such as providing a witness in the case of murder (19:12), offering sacrifice for a person slain near their city (21:1-9), punishing disobedient sons (21:19), and judging in marital cases (22:15;

25:7). Elders of a levitical city had the added responsibility of determining whom to allow into the city for protection (Josh 20:4). It does not appear that the elders created laws or established precedents, but were there to administer and maintain societal stan-

dards (Matthews and Benjamin, 131). Cities or villages needed some type of structure for their own well-being, as Matthews and Benjamin correctly note: “The integrity of the village or city rests on the willingness of its citizens to support the legal system and to settle disputes through arbitration rather than violence (Deut 5:17-20). By acknowledging their need for one another through this style of legal justice, they guarantee the solidarity of the community” (126-7). At least by the time of the settling of the Promised Land, there also appears to have been a group of elders who were influential on a national level, though it is unclear how these two groups of elders were related. Were the city leaders also national leaders, or were leaders selected to handle national interests? Elders pleaded

with Samuel for the appointment of a king (1 Sam. 8:4-5). Saul recognized their importance when he begged Samuel to continue to honor him before the elders of the land (15:30). After the death of Saul, the elders of Israel came to David to accept him as

their king (2 Sam 5:3). By currying their favor and help, Absalom was nearly successful in conducting a coup d ’état (17:4, 15), and David did not return to the throne until

he had the permission of the “elders of Judah” (19:11[12]). Their importance appears to have continued throughout the period of the monarchy (Solomon—1 Kgs 8:1-3;

Ahab—20:7; Jezebel—21:8; Jehu—2 Kgs 10:1; Hezekiah—19:2; Josiah—23:1), the captivity (Ezek 8:1; 14:1; 20:1), and the postexilic period (Ezra 10:8, 14). The job of

these elders was to adjudicate any breach of covenantal stipulations and to maintain social justice and order.

1135

{Pl @ 2416) The Hebrews accorded honor to the person who attained old age (an idea relatively foreign to today’s Western culture) for the following reasons: (a) their belief that God granted long life as a sign of his blessing to people who were righteous and pleasing to him; (b) their belief that persons of greater age acquired knowledge and wisdom from which others could benefit; and (c) if the Israelite culture was largely illiterate, as some have suggested, older people were the main source of oral history and traditions. By and large the biblical picture of aging is not one of fear and worthlessness, but respect, honor, and the knowledge that God will not abandon the aging person whose body begins to fail (Job 12:12; 15:10; 32:6; Ps 71:9,18; Prov 16:31; 20:29; Isa 46:4;

etc.). The preacher in the book of Ecclesiastes presents a graphic picture of the debilitating conditions common to “old age,” but even he uses it to remind the reader to remember God before it is too late (Eccl 12:1-7). 3. zogen, old person, occurs only in Gen 48:10; age is the reason why Jacob can

no longer see. Old age is a time when body parts wear out and begin to fail. zogen appears to be most closely related to syb, be gray, used to describe Ahijah’s failing eyesight (1 Kgs 14:4). zogen should be distinguished from zignd; the former emphasizes the end of the aging process when the body is worn out, whereas the latter refers to a person who is past his prime. 4. The word zignd, old age, is used 6x in the OT, three of which describe the advanced age of Sarah (Gen 24:36), Solomon (1 Kgs 11:4), and Asa (1 Kgs 15:23). However, each of the passages appears to center more on being past one’s prime than one’s great antiquity. The clearest passage for determining the meaning of this word is Gen 24:36, in which Isaac is said to be born to Sarah “in her old age.” When Isaac was born Sarah was ninety (Gen 17:17), which was thought to be beyond the time for bear-

ing children, though she still lived to be 127 years. There are several phrases that are related in meaning to this term for Sarah being “old” (z°qénim), “advanced in years” (ba@’im bayyamim), and “past the age of childbearing” in Gen 18:11. It appears that when a person is no longer fertile or able to produce children, they are considered old (see also v. 12, where Abraham is called “old,” zagén). The other occurrences of this word emphasize that God’s care extends even through the infirmities of old age (Ps 71:9, 18; Isa 46:4) and that even though the body begins to fail, God will not. 5. z‘qunim, old age, appears in the pl. form, as an abstract nom. emphasizing the conditions or qualities of the word (GKC, 124d). It is most closely related in meaning to zigna and occurs 4x in the OT (Gen 21:2, 7; 37:3; 44:20), referring to the age past which it is unusual to bear children. P-B In postbiblical Heb. the word zéqen, old man, means “ancestor”; the LXX translates it as gérous, age. The words gérad, to become old, and géras, old age, are used in the LXX to translate zignd, old age. The translators of the LXX consistently rendered z‘qunim, old age, with géras, old age. Old, aged: > zqn (be old, grow old, #2416); > yasiX (elderly, very aged, #3813); > yin II (become old, # 3823); > ‘tq (move, become old, to move, # 6980); > Syb (be gray, old, # 8482) BIBLIOGRAPHY IBD 2:72-73; ISBE 2:53-54, TDOT 4:122-31; TWOT 1: 249-50; R. de Vaux, Ancisr, 1:8, 69, 98; J. G. Harris, Biblical Perspectives on Aging: God and the Elderly, 1987; V. H. Matthews and D. C. Benjamin, Social World of Ancient Israel 1250-587 BCE., 1993, 121-31; D. A. McKenzie.

1136

Pl # 2417) “Judicial Procedure at the Town Gate,” VT 14, 1964, 100-104; J. L. McKenzie, “The Elders in the Old Testament,” Bib 40, 1959, 522-40; M. Noth, The History of Israel, 1958, 107-8; H. Reviv, The Elders in Ancient Israel, 1989.

Paul D. Wegner

2417 ANE

iP?

lie (caqan), nom. beard (# 2417); < WP) (eqn), q. be old; hi. grow older (> # 2416).

Cognates to this root appear with the same meaning in Akk., Aram., and Arab.

OT 1. The word zag@n occurs 19x, such as in the regulations pertaining to skin diseases (Lev 13:29-30; 14:9). Several other regulations are of particular interest. First, in 19:27 the commandment “Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard” apparently is a rejection of Canaanite cultic practices (cf. Deut 14:1). According to Lev 21:5 all priests were prohibited from shaving. The hair could be trimmed, but not cut off (cf. Ezek 44:20). This law, too, apparently relates to the practices of pagan priests. The Aaronic beard was a sign of God’s blessing in the simile of Ps 133:2: “It is like precious oil poured on the head, running down on the beard, running down on Aaron’s beard, down upon the collar of his robes.” (> Aaron) 2. The forcible removal of hair from one’s beard was an act of humiliation. For example, Moab’s fall: “Every head is shaved and every beard cut off; every hand is slashed and every waist is covered with sackcloth” (Jer 48:37; cf. 41:5; Isa 15:2; 2 Sam

10:4). 3. Ezekiel received the strange command to cut off the hair of his head and beard and divide it evenly into three piles. Each of these piles represented God’s judgment, whether in burning, death by the sword, or scattering (5:1-4). (> Ezekiel: Theology) Hair: > zagan (beard, #2417); > mah*lapa (braid, #4710); > migSeh (well-dressed hair, # 5250); > pr‘ (untie hair, #7277); — sisit (hair, tassel, #7492); > q*wussét (hair, # 7767); > §‘r1(be appalled, # 8547); > Sapam (moustache, # 8559)

Shaving, trimming: ~ glh (shave, # 1662);

> ksm (trim hair, # 4080)

BIBLIOGRAPHY ISBE 2:596-99; TDOT 3:5-20; G. A. te Stroete, “Ezekiel 24:15-27: The Meaning of a Symbolic Act,” Bijdr 38, 1977, 163-65; H. Trav, N. Rubin, S. Vargon, “Symbolic Significance of Hair in

the Biblical Narrative and the Law,” Koroth 9, 1988, 173-79. Robert L. Alden

(ie

i

Il ( #2417).

ANE The Arab. dign means an old man who wears a full beard; the term signifies advanced age. zagén derives from zaqan beard, is attested in most Sem. languages (cf. Akk. OT zaqnu, bearded; see HALAT 267), and can mean old man or elder. In the latter sense, it is almost invariably used in the pl. of a council of elders. Though elders were found

1137

Pl G 2418) among other Sem. speaking peoples, zagén occurs only in Heb. The equivalent Aram. word is §ab (Ezra 5:5). 1. Old age. In Israel discernment and understanding were said to belong to older

persons (Job 12:20). Rehoboam, though he consulted older men, foolishly disregarded their counsel (1 Kgs 12:6, 8, 13). The Torah called for respect to be given to the aged (Lev 19:32: contrast Deut 28:50). The beauty of the old is the gray head (Prov 20:29). A premium was placed on long life and those who died in ripe old age, full of years (cf. Abraham, Gen 25:8; Isaac, 35:29; and Job, Job 42:17); the absence of the old in a population was considered to be a punishment (1 Sam 2:31).

Mention of the old, together with the young, is a Hebrew way of speaking of an entire population group (Gen 19:4; Exod 10:9), especially in context of population exterminations by the military or otherwise (Josh 6:21; Isa 20:4; Lam 2:21; Ezek 9:6). 2. (a) The office of elder has its roots in the tribal structure of early Israelite

society. Elders were the heads of the families and the leaders and representatives of the tribes. They exercised a patriarchal authority based on kinship and the wisdom of experience. Reference is sometimes made to the elders of an individual clan or tribe (Judg 11:5; 2 Sam 19:11[12]), but more frequently to a national council of “the elders of Israel,’ once described as “‘all the elders of your tribes” (Deut 31:28) and said to comprise “‘all the heads (ra’ Sim) of the tribes and the chiefs (> nasi’, # 5954) of the Israel-

ite families” (1 Kgs 8:1). Their traditional role at intertribal gatherings is illustrated by Judg 20-21. They are described as “the elders of the assembly” (zig*né ha ‘édda) (21:16). The expression occurs in Lev 4:15 in connection with their role within the religious community (cf. Ps 107:32; Joel 1:14). (b) In the Pentateuch, “the elders of Israel” are closely associated with Moses.

They appear at critical points in the story, e.g., when deliverance is first announced (Exod 3:16, 18; 4:29), on the night of the Passover (12:21), at the sacred meal (18:12), when obedience to the covenant is demanded (19:7) and when the covenant is ratified (24:1, 9-11; cf. ’asil, #722). An account of the appointment of a group of seventy elders to assist Moses is given in Num 11:16-25 (cf. Luke 10:1). The narrative primarily serves to validate the office as a divine appointment, for which the gift of the Spirit qualifies. In two related passages, the qualifications for leadership are also ability, integrity, and reverence for God (Exod 18:21), and wisdom and a good reputation (Deut 1:13; cf. 1 Tim 3:2-7; Titus 1:6-9). 3. (a) During the monarchic period, elders chiefly appear as the leaders of their local communities. They are commonly referred to as “the elders of the town” (1 Sam 16:4; cf. Lam 2:10), esp. in Deut in connection with their juridical authority in family matters (Deut 19:12; 21:19; cf. Ruth 4:1-12). They were also responsible for giving wise counsel (‘ésd). The “counsel of the elders” is set alongside the teaching of the

priests and the vision of the prophets as sources of direction within the life of the community and for the maintenance of its well-being (Ezek 7:26). In this context, the parallel in Jer 18:18 equates the elders with the wise (cf. Deut 1:13; Ps 105:22). Sayings in Prov dealing with community concerns such as caring for the poor (Prov 21:13; 22:9) and avoiding strife (10:12; 17:14) may well reflect the counsel of elders. (b) In Prov 31:23 the city elders are referred to as “the elders of the land.” If the text of 1 Kgs 20:7 is correct (cf. BHS), this expression apparently could also refer to amore or less ad hoc consultative body representing the interests of the local

1138

PPT (# 2422) communities at the royal court (cf. Jer 26:17). At all events, the story of Naboth’s vineyard suggests elders readily abdicated their traditional obligations and became identified with the interests of the monarchy and its ruling elite (1 Kgs 21:1-14; > hdr, # 2985). Isaiah places their perversion of justice within the context of their responsibilities as “the elders of his [God’s] people” (Isa 3:14). Those who should have been a “support” and a “guide” to the people have led them astray and will be “cut off from Israel” (3:1-3; 9:14-16; cf. Ezek 8:11-12). Isaiah, however, looks forward to the prospect of a cleansed and renewed Jerusalem, when God will reign on Mt. Zion “and before its elders, gloriously” (24:23; cf. 1:26; Exod 24:9-11 [cf. ’asil, # 722]; Rev 4). (c) After the return from the Exile, elders resumed a role in the affairs of the

Jewish community (Ezra 10:8, 14; cf. Aram. “the elders of the Jews,” 5:5; 6:7). They appear to be equivalent to the more frequently mentioned s‘gdnim, officials (# 10505; cf. Ezra 9:2 with 10:8; Neh 2:16; 4:14, 19[8, 13], etc.; > hdr).

P-B At Qumran elders represent the lay leadership of the community, second in rank to the priests (1QS 6:8; cf. 1QM 13:1). The LXX regularly trans. by presbyteros, elder, or gerousia, council of elders, the latter esp. in Deut. (See NIDNTT 1:192-201.) Leaders: ~ ’dd6n (lord, master, # 123); > ’alliip II (tribal chief, #477); > ’asil II (eminent, noble, #722); > zagén (elder, # 2418); > hor I, free man, freeborn, # 2985); > maptéah (badge of office, #5158); — ndgid (prince, ruler, leader, #5592); > nas?’ I (chief, king, #5954); > saris (eunuch, court official, #6247); — seren II (Philistine prince, #6249); ~ ‘attiid (he-goat, leader, #6966); — pehd (governor, #7068); — pagid (officer, #7224); — gasin (commander, leader, # 7903); > rab II (captain, chief, # 8042); > rzn (rule, # 8142); > sda‘ I

(noble, # 8777) BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 4:122-31; H. Klengel, “Zu den Sbutum in altbabylonischer Zeit,” Or 29, 1960, 357-75; J. L. McKenzie, “The Elders in the Old Testament,” Bib 40, 1959, 522-40; H. Reviv, The Elders in Ancient Israel: A Study of a Biblical Institution, 1989; R. de Vaux, Anclsr, 1961. Kenneth T. Aitken

2419 (zdgen, advanced age, old), > #2416

2420 (ziqnd, old), > #2416 2421 (z°qunim, old age), > # 2416

2422 ANE.

Apt

*\P1 (zqp), q. raise or lift up (# 2422).

Akk. attests zaga@pu A, to lift up s.o. (CAD 21:51-52); to plant (HALAT).

In its only two occurrences, the vb. has God as the subject who “lifts up” (part. OT zagép) and those bowed down as its object (Ps 145:14; 146:8). The word is in the vocabulary pool describing God’s sustaining, energizing activity: “The LORD upholds (smk, > #6164) all those who fall and lifts up (zgp) all who are bowed down” (Ps

145:14). 1139

Ppt(#2423) ce

Help, support, sustenance: ~ zqp (rise, lift up, ~ s‘d (sustain, support, # 6184);

#2422); > smk (support, lean, refresh, # 6164);

> ‘zr (help, support, find help, # 6468); > rpq (lean, # 8345);

> §‘n (lean, depend on, # 9128) Elmer A. Martens

2423 ANE.

Prt

Py! (zqq), q. strain, filter, refine, pi. refine; pu.

filtered «refined Gf 2423).

The vb. is attested in Aram. z‘qgaq and the nom. Syr. zq’, wineskin, leather bottle

(cf. Beyer, 570).

OT The vb. occurs 7x in the OT, predominantly in the context of the process of refining a precious metal such as gold or silver to its purest form. 1. In 1 Chron 28:18 the pu. part. is used to describe the type of gold to be used for the construction of the altar of incense for the new temple to be built by Solomon. The immediate context describes David’s solemn charge to Solomon to build God’s temple according to “the plans that the Spirit had put in [the] mind” of David (28:12). The author clearly wanted to indicate the divine origin of the plans, which is reminiscent of God’s instruction found in Exod 25:9 to build a tabernacle according to “the pattern I will show you.” Gold as the material of part of the ritual objects of the temple of God was connected to the glory and majesty of God (cf. Singer, 161-62), a fact emphasized by the addition of the part. “refined,” i.e., the most expensive type of gold. In 1 Chron 29:4 the pu. part. is used to describe the specific type of silver to be used for the overlaying of the walls of the temple and forms part of David’s private donation to the temple. Note that the sequence of plan: provision of raw material is inverse to the sequence found in Exod 25, where the provisions and offerings for the tabernacle are collected first and only then does God reveal the exact plan (or pattern) to Moses. 2. Job 28:1-11 describes the work and mechanics of gold, iron, and copper mining. The picture is that of man digging through the bowels of the earth, uncovering the precious metal. This is the place where “gold is refined” (Job 28:1). The form utilized in this context is a q. impf. and expresses the process of uncovering the gold. The immediate context of Job 28:1-11 suggests that the refining process is not to be undertaken by means of fire but rather that the actual mining “refines” the gold from the earth (see on this Delitzsch, KD, 2:92-93; against this Hartley [374], who links Mal 3:3

and the refining process by means of fire to Job 28:1). The imagery of the mining operation is then linked to a person’s search for wisdom (28:12) and understanding. This quest for wisdom should be understood in the larger context of Job 25-31, involving Bildad’s challenge to Job that a person cannot be pure and righteous before God and Job’s answer, where he searches for an understanding of this God. 3. Job 36:27 refers to the process of distillation where water is vaporized and becomes mist/rain. The NIV note “distill from the mist as rain” is preferable to the NIV text: “which distill as rain to the streams.” The m. pl. form of zqq refers to the “drops of water.” While Job 36:26 extols God’s greatness and creative power, the straining of the water from the drops of water seems an “‘automatic”’ action, based on God’s natural

laws. This explains the pl. form of the vb., whereas the introductory verbal form is a sg. and is clearly to be understood in terms of God’s power in nature. NRSV translates the

1140

Ppt (# 2423) form with “he distills,” but that textual change is unnecessary since the entire process of water vaporization is initiated by God himself. 4. Ps 12:6[7] uses the imagery of the refining process figuratively in comparison to the purity and preciousness of God’s word. The parallelism to “pure” (thr; ~ #3197) in the first half of the verse indicates the connection of purity to a refined state. The comparison focuses on the processing of silver and not gold. This might indicate an early age of this motif in the Ps, referring back to a time when silver was priced higher than gold (cf. Robinson, 188). 5. Isa 25:6 utilizes zgq in connection with the straining of wine. NRSV’s translation of the second half of the v. “of well-aged wines strained clear” should be preferred to NIV’s “the finest of wines,” since it actually expresses the process (as indicated by the MT) of straining after a long period of resting undisturbed (Young, The Book of Isaiah, 2:193), which

makes

these wines so expensive and fine. The

immediate context of the text indicates that God himself prepares a feast for his people, thus preshadowing the sure deliverance from oppression. Welten (132) has argued that this is the only specific reference to God preparing a meal, but other references to banquets, such as Ps 23:5-6, should be kept in mind. The express reference to the straining of the wine and, parallel to it, to the fat things “filled with marrow” is a clear indication that only the best is acceptable at this feast. Significantly “all the peoples” are to be part of the banquet upon the mountain, which refers to the motif that when God establishes his kingdom, all people will be blessed in it. Similarly Gen 12:3 states that in Abram “all peoples on earth” are to be blessed. 6. The final and theologically most important reference can be found in Mal 3:3, where God is depicted as the refiner of silver who will refine the Levites like silver

and gold. Note that silver is mentioned first (prior to the second sequence of gold and silver in 3:3b), indicating the importance attributed to silver in ancient texts (cf. Robinson, 188-90; Singer 133-54), which finds its expression in specific sequences in the OT where silver is repeatedly mentioned first (cf. also Singer, 133-54). This is also attested in Egyptian sources prior to the sixteenth century BC (cf. Robinson, 188), where silver is always placed first in inscriptions prior to the eighteenth dynasty. God’s testing and refining of the Levites (representing the religious leadership) is part of the cleansing process by which God seeks to draw back his people. Since God’s presence is often compared to fire (Exod 3:2; 19:16; Mic 1:4; Nah 1:6; etc.), he himself provides the pro-

cedural process of refining his people, because he is “like a refiner’s fire” (Mal 3:2). God’s involvement in the entire process is expressed by means of God sitting as a refiner of silver (3:3a), hinting at the image of a silversmith crouched over his small smelting furnace in order to ascertain the right color of the metal. God’s refining of his people always involves a concrete goal or purpose, i.e., cleansing and purification. Something precious will result from the process. P-B

_zqq is also found in several Tgs. (e.g., Tg. Psalms 12,7 and Tg. Canticum 1,11)

and is translated in a similar sense to the one found in the OT, i.e., “to refine, to distil, to rivel” (cf. Jastrow, 410).

Refining, filtering, purging: > zqq (strain, filter, refine, #2423); > srp (smelt, refine, test, # 7671) Clean, pure: > brrI (purge out, sort, keep pure, sift, #1405); > zkh (be pure, clean oneself, # 2342); > hap I (pure: clean, # 2899); > thr (clean, cleanse, purify, # 3197)

1141

“I (# 2424) aa

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABD 3:823-34; ISBE 4:64-65; K. Beyer, Die aramdischen Texte vom Toten Meer, 1984; J. E. Hartley, The Book of Job, NICOT, 1988; A. Robinson, “God, the Refiner of Silver,” CBQ 11,

1949, 188-90; K. H. Singer, Die Metalle Gold, Silber, Bronze, Kupfer und Eisen im Alten Testament and ihre Symbolik, FzB 43, 1980; R. L. Smith, Micah-Malachi, WBC 32, 1984; R. C. Van Leeuwen, “A Technical Metallurgical Usage of 838”,” ZAW 98, 1986, 112-13; P. A. Verhoef, The

Books of Haggai and Malachi, NICOT, 1987; P. Welten, “Die Vernichtung des Todes und die K6nigsherrschaft Gottes,” TZ 38/3, 1982, 129-46.

Gerald A. Klingbeil

2424 ANE.

q

“I

(zar),

adj.

foreign,

strange,

surprising

(# 2424) < 711 (ewr ID), turn aside (> #2319).

The adj. z@’iru is common in Akk. in reference to someone hostile (CAD Z 14).

It is found in old Aram. and Can. in the sense of strange or stranger. OT

1. The adj. zar is used 71x in the OT, though Prov 21:8 should be excluded as it

is textually faulty. It indicates that which is strange, foreign, forbidden, or unauthorized. A common meaning, as used in the prophets, is the stranger in the ethnic or political sense,

therefore

not Israelite.

Often it refers to political enemies

such as the

Assyrians or Egyptians (Isa 1:7; Hos 7:9; 8:7), or the Babylonians (Jer 51:51; Ezek 28:7, 10). In this sense zar is parallel with nokr? (Lam 5:2) in reference to immediate neighboring enemies. In a related manner zar may ellipitically refer to the foreign gods of these nations (Deut 32:16; Isa 17:10; Jer 2:25; 3:13; cf. Jer 5:19 and Ps 81:9[10]). In

cultic contexts zar indicates that which is illegitimate. It may refer to those not belonging to the immediate household of the priest and, therefore, not authorized to partake of the sacred food (Lev 22:10-12), or to all of those outside the priestly community (Exod 30:33; Num 3:10). It may also refer to forbidden offerings (Exod 30:9; Lev 10:1; Num

3:4). In other instances zar simply means strange, as in Isa 28:21, where it is parallel with nokri. 2. In the Wisdom literature zar may have a neutral sense of simply another or belonging to another (Prov 6:1; 11:15; 14:10; 20:16, etc.), but there may be negative overtones (Job 19:15). The strange woman of Prov 1-9 (2:16; 5:3, 20, etc.) is a danger,

not because of foreign ethnic association but because of her immoral ways. In general zar has a threatening nuance and relations with any such strange person or activity are to be avoided as incompatible with Yahweh. P-B In the Talmud zar often means non-priest or layman (Jastrow, 411), but it is also used to describe an enemy as well as an outcast or one shunned. It is found at Qumran in the biblical sense of stranger, but some of the 7 occurrences are fragmentary. In Arab. it has the sense of pilgrim. Alien, foreigner, stranger: > gwr I (dwell as a stranger, #1591); > zar (foreign, surprising, # 2424); > nékar (foreign, foreigner, # 5797); > t6Sab (alien, settler, # 9369) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDNT 1:264-67; 5:1-36; THAT 1:520-22; J. Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament,

1142

1968, 256, 326; G. R. Driver, “Ezekiel: Linguistic and Textual Problems,” Bib 35,

0

gE

SE

NT (# 2426) Sw

1954, 148-49; J. M. Grintz, “Zr,” Le¥ 39, 1974, 17; L. A. Snijders, “The Meaning of zar in the Old Testament,” OTS 10, 1954, 1-154. A. H. Konkel

2425 (zér, molding), > #778

Paes ANE

age

NIT (zara’), nom.

Num 11:20, #2426).

sickness,

nausea

(hapleg.,

Sam. zrh, nausea.

OT In its present form, zr’ is a hapleg. (Num 11:20). The LXX rendering cholera, nausea, suggests that zr’ signifies something repulsive. Options abound for its derivation. Gray (113) regards zr’ as a scribal error (written incorrectly for zrh II or as a gloss by a scribe familiar with Aram. (cf. GKC, 224, §80h). Ashley (212, n. 41) relates it to zwr I, be strange, while HALAT (268; cf. Levine, 324) connects it with zwr II. Levine

(324) points out that a synonymous interchange appears between zr’ with zrh (the 3 fem. sing. pf. form of zwr II in Sir 37:30 and 39:27). The MT reading may represent a late spelling, where the he consonant gives way to the aleph. In Numbers 11 God’s children were not content with Yahweh’s daily provision of manna and demanded meat for their diet (11:1-9). Yahweh promises to give them so much meat that this blessing would become a judgment (11:20); the fulfillment of their demand became loathsome to them. Contempt, disdain, disgust, loathing: > bwz (show contempt for, #996); — bzh (be contemptible, think lightly of, despise, # 1022); > bhi (become tired of, disdain, # 1041); > g‘/ (abhor, be defiled, fail, # 1718); > zhm (make s.t. loathsome, # 2299); — zwr III (be offensive, # 2320); > zil I (be frivolous, be despised, #2361); — znh II (feel a dislike for, #2389); > zara’ (sickness, nausea, # 2426); > hnn II (be stinking, loathsome, #2859); > yg‘ (turn aside, # 3697); > nq‘ (disengage, #5936); > qwt (feel disgust, # 7752); > gil (be slight, swift,

appear trifling, treat with contempt, # 7837); > Swt II (slight, despise, # 8764); > Sqs (make o.s. detestable, # 9210); — t‘b (be detestable, be loathed, loathe, abhor, # 9493) BIBLIOGRAPHY

T. Ashley, The Book of Numbers, NICOT, 1993; G. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary

on Numbers, ICC, 1912; B. Levine, Numbers 1-20, AB, 1993. =

2427

ANE

Michael A. Grisanti

pals

=! (zrb), (#2427).

pu.,

cease,

be

drained,

dry

up

The root zrb seems to be cognate with Arab. zarima, flow away.

Job 6:17 is the only occurrence of the vb. zrb: “when they (the streams) cease to OT flow (zrb)” (M. H. Pope, Job, AB 15, 49, 54). The parallel is d‘k, extinguish, vanish (> # 1980). Dry, withering, parched: > ’b/ II (dry up, #62); > bassara (dearth, destitution, # 1314); + zrb (cease, dry up, #2427); > hrb I (be dry or desolate, ruined, #2990); > hrr II (be

1143

mit (# 2430) ——— E E aE parched, #3081a); > yb¥ (be dry, dried up, withered, dry up, # 3312); > mll I (wither, be dry, #4908); > nt (dry, parched, #5980); > gml (wither, become moldy, musty, infected w. insects, # 7857) Extinguishing: > d‘k (snuff out, extinguish, vanish, # 1980); > z‘k (be extinguished, # 2403);

> kbh (be extinguished, put out, # 3882) Roy E. Hayden

1} (zrh I) q. scatter, winnow, spread, sprinkle;

Be aa ni. be scattered; pi. scatter, spread; pu. be strewed (# 2430); nom. M7Tf) (mizreh), winnowing fork (# 4665); DD’. (m°zarim), north wind (> # 4668). ANE. The root zarii(m) is attested in Akk. and means “to winnow, to scatter” (AHw, 1516). zrh I is related to Ugar. dry (winnow), Arab. grj/w (winnow), and Akk. zarii (winnow), see HALAT, 268.

OT 1. This vb. is attested 38x in the OT. In q. the basic notion of scattering is expressed in Exod 32:20, where Moses casts the powder of the remains of the golden calf over the water. Winnowing refers to scattering grain to the wind to sift out the good from the useless (Ruth 3:2; cf. Prov 20:8, 26 in pi.). Winnowing was part of the harvesting process and followed threshing. After the kernels, straw, and chaff were broken apart by threshing, the farmer would winnow. Winnowing involved tossing the mixed kernels, straw, and chaff into the air with a winnowing fork. The wind, the land

breeze from the west (Baly, Geography, 45) and not the desert wind from the east (Jer 4:11; see Fitzgerald, “East Wind,” 58), would blow away the straw and chaff, the ker-

nels dropping straight to the ground. Then the kernels would be tossed into the air with a winnowing shovel. The wind would remove more waist from the kernels. A final cleaning was accomplished by shaking the kernels in a sieve. (For more details see Feliks, “Implements,” 2:379, and Paul and Dever, Archaeology,

160.) Nonfigurative

winnowing is referred to only in Ruth 3:2 in reference to Boaz winnowing the barley. 2. Winnowing is used in figures of judgment, where the object of winnowing is implicitly likened to straw and chaff (> gas, #7990) driven away by the wind. The Lord will winnow his people by means of the Babylonians (Jer 15:7); then in poetic justice the tables will turn, and the Lord will winnow the Babylonians (Jer 51:2). In

Prov 20:8a “a king sits on his throne to judge.” Verse 8b explains such judging with the metaphor of the king’s eyes winnowing all evil, i.e., he examines all the evidence and drives away all who do evil. Similarly, in Prov 20:26 “a wise king winnows out the wicked,” i.e., he judges them rightly and punishes them accordingly. 3. Winnowing is used in a slightly different way in Isa 41:16, where the metaphor is one of overcoming obstacles to salvation. In Isa 40:4 every obstacle to the return of God’s people to the Promised Land will be overcome, in particular, “every mountain and hill made low.” The means by which such obstacles are overcome is developed in Isa 41:15-16a (see Westermann, Jsaiah, 77). The Lord himself will enable his people to “winnow them” (v. 16a), i.e., the mountains and hills (v. 15), and

“a gale will blow them away” (v. 16a). No obstacle “will stand in the way of Israel” (Young, Jsaiah, 3:89) “on its march toward salvation” (McKenzie,

Isaiah, 32). As

chaff is removed by winnowing, every obstacle to salvation will be eliminated. 1144

mT # 2431) 4. The figurative sense of the scattering of the people of God out of the land among the surrounding nations is present in q. This more theological meaning dominates the ni. and pi. stems and accords with other vbs. of this word group, which highlight the judgment of the Exile (> pws, #7046; > ndh, #5615). The dispersion as chastisement for the violation of the covenant is established at Lev 26:33. The prophetic book of Ezekiel echoes this covenantal foundation (Ezek 20:21-24, esp. v. 23)

and repeatedly emphasizes Yahweh’s role in scattering his people (5:10, 12; 6:8; 12:14-15; in parallel with pws: 20:23; 22:15; 36:19). At the same time, in almost every one of these contexts Yahweh declares that the reason for this judgment is that his people might truly come to know him and his incomparable holiness (5:13; 6:9-10; 12:15-16; 22:16). But the dispersion will also be a testimony to the nations, that they

might also come to know his holy name (36:20-23). In other words, the Exile is not only a punishment; it is also deeply pedagogical and, at the end of the cleansing process, even revelational. Yahweh will gather his scattered people and return them to their land (Jer 31:10). This vb., more than any other of this word group, underscores that other countries and empires will be scattered because of their sins as well: Hazor (Jer 49:32), Elam (49:36), Babylonia (51:2), Egypt (Ezek 29:12; 30:23, 26; in all three cases in

conjunction with pws), and the four horns, which represent the nations that had crushed the people of God (Zech 1:19, 21[2:2, 4]). 5. Isa 30:23-26 is an oracle of salvation in which a winnowing fork (mizreh,

v. 24) is used not to winnow but to spread abundant feed for livestock. Scattering, dispersion: ~ bzr (scatter, #1029); > zrh I (scatter, sprinkle, spread, # 2430); > zr‘ (sow, scatter seed, #2445); > zrq I (sprinkle, scatter, #2450); — ndh I (banish, be scattered, be cast out, seduce, #5615); > ndp (blow away, scatter, #5622); > nps II (spread out, scatter, be dispersed, # 5880); > pws (scatter, disperse, be spread, # 7046); > pzr (scatter, spread, # 7061) Threshing: ~> gdren (threshing floor, #1755); > dws (trample, thresh, # 1889); > haris III (threshing-sledge, # 3023); > mérag (threshing-sledge, # 4617) Winnow: ~ zh I (scatter, winnow, # 2430); > napa I (sieve, #5864); > rahat (winnowing shovel, # 8181) BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABD 1:95-98; D. Baly, The Geography of the Bible, 1957; J. Feliks, “Agricultural Implements in Ancient Eres Israel,” EncJud, 1971; A. Fitzgerald, “The Lord of the East Wind,” diss. Rome, 1983; J. McKenzie, Second Isaiah, AB, 1968; S. Paul and W. Dever, Biblical Archaeology, 1974; C. Toy, Proverbs, ICC, 1899; C. Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, 1969; E. Young, The Book of Isaiah, 3 vols; 1965-72. M. Daniel Carroll R./Mark D. Futato

2431

my

Mt (zrh Il), pi. measure (# 2431); denom. vb. < FT (zeret), nom. span (# 2455).

ANE.

zeret appears in Aram. and Syr.

OT

1. The hapleg. vb. zrh is problematic. Some (BDB, Delitzsch) believe that this

vb. is related to the root zrh I, sow, scatter (> # 2430); therefore, in Ps 139:3, David is

1145

DIN(# 2432) stating that his manner of life is scattered (i.e., completely understood and scrutinized). Others (HALAT) affirm that this is a separate root meaning “measure.” This yields a meaning in Ps 139:3 that God measures (accurately knows) David’s manner of life. Regardless of its derivation, the word is understood by context—God is intimately knowledgable of David’s manner of life. 2. The zeret, span, is the distance between the thumb and the smallest finger of an extended hand (22.25-26.25 cm; 8.75-10.3 in.). For a discussion on measurements of length see ’ammd I, cubit, ell, forearm (# 564). Measurement, standard, rule: > zrh II (measure, #2431); > mdd (measure, measure off, # 4499); > §‘r (calculate, #9132); > tkn (regulate by weighing or measuring, #9419). For measurements of weight/volume: > ’épd (an ephah, #406), for measurements of length: > ’ammd I (cubit, ell, forearm, # 564) Russell Fuller

2432

can)

yint (z‘réa‘), nom. arm, forearm (of man and animal); YIATS Aramaizing form with pros-

thetic aleph (Jer 32:21; Job 31:22) (# 2432).

ANE = zuruh (Canaanite gloss: EA 287:27; 288:34) occurs as a WestSem. loanword in the Akk. language (CAD 21:167). Ugar. dr‘ (UT § 5, 4). Aram. ’edra‘ and d’ra‘.

OT Besides yad, which also may signify the human arm (Isa 25:11), z’roa‘ denotes the forearm of human beings as well as of animals. It is the instrument of human working (Isa 17:5; 40:10) and fighting (Gen 49:24, z°ra‘é yaddw; Ps 18:34[35]). Thus, its metaphorical use always involves a dynamic connotation. Out of 91 OT occurrences 70 are employed metaphorically, 41 of these in a specifically theological way. Isaiah often uses the term as a metaphor, denoting God’s own power to judge and save (except 30:30, 32; only in chs. 40-66: 40:10; 48:14; 51:5, 9; 52:10; 53:1; 59:16; 62:8; 63:5,

12); it appears 10x in Psalms and 7x in Deuteronomy. The term in its theological meaning describes God’s action in creating the world, redeeming his people out of Egyptian bondage, fighting against his enemies, but also in punishing his own people when they are ripe for judgment. The formula hayyad hah*zaqa w* hazz‘roa‘ hann‘tiiya (with variants), “mighty hand and outstretched arm,” is mainly used in connection with the Exodus motif, especially in the parenetical texts of Deut (4:34; 5:15; 7:19). God revealed his mighty power by leading Israel out of Egypt. The same formula is employed when speaking of the act of creation (Jer 27:5; 32:17). Israel will experience God‘s power fighting against them (Jer 21:5; Ezek 20:33, 34).

In all these examples the formula is used in the context of warfare. It is God’s arm, outstretched for fighting, which defeats his enemies. J. K. Hoffmeier has convincingly shown that the mention of Yahweh’s conquering arm alludes to Egyptian formulas. The writer of Exodus uses them in a polemic way against Pharaoh (“The Arm of God,” 386). In Josh and Judg 1 this concept is absent in narratives about the conquest of the country.

1146

I

Mat (# 2436)

The theological use of z°réa‘ is connected with expressions from the semantic field of strength: g*bird, strength (Ps 89:13[14], hzq, be strong (Jer 21:5), ‘6z, might (Isa 51:9; 62:8), gddel (Ps 79:11). Hand, arm, finger: > ’esba‘ (finger, # 720); > hdh (stretch out the hands, #2063); > z’réa‘ (arm, forearm, # 2432); > yad (hand, power, side, # 3338); > kap (hand, hollow hand, # 4090); > tq‘ (drive, thrust, clap one’s hands, blow trumpet, pledge, # 9546) Power, strength: — ’abir (strong, powerful, #51); > ’6n I (generative power, strength, # 226); > ’ayil I (man of power, #380); > ’é/ IV (strength, power, #445); > ’ms (be strong, strengthen, be superior over, #599); > ’apiq II (strong, #693); > ’5¥ (take courage, # 899); > gbr (accomplish, excel, swell, rise, be strong, #1504); ~ ddbe’ (strength, #1801); > zimra II (strength, # 2380); > hzq (be strong, overpower, support, seize, #2616); > hayil (capacity, power, property, #2657); > hason (strong, #2891); > ykl (able, endure, be victorious, conquer, #3523); > ysr II (strengthen, #3580); — kabbir (strong, #3888); > koah I (strength, power, possession, means, # 3946); > kellah I (maturity, full vigor, # 3995); > m°’dd (power, might, #4394); > ma’*mas (exertion, #4410); > ng (overtake, be able to, afford, appear, #5952); > ‘zz (be strong, defy, show a shameless, #6451); > ‘sm I (be mighty, vast, numerous, make strong, # 6793); > tgp (overpower, # 9548) BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 4:131-40; THAT 1:522-24; P. Fronzaroli, Studi sul lessico commune semitico, 1-4, 1964/65 - AANLM Series 8, vol. 19, 20; J. K. Hoffmeier, “The Arm of God Versus the Arm of Pharaoh in the Exodus Narratives,” Bib 67, 1986, 378-87.

Manfred Dreytza

2433 (zériia‘, sowing, plant growing from seeds), > #2445 2435 (zarzir, rooster), > #6416

7436

Fit (zrh I), q. rise (of sun), shine, appear (of skin disease) (# 2436); nom. MT (zerah I), shining appearance (Isa 60:3) (> # 2437); MW"? (mizrah), sunrise, east (> # 4667).

ANE

—

The vb. occurs as zrh, rise, in Aram., and in Akk. as sarahu C, flare up, display

a sudden luminosity (usually of stars).

OT 1. The vb. zrh is used with both literal and metaphorical meanings. The literal sense refers to the rising of the sun, apart from one instance where it is applied to a serious skin complaint (2 Chron 26:19). The appearance of objects previously unseen is often attributed to God. This applies to the daily appearance of the sun (Ps 104:22; Jon 4:8), as well as to cases of divine intervention where circumstances can change

without warning. The latter include the apparently miraculous shining of sunlight on water (2 Kgs 3:22) and God’s punishment of King Uzziah through a sudden outbreak of skin disease (2 Chron 26:19). 2. It is more debatable whether the sun is the subject in nonliteral uses of zrh. Light (’6r) is the subject in Ps 112:4 and Isa 58:10, where the emphasis is on God’s power to make light shine in the darkness rather than the reliability of sunrise. zrh occurs 3x in the context of theophany, involving two distinct aspects of Only Mal 4:2[3:20] portrays Yahweh as a rising sun, where he is the shining. God’s sun of righteousness whose wings bring healing. This image is often associated with 1147

Mit (# 2437) the sun disc, which was well known in the ANE, and has led to the suggestion that Yahweh had inherited the characteristics of a sun god (Schnutenhaus). However, the

sun disc as a symbol of power and violence contrasts with Yahweh’s promise of healing (Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi, 1987, 331), quite apart from uncertainty about the processes by which sun imagery came to be applied to Yahweh. Nevertheless, the variety of metaphors associated with wings in the OT (cf. e.g., “wings of the wind”) does allow a reference to the sun’s rays here, though without necessarily assuming external religious influence. In Deut 33:2 and Isa 60:1-3, however, Yahweh’s rising has little connection with sun imagery. Isa 60:1 is about the glory of Yahweh’s light appearing in the midst of darkness (cf. Isa 9:2[1]) without reference to

sunrise. Both passages recall Yahweh’s glory at Sinai, with Deut 33:2 referring not to a distant and static sun but to God bringing his light directly to Israel. Israel’s light, too, can then shine into the world’s darkness (Isa 60:3; the hapleg. zerah, is really shining appearance; NIV dawn). Light, radiance, brightness: > ’wr (be light, bright, shine, #239); > bahir (bright, brilliant, # 986); > zrh I (rise [of sun], shine, # 2436); > yp‘ I (shine out, # 3649); > ngh (shine, cause to shine, # 5585); > nhr II (be radiant, # 5642); > qgrn (send out rays, be radiant, # 7966) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDOT 4:141-43; TWOT 1:251-52; F. Schnutenhaus, “Das Kommen und Erscheinen Gottes im AT,” ZAW 76, 1964, 1-22. Martin J. Selman

2a

eal

MTT (zerah I), nom.

#2437),

dawn,

sunrise

(hapleg.;

ANE The vb. zrh, rise, from which the nom. derives, is found in Egyp., Nab., Palm., Jewish Aram., Christ. Pal., Syr., Mand., Arab. (ahmaru) darihiy, shining (red), and OSA ’drh. OT

The word is used in Isa 60:3 of the dazzling effulgence of the new Jerusalem,

which attracts all nations to the holy city. It occurs in the sentence whal*ki gdyim I’ 6rék tim’lakim I’ndgah zarhék, which RSV translates, “And nations shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising.” However, NRSV and NIV take [’nodgah zarhék to mean “‘to the brightness of your dawn,” and JB renders the words as “to your dawning brightness.” NEB reads “to your sunrise” and REB “to your radiance.” From west to east (mimma“rab ... timimmizrah-Semes) people will fear the name and revere the glory of Yahweh, whose coming will be like a pent-up flood impelled by a powerful divine wind (cf. JB; NRSV; NIV; Isa 59:19). In contrast to much of ch. 59, with its graphic description of the darkness of Judah’s social and spiritual depravity caused by rebellion, faithlessness, disobedience, and lack of integrity, Isa 60 stresses redemption, light, and righteousness (cf. 59:19-20). The restored Jerusalem will be irradiated with the divine light, ineffable in its splendor.

In Isa 60:1, which opens with a double imperative (gimi ’dri, Arise, shine), Jerusalem, portrayed as a prostrate woman (cf. 50:1; 51:17-23; 52:1-2; 54:1), is bidden

to arise and to shine with the light of the glory of Yahweh that has risen upon her (aik*béd yhwh ‘dlayik zarah, cf. Exod 34:29-35; Deut 33:2; Matt 5:14-16; 2 Cor 4:3-6;

1148

mat (# 2437) Rev 21:11, 24). How is one to account for the fact that, unlike Isa 60:1, vv. 2-3 do not

picture Zion’s glory as accomplished fact but as lying in the future (cf. RSV; NRSV; NEB; REB; though see JB)? Some argue that the two perfects of v. 1 (“has come ... has risen”) are the kind that give assurance of an action still to come (see Skinner, 197;

Smart, 258; Whybray, 230; Scullion, 173; though see Whitehouse, 280). As several scholars have pointed out (see Martin-Achard, 72-75; Jones, 67; Kelley, 360), the

nature of Zion’s mission to the nations in this passage is centripetal (attracting nations by reflecting God’s glory; cf. Isa 49:7; Zech 8:20-23) rather than centrifugal (going out and evangelizing the nations). All nations, languishing in “darkness” and “thick darkness” (v. 2), will be attracted to the dazzling radiance of the divine glory reflected by the new Jerusalem (Isa 60:3). The theme of light is prominent throughout the book of Isaiah. The nations make pilgrimage to Mount Zion, where the light is embodied in the teaching of the térd (Isa 2:2-5). It is light that overcomes the dark night of foreign domination (8:22-9:7[8:22-9:6]). It is by having a right relationship with God and with one’s fellows that one’s light breaks through the gloom and the darkness like the dawn (58:8, 10). In 60:1-3, where the words “light,” “glory (divine),” and “Yahweh” occur in paral-

lelism, light symbolizes Yahweh’s epiphany in the temple-city (see Muilenburg, 697-99; Clifford, 589). Just as Gen 1:1-5 (cf. John 1:5) describes how only divine light was capable of overcoming the primordial darkness at creation, so Isa 60:1-3 makes clear that those who are outside the circle of God’s presence will remain perpetually enveloped by the impenetrable darkness of the primordial night (see McKenzie, Isa 47:5a; 59:9b).

178; Clifford, 589; cf.

The sharp contrast between the darkness shrouding the peoples and the light enjoyed by Jerusalem is reminiscent of Exod 10:21-23, which describes the plague of darkness. In the OT, light symbolizes the presence of Yahweh and his redemptive love and salvific power (McKenzie, 177-78; Knight, 42). Isa 60:1-3 has been influenced by other passages in the book (e.g., 2:2-5; 8:22-9:7[8:22-9:6]; 40:5; 42:6; 49:6; 58:8, 10)

and, in turn, it provided the imagery for Rev 21:18-22. The image of the darkness being pierced by the bright morning star (Isa 60:3) has influenced three of the four Gospels (Matt 2:2; 4:15-16; Luke 1:78-79; John 1:4-5; cf. Sawyer, 181).

P-B_ The vb. zrh occurs with the meaning (spread), shine, sparkle, rise; hi. make shine; glisten; go east (denom. of mizrah, sunrise, East) (Jastrow 1:413; 2:756). Sunrise, dawn, sunset:

~ ’dr (light, daylight, dawn, lightning, #240);

> zerah I (dawn,

sunrise, # 2437); ~ mab’ (entrance, sunset, west, #4427); > ma“rab II (setting of the sun, west, #5115); > neSep (dusk, twilight, dawn, darkness, #5974); > Sahar (pre-dawn twilight,

# 8840) BIBLIOGRAPHY

R. J. Clifford, “Isaiah 40-66,” in HBC, 1988, 571-96; D. R. Jones, Isaiah 56-66 and Joel: Introduction and Commentary, Torch, 1964; P. H. Kelley, “Isaiah,” in BBC, 1972, 5:149-374; G. A.

F. Knight, The New Israel: A Commentary on the Book of Isaiah 56-66, ITC, 1985; J. L. McKen-

zie, Second Isaiah: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB, 1968; R. Martin-Achard, A Light

to the Nations: A Study of the Old Testament Conception of Israel’s Mission to the World, 1962; J. Muilenburg, “The Book of Isaiah Chapters 40-66,” in JB, 1956, 5:381-773, J. F. A. Sawyer,

1149

DT (# 2441) Isaiah. Volume 2, DSB, 1986; J. Scullion, Isaiah 40-66, OTM, 1982; J. Skinner, The Book of the

Prophet Isaiah Chapters XL-LXVI, CBSC, 1960; J. D. Smart, History and Theology in Second Isaiah:

A Commentary on Isaiah 35, 40-66, 1965; O. C. Whitehouse, Isaiah XL-LXVI, CBC,

1908; R. N. Whybray, Isaiah 40-66, NCBC, 1975.

Robin Wakely

2441

ANE

brat

O71 (zrm I), vb. q. put an end to life (# 2441).

Arab. attests a likely cognate, zarama, cut short, break off.

OT This hapleg. occurs only in Ps 90:5, where it is juxtaposed to 5énd, sleep, a common euphemism for death. The idea is that humankind is cut off by sleep; 1.e., by death. HALAT distinguishes this from zrm II, pour out (water). Death: > ’bd I (perish, #6); > ’“damd (ground, piece of land, soil, earth, realm of the dead, #141); > ’asén (mortal accident, #656); > gw‘ (expire, die, #1588); > hrg (kill, # 2222); > zrm I (put an end to life, #2441); > hedel (realm of the dead, # 2535); (embalm, embalming, # 2846); > mwt (die, kill, execute, # 4637); > qtl (murder, slay, > rpa’im I (shades, departed spirits, # 8327); > 5°’6l (sheol, netherworld, # 8619);

murder, > Ant II # 7779); > Sahat

(pit, grave, # 8846) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TWOT 1:252; M. Dahood, Psalms, AB 2:324; W. A. VanGemeren, “Psalms”, EBC, 5:544.

Eugene H. Merrill

2442 ANE

on

BAT (zrm ID), po. (clouds) pour out (water) (#2442); nom. DT (zerem), violent rains (# 2443).

zrmis related to Akk. zandnu (to rain) and zunnu (rain), see HALAT, 270.

OT 1. A zerem is a powerful and destructive rain storm (see Reymond, 23; Orni and Erfat, Geography, 147) accompanied by thunder, lightning, and at times hail. In Isa 28:2 zerem is torrential rain (zerem mayim kabbirim Sof*pim, “a downpour of mighty flooding waters”) accompanied by hail (zerem barad; > brd, # 1351) and a destructive wind (Sa‘ar gateb). In Isa 30:30 zerem is shattering rain (nepes wazerem, “a shattering and a rain”) accompanied by thunder (hdd qélé, “the majesty of his voice”; > #7754), lightning (lahab ’és§ ’6kéla, “a flame of fire that consumes’), and hailstones (’eben barad). 2. The powerful and destructive nature of a zerem explains its use in various figures. A zerem is a storm from which one needs to be sheltered (Isa 4:6), so God is one who shelters his people from the ruthless, likened to a zerem (25:4; see 32:2). Similarly, Job complains that the defenseless are not sheltered from the zerem harim (mountain storms, Job 24:8) because God does not set times to judge oppressors (vv. 1-4). Conversely, a zerem is a figure for divine judgment (Isa 28:2; 30:30; see Hab

3:10 for a verbal use of zrm in a context of divine judgment). Rain, dew, drizzle, hail, showers: ~ ’@gel (drop [of dew], # 103); > brd I (hail, # 1351); > gsm (make rain, #1772); > zrm II ({clouds] pour out [water], #2442); > h*namal (sleet,

1150

MATT (# 2444) a

a

hail?, # 2857); > tal (dew, light rain, drizzle, # 3228); > yrh II (give drink, cause rain, # 3722); > mtr (make rain, #4763); > malqés (late rain, #4919); > sagrir (downpour, #6039); > sapiah II (violent storm, #6207); >. r’bibim (showers, # 8053); > rasis (dew drop, # 8268); > r'p (drip, flow, rain, # 8319); > sa‘ir IV (heavy rain, # 8540); > Sikbd (layer of dew, emis-

sion/ discharge of seed, # 8887)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

J. Katsnelson, “Rain,” EncJud, 1971; E. Orni and E. Efrat, Geography of Israel, 1971; P. Reymond, L’ eau, sa vie, et sa signification dans l’AT, 1958; R. B. Y. Scott, “Meteorological Phe-

nomena and Terminology of the OT,” ZAW 64, 1952, 11-25. Mark D. Futato

2443 (zerem, violent rains), > #2442

Mat (zirma), nom. phallus, (representation of) 2444

ma

the erect penis, emission (# 2444).

OT The nom. refers to the erect penis. In the allegory of the two adulterous sisters, Oholibah (for Jerusalem) lusted after her lovers, whose erections were like those of horses (Ezek 23:20). Judah’s request for Egyptian aid against the Babylonians is in mind. By this ruinous relapse into the pro-Egyptian policy, Judah deprived herself of any hope of inward recovery. AYA

Sexual relations: > ’esek (testicle, #863); > zirmd (phallus, emission, # 2444); > m*biiSim (genitals, # 4434); > nablit (genitals, #5578); > n*hdSet II (menstruation, lust, # 5734); > ‘en (keep oneself secluded, # 6328); > ‘6nd (cohabitation, sexual intercourse, # 6703); > Skb (lie

down, be ravished, be bedded down, # 8886); > skh (exhibit strong testicles, to have strong carnal desire, #8889); — Sopka (fluid duct of male organ, urinary tubule/organ, #9163); > Sexual ordinances: Theology Jackie A. Naudé

2445

DT (zr‘), gq. sow, scatter seed; ni./pu. be sown; hi. form seed (# 2445); der. UT (zera‘), sowing, seed, offspring, descendants (# 2446); D171 (zériia‘), sowing, things sown, plant growing from seeds (only in Lev 11:37; Isa 61:11; # 2433); D°ID"1 (zér‘dnim), seeds, vegetables (hapleg. in Dan 1:12; #2448); D711") (mizra‘), land sown, seedland (hapleg.; # 4669).

ANE

oa

The Heb. root developed from Proto-Sem. dr‘, which became zr‘ in Heb.,

Aram., and Phoen. Ugar. shows the forms dr‘ I, sow, seed and dry (cf. Heb. zara), scat-

ter (UT, ## 702, 705).

1. Both the vb. zr‘ and the nom. zera‘ are used in a literal sense of sowing seed OT in a field, although this usage is much less frequent than the metaphorical meanings (see below). But even in such instances sowing/seeding (and harvesting) are Yahweh’s blessings (Gen 26:12). Of particular interest here is the promise of God after the Flood of a return to regularity in the world of nature: “as long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest...will never cease” (Gen 8:22). By emphasizing that seasonal cycles are a 1151

DT (# 2445)

result of divine promise, the OT is denying the dynamics of the fertility cult. People’s actions for good or for evil have no impact on the patterns of the seasons. There is no room here for any concept of sympathetic magic. 2. The vb. zr‘ is used metaphorically along with the nom. “harvest” to describe the connection between an act and its consequences (Job 4:8; Ps 126:6; Prov 11:18;

22:8; Jer 4:3; Hos 10:12-13; cf. Gal 6:7-9). This is the primary principle of retribution, one reaps what one sows. Furthermore, not only does one reap much more than one sows, but often one reaps only long after one has sown. Thus, act-consequence may have both an immediate and an eventual sequence. The most frequent metaphorical use of the nom. zera‘ (“seed”) is employment to designate human seed, i.e., offspring and descendants(s). The first of these is the word of Yahweh to the serpent that he will put enmity between it and the woman and between its offspring and hers (Gen 3:15). Some modern and ancient writers have understood the reference ethically, i.e., the snake is the embodiment of evil, and the

enmity is the struggle between the human race and evil, which essays to destroy it. Other modern and ancient writers have understood the verse as a promise, and in particular, a prophecy of Jesus as the seed of the woman who will crush the serpent’s head. One problem surrounding interpretation is how one should understand “seed/offspring.” In many cases “seed” refers to an immediate descendant (Gen 4:25; 15:3; 19:32, 34; 21:13; 38:8-9; 1 Sam 1:11; 2:20; 2 Sam 7:12). Here the reference is to an

individual child. When the reference is to distant offspring or a large group of descendants, zera‘ is a collective, “they” (Gen 9:9; 12:7; 13:16; 15:5, 13, 18; 16:10; 17:7-10, 12; 21:12; 22:17-18). Among the ancient versions the LXX (“he [autos] shall bruise

your head”) made the most direct case for a messianic understanding of “seed.” 3. The highest number of references by far to zera‘ = “descendants” is found among the promises to the patriarchs about their progeny (Gen 12:7; 13:15; 15:5, 13-16, 18; 17:7-9, 12, 19; 22:15-18; 24:7; 28:13-14). In many of these instances Yah-

weh’s promise is to give the land to the patriarch’s descendants. In fact, Gen 13:17 and 15:7 represent the only promise of land to a patriarch that does not include descendants. The significance of the repeated inclusion of descendants as the object of Yahweh’s promise and gifts shows that God’s promises focused not primarily on imminent fulfillment but on a longer continuum. By extending promises to the seed of the patriarchs, the promises are cloaked in a prophecy and fulfillment pattern. Descendant, offspring, seed: > ddr II (generation, #1887); > zr‘ (sow, scatter seed, form seed, #2445); > yld (bear, bring forth, be born, #3528); > nin (offspring, #5769); > neked

(progeny, #5781);

> ‘éger (descendant, # 6830); > se’*sa’im (offspring, # 7368); > ribbéa‘

(member of fourth generation, # 8067); > Sillé§ (member of sixth generation, # 9000); > tarbiit

(brood, # 9551) BIBLIOGRAPHY

TDNT 7:536-47, esp. 538-42; TDOT 4:143-62; TWOT 1:252-53; T. D. Alexander, “From Adam to Judah: The Significance of the Family Tree in Genesis,” EvQ 61, 1989, 5-19; J. P. Lewis, “The

Woman’s Seed (Gen 3:15),” JETS 34, 1991, 299-319.

Victor P. Hamilton

2446 (zera‘, sowing, seed, offspring, descendants), > #2445

1152

al (# 2449) ene an aol OneySea en 2448 (zér‘onim, seeds, vegetables), > # 2445

2449

Aaa

Fl (zrp), pilp. sprinkle richly (hapleg.; # 2449).

ANE The root is to be connected with Arab. darafa, flow; Syr. zaripta’,stronger rain; and r“zap, drop, sprinkle, spray; and Eth. td-zréfaindfa, fall slowly (rain).

OT Only in Ps 72:6: “He [the king] will be like rain falling on a mown field, like showers watering (zarzip) the earth.” This is a reference (or more likely a prayer) to the extension of the king’s power over the earth, though not oppressive, brutalizing power, but rather a life-giving power; hence, a petition that the king’s enthronement and reign will bring life to his subjects just as the falling rains bring life to the soil. The request is one in a long list to the effect that the king’s reign will model exemplary and God-honoring leadership. Possibly this psalm may have been recited whenever a new occupant assumed the royal throne. Sprinkling: > ““guddd (sprinkling brush, # 99); > zrh I (scatter, sprinkle, be scattered, scatter, spread, be strewed, #2430); — zrp (sprinkle, #2449); — zrq I (sprinkle, scatter, #2450); > mlh Il (sprinkle salt, # 4873); > nwp II (sprinkle, # 5678); > nzh (sprinkled, spatter, # 5684) BIBLIOGRAPHY

M. Dahood, Psalms, AB, 1968, 2:181. Victor P. Hamilton

7450

—

11 (zrq I), q. sprinkle, scatter; pu. be sprinkled

|

(# 2450); PNM (mizrag), nom. bowl (# 4670).

All uses of the vb. are in the q. except for Num 19:13, 20 (pu.). Hos 7:9 is difficult. In the q. the vb. is transitive and is normally followed by ‘al, not b’, as is the case here.

The vb. in Hos 7:9 is likely a q. passive (> #2451). ANE The root occurs in Aram., Sam., Syr., and Mand. with the meaning “sprinkle.” Cf. also Arab. d/zaraga, “drop (mist),” and Akk. zaraqu, “sprinkle (fluids)” (CAD 2:65-66).

OT

While the vb. is used mostly to refer to priestly lustrations, it may also appear in

nonsacramental contexts. See Exod 9:8, 10 (NIV tossed); Job 2:12 (they sprinkled dust

on Job); Ezek 10:2 (burning coals are scattered over Jerusalem, indicating that the doom of the city is sealed); Hos 7:9 (“his hair is sprinkled with gray”). See also Isa 28:25 (“does he [the farmer] not...scatter cummin?”), and 2 Chron 34:4, a reference to Josiah’s “scattering” the remnants of smashed pagan icons over the graves of those who employed such in their ritual. 1. Although used most often with the sprinkling or throwing of blood, it is used 3x to refer to the sprinkling of water (Num 19:13, 20; Ezek 36:25). The two references in Num 19 are to purification from impurity resulting from contact with or proximity to something dead. It is such procedures that more than likely inspired Ezekiel to speak of God’s forthcoming purification of Israel as a sprinkling of pure water on them. In fact, the Targum makes the connection clear, “And I will remit your sins like those that are

cleaned with the water of sprinkling and with the ashes of the heifer of the guilt

1153

PIT (# 2451) offering.” If Ezekiel drew from Numbers, then the Qumran community drew from the language of Ezekiel, as can be seen in the promise, “And he will sprinkle upon him the spirit of truth like waters of purification” 1QS IV, 21). 2. The sprinkling of blood, conveyed by zrq I, is used (a) with the burnt offering (Lev 1:5, 11; 8:19; 9:12; 2 Kgs 16:15; 2 Chron 30:16; Ezek 43:18); (b) with the peace offering (Lev 3:2, 8, 13; 9:18; 17:6; 2 Kgs 16:13); (c) with the sin/purification offeaing (2 Chron 29:22 [2x]); (d) with the guilt offering (Lev 7:2, 14). 3. There is no discernable difference in function or importance among the three Heb. vbs. for the sprinkling of blood/water. They merely represent alternate forms of manipulating the blood/water: zrgq I, dash; nzh [hi.], “asperse”; ntn, “daub.”

4. The ceremony of covenant ratification at Sinai concludes with Moses “sprinkling” half of the blood on the altar (Exod 24:6) and then “sprinkling” the remaining half on the assembled people (Exod 24:8). Childs (The Book of Exodus, OTL, 1974,

506) remarks: “The dividing of the blood in half would seem to point to a twofold aspect of the covenant. On the one hand, the blood dashed on the altar in place of a sac-

rifice speaks of God’s gracious forgiveness in accepting this as an offering. On the other hand, the blood scattered on the people binds them in a blood oath.” 5. With some exceptions zrg is rendered in the LXX with proscheo, especially when the object is “blood.” When something other than blood is the object the vb. varies. proscheo does not occur in the NT, but a nom. related to it occurs once: “By faith he [Moses] kept the Passover and the sprinkling [proschusin] of blood...” (Heb 11:28). This refers to Moses’ instructing his people to put the blood on and around the doorframes. However, the Heb. of Exod 12:22 uses the hi. of ng‘, touch, apply (NIV put), rather than zrqg. F. F. Bruce

(Epistle to the Hebrews,

NICOT,

1990,

314, n.207)

remarks: “The word translated ‘sprinkling’ here is not the usual rhantismos [cf.12:24] but proschusis [here only in the NT], which means ‘pouring on.’ The prefix pros- gives this word the sense of application...” rhaind, used frequently to translate nzh (hi.), is used in LXX for zrq I only in Ezek 36:25. 6. For mizraq, bowl, see k‘l?, vessel (# 3998). Sprinkling: > *“guddd (sprinkling brush, # 99); > zrh I (scatter, sprinkle, be scattered, scatter, spread, be strewed, #2430); > zrp (sprinkle, #2449); > zrq I (sprinkle, scatter, #2450); > mlh II (sprinkle salt, # 4873); > nwp II (sprinkle, # 5678); > nzh (sprinkled, spatter, # 5684) Cleansing, washing: ~ mrq (polish, scour, cleanse, # 5347); > rhs (wash, # 8175)

BIBLIOGRAPHY TDOT 4:162-65; TWOT 1:254; N. Snaith, “The Sprinkling of Blood,” ExpTim 82, 1970, 23-24. Victor P. Hamilton

2451

OT

pu

Pt (zrq ID), q. creep in (#2451).

The use of zrq in Hos 7:9 is obscure (NIV’s “his hair is sprinkled with gray” is

unlikely), and scholars are divided about its significance (see Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, AB, 1980, 467 for summary). On the basis of an Arab. cognate, zrq, J. Blau has

suggested the meaning “to creep up to stealthily” for this passage (“Etymologische

Untersuchungen (> #2450)

1154

auf

Grund

der

palaestinischen

Arabisch,’

VT

5,

1955,

341).

WT (# 2452) ee | ED LS RES TS OS AS OE Coming, approaching, entering: > ’th (come, bring, #910); > bw’ (go, come, arrive, enter, #995); > zrq II (creep in, # 2451); > ng (draw near, approach, offer, #5602); > grb (draw

near, approach, offer, # 7928) Bill T. Arnold

2452 ANE

aaah

Vi (zrr I), q. press out (wounds) (# 2452).

There is an Akk. vb. zdru, twist, which is a cognate of the Heb. zwr II (# 2398),

a vb. that may be related to zrr I. HALAT (283) follows the unlikely suggestion of Driver that this vb. may be related to the Arab. zarra, narrow the eyes.

OT 1. BDB (266-67), JBHS (374 n. 30), and Even-Shoshan (329) hold that the vb. of Isa 1:6 is derived from zwr II, wring, break. This stem appears in three other contexts, in the wringing of Gideon’s fleece (Judg 6:38) and twice in the context of eggs breaking (Job 39:15; Isa 59:5). However, the form of the vb. found in Isa 1:6, zord, is best understood as a q. pass. of zrr, as vbs. with middle radical r often have holem in

the first syllable (GKC 52e, 67m). One would expect orthographic retention of the waw in the q. pass. (as a Séireq) were this form from a middle weak root. This root is closely related to another hapleg. which lexicographers label zrr II, sneeze (# 2455). Both verbal nuances express the concept of harmful bodily substances being expelled. The latter occurs in the account of Elisha’s resuscitation of the Shulamite widow’s son (2 Kgs 4:35). After Elisha spread himself over the child and prayed, “the boy sneezed seven times and opened his eyes.” The sneeze of the child in 2 Kgs represented some physical or spiritual (Montgomery and Gehman, ICC, 372) substance that led to the cause of death being expelled. 2. zrr 1occurs in a poetic context, as Isaiah condemns Judah. He proclaims that the land is to receive divine judgment, metaphorically represented by a beaten human, with open wounds, “not cleansed or bandaged or soothed with oil” (Isa 1:6). The cleaning of wounds is standard procedure in ANE medical practice (Asu texts AMT 74, 11, 23). The inability to clean wounds implies that the victim will not recover (cf. Hos 5:11-13, as Assyria will not be able to heal the wound of Israel, inflicted as judgment

by Yahweh). Festering (unpressed) wounds are the product of decay, which is associated with death. One is reminded of the desert camp of Leviticus, as all hints of human (Lev 13:1-46; 14:1-32, 54-57) and material (13:47-59; 14:33-53) decay were to be separated

from the camp until the person or object in question was physically healed and ritually purified. Further, not only is the defiled state of decay incompatible with the purity of the presence of Yahweh, but this separation is caused by Yahweh (e.g., 14:34). This is the case in Isa 1:6, as the metaphorical disease afflicting Judah is the product of rebellion. Oswalt points out that the use of the pass. vb. underscores that Yahweh is to some degree without choice in the matter, as the violation (and subsequent revocation) of the covenant entails the curses to be enacted (89). Further, the cure is not to come from Yahweh, as he is the source of the affliction. In Isaiah (as in Hosea) decay has set in,

and death is to soon follow. The LXX employs the phrase malagma epitheinai, apply a poultice, in Isa 1:6. P-B Th vb. epitithémi means to close, as the author misunderstood the medical procedure

1155

“71 (# 2453) involved. The confusion is surprising, given that Greek medical practice often called for cleaning and removing deeper infection as well (though surface pus was cultivated—a practice which lasted into the nineteenth century). Pressure, squeezing: > ’kp (press hard, # 436); > ’/s (press hard upon, # 552); > zwrI (press, wring out, #2318);

> zrr I (press out [wounds], #2452); — lhs (press, #4315); > mis (pressing, # 4790); > m‘k (press, squeeze, crush, #5080); > msh (squeeze out, drain, #5172); > psr (urge, press, push, # 7210); > Sht (squeeze, to press out grapes, # 8469) BIBLIOGRAPHY

P. Ghlioungui, Per Ankh the House of Life, 1963, 1973; G. B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah I-XXVII, ICC, 1975 (1912); idem, J and 2 Kings, OTL, 1964,

1970; O. Kaiser, Isaiah 1-12, OTL, 1981, tr. 1983; G. Majno, The Healing Hand: Man and Wound in the Ancient World, 1975, esp. 29-206; J. Montgomery and H. Gehman, The Books of Kings, ICC, 1951; J. Oswalt, Isaiah 1-39, NICOT,

1986; B-Waltke and M. O’Connor, /BHS,

1990, 374 n. 30. Mark Anthony Phelps

2453 ANE

Ae

“IT (zrr), po‘el sneeze (# 2453).

Arab. darra, scatter, spray.

OT The vb. is a hapleg. that appears in 2 Kgs 4:35 in the context of a ritual of resurrection. The seven sneezes of the erstwhile dead child indicate that life has returned. Tylor writes that sneezing in some cultures is a sign of the presence of a spirit (Tylor, 97-104). In the Jewish tradition, he continues, there is a reference to the soul’s depart-

ing from the body when a person sneezes (Tylor, 102). However, Gray suggests that Elisha closes the door to keep the nepes, breath (# 5883), within the room until life returns (Gray, 496-97). The sevenfold repetition of the sneeze is consistent with the special use of the number seven in BH, namely, to describe completeness. The child has been fully restored to life as the seven sneezes attest. Sneezing: ~ zrr Ii (sneeze, #2453); > ‘“ti¥d (sneeze, # 6490) BIBLIOGRAPHY

G. E. Driver, “Some Hebrew Medical Expressions,” ZAW 65, 1958, 255-62; J. Gray,

1]&

2 Kings, 1970; E. B. Tylor, Primitive Culture, 1920.

Wilma Ann Bailey

3455

= 3 hand (22.25-26.25 cm; 8.75-10.3

M1} (zeret), nom. span, the distance between the thumb and the smallest finger of an extended in.) (# 2455); denom. vb. 11 (zrh ID), pi. to measure

(# 2431). For a discussion on measurements of length, see ’ammé I, cubit, ell, forearm (# 564). Russell Fuller

1156

New International

Dictionary of New Testament Theology 4 Volume Set

“Has proved its worth.” —F. F Bruce

“Indispensable for advanced theological students and scholars as well as ordinary Bible students.” —Christianity Today

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology is, first, a basic translation, and then an extensive revision and considerable enlargement of the German Theologisches Begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament. On its first publication in German it was recognized as a major reference work and has since become more and more widely acclaimed as an important tool for understanding the theology and message of the Bible. Its translation and publication in English, together with the extensive revisions and additions, provide a unique source of information, invaluable to ministers, teachers, and anyone interested in the

study as well as the teaching of the Bible. Some of its main features are:

2, 2K2 ~ ~~ “

>, 0, K2 ~~ we

Concise discussions of the major theological terms of the Bible Arranged in English alphabetical order Does not require knowledge of Greek and Hebrew Discusses the use of each key term in classical Greek, the Old Testament, the rabbinic writings, and the New Testament Glossary of technical terms Full bibliographies Complete indexes that make the wealth of information in these volumes readily accessible.

———

—

+

ween

al Eryis

i

ott

.

—— :

ARE

Bigy

f

r