Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures VII: Comprising the Contents of Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, Vol. 10 9781463234904

Citation preview

Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures VII

Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and its Contexts 15

The series Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and its Contexts publishes academic works dealing with study of the Hebrew Bible, ancient Israelite society and related ancient societies, biblical Hebrew and cognate languages, the reception of biblical texts through the centuries, and the history of the discipline. Volumes in the series include monographs, collective works, and the printed version of the contents of the important on-line Journal of Hebrew Scriptures

Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures VII

Comprising the Contents of Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, vol. 10

Edited by

Ehud Ben Zvi

9

34 2011

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2011 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2011

‫ܒܐ‬

9

ISBN 978-1-4632-0165-4

Printed in the United States of America

ISSN 1935-6897

TABLE OF CONTENTS VOL. 10 (2010) The Contribution of Archaeozoology to the Identification of the Ritually Clean Ungulates Mentioned in the Hebrew Bible Zohar Amar, Ram Bouchnick, and Guy Bar-Oz ...................................... 1 Closure in Samson Marian Broida................................................................................................ 25 To Create, to Separate or to Construct: An Alternative for a Recent Proposal as to the Interpretation of ‫ ברא‬in Gen 1:1–2:4a Bob Becking & Marjo C. A. Korpel .......................................................... 61 Archaeology and Professional Ethical Codes in Israel in the mid 80s: The Case of the Association of Archaeologists in Israel and Its Code of Ethics Raz Kletter and Gideon Solimani .............................................................. 83 The Book of Samuel: Its Composition, Structure and Significance as a Historiographical Source Moshe Garsiel .............................................................................................131 “And many beasts” (Jonah 4:11): The Function and Status of Animals in the Book of Jonah Yael Shemesh ..............................................................................................175 Jeremiah 41 and the Ammonite Alliance Russell Hobson ...........................................................................................203 Nehemiah 5: No Economic Crisis Philippe Guillaume .....................................................................................217 In Conversation with Joshua A. Berman, Created Equal: How the Bible Broke with Ancient Political Thought (Oxford University Press, 2008) Saul M. Olyan, ed. ......................................................................................239 v

vi

PERSPECTIVES ON HEBREW SCRIPTURES

Introduction Saul M. Olyan ..............................................................................................240 Created Equal: Main Claims and Methodological Assumptions Joshua A. Berman.......................................................................................241 Only Men Are Created Equal Susan Ackerman .........................................................................................252 Between Diachronic and Synchronic Approaches Norman K. Gottwald ................................................................................267 Equality and Inequality in the Socio-Political Visions of the Pentateuch’s Sources* Saul M. Olyan ..............................................................................................274 A Response: Three Points of Methodology Joshua A. Berman.......................................................................................282 The Panchronic Yiqtol: Functionally Consistent and Cognitively Plausible Alexander Andrason ..................................................................................291 Three Sides of a Coin: In Conversation With Ben Zvi and Nogalski, Two Sides of a Coin Francis Landy ..............................................................................................357 Tradition and Interpretation in Gen 1:1–2:4a Jürg Hutzli ...................................................................................................379 Nehemiah 5: A Response to Philippe Guillaume Marvin Lloyd Miller ...................................................................................401 Eeny Meeny Miny Moe Who is the Craftiest to Go? Karolien Vermeulen ...................................................................................407 Zechariah 8 As Revision and Digest of Zechariah 1–7 Elie Assis......................................................................................................421 El as the Speaking Voice in Psalm 82:6–8 David Frankel..............................................................................................447 Divine Mediation and the Rise of Civilization in Mesopotamian Literature and in Genesis 1–11 David P. Melvin ..........................................................................................471 “The Tallest Man Cannot Reach Heaven; the Broadest Man Cannot Cover Earth.” Reconsidering the Proverb and its Biblical Parallels Nili Samet ....................................................................................................487

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vii

Archaeology as a High Court in Ancient Israelite History: A Reply to Nadav Na’aman Israel Finkelstein .........................................................................................499

REVIEWS Michaele Bauks and Christophe Nihan, MANUEL D'EXÉGÈSE DE L'ANCIEN TESTAMENT Reviewed by Matthieu Richelle ......................................................... 507 Peter Porzig, DIE LADE JAHWES IM ALTEN TESTAMENT UND IN DEN TEXTEN VOM TOTEN MEER Reviewed by Yvonne Szedlàk-Michel .............................................. 511 Julius Steinberg, DIE KETUVIM: IHR AUFBAU UND IHRE BOTSCHAFT Reviewed by Tim Stone...................................................................... 514 Eberhard Bons, ed., DER EINE GOTT UND DIE FREMDEN KULTE: EXKLUSIVE UND INKLUSIVE TENDENZEN IN DEN BIBLISCHEN GOTTESVORSTELLUNGEN Reviewed by Nathan MacDonald ..................................................... 525 Kathryn McClymond, BEYOND SACRED VIOLENCE: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SACRIFICE Reviewed by Christian A. Eberhart .................................................. 527 Walter Dietrich, THE EARLY MONARCHY IN ISRAEL: THE TENTH CENTURY B.C.E. Reviewed by Mark W. Hamilton....................................................... 532 Markham J. Geller and Mineke Schipper, eds., IMAGINING CREATION Reviewed by Shawn W. Flynn ........................................................... 536 Katherine M. Stott, WHY DID THEY WRITE THIS WAY? REFLECTIONS ON REFERENCES TO WRITTEN DOCUMENTS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE AND ANCIENT LITERATURE Reviewed by Lisbeth S. Fried ............................................................ 539 Michael D. Coogan, A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT: THE HEBREW BIBLE IN ITS CONTEXT Reviewed by Glen A. Taylor.............................................................. 542

viii

PERSPECTIVES ON HEBREW SCRIPTURES

Christopher Gilbert, A COMPLETE INTRODUCTION TO THE BIBLE Reviewed by Glen A. Taylor.............................................................. 545 Sandra L. Gravett, Karla G. Bohmbach, F.V. Greifenhagen, Donald C. Polaski, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE HEBREW BIBLE: A THEMATIC APPROACH Reviewed by Glen A. Taylor.............................................................. 547 Julie Kelso, O MOTHER, WHERE ART THOU?: AN IRIGARAYAN READING OF THE BOOK OF CHRONICLES Reviewed by Christine Mitchell......................................................... 549 André LaCocque, ONSLAUGHT AGAINST INNOCENCE: CAIN, ABEL, AND THE YAHWIST Reviewed by Theodore Hiebert ........................................................ 553 Gregory Lee Cuéllar, VOICES OF MARGINALITY: EXILE AND RETURN IN SECOND ISAIAH 40–55 AND THE MEXICAN IMMIGRANT Reviewed by Lee Beach ...................................................................... 556 Charles L. Echols, “TELL ME, O MUSE”: THE SONG OF DEBORAH (JUDGES 5) IN THE LIGHT OF HEROIC POETRY Reviewed by Brian Peterson .............................................................. 560 Paul Borgman, DAVID, SAUL, & GOD: REDISCOVERING AN ANCIENT STORY Reviewed by Benjamin J. M. Johnson .............................................. 564 Tova L. Forti, ANIMAL IMAGERY IN THE BOOK OF PROVERBS Reviewed by Timothy J. Sandoval .................................................... 568 Duane A. Garrett, AMOS: A HANDBOOK ON THE HEBREW TEXT Reviewed by Karl Möller.................................................................... 571 Luc Zaman, BIBLE AND CANON: A MODERN HISTORICAL INQUIRY Reviewed by Stephen Dempster ....................................................... 574 Bénédicte Lemmelijn, A PLAGUE OF TEXTS? A TEXT-CRITICAL STUDY OF THE SO-CALLED “PLAGUES NARRATIVE” IN EXODUS 7:14–11:10 Reviewed by Edgar Kellenberger...................................................... 579 Stephen D. Mason, “ETERNAL COVENANT” IN THE PENTATEUCH: THE CONTOURS OF AN ELUSIVE PHRASE Reviewed by Richard J. Bautch ......................................................... 581 Göran Eidevall, PROPHECY AND PROPAGANDA: IMAGES OF ENEMIES IN THE BOOK OF ISAIAH Reviewed by Matthew Forrest Lowe................................................ 584 Friedrich V. Reiterer, Tobias Nicklas, Karin Schopflin, eds., ANGELS: THE CONCEPT OF CELESTIAL BEINGS - ORIGINS, DEVELOPMENT AND RECEPTION Reviewed by Heather Macumber...................................................... 588

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ix

Simone Paganini, “NICHT DARFST DU ZU DIESEN WÖRTERN ETWAS HINZUFÜGEN”: DIE REZEPTION DES DEUTERONOMIUMS IN DER TEMPELROLLE: SPRACHE, AUTOREN, HERMENEUTIK Reviewed by Molly Zahn ................................................................... 594 Mark J. Boda, A SEVERE MERCY: SIN AND ITS REMEDY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT Reviewed by Steve Dempster ............................................................ 598 Otto Eckart, DIE TORA: STUDIEN ZUM PENTATEUCH—GESAMMELTE AUFSÄTZE Reviewed by Bruce Wells ................................................................... 603 Gordon C. I. Wong, THE ROAD TO PEACE: PASTORAL REFLECTIONS ON ISAIAH 1–12 Reviewed by Stephen Lee .................................................................. 606 Bernard M. Levinson, LEGAL REVISION AND RELIGIOUS RENEWAL IN ANCIENT ISRAEL Reviewed by Bernard S. Jackson ....................................................... 610 Karel Van der Toorn, SCRIBAL CULTURE AND THE MAKING OF THE HEBREW BIBLE Reviewed by William M. Schniedewind ........................................... 613 Robin Gallaher Branch, JEROBOAM’S WIFE: THE ENDURING CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT’S LEAST-KNOWN WOMEN Reviewed by Janice P. De-Whyte ..................................................... 620 Robert J. Littman, TOBIT: THE BOOK OF TOBIT IN CODEX SINAITICUS Reviewed by Micah D. Kiel ............................................................... 625 Piotr Bienkowski, ed., STUDIES IN IRON AGE MOAB AND NEIGHBOURING AREAS IN HONOUR OF MICHÈLE DAVIAU Reviewed by Oded Lipschits ............................................................. 627 Eugene Ulrich, THE BIBLICAL QUMRAN SCROLLS: TRANSCRIPTIONS AND TEXTUAL VARIANTS Reviewed by Konrad Schmid ............................................................ 632 Dalit Rom-Shiloni, GOD IN TIMES OF DESTRUCTION AND EXILES: TANAKH (HEBREW BIBLE) THEOLOGY Reviewed by Netanel Y. Barak .......................................................... 633 Reinhard Achenbach, Martin Arneth, and Eckart Otto, eds., TORA IN DER HEBRÄISCHEN BIBEL: STUDIEN ZUR REDAKTIONSGESCHICHTE UND SYNCHRONEN LOGIK DIACHRONER TRANSFORMATIONEN Reviewed by Mark A. Christian......................................................... 637

x

PERSPECTIVES ON HEBREW SCRIPTURES

Anssi Voitila and Jutta Jokiranta, eds., SCRIPTURE IN TRANSITION: ESSAYS ON SEPTUAGINT, HEBREW BIBLE, AND DEAD SEA SCROLLS IN HONOUR OF RAIJA SOLLAMO Reviewed by Gary D. Martin ............................................................. 646 Matthijs J. de Jong, ISAIAH AMONG THE ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN PROPHETS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE EARLIEST STAGES OF THE ISAIAH TRADITION AND THE NEO-ASSYRIAN PROPHECIES Reviewed by J. Blake Couey .............................................................. 654 Shmuel Aḥituv, ECHOES FROM THE PAST. HEBREW AND COGNATE INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE BIBLICAL WORLD Reviewed by Matthieu Richelle ......................................................... 658 Andrzej S. Turkanik, OF KINGS AND REIGNS: A STUDY OF TRANSLATION TECHNIQUE IN THE GAMMA/GAMMA SECTION OF 3 REIGNS Reviewed by Philippe Hugo .............................................................. 666 Christoph Koch, VERTRAG, TREUEID UND BUND: STUDIEN ZUR REZEPTION DES ALTORIENTALISCHEN VERTRAGRECHTS IM DEUTERONOMIUM UND ZUR AUSBILDUNG DER BUNDESTHEOLOGIE IM ALTEN TESTAMENT Reviewed by William Morrow ........................................................... 672 Anette Krüger, DAS LOB DES SCHÖPFERS: STUDIEN ZU SPRACHE, MOTIVIK UND THEOLOGIE VON PSALM 104 Reviewed by Martin Leuenberger ..................................................... 679 Ronald L. Troxel, LXX-ISAIAH AS TRANSLATION AND INTERPRETATION: THE STRATEGIES OF THE TRANSLATOR OF THE SEPTUAGINT OF ISAIAH Reviewed by Philippe Hugo .............................................................. 683 Lee I. Levine and Daniel R. Schwartz, eds., JEWISH IDENTITIES IN ANTIQUITY: STUDIES IN MEMORY OF MENAHEM STERN Reviewed by Michael Allen Daise..................................................... 688 Émile Puech, QUMRAN GROTTE 4 XXVII: TEXTES ARAMÉENS DEUXIEME PARTIE Reviewed by Daniel Machiela ............................................................ 691 Nancy Nam Hoon Tan, THE “FOREIGNNESS” OF THE FOREIGN WOMAN IN PROVERBS 1–9: A STUDY OF THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF A BIBLICAL MOTIF Reviewed by Claudia V. Camp .......................................................... 698

TABLE OF CONTENTS

xi

Mark Boda and Michael Floyd, eds., TRADITION IN TRANSITION: HAGGAI AND ZECHARIAH 1–8 IN THE TRAJECTORY OF HEBREW THEOLOGY Reviewed by Jakob Wöhrle ................................................................ 702 Claudia D. Bergmann, CHILDBIRTH AS METAPHOR FOR CRISIS: EVIDENCE FROM THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST, THE HEBREW BIBLE, AND 1QH XI, 1–18 Reviewed by Beth Stovell ................................................................... 706 Michael B. Dick, READING THE OLD TESTAMENT: AN INDUCTIVE APPROACH Reviewed by J. Todd Hibbard ........................................................... 711 Bill T. Arnold, GENESIS Reviewed by Dale Launderville ......................................................... 713 Megan Bishop Moore, PHILOSOPHY AND PRACTICE IN WRITING A HISTORY OF ANCIENT ISRAEL Reviewed by P.G. Kirkpatrick ........................................................... 715 Jan Joosten and Jean-Sebastian Rey, eds., CONSERVATISM AND INNOVATION IN THE HEBREW LANGUAGE OF THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD: PROCEEDINGS OF A FOURTH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA Reviewed by Ken M. Penner ............................................................. 718 J. Gordon McConville and Stephen N. Williams, JOSHUA Reviewed by Trent C. Butler ............................................................. 723 Roland Boer, POLITICAL MYTH: ON THE USE AND ABUSE OF BIBLICAL THEMES Reviewed by Steven J. Schweitzer .................................................... 727 Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A SURVEY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, 3RD EDITION Reviewed by Nathan Patrick Love ................................................... 729 Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden, eds., THE STRATA OF THE PRIESTLY WRITINGS: CONTEMPORARY DEBATE AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS Reviewed by Edgar Kellenberger...................................................... 733 Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia, eds., THE WISDOM OF BEN SIRA: STUDIES ON TRADITION, REDACTION, AND THEOLOGY Reviewed by Gerberb S. Oegema ..................................................... 735 Eugene Ulrich, THE BIBLICAL QUMRAN SCROLLS: TRANSCRIPTIONS AND TEXTUAL VARIANTS Reviewed by Andrew B. Perrin ......................................................... 738

xii

PERSPECTIVES ON HEBREW SCRIPTURES

Douglas J. Green, “I UNDERTOOK GREAT WORKS”: THE IDEOLOGY OF DOMESTIC ACHIEVEMENTS IN WEST SEMITIC ROYAL INSCRIPTIONS Reviewed by Scott C. Jones ............................................................... 741 Alan Lenzi, SECRECY AND THE GODS: SECRET KNOWLEDGE IN ANCIENT MESOPOTAMIA AND BIBLICAL ISRAEL Reviewed by Lowell K. Handy .......................................................... 747 Greger Andersson, UNTAMABLE TEXTS: LITERARY STUDIES AND NARRATIVE THEORY IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL Reviewed by Steven J. Schweitzer, Academic Dean and Associate Professor ............................................................................................... 751 Craig A. Evans and Emanual Tov, eds., EXPLORING THE ORIGINS OF THE BIBLE: CANON FORMATION IN HISTORICAL, LITERARY, AND THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE Reviewed by Christopher Seitz ......................................................... 753 Andrew Sloane, AT HOME IN A STRANGE LAND. USING THE OLD TESTAMENT IN CHRISTIAN ETHICS Reviewed by Jonathan Y. Rowe ........................................................ 755 Phillip Cary, JONAH Reviewed by Craig G. Bartholomew ................................................ 759 Marta García Fernández, “CONSOLAD, CONSOLAD A MI PUEBLO”. EL TEMA DE LA CONSOLACIÓN EN DEUTEROISAÍAS Reviewed by Enrique Sanz Giménez-Rico...................................... 761 Izaak J. de Hulster, ICONOGRAPHIC EXEGESIS AND THIRD ISAIAH Reviewed by René Schurte ................................................................. 763 Steven L. Bridge, GETTING THE OLD TESTAMENT: WHAT IT MEANT FOR THEM, WHAT IT MEANS FOR US Reviewed by Shannon Baines ............................................................ 766 Nathaniel B. Levtow, IMAGES OF OTHERS: ICONIC POLITICS IN ANCIENT ISRAEL Reviewed by Bruce A. Power ............................................................ 770 Athena E. Gorospe, NARRATIVE AND IDENTITY: AN ETHICAL READING OF EXODUS Reviewed by Mabiala Justin-Robert Kenzo .................................... 774 R. R. Reno, GENESIS Reviewed by Lissa M. Wray Beal ...................................................... 778 Thomas Naef, HOLY BITS: A GUIDE FOR USING COMPUTERS IN BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP Reviewed by Scott N. Callaham ........................................................ 782

TABLE OF CONTENTS Philippe

xiii

Borgeaud, Thomas Römer & Youri Volokhine, eds., INTERPRÉTATIONS DE MOÏSE: EGYPTE, JUDÉE, GRÈCE ET ROME Reviewed by Phillippe Guillaume ..................................................... 784 Graeme A. Auld and Erik Eynikel, eds., FOR AND AGAINST DAVID: STORY AND HISTORY IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL Reviewed by Sara Kipfer .................................................................... 787 Andreas Schüle, DIE URGESCHICHTE (GENESIS 1–11) Reviewed by Karolien Vermeulen .................................................... 791 Joseph A. Everson and Hyun Chul Paul Kim, eds., THE DESERT WILL BLOOM: POETIC VISIONS IN ISAIAH Reviewed by Paul L. Redditt.............................................................. 794 Joel N. Lohr, CHOSEN AND UNCHOSEN: CONCEPTIONS OF ELECTION IN THE PENTATEUCH AND JEWISH-CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATION Reviewed by Paul S. Evans ................................................................ 798 Reinhard Achenbach, and Martin Arneth, eds., “GERECHTIGKEIT UND RECHT ZU ÜBEN” (GEN. 18:19): FESTSCHRIFT FÜR ECKART OTTO ZUM 65. GEBURTSTAG Reviewed by Dale Patrick .................................................................. 803 Loren T. Stuckenbruck, 1 ENOCH 91–108 Reviewed by Anke Dorman............................................................... 807 Elvira Martín Contreras and Guadalupe Seijas de los Ríos-Zarzosa, MASORA: LA TRANSMISIÓN DE LA TRADICIÓN DE LA BIBLIA HEBREA Reviewed by Aaron D. Rubin ........................................................... 814 Walter Brueggemann, DIVINE PRESENCE AMID VIOLENCE Reviewed by Richard Hess................................................................. 819 Ellen van Wolde, REFRAMING BIBLICAL STUDIES: WHEN LANGUAGE AND TEXT MEET CULTURE, COGNITION, AND CONTEXT Reviewed by Anthony R. Pyles ......................................................... 822 Erhard Blum, TEXTGESTALT UND KOMPOSITION: EXEGETISCHE BEITRÜGE ZU TORA UND VORDERE PROPHETEN Reviewed by David M. Carr............................................................... 826

PREFACE The present publication includes all the articles and reviews published electronically in the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures vol. 10 (2010). A companion including volume 11 (2011) will be published in 2012. The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures provides freely available, prompt, academically responsible electronic publication in the area. By doing so, it fulfills the important academic needs, and particularly in relation to the prompt and effective dissemination of knowledge and eventually in the creation of new knowledge through discursive interactions in ways. It successfully disseminates knowledge in a way that is not limited by a person’s ability to access recent scholarship. As such it opens increased possibilities for scholars in countries in the (so-called) Global South, public libraries anywhere, graduate students and interested public. In addition, it is the policy of the Journal to include, and disseminate not only contributions of established scholars but also appropriate contributions of scholars in their first stages in the field. JHS’s authors and readers have come from different countries and such it contributes to a scholarly conversation that is not restricted by geographical boundaries. The Journal has grown substantially in the number of published contributions through the years, but it is still run in the main by volunteers. The Journal is, and has always been, a demanding work of love. It is in this context that I want to mention its editorial board: Peter Altmann, Adele Berlin, Mark J. Boda, Philip R. Davies, Michael V. Fox, William K. Gilders, Gary N. Knoppers, Robert A. Kugler, Francis Landy, Niels Peter Lemche, Mark Leuchter, Oded Lipschits, Hanna Liss, John L. McLaughlin, Hindy Najman, Christophe Nihan, Scott B. Noegel, Saul M. Olyan, Maria-Teresa Ortega Monasterio, Gary A. Rendsburg, Konrad Schmid, Gene M. Tucker and Jacob L. Wright. I want to mention in particular, Christophe Nihan who, since May 2011, serves as Associate General Editor of the Journal and has already contributed much to the Journal. Konrad Schmid and Peter Altmann continue to serve as Review Editors for books published in (“continental”) Europe in any language except Spanish. Mark J. Boda serves as Review Editor for books published in North America or anywhere in the English speaking world, and MariaTeresa Ortega Monasterio is the Review Editor for books published in Spanish, whether in Spain or anywhere in the world. (Publishers in the UK xv

xvi

PERSPECTIVES ON HEBREW SCRIPTURES

and Ireland may send books for review either to Mark J. Boda or Konrad Schmid and/or Peter Altmann. Publishers of books in Catalan, Portuguese, or any other language spoken in the Iberian Peninsula may send books to Maria-Teresa Ortega Monasterio and publishers in Asia and Africa may send books to any of the three). I thank these four Review Editors and all readers of the Journal. I owe them a debt of gratitude. I also thank Colin Toffelmire and David Beldman (McMaster’s, Canada) for their contribution to the publication preparation of the reviews sent to Mark J. Boda. Melanie Marvin (dept. of History and Classics at the University of Alberta) has provided technical support for JHS and a plethora of excellent ideas. The Journal continues to be supported in technical aspects by Karl Anvik (Arts Resource Centre, Univ. of Alberta). Sonya Kostamo, with the help of Melanie Marvin and Katie Stott (Gorgias Press) prepared the present manuscript. A substantial number of individuals contributed to the preparation of articles and reviews during this year or to aspects of this manuscript. I thank them all. I would like to thank, in particular, the department of History and Classics, the Faculty of Arts, and the Arts Resource Centre at the University of Alberta for their continuous support. It is my pleasure to also acknowledge grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada and the Faculty of Arts at the University of Alberta and the willingness of Library and Archives Canada to archive the journal. All of these have contributed much to the success of the Journal. Finally, I would like to thank George Kiraz for publishing the printed version of JHS through Gorgias Press, for understanding the importance of maintaining the freely available electronic version of the Journal, and for his own role in the development of open-access electronic academic journals. As I complete this preface and go over the many explicit thanks—and in my mind also those that are implicit here, or minimally mentioned—I can only think of how well they reflect the basic fact that the continuous existence of this open-access journal and its present publication in hard copy are the result of a work of love carried out by and through so many willing hands. Ehud Ben Zvi University of Alberta, General Editor, Journal of Hebrew Scriptures

ABBREVIATIONS AASF AASOR AAR AB ABD ABRL ACJS AcOr ADPV AJBI AJSR ANES ANET AOAT AOTC ASOR ASV ATD AuOr AUSS BA BAR BASOR BBR BDB

Annales Academiae scientiarum fennicae Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research American Academy of Religion Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992. Anchor Bible Reference Library Annual of the College of Jewish Studies Acta orientalia Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute Association for Jewish Studies Review Ancient Near Eastern Studies Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by J. B. Pritchard. 3d ed.; Princeton, 1969 Alter Orient und Altes Testament Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries American School of Oriental Research American Standard Version Das Alte Testament Deutsch Aula orientalis Andrews University Seminary Studies Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin for Biblical Research F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1907 xvii

xviii BEATAJ BETL BH BHS Bib BibInt BibOr BJRL BJS BS BKAT BN BSOAS B.T. BZ BZAW CANE CBQ CNEB CHANE COS DCH DDD2

DJD DPV EBH EI EEF

PERSPECTIVES ON HEBREW SCRIPTURES Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testamentsund des antiken Judentum Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Biblical Hebrew Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. Stuttgart, 1983 Biblica Biblical Interpretation Biblica et orientalia Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester Brown Judaic Studies Bibliotheca Sacra Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament. Edited by M. Noth and H. W. Wolff Biblische Notizen Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies Babylonian Talmud Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Edited by J. Sasson. 4 vols. New York, 1995 Catholic Biblical Quarterly Cambridge Commentary on the New English Bible Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Context of Scripture Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Edited by D. J. A. Clines. Sheffield, 1993– Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, and P. W. van der Horst. Second Extensively Revised Edition; Leiden/Grand Rapids, 1999. Sheffield, 1993– Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Deutsch Verein zur Erforschung Palsätinas Early Biblical Hebrew Eretz Israel Egypt Exploration Fund

ABBREVIATIONS ESV FAT FOTL FRLANT FZPT GAT GKG GTJ HAHAT HALOT

HAR HBS HCSB HS HSS HSM HTR HUCA IAA IBC ICC IDAM IEJ IES Int IOSCS JAAR JANES JAOS JB

xix

English Standard Version Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forms of the Old Testament Literature Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Freiburger Zeitshrift für Philosophie und Theologie Gundrisse zum Alten Testament Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch. Translated by A. E. Cowley. 2d. ed. Oxford, 1910 Grace Theological Journal W. Gesenius, F. Buhl, Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament. Leipzig, 1915 Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden, 1994–1999 Hebrew Annual Review Herder’s Biblical Studies Holman Christian Standard Bible Hebrew Studies Harvard Semitic Studies Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Israel Antiquities Authority International Bible Commentary International Critical Commentary Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums Israel Exploration Journal Israel Exploration Society Interpretation International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Journal of the American Academy of the Religion Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University Journal of the American Oriental Society Jerusalem Bible

xx JBL JBQ JESHO JETS JHS JJS JNES JNSL JPS JQR JSOT JSOTSup JSS JTS KAI KAT KBL KJV KTU

LBH LCL LXX MH MSIA MT NEAEHL NEchtB NCB

PERSPECTIVES ON HEBREW SCRIPTURES Journal of Biblical Literature Jewish Bible Quarterly Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Hebrew Scriptures Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Jewish Publication Society Jewish Quarterly Review Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Kanaanäishe und aramäische Inschriften. H. Donner and W. Röllig. 2d ed. Wiesbaden, 1966–1969 Kommentar zum Alten Testament Koehler, L. and W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti libros. 2d ed. Leiden, 1958 King James Version Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. Edited by M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín. AOAT 24/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1976. 2d enlarged edition of KTU: The Cuneiform Alphabet Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani, and Other Places. Edited by M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín. Münster, 1996 (= CTU) Late Biblical Hebrew Loeb Classical Library Septuagint Mishnaic Hebrew Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University Masoretic Text The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Edited by E. Stern. 4 vols. Jerusalem, 1993 NeueEchterBibel New Century Bible

ABBREVIATIONS NCBC NIB NIBCOT NICOT NIDOTTE NIV NIVI NJB NJPS NJPSV NLT NRSV OBO ÖBS OG OIP OLA Or OTE OTG OTL OtSt PEQ PEF Proof QH RB RevQ RIBLA RBL RSV SAAS SBAB SBL SBLDS

xxi

New Century Bible Commentary The New Interpreter’s Bible New International Commentary on the Old Testament New International Commentary on the Old Testament New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Edited by W. A. VanGemeren. 5 vols. Grand Rapids, 1997 New International Version New International Version, Inclusive Language Edition New Jerusalem Bible Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures: The New JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text New Jewish Publication Society Translation New Living Translation New Revised Standard Version Orbis biblicus et orientalis Österreichische biblische Studien Old Greek Oriental Institute Publications Orientalia lovaniensia analecta Orientalia Old Testament Essays Old Testament Guides Old Testament Library Oudtestamentische Studiën Palestine Exploration Quarterly Palestine Exploration Fund Prooftexts Qumran Hebrew Revue biblique Revue de Qumran Revista de interpretación bíblica latino-americana Review of Biblical Literature Revised Standard Version State Archives of Assyria Studies Stuttgarter biblische Aufsatzbände Society of Biblical Literature Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series

xxii SBLSCS SBLSP SBLSymS SBLWAW SHCANE SJOT SSN SubBi STDJ TA TBC TDOT ThStKr ThWAT TNIV TynBul VT VTSup WBC WMANT WTJ ZA ZAH ZAW ZThK

PERSPECTIVES ON HEBREW SCRIPTURES Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Studia semitica neerlandica Subsidia biblica Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Tel Aviv Torch Bible Commentary Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Grand Rapids, 1974– Theologische Studien und Kritiken Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testamentum. Edited by G. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Stuttgart, 1970– Today’s NewInternational Version Tyndale Bulletin Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum Supplements Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Westminster Theological Journal Zeitschrift für Assyriologie Zeitschrift für Althebraistik Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

THE CONTRIBUTION OF ARCHAEOZOOLOGY TO THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE RITUALLY CLEAN UNGULATES MENTIONED IN THE HEBREW BIBLE ZOHAR AMAR1, RAM BOUCHNICK2 AND GUY BAR-OZ2* 1

The Martin (Szusz) Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, 52900 Israel. 2 Laboratory of Archaeozoology, Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa, 31905 Israel. *Corresponding author: Guy Bar-Oz, Laboratory of Archaeozoology, Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israel. Telephone # 972-48240070, Fax # 972-4-8249876, Email: [email protected].

INTRODUCTION Deut 14:4–5 lists ten clean ungulate species whose flesh is permitted to be eaten: ‫אכ֑לוּ ֕שׁוֹר ֵ ֥שׂה ְכ ָשׂ ִ ֖בים וְ ֵ ֥שׂה ִﬠ ִ ֽזּים׃‬ ֵ ֹ ‫שׁר תּ‬ ֣ ֶ ‫֥ז ֹאת ַה ְבּ ֵה ָ ֖מה ֲא‬ ‫וּת ֥אוֹ וָ ָז ֶֽמר׃‬ ְ ‫וּצ ִ ֖בי וְ יַ ְח ֑מוּר וְ ַא ֥קּוֹ וְ ִדי ֖שׁ ֹן‬ ְ ‫ַאָיּ֥ל‬ These are the beasts which ye may eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat; the ʾayyāl, the ṣěbî, and the yaḥmûr; and the ʾaqqô, the dišōn, the těʾô, and the zemer.1

1 We have chosen to present the original Hebrew names of the clean animals under discussion as they appear in the HB, and not as they appear in modern translations that are often subjective interpretations.

1

2

Z. AMAR, R. BOUCHNICK, AND G. BAR-OZ

On the other hand, the pig, the camel, the hare, and the hyrax are animals whose flesh is forbidden. The significance of this text is that it presents the most comprehensive list of ungulates that were eaten at the time. Of those listed, the first three species are domesticated livestock: the ox (Bos taurus), the sheep (Ovis aries) and the goat (Capra hircus), whose identification is unquestionable. The identification of the remaining seven ungulates is not clear, and various names have been proposed over the last few centuries (see Table 1). Several academic methods have been developed in recent years for identifying the flora and fauna mentioned in the HB. These identifications rely on inter-disciplinary research, which includes analysis of the literary contexts of the biblical texts, comparison with contemporary cultures in the Near East, traditional translations and ancient interpretations, bio-geographic analysis, and archaeological finds. The aim of this essay is to highlight the potential contribution of archaeozoological research in the southern Levant to the identification of the seven clean, wild ungulates. We will first present evidence for the abundance of clean, wild ungulates from archaeological sites, and then we will approach the biblical texts in a way informed by archaeozoological data. Hundreds of archaeological sites have yielded thousands of identifiable and identified wild ungulate bones, but such an extensive corpus of data has not been used to advance the identification of these seven clean, wild ungulates. In particular, we maintain that the significant amount of recent archaeozoological data from the Late Bronze to the Persian period sites (hereafter, LB-PP sites) in the southern Levant provides us with a qualitative indicator to examine the relative abundance of wild ungulates. This indicator, in turn, enables us to propose some of the tentative identifications. Although the references to fauna and flora in the HB reflect the realia of the entire Fertile Crescent, most of the references deal with a narrower geographic region that partially overlaps the territories of present day Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and the Kingdom of Jordan (i.e., the territory from Dan to Beer-Sheba; cf. Judg 20:1; 1 Kgs 5:5). In this article we will use the term “southern Levant” for this area. Our study incorporates archaeozoological data from 133 LB-PP sites from this region. We will also draw comparisons with the findings from ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt as necessary. Finally, of course, a significant number of texts in the HB reflect knowledge of the existence of and familiarity with the fauna which we are studying (e.g., Deut 12:15–22; 1 Kgs 5:3).

RITUALLY CLEAN UNGULATES IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

3

CLIMATE CHANGES Several researchers have shown that there have been no major climatic changes in the area since ancient times, apart from marginal regions in the south, where climatic conditions were moister and cooler than those prevailing today. In spite of an increasing human impact on the environment, we have assumed that there have been no significant changes in the agricultural landscape of the country (Liphschitz 1986: 80–90; LevYadun 1997; Baruch and Bottema 2000: 76–85; Rosen 2007). It could also be that the presence of Mediterranean wild animals in marginal and arid areas may hint at the role of trade and import of meat. Though some of the large ungulates became extinct during the periods relevant to this study, it is most probable that this resulted from direct human interference (i.e., habitat destruction and degradation) (Tsahar et al. 2009).

CLASSIFICATION Clearly and for obvious reasons, the taxonomy implied in the HB is different from any modern scientific classification. A major principle in the classification method reflected in the HB is to organize the clean animals into general groups according to distinct morphological and behavioral criteria, with no relation to anatomic or genetic affiliation (Dor 1997: 1020). We can narrow the list of animals to those that have three distinct criteria for cleanness: ‫֣כֹּל׀ ַמ ְפ ֶ ֣ר ֶסת ַפּ ְר ָ֗סה וְ שׁ ֹ ַ ֤ס ַﬠת ֶ֨שׁ ַס ֙ע ְפּ ָר ֔סֹת ַמ ֲﬠ ַ ֥לת גֵּ ָ ֖רה ַבּ ְבּ ֵה ָ ֑מה א ָ ֹ֖תהּ‬ ‫אכלוּ׃‬ ֵֽ ֹ‫תּ‬ Any animal that has divided hoofs and is cleft-footed and chews the cud—such you may eat (Lev 11:3, NRSV; cf. vv 4–8).

It could be that each of the listed clean animals in the HB represents a special taxonomic group with its own significant characteristics (Kislev 2000: 216–225).

FREQUENCY AND ORDER OF ANIMALS MENTIONED IN HB As mentioned above, the system of animal classification reflected in the HB does not correspond to the categories of modern science. It is possible also that certain animals were not mentioned. Nevertheless, the number of references to animals is significant. We assume here that there is a direct correlation between the number of references to an animal and either the extent of its population in the area or its importance; the more an animal is referred to in the texts, the more this species was common or important for some particular reason. In the case of the clean ungulates, it is also

4

Z. AMAR, R. BOUCHNICK, AND G. BAR-OZ

reasonable to assume that their order is meaningful. These assumptions are further examined below.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE CLEAN, WILD UNGULATES IN LIGHT OF PAST TRANSLATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS A summary of the various identifications for the seven Biblical clean, wild ungulates is given in Table 1, with their names in biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic translation. There are considerable discrepancies in the names of the animals in the translations, and in many cases the original name has been lost. The name of the animals in English are cited according to the KJV (1611) and the RSV. The identification of the animals represented in these translations does not always correspond to those advanced by modern scholars (e.g., Gerstenberger 1996: 129–130; Milgrom 1991: 643–648). The conclusions of the researchers reflect a refinement of all of the various translations and interpretations that were available to them as well as additional information. A summary of the major different identifications will appear in the updated scientific terminology, according to the probabilistic ranking that emerges from most of the translations and studies. From the profusion of studies which summarize the subject, we have focused principally upon: Lewysohn 1858; Wood 1869; Tristram 1884; Aharoni 1935: 107; Aharoni 1943–1946: 103, 239–255; Bodenheimer 1950; 1953; Bilik 1961: 28–31; 1979: 324–329; Cansdale 1970; Levinger and Dor 1975: 37–49; Felix 1984; Dor 1992: 122–130; Borowski 1997. In addition we were influenced by studies that dealt with lists of these animals from an anthropological viewpoint, some of which emphasized the symbolic aspect (Douglas 1966) and some of which made use of the archaeozoological finding (Houston 1993).

ARCHAEOZOOLOGICAL FINDS OF CLEAN UNGULATES IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT Animal bones unearthed in archaeological sites in the southern Levant provide an important source of information on past animal presence and distribution. In this study we have incorporated archaeozoological data from LB-PP sites (15th–5th centuries BCE; see Table 2). In fact, the majority of finds derive from the Iron Age (12th–7th centuries BCE), and represent a period of occupation in the area which was much more intensive than the others (see Table 3). We acknowledge that the pattern observed may be also distorted by the fact that the major research efforts have concentrated on the cultural phases of the Iron Age. Table 3 also shows the distribution of the different clean ungulates according to their

RITUALLY CLEAN UNGULATES IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

5

geographic origin. This allows us to view their overall past distribution, and to evaluate the possibility that certain species were imported. The database of archaeozoological research of the southern Levant includes faunal reports that originate from different sample sizes and site types (bone refuse from settlements, and sacrificial and ritual sites or animal offerings in burial deposits). Animal bones that could not have been associated with a specific cultural entity or distinct period were not included. The rich accumulation of archaeozoological finds allowed us to draw several broad conclusions. Comparison between Tables 2 and 3 highlights the similarity in distribution and abundance of species. One drawback of archaeozoological research is that it is difficult to distinguish between closely related species based on morphological criteria. For example, it is difficult to differentiate between gazelle species (Gazella sp.), in particular between the mountain gazelle (Gazella gazella) and dorcas gazelle (Gazella dorcas), which differ only slightly in the shape of their horns, but not in the shape or size of other skeletal elements. Since gazelle horn cores are only rarely found complete, it is difficult to distinguish between them. Identification based on zoogeographic distribution is also not a straightforward task, as the distribution of the dorcas gazelle changed during the Holocene (Tchernov et al. 1986/87: 51–59). It is also almost impossible to distinguish wild sheep (Ovis orientalis) and wild goat (Capra aegagrus) from their domesticated species; thus one must be very cautious with their identification in archaeological sites, although we cannot ignore the fact that that these animals were part of the local fauna in historical times.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

‫וּצ ִבי‬ ְ ‫ ַאיָּ ל‬ʾayyāl and ṣěbî There is no doubt that the ṣěbî can be identified with the gazelle species: mountain gazelle and dorcas gazelle. The ʾayyāl is identifiable with the cervid species which live in the Mediterranean regions of the southern Levant: Mesopotamian fallow deer (Dama mesopotamica), red deer (Cervus elaphus), and roe deer (Capreolus capreolus). These were the common clean ungulates in the southern Levant at the time. The number of references to these species in the HB reinforces this assumption: the ʾayyāl is mentioned 21 times, while ṣěbî is mentioned only 12 times. It could be that the ratio of these references is coincidental, according to the need and choice of the Biblical writers, but according to the interpretation of the archaeozoological

6

Z. AMAR, R. BOUCHNICK, AND G. BAR-OZ

find, it emerges that this does faithfully reflect the deep imprint made by these animals on the landscape of the land of at that time. The textual sources that discuss the rules of eating clean ungulates demonstrate a similar pattern (Deut 12:15–22; 14:5; 15:22; 1 Kgs 5:3). Thus it appears that these were the most common wild game in the diet of the ancient Israelites. This is supported by the archaeozoological research which indicates that these are the most abundant species in archaeological sites (see Table 3: 60 sites with deer bones, as opposed to 51 with gazelle bones; also Table 2: 72 sites with deer bones, compared with 86 sites with gazelle bone). Analysis of the spatial distribution of fallow deer reveals that it was common in all parts of the country. In fact, its presence may have expanded beyond its original distribution, as perhaps indicated by its apperance in the sites of Tel Masos (Tchernov and Drori 1983: 213–222), Tel Beer Sheba (Hellwing 1984: 105–115), Tel Ira (Dayan 1999: 480–494) and Lachish (Croft 2005: 2291). Most of the archaeozoological finds from these sites, as well as from other sites in the country, are referred to as elite foods consumed by the site’s administrators or governors. Given the tasty flesh of deer, and its classification as a luxury food, it seems reasonable to assume that ʾayyāl meat was extensively imported at the time. The list of game meat that was served at King Solomon’s table according to 1 Kgs 5:3 (ET 1 Kgs 4:23) seems to support this position: ‫בי וְ יַ ְח ֔מוּר‬ ֙ ִ ‫וּצ‬ ְ ‫֠ ְל ַבד ֵ ֽמ ַאָיּ֤ל‬ besides ʾayyāls, and ṣěbîs, and yaḥmûrs

Moreover, it could be that an interchange between ṣěbî and ʾayyāl is reflected in the Song of Songs 4:5 and 7:4: ‫אוֹמי ְצ ִביָּ ה‬ ֵ ‫ְתּ‬ twins of a ṣěbî

Deer commonly give birth to twins, while mountain gazelles and dorcas gazelles rarely do. However, it is possible that this refers to the Persian gazelle (Gazella subgutturossa), which gives birth to twins more often (the doe of the Persian gazelle is also hornless, and in this respect it resembles the doe of the deer). Persian gazelles were found until recent times in great numbers in eastern Jordan. It could be that the description of the Song of Songs reflects the local fauna of eastern Jordan. In the current state of research we lack any archaeozoological evidence indicating the presence of the Persian gazelle west of the River Jordan.

RITUALLY CLEAN UNGULATES IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

7

‫ יַ ְחמוּר‬yaḥmûr In Modern Hebrew it is usual to identify the ʾayyāl (‫ ) ַאיָּ ל‬with the roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), while the yaḥmûr is identified as the Mesopotamian fallow deer (Dama mesopotamica) (Bilik 1958: 20–25). If we accept the hypothesis that, based on morphological grounds (they all have branched antlers that are replaced every year), the ʾayyāl represents all of the local cervids common in the area, then it is difficult to assume that the yaḥmûr refers to the roe deer. If the yaḥmûr were the roe deer, it should have been listed directly after the ʾayyāl, while biblical texts mention the yaḥmûr directly after the ṣěbî (Deut 14:5, 1 Kgs 5:3). This order may indicate that yaḥmûr actually refers to another clean ungulate that resembles the gazelle more than the deer . The archaeozoological evidence strengthens this hypothesis, as it reveals that fallow deer remains were more common in the area than the relatively insignificant occurrences of roe deer (see Table 2: roe deer have been found only in 3 sites out of 66; also Table 3: only 2 sites out of 47). The rarity of roe deer in bone assemblages can be attributed to its biological characteristics (solitary and nocturnal. Our conclusion is that ʾayyāl was the accepted name for all members of the cervid family that were common in the area, or as a specific name for all the large cervids: fallow deer (Dama mesopotamica) and red deer (Cervus elaphus), which are similar in their body mass and shape of antlers. The former conclusion assumes that the old classification characterized the animals according to their weight. On this assumption the roe deer may represent the small deer (both in terms of total weight and size of antlers), and therefore it is mentioned as yaḥmûr directly after the ṣěbî; that is of a similar size. The minor importance of yaḥmûr in the relevant period is inferred from the fact that it mentioned only twice (Deut 14:5, 1 Kgs 5:3). A similar pattern is also evident from later rabbinical texts. The ʾayyāl and ṣěbî are mentioned numerous times, while the yaḥmûr is mentioned only once (b Bek:7b). The assumption that Modern Hebrew replaced the names of ʾayyāl and yaḥmûr is also evident from the Arabic literature, where the yaḥmûr is presented as a small deer (Maalūf 1932: 49, 208–210; Al-Ani 1998: 102; see also Tristram 1884: 32–33). In the light of this information we find it difficult to identify the ʾayyāl with the roe deer, and it seems more likely that it refers to the fallow deer. If we accept the hypothesis that the roe deer was also included in the general category of ʾayyāl, we suggest that yaḥmûr can be identified as the hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus), as is also suggested in the translation of the Septuagint and Vulgate. These translations view the yaḥmûr as an

8

Z. AMAR, R. BOUCHNICK, AND G. BAR-OZ

antelope with curved horns like those of cattle (Kislev 2000: 222). Notably, the archaeozoological database reveals that hartebeest remains are the third most abundant clean ungulate species at LB-PP sites. Its remains were found in Late Bronze and Iron Age strata at Lachish (Croft 2005: 2294– 2295), Late Bronze strata at Tel-es-Sharia (Davis 1982) and in Persian period strata at Tel-Halif (Seger et al. 1989: Table 8) (see Table 2). Hartebeest were also present in the region during the Middle Ages until modern times (Tristram 1884, 34). Other suggested identifications are ambiguous and doubtful. These identifications suggest that theis the African gnu (Connochaetes gnou) (Schwartz 1900: 364–365) or the water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) (Amar and Serri 2005: 63–70; Amar and Zivotofsky 2007: 379–387). However, none of these species was found in any archaeozoological bone assemblage.

‫ַאקּוֹ‬

ʾaqqô

The ʾaqqô is commonly recognized as the Nubian ibex (Capra ibex nubiana). However, the archaeozoological finds of this species are sporadic during the period discussed here; most probably because its distribution is limited to rocky desert habitats (Ps 104:18). A hint of its presence, however, might be found in Job 39:1 : ‫י־ס ַלע‬ ֑ ָ ‫ֲהיָ ַ ֗ד ְﬠ ָתּ ֵ ֭ﬠת ֶל ֶ֣דת יַ ֲﬠ ֵל‬ Do you know when the wild goats give birth?

It is possible also that ʾaqqô refers to a wild goat species (Capra aegagrus) (Felix 1984: 18), although it is identical to the ibex according to the old classification criteria. Furthermore, these species have a close genetic relationship, and can easily be bred in captivity to produce fertile offspring. The only relevant site which includes the remains of the wild goat is the Iron Age strata of Tel Kinrot (Ziegler and Boessneck 1990: 133–158), but given the difficulty of distinguishing this species from the domestic goat, this find remains highly questionable. The skeletal similarities are reflected in all parts, and the only skeletal criterion which is easily recognized is the horns, which are rare at most archaeological sites. Nevertheless, the wild goat was familiar in the past landscape of the country, its remains being known from prehistoric to modern times. The wild goat was found in the mountainous region of Syria and Lebanon at the beginning of the twentieth century (Aharoni 1943–1946: 120–122, 240), and it is possible that it still exists there today.

RITUALLY CLEAN UNGULATES IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

9

‫ ִדישׁ ֹן‬dišōn The dišōn is mentioned only once in the HB. The Aramaic translations recognize that it is synonymous with the rěēm (Num 23:22; Job 39:9), another clean ungulate that is mentioned in the HB and is recognized by its impressive horns that can cause severe injury (Deut 33:17; Ps 92:11). Other researchers identify the rěēm with the aurochs (Bos primigenius), as it is the only species that is mentioned, and is similar to cattle (Deut 33:17; Isa 34:7; Ps 29:6) (Aharoni 1943–1946: 253; Levinger and Dor 1975: 47; Felix 1992: 98–101). So far, remains of aurochs have been found only at Tel Hesban (Von den Driesch and Boessneck 1995: 67–108). Here also it is difficult to distinguish between the bones of wild aurochs and its domestic descendant. It is possible that after its extinction from the region its name was changed to oryx (Levinger and Dor 1975: 47). The term pygargos, which means “white-chest,” is mentioned in the Septuagint and Vulgate translations, and based on these criteria some recognize it as the Addax nasomaculatus (Tristram 1884: 34–35; Wood 1869: 141–142; Aharoni 1935: 107). However, no archaeological remains of this species have been found in any of the historical periods of the region. On the other hand, it seems that the term “white-chest” also fits the Oryx leucoryx, which is features its characteristics long straight horns. This species was common in the southern parts of Israel (Negev and Arava) and became extinct only at the beginning of the twentieth century. A single oryx horn was found at the Persian site of Tel Nov in the Golan Heights (Horwitz 2000: 121–134) as well as in the Byzantine deposits of Tel Hesban (Von den Driesch and Boessneck 1995: 90–91). The hypothesis that těʾô should be recognized as the aurochs (Bos primigenius) reinforces the suggestion that the oryx was identical to the dišōn or rěēm in ancient Israel. The identification of the dišōn with the ibex in the RSV does not seem reasonable (and it has been suggested that it refers to the ʾaqqô). Its identification with the water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) (Paper 1972: 153) is also problematic, as we now know that the water buffalo arrived in the Middle East only in the Middle Ages (Amar and Serri 2005). On the same grounds we find it reasonable to dismiss its identification with the rhinoceros (Rhinocerotidae), as it has never existed anywhere in the southern Levant throughout history. It seems again that the archaeozoological finds provide a straightforward method for eliminating animals that were never part of the local fauna during the relevant period.

10

Z. AMAR, R. BOUCHNICK, AND G. BAR-OZ

‫ ְתאוֹ‬těʾô Most of the traditional identifications categorize the těʾô with the aurochs (Bos primigenius) (Isa 51:20), which lived in the southern Levant until the Iron Age (Von den Driesch and Boessneck 1995: 68). The aurochs is mentioned once in the Mishna in a debate as to whether or not it belongs in the category of domestic livestock (cattle) or wild game: .‫ מין חיה‬,‫ מין בהמה; רבי יוסי אומר‬,‫שור בר‬ A wild ox is a kind of domesticated animal. And R. Yose says, “a kind of wild animal.” (m Kil 8:6; trans. Mandelbaum 1982)

In the Septuagint, Vulgate, and later translations it has many names, such as oryx, urus and uri. It is possible that after it became extinct in the southern Levant its name was changed to Oryx leucoryx, which as previously mentioned was recognized as rěēm. Starting in the early Middle Ages, some identified the těʾô as the domestic Asian water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) (HaParchi A. 1899: 768; see also Serri 2004: 90–91). This identification is accepted by later scholars (Schwartz 1900: 366). This may explain why in Modern Hebrew its name is frequently associated with the water buffalo. As we have already mentioned, historical sources indicate that the water buffalo first arrived in the Middle East only in the 8th century, the Early Islamic period (Amar and Serri 2005: 63–70; Amar and Zivotofsky 2007: 379–387). However, to this day we still lack archaeozoological evidence of its remains. The identification of the těʾô with the water buffalo affected the translations of some later European scholars. In Europe it was identified as the wisent or the European bison (Bison bonasus) (White 1974: 204), which was widely distributed in Europe until the early 18th century, but today is threatened with extinction. The archaeozoological finds from Israel indicate that this species never existed anywhere in the southern Levant. Also in the Middle Ages it was suggested that the těʾô was the hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus), but we prefer to classify it as the yaḥmûr. This identification results from the Arabic name of the hartebeest ‫ ﺑﻘﺮ ﻭﺣﺶ‬which means “wild cattle” (Ibn Janah; trans. Neubauer 1875). This phonetic similarity between its name and the Latin name of water buffalo (Bubalus bubalus) does not seem to be coincidental.

RITUALLY CLEAN UNGULATES IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

11

‫ זֶ ֶמר‬zemer This species, which closes the list of the clean ungulates because of its rarity, has been variously classified over the ages. Some recognize it literally as the wild sheep (Ovis orientalis) (Felix 1984: 33). Although its presence has been reported at two archaeological sites, Tel Kinrot and Tel Hesban (Ziegler and Boessneck 1990: 141; Von den Driesch and Boessneck 1995: 86–87), we must be aware that the identification of archaeozoological finds is not definitive because of its great similarity to domestic sheep. However, we know that wild sheep were present in historical periods in modern Jordan. We should also be cautious in the identification of the wild goat in archaeozoological contexts that are dominated by the domestic goat. It is possible that one find in Tel Kinrot was a wild goat (Ziegler and Boessneck 1990: 141). It seems reasonable to reject the translation of the RSV, which identifies it as the chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra), a species that never lived in the southern Levant. Aharoni first suggested that the zemer was the Oryx leucoryx (Aharoni 1943–1946: 104–112; Bodenheimer 1953: 250), but there is no evidence for this identification. Later, he suggested identifying it with the Barbary sheep (Ammotragus lervia), and mentioned that it was still found at the beginning of the twentieth century in the southeastern area of the Dead Sea (Aharoni 1943–1946: 22–23; Bodenheimer 1953: 251; Bilik 1961: 31). But there is no further evidence of its existence, and no finds have been reported from any of the archaeological sites in Israel (see also Shalmon 1996: 4). Another suggestion put forward in recent years identifies the zemer as the giraffe, an African ungulate that has all the criteria of a clean animal (Amar et al. 2003: 491–499). The difficulty with this identification is mainly that giraffe have never been found in the archaeological sites of historical Israel, and we have no archaeozoological support for its presence. The giraffe was most probably part of the local fauna in Upper Egypt, but disappeared during the Early Dynastic period (mid-third millennium BCE). Later, during the 18th Dynasty (Late Bronze Age), the giraffe arrived again in Egypt from Libya and Sudan. Numerous animal bones, rock art and tomb inscriptions in ancient Egypt indicate its importance in the local fauna. It is also suggested that it might have been domesticated or tamed at certain periods in Egypt (Spinage 1968: 36; Huyage 1998: 9–10; Osborn and Osbonova 1998: 149–150). It is possible that giraffe were known in ancient Israel as an exotic and rare species kept in official zoos (1 Kgs 10:22). There is evidence for this from the Byzantine period in Israel (Amar et al. 2003: 492–493). We have no doubt that the zemer was a rare species in the

12

Z. AMAR, R. BOUCHNICK, AND G. BAR-OZ

southern Levant. This is indicated also by the fact that it closes the list of clean animal. Thus it seems that zemer refers either to wild sheep or wild goat, two species that were present in ancient Israel. Furthermore, it reinforces the idea that the order of the clean ungulates is significant. This would explain why in the text list the domesticated clean ungulates are first and their predecessor wild ungulates (těʾô and zemer) are last. Nevertheless, the archaeozoological research does not provide a clear distinction between the different identifications (wild goat or wild sheep).

SUMMARY The identification of the seven clean, wild ungulates is a complex issue that has been studied and discussed by past translators and modern scholars. In this paper we provide a new contribution to this debate by highlighting the appearance of clean ungulates in archaeozoological contexts of southern Levantine assemblages. Although the identification of the clean ungulates relies primarily on the examination of old identification traditions, we show that the archaeozoological research provides new sources of information for identifying and classifying the different options on concrete and empirical grounds. We conclude by suggesting two possible identifications for each of the seven clean wild ungulates (Table 4). The first option, which seems more reasonable, fits the hypothesis that each of the animals is a member of a separate taxonomic group (Kislev 2000, 224). While it is difficult to identify each species absolutely, we were able to reduce the possible identifications considerably, and retain only the most reasonable ones. For this reason we feel safe in rejecting several identifications, such as identifying the dišōn as the addax (Addax nasomaculatus), and the těʾô as the domestic Asian water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis), wisent (European bison, Bison bonasus), or rhinoceros (Rhinocerotidae). Though later texts in the HB mention the names of three additional clean ungulates, it appears that these are synonymous with some of the clean ungulates of Deuteronomy: rěēm (=dišōn=těʾô), ya’el (=’aqqô) and měri (fattened cattle) (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods [1:8]). Furthermore, the archaeozoological record does not provide evidence for additional clean ungulates that existed in the southern Levant in the LB-PP. The only ones that appear are listed in Table 4. Similarly, the many rock drawings of Timna, Sinai, and Wadi Rumm, which most probably represent the local fauna, indicate that the species that existed there are those that are represented in the archaeozoological record. It also shows that the species most depicted are those that were most abundant in the region: the Nubian

RITUALLY CLEAN UNGULATES IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

13

ibex (Capra ibex nubiana), aurochs (Bos primigenius), Arabian oryx (Oryx leucoryx), hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus), and gazelle (Gazella sp.). The fallow deer, however, is completely absent (Shalmon 1996: 52). Doubtless these mammals represent the local landscape of the desert habitats in the southern Levant. On the other hand, the list of the clean animals in the HB seems to reflect the populations whose living habitats were more concentrated in the territory from Dan to Beer Sheba: the central highlands, the coastal plain, and the Jordan Valley. This would explain why the deer and the gazelle are listed first, as they represent the most abundant clean ungulates in these regions. In addition, each of our suggested identifications for the clean ungulate species is derived from a different habitat (see Table 5): the ʾayyāl lives in the Mediterranean forest and along riverbeds; the ṣěbî is abundant in open country; the yaḥmûr (Alcelaphus buselaphus) and the těʾô (Bos primigenius) are most abundant near permanent water sources in the Sharon and the Jordan Valley; the ʾaqqô (Capra ibex nubiana), and probably also the zemer, is found on cliffs and in rocky habitats; and the dišōn (Oryx leucoryx) roams desert savannah habitats. Further support that the list of clean ungulates reflects their abundance is furnished by the archaeozoological record. Deuteronomy 14 opens with listing the domesticated livestock (cattle, sheep, and goat), and continues with a list of the other wild ungulates according to their importance or abundance in the diet. Archaeozoological and textual records agree that deer and gazelle were the most abundant game animals in ancient Israel. The data suggest that the term “deer” was a common name for all the local deer species (Cervidae), or a name for only the large deer species (Dama mesopotamica and Cervus elaphus). It is unlikely that ʾayyāl refers only to roe deer (Caperolus capreolus), as it is almost entirely absent from the archaeozoological record. It is also possible that “deer” refers only to the Mesopotamian fallow deer (Dama mesopotamica). If the old taxonomy named the animals according to their size, it is possible that the roe deer, the smallest deer with its short antlers, is the yaḥmûr, following the ṣěbî, which is similar in the size of its horns and body mass. We, however, prefer to assume that yaḥmûr refers to the hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus). The appearance of the zemer at the end of the list indicates that it refers to a rare species that was only seldom exploited. For this reason its identification is the most doubtful and ambiguous. If we accept the hypothesis that all the clean ungulates lived in ancient Israel there is good reason to identify it with the wild sheep or wild goat. Thus the list of the clean animals starts with the domesticated livestock and ends with their wild predecessors.

14

Z. AMAR, R. BOUCHNICK, AND G. BAR-OZ

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Ella Tsahar for her input to the archaeozoological database and John Tresman for his assistance with editing the text. An earlier version of the paper was published in Hebrew in Cathedra.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aharoni, I. 1935. “Maimonides the Zoologist.” Haaretz: 107 (Hebrew). Aharoni, I. 1943–1946. Memories of a Hebrew Zoologist. Jerusalem: Ariel Publishers (Hebrew). Al-Ani, F. 1998. Encyclopedia of Arabian Animals. Irbid: Matb’at albhrbat: 102. Amar, Z., and Y. Serri. 2005. “When Did the Water Buffalo Make Its Appearance in Israel?” Cathedra 117: 63–70 (Hebrew). Amar, Z., and A. Z. Zivotofsky. 2007. “The Kashrut Law of the Buffalo.” Tehumin 27: 379–387(Hebrew). Amar, Z., A. Z. Zivotofsky, and D. Zivotofsky. 2003. “The Kashrut of the Giraffe – a Post-mortem Report.” Tehumin 23: 491–499(Hebrew). Baruch, U., and S. Bottema. 2000. “A New Pollen Diagram from Lake Hula.” Quaternary International 73/74: 127–136. Bilik, E. 1958. “The Fallow Deer.” Beth Mikra 3: 20–25 (Hebrew). Bilik, E. 1961. “Clean Ungulates in the Bible.” Beth Mikra 6: 28–31 (Hebrew). Bilik, E. 1979. “The Deer and the Gazele.” Pp. 324–329 in: Ben-Zion Luria Book. Jerusalem: Kiryat sefer (Hebrew).

Bodenheimer, F.S. 1950. Animals of the Bible Lands. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik (Hebrew).

Bodenheimer, F. S. 1953. The Animals of Israel. Tel-Aviv, Devir (esp. pp. 250–251). (Hebrew). Borowski, O. 1998. Every Living Thing: Daily Use of Animals in Ancient Israel. Walnut Creek, CA/London: AltaMira Press.

Cansdale, G. 1970. Animals of Bible Lands. London: The Paternoster Press.

Croft, P. W. 2005. “Archaeozoological Studies.” Pp. 2254–2347 in D. Ussishkin (ed.), The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish 1973– 1994. Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University, Institute of Archaeology. Davis, S. J. M. 1982. “Climatic Change and the Advent of Domestication: The Succession of Ruminant Artiodactyls in the Late PleistoceneHolocene in the Israel Region.” Paléorient 8: 5–15.

RITUALLY CLEAN UNGULATES IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

15

Dayan, T. 1999. “Faunal Remains Pp. 480–494 in I. Beit-Arieh. (ed.), Tel ‘Ira: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev. Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University. Dor, M. 1992. “The Ruminants in the Biblical and Mishna Periods.” Beth Mikra 37: 122–130 (Hebrew). Dor, M. 1997. Animals in the Biblical, Mishna and Talmudic Periods. Tel Aviv: Grafor-Deftel (Hebrew). Douglas, M. 1966. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London : Routledge & K. Paul. Felixs, Y. 1984. Animals and Plants of the Torah. Jerusalem: Israel Hatzair (Hebrew). Felixs, Y. 1992. Nature and Land in the Bible. Jerusalem: R. Mas (Hebrew). Gerstenberger, Erhard. 1996. Leviticus: A Commentary. Old Testament Library Douglas W. Stott (trans.). Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Haparchi, A. 1332. Bulb and Flower. Jerusalem: M. Lunz, 1897 (Hebrew). Hellwing, S. “Human Exploitation of Animal Resources in the Early Iron Age Strata at Tel Beer-Sheba.” Pp. 105–115 in Z. Herzog (ed.), BeerSheba II: The Early Iron Age Settlements. Tel Aviv: The Tel Aviv Institute of Archaeology and Ramot Publishing. Houston, W. 1993. Purity and Monotheism: Clean and Unclean Animals in Biblical Law. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Horwitz, L. K. 2000. “Animal Remains from Tel Nov, Golan Heights.” ʿAtiqot 39: 121–134. Huyge, D. 1998. “Giraffes in Ancient Egypt.” Nekhen News 10: 9–10. Kislev, M. 2000. “Taxonomic Identification of the Ten Kosher Ruminants.” Sinai 125: 216–225 (Hebrew). Levine, L. I., and A. Mazar (eds.). 2001. The Controversy over the Historicity of the Bible. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi and Dinur Center, Hebrew University. Levinger, Y. M., and M. Dor. 1975. “The Seven Clean Ungulates.” Torah Ve’Mada 4: 37–49 (Hebrew). Lev-Yadun, S. 1997. “Flora and Climate in Southern Samaria: Past and Present.” Pp. 85–102 in I. Finkelstein, Z. Lederman and S. Bunimovitz (eds.), The Highlands of Many Cultures I. Tel Aviv: The Institute of Archeology, Tel Aviv University. Lewysohn, L. 1858. Die Zoologie des Talmuds. Frankfort: Joseph Baer.

16

Z. AMAR, R. BOUCHNICK, AND G. BAR-OZ Liphschitz, N. 1986. “The Vegetational Landscape and the Macroclimate of Israel during Prehistoric and Protohistoric Periods.” Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 19: 80–90. Maalūf, A. 1932. Al Muʿjam al-Ḥayawān. Cairo: Dar alraed al-’Arabi. Maimon, M. B. The Code of Maimonides. L. I. Rabinovitz and P. Grossman (trans.). Yale Judaica Series. New Haven: Yale University Press. Mandelbaum, I. 1982. A History of the Mishnaic Law of Agriculture: Kilayim, Translation and Exegesis. Chico, CA: Scholars Press. Milgrom, J. 1991. Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 3. New York: Doubleday. Neubauer, A. 1875. The Book of the Roots by Ibn Janah. Oxford: Clarendon. Osborn, D. J., and J. Osbornova. 1998. The Mammals of Ancient Egypt. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. Paper, H. H. 1972. A Judeo-Persian Pentateuch. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, Hebrew University. Rosen, A. M. 2007. Civilizing Climate: Social Responses to Climate Change in the Ancient Near-East. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press. Schwartz, Y. 1900. Crops of the Land of Israel. Jerusalem: Ariel (Hebrew). Seger, J. D., et al. 1989. “The Bronze Age Settlements at Tell Halif: Phase II Excavations, 1983–1987.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 26: 1–32. Serri, Y. 2004. “Translation Tradition of Rabbi Yosef Kapach to Animal Names in the Bible.” Pp. 90–91 in Z. Amar and Y. Serri. The Memorial Book for Rabbi Kapach. Z. Ramat-Gan: Oren Press (Hebrew). Shalmon, B. 1996. “Live Rocks.” Eretz Ve’Teva 42: 45–54 (Hebrew). Spinage, C. A. 1968. The Book of the Giraffe. London: Collins. Tchernov, E., T. Dayan and Y. Yom-Tov. 1986/87. “The Paleogeography of Gazella Gazella and Gazella Dorcas during the Holocene of the Southern Levant.” Journal of Zoology 34: 51–59. Tchernov, E., and A. Drori. 1983. “Economic Patterns and Environmental Conditions at Khirbet el Msas during the Early Iron Age.” Pp. 213–222 in V. Fritz and A. Kempinski, Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf der Hirbat el Msas (Tel Masos), 1972–1975. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Tristram, H. B. 1884. The Fauna and Flora of Palestine. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Tsahar, E., et al. 2008. “Anthropogenic Holocene Southern Levantine Ungulate Extinctions.” PLoS ONE 4(4): http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pon e.0005316

RITUALLY CLEAN UNGULATES IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

17

Von den Driesch, A., and J. Boessneck. 1995. “Final Report on the Zooarchaeological Investigation of Animal Bone Finds from Tell Hesban, Jordan.” Pp. 67–108 in Ø.S. LaBianca and A. Von der Driesch (eds.), Hesban 13: Faunal Remains. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press. White, L. 1974. “Indic Elements in the Iconography of Petrarch’s Trionfo Della Morte.” Speculum 49: 204. Wood, J. G. 1869. Bible Animals. London: Guelph. Ontario: J.W. Lyon and Company, Publishers. Ziegler, R., and J. Boessneck. 1989. “Tierreste der Eisenzeit II.” Pp. 133– 158 in V. Fritz (ed.), Kinneret Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf dem Tell el'Oreme am See Gennesaret, 1982–1985. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

18

Z. AMAR, R. BOUCHNICK, AND G. BAR-OZ

TABLE 1: IDENTIFICATION OF THE SEVEN CLEAN, WILD UNGULATE SPECIES Translations of Septuagint and Vulgate Elaphos Cervus

Aramaic translations

Arabic translations

Possible Identification from the ancient translations

Ayla

‫ﺍﻳﻞ‬

Roebuck Gazelle

Dorcas Capreus

Tabi

‫ﻅﺒﻲ‬

Fallow deer Roebuck

Bubalus Bubalus

Yaḥmûra

‫ﻳﺤﻤﻮﺭ‬

‫ ַאקּוֹ‬ʾaqqô

Wild goat

Tragelaphos Tragelaphus

Ya'ala

‫ﻭﻋﻞ‬

Family Cervidae Capreolus capreolus Cervus elaphus Dama mesopotamica Gazella sp . Gazella sp. Family Cervidae Cervus elaphus Capreolus capreolus Dama mesopotamica Capreolus capreolus Buselaphus alcelaphus Bubalus bubalis Connochaetes gnou Wild goat? Capra ibex(nubiana) Capra aegagrus

‫ ִדישׁ ֹן‬dišōn

Pygarg Ibex

Pygargos Pygargus

Ryma

‫ﺍﺭﻭﻱ‬

‫ ְתאוֹ‬těʾô

Wild ox Antelope

Oryx Oryx

Turbẹla

‫ﺛﻴﺘﻞ‬

‫ זֶ ֶמר‬zemer

Chamois Mountain -sheep

Camelopardalis Camelopardalus

Dyta

‫ﺯﺭﺍﻓﺔ‬

Species name in the HB

‫ ַאיָּ ל‬ʾayyāl

‫ ְצ ִבי‬ṣěbî

‫יַ ְחמוּר‬ yaḥmûr

English translations Hart

Addax nasomaculatus Bos primigenius Bubalus bubalis Oryx leucoryx Capra ibex Rhinocerotidae Bos primigenius Buselaphus alcelaphus Bubalus bubalis Bison bonasus Oryx leucoryx Capra aegagrus Giraffa camelopardalis Oryx leucoryx Ovis musimon Ammotragus lervia

RITUALLY CLEAN UNGULATES IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

19

TABLE 2: DISTRIBUTION OF WILD UNGULATES IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT FROM LATE BRONZE TO PERSIAN PERIOD Species name

Common name

Number of sites per period

Late Bronze

Iron Age

Persian

Total

24

90

19

133

Dama mesopotamica

Fallow deer

10

48

8

66

Gazella gazelle

Mountain gazelle Red deer

12

39

3

54

2

5

0

7

Gazella sp. Gazella gazella / Gazella dorcas

Gazelle

2

14

2

18

Cervidae Dama mesopotamica / Cervus elaphus Capreolus capreolus

Red or fallow deer Roe deer

2

7

1

10

0

2

1

3

Bos primigenius

Aurochs

0

1

0

1

Capra ibex (nubiana)

Nubian Ibex

0

1

1

2

Oryx leucoryx

Arabian oryx

0

0

1

1

Alcelaphus buselaphus

Hartebeest

Capra aegagrus

Wild goat

2 0

1 1

1 0

4 1

Ovis aries Bubalus bubalis

Wild sheep Water buffalo Gnu Addax

0 0

2 0

0 0

2 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0

0

0

0

Giraffa camelopardalis

European bison Giraffe

0

0

0

0

Rhinocerotidae

Rhinoceros

0

0

0

0

Cervus elaphus

Connochaetes gnou Addax nasomaculatus Bison bonasus

20

Z. AMAR, R. BOUCHNICK, AND G. BAR-OZ

TABLE 3: DISTRIBUTION OF WILD UNGULATES IN DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENTAL SETTINGS IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT DURING THE IRON AGE Animalsin the archaeozoologyreport

Upper & Lower Galilee, Golan Heights

Sea of Galilee & Jordan Valley

Jordan

Carmel Coastal Plains & the Sharon

Shephelah

Judean foothills

Negev & Arava

Total

7

6

5

11

12

24

90

5

2

4

8

5

6

47

5

0

5

5

5

6

37

0

2

0

1

0

2

0

5

1

1

3

0

1

0

8

14

3

0

1

1

0

1

0

6

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

2 117

Number of sites per period

25

Dama mesopotamica

17

Gazella gazella

11

Cervus elaphus Gazella sp. Cervidae

Capreolus capreolus

2

Bos primigenius

0

Capra ibex (nubiana) Oryx leucoryx

Alcelaphus buselaphus Wild goat Wild sheep

RITUALLY CLEAN UNGULATES IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

21

TABLE 4: THE SEVEN CLEAN WILD UNGULATE SPECIES AND THEIR IDENTIFICATION ACCORDING TO THE ARCHAEOZOOLOGICAL EVIDENCE Species name in the HB

First identification

Second identification

‫ ַאיָּ ל‬ʾayyāl

Cervidae

‫ ְצ ִבי‬ṣěbî

Gazella sp.

Dama mesopotamica Cervus elaphus Gazella sp.

‫ יַ ְחמוּר‬yaḥmûr

Buselaphus alcelaphus

Capreolus capreolus

‫ ַאקּוֹ‬ʾaqqô

Capra ibex (nubiana)

Capra ibex (nubiana)

‫ ִדישׁ ֹן‬dišōn

Oryx leucoryx

Bos primigenius

‫ ְתאוֹ‬těʾô

Bos primigenius

Buselaphus alcelaphus

‫ זֶ ֶמר‬zemer

Wild goat or Wild sheep

Giraffe or Wild goat or Wild sheep

TABLE 5: SUMMARY OF CLEAN UNGULATE SPECIES SUGGESTED IN THIS STUDY Species name in the HB ‫ ַאיָּ ל‬ʾayyāl

Common Name

Species Name Dama mesopotamica Cervus elaphus Capreolus capreolus Gazella sp.

‫ יַ ְחמוּר‬yaḥmûr

Fallow deer Red deer Roe deer Mountain gazelle Dorcas gazelle Hartebeest

‫ ַאקּוֹ‬ʾaqqô

Nubian ibex

Capra ibex (nubiana)

‫ ִדישׁ ֹן‬dišōn

Arabian oryx

Oryx leucoryx

‫ ְתאוֹ‬těʾô

Aurochs

Bos primigenius

Mouflon Wild goat

Ovis aries Capra aegagrus

‫ ְצ ִבי‬ṣěbî

‫ זֶ ֶמר‬zemer

Alcelaphus buselaphus

22

Z. AMAR, R. BOUCHNICK, AND G. BAR-OZ

IMAGES

‫ ַאיָּ ל‬ʾayyāl - Fallow Deer

‫ ַאיָּ ל‬ʾayyāl Red Deer

‫ ְצ ִבי‬ṣěbî Mountain gazelle

RITUALLY CLEAN UNGULATES IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

‫ ְצ ִבי‬ṣěbî Dorcas gazelle

‫ יַ ְחמוּר‬yaḥmûr Hartebeest

‫ ַאקּוֹ‬ʾaqqô Nubian ibex

‫ ִדישׁ ֹן‬dišōn Arabian oryx

23

24

Z. AMAR, R. BOUCHNICK, AND G. BAR-OZ

‫ ְתאוֹ‬těʾô Aurochs

‫ זֶ ֶמר‬zemer Mouflon

‫ זֶ ֶמר‬zemer Wild Goat

CLOSURE IN SAMSON MARIAN BROIDA

EMORY UNIVERSITY INTRODUCTION Long considered a series of “loosely connected and grossly editorialized traditions” about the hero Samson,1 Judges 13–16 has been seen as increasingly unified in recent decades, with studies arguing for the coherence of its structure, theme, and even plot.2 A 1974 essay by James Crenshaw extols the narrator’s skill at achieving a unified composition organized around a universal theme, “the conflict between filial devotion and erotic attachment.”3 Cheryl Exum’s series of articles published between 1980 and 1983 reveals structural and thematic webs connecting scene to scene, episode to episode, and cycle to cycle, many of them lifting up the theological message that despite his strength Samson is nonetheless utterly dependent on the Lord for life and death.4 A 1990 essay by Robert Alter describes the structural, thematic, and even psychological connections between episodes forged by the root ‫פעם‬, which underscores Samson’s compulsive drive toward foreign women.5 Yairah Amit’s 1999 study of editing in the book of Judges emphasizes “how the cycle’s author shaped its units so as to coalesce into a single whole” in order to contrast Samson’s

1

J. Crenshaw, “The Samson Saga: Filial Devotion or Erotic Attachment?,” ZAW 86 (1974), 470-504 (503). 2 Kim is unusual in arguing for a unified plot. His description stretches the definition of "unified" to an extreme, however, since he argues the plot has both cyclical and linear patterns with three resolutions. J. Kim, The Structure of the Samson Cycle (Kampen, the Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1993), 406–410. 3 Crenshaw, “Samson Saga,” 471. 4 J. C. Exum, “Aspects of Symmetry and Balance in the Samson Saga,” JSOT 19 (1981), 3–29; J. C. Exum, “Promise and Fulfillment: Narrative Art in Judges 13,” JBL 99 (1980), 43–59; J. C. Exum, “The Theological Dimension of the Samson Saga,” VT 33 (1983), 30–45. Crenshaw makes a similar point. 5 R. Alter, “Samson Without Folklore,” S. Niditch (ed), Text and Tradition. The Hebrew Bible and Folklore (SemeiaSt; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 47–56.

25

26

MARIAN BROIDA

great promise as a deliverer against his actual failure.6 This sea-change undoubtedly reflects several trends, including a shift from form and source criticism to literary analysis, increased sensitivity to biblical narrative conventions, and a desire to read biblical narratives as unified works. Yet the recent focus on the text’s unity would seem to ignore a basic question: Why, if Judges 13–16 is so coherent a narrative, has it been viewed for so long as a string of loosely-connected stories? 7 In this paper I describe how an imaginary reader of Samson might experience closure at the end of the narrative as well as at the end of each of its constituent units. In doing so, I examine the forces that make the narrative units and episodes discrete, as well as those bringing them together. I argue that if Judg 3:2–16:31a fails to strike the reader as a unified story, the reason lies with overly-strong literary devices closing its units, together with too-weak connective ties linking the whole, particularly in the domains modern Westerners prize: plot and character development. At the end of the paper I propose a few rather small redactional changes that would have united the episodes more strongly, and hazard a guess or two as to why the redactor or redactors refrained from their use. My hope is that this paper will provide a step toward the development of a poetics of closure within biblical narrative.

PART I: A FEW WORDS ON CLOSURE Closure, in B.H. Smith’s words, is a satisfying feeling of “finality, completion, and composure” the reader experiences at the conclusion of a literary work.8 Closure works largely through fulfillment of readers’ 6

Y. Amit, The Book of Judges. The Art of Editing (trans. J. Chipman; Biblical Interpretation Series, 38; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 1998). The original Hebrew version of the book came out in 1992. 7 I concur with the majority of scholars who believe the Samson narrative incorporates a number of once-independent stories, and owes its current form to redaction. My focus is on the MT version. 8 B. H. Smith, Poetic Closure. A Study of How Poems End (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968), 36. She primarily analyzes poetry, but much of what she says is relevant for narrative. Along with Frank Kermode’s ground-breaking book The Sense of an Ending. Studies in the Theory of Fiction (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 1966; repr. with new epilogue, Oxford University Press, 2000), Smith’s work led the way for a generation of research into literary closure. Not all accept her definition. Don Fowler notes five ways modern literary critics use the term “closure,” including “(1) the concluding section of a literary work; (2) the process by which the reader of a work comes to see the end as satisfyingly final; (3) the degree to which an ending is satisfyingly final; (4) the degree to which the questions posed in the work are answered, tensions released, conflicts resolved; (5)

CLOSURE IN SAMSON

27

expectations,9 generated partly by readers’ recognition of literary conventions, including those specific to the work’s genre, and partly by readers’ broader cultural knowledge. Literary analysts have identified closure as having several types or levels. H. Porter Abbott, for example, distinguishes closure at the level of story events from closure at the level of questions.10 The latter type of closure reflects the degree to which questions raised in the story are answered.11 Much of what creates closure is conformity to expectations in three domains: text, genre, and the reader’s real-life experience. Readers are unlikely to feel satisfied with plot endings deemed out of keeping with the genre. At the most basic level, literary critics claim, readers expect coherence between the beginning, middle, and end.12 As discussed further below, however, surprising events that nonetheless work within the rules of the story-world may yield tremendous closure. Readers, according to Abbott, resist closure even as they crave it. A narrative dances between holding the reader in suspense and providing a solution—outcome or answer—the reader expects.13 Overall, closure appears to result from a mental process on the reader’s part, inelegantly termed “macroprocessing” or “coding operations at the macrolevel” by discourse analysts Teun van Dijk and Walter Kintsch,

the degree to which the work allows new critical readings.” D. Fowler, “First Thoughts on Closure,” D. Fowler (ed.), Roman Constructions. Readings in Postmodern Latin (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 239–283; repr. from Materiali e discussioni 22 (1989). The quotation is on p. 242. 9 H. P. Abbott, Cambridge Introduction to Narrative (Cambridge, UK/New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 188. Abbott calls the first of these two types of closure “closure at the level of expectations.” 10 Abbott, Introduction, 156–7. In certain types of narrative, closure at the level of story or question does not occur. Texts may be purposefully left open in one way or another, to allow room for a sequel, for example. 11 Such questions may strictly relate to world of the narrative itself—such as Boaz’s identity in the book of Ruth—or refer to issues in the reader’s world as well, e.g., the question of God’s relationship to justice raised in the book of Job. The Hebrew Bible frequently leaves the latter type of question open, allowing the reader to continue to ponder. 12 The categories “beginning, middle, and end” form part of Aristotle’s definition of tragic drama. Poetics, vii, 2–3. Ricoeur explicitly explores the application of this definition to narrative. P. Ricoeur, Time and Narrative, vol. 1, (trans. K. McLaughlin and D. Pellauer; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), 36. 13 Abbott, Introduction to Narrative, 53–5.

28

MARIAN BROIDA

and “retrospective patterning” by Smith.14 Retrospective patterning can be thought of as an internal re-reading of the work, which may make salient some features previously merely noticed in passing.15 This process of mental review occurs most definitively at the work’s end, the point from which, in Smith’s words, “all the preceding elements may be viewed comprehensively and their relations grasped as part of a significant design.”16 As Don Fowler notes, closure is not limited to the ending: “tension between completion and continuance” occurs at multiple points in the text, “from the level of the phrase, the line, the stanza, the chapter, the book.”17 The end, however, is particularly significant, providing the point from which the reader mentally reviews the entire work in light of its conclusion. Only when all the data are in, so to speak, can the reader appreciate the structure and plot in their totality. A well-closed narrative will not only satisfy the reader’s expectations on the level of plot (with or without an element of surprise) but will also encourage a sense of the rightness of all the elements—the harmonious interplay of content and structure. Mary Douglas calls this appreciation, which partakes of the aesthetic, “repleteness.”18 Repleteness depends on the degree to which the narrative conforms to cultural, generic, and individual expectations for well-written stories. Modern readers of novels, for example, tend to want characters to learn and grow over the course of the work, and may desire this feature even in genres to which dynamic character development is less germane, such as detective stories. In this paper I focus on closure related to the plot, and on closure related to a number of specific literary devices which I will describe below. CLOSURE RELATED TO THE PLOT Kermode and Ricoeur both analyze narrative using categories based on Aristotle’s analysis of drama. To Ricoeur, what adds to narrative’s 14 T. van Dijk and W. Kintsch, Strategies of Discourse Comprehension (New York: Academic Press, 1983); Smith, Poetic Closure, 13. According to van Dijk and Kintsch, 58, research subjects take extra time to read sentences at the conclusion of episodes, “above and beyond sentence-level factors influencing reading times.” 15 A point made by Kermode, Sense of an Ending, 148. 16 Smith, Poetic Closure, 36. She specifically includes narrative endings in her analysis. 17 Fowler, “First Thoughts,” 246. See also Hamon’s discussion of a hierarchy of closure within a text, including both internal and final closure, in P. Hamon, “Clausules,” Poétique 24 (1975), 405–596 (504). 18 M. Douglas, Thinking in Circles. An Essay on Ring Composition (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2007), 128–129.

CLOSURE IN SAMSON

29

repleteness is the movement which Ricoeur calls “discordant concordance.”19 Taking his lead from Aristotle, Ricoeur describes the “fusion of…surprise and necessity” which characterizes fiction.20 Story events partake of this quality when, in Aristotle’s words, “they come unexpectedly and yet occur in a causal sequence in which one thing leads to another.”21 In this way narratives meet readers’ dual craving, the thwarting of expectations, in surprise or suspense, as well as their fulfillment. Ricoeur elaborates on this paradox in his discussion of the different kinds of mimesis that narrative requires. He defines mimesis1 as the artist’s imitation (or representation) of action, while mimesis2 is the artist’s act of creation or poetic composition.22 What characterizes action (and its imitation) is simply its successiveness: one thing follows another.23 What mimesis2 adds is the beginning, middle, and end: elements which Aristotle and generations of literary critics have found so essential to narrative. Beginnings, middles, and ends are not part of real-life experience, says Ricoeur, but of art; “they are not features of some real action but the effects of the ordering” of the work.24 Artistic mimesis is thus not a mere “redoubling” of reality, as Plato would have it,25 but a mediation between the meaninglessness of mere succession and the meaningfulness of artistic rendering thereof. Narrative imposes coherence on its imitation of life. It is in this mediating attribute of narrative that Kermode finds its special resonance and draw. Claiming that our craving for works with coherent design comes from our angst that our own lives lack plan and purpose, Kermode sees fiction’s chief function as consolation. For Kermode, fiction consoles by presenting a world in contrast to our own alltoo-contingent one. In the world of fiction, seemingly banal or purposeless events are shown, at the end, to be meaningful. For Kermode, narrative fulfills this consolatory function only if it bears some resemblance to the “mere successivity” of real life—hence the need for peripeteia, which he calls “disconfirmation followed by a consonance,” actions which seemingly lead in the wrong direction.26 “The more daring the peripeteia, the more we may 19

Ricoeur, Time and Narrative, vol. 1, 42–3. Ibid., 43–4. 21 Ibid., 43, translating Aristotle’s Poetics 52a4. 22 Ibid., 45–6. 23 Ibid., 39. 24 Ibid., 30. 25 Ibid., 45. 26 Kermode, Sense of an Ending, 18. He uses the term somewhat differently from Ska’s definition in “Our Fathers Have Told Us.” Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives (SubBib, 13; Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1990), 27–29. 20

30

MARIAN BROIDA

feel that the work respects our sense of reality,” he writes.27 In this way narrative fiction thus presents a portrait wherein the expected end arrives by unexpected means, suggesting that real life may work the same way. Closure at the level of the plot thus has a significant task—offering readers a way to see their lives as meaningful, based on their inference of a guiding hand in the real world akin to the author’s hand in the story. LITERARY FEATURES ENHANCING CLOSURE A number of features on the surface of the text add to the sense of closure readers experience at final or intermediate stopping points. These features can enhance plot closure by facilitating retrospective patterning, and many have other closural effects as well. My discussion of these features relies on the work of discourse analysts as well as on Smith’s, whose study of poetic closure—much of it highly relevant to narrative as well—remains in many ways unsurpassed. From the perspective of discourse analysis, closure requires recognition of the unity of a work (its coherence and cohesion) as well as its ending. Narrative coherence results from perceptions of structure and meaning, including consistent characterization, a causally-linked plot, and an overarching theme. Cohesion is the degree to which the meanings of different sentences or textual elements relate to each other, and is established through use of pronouns, conjunctions, repeated vocabulary, analepses and prolepses, and similar techniques. Endings provide stronger closure when they terminate a section of text viewed as unified. Closure is also strengthened when endings are signaled or embellished by specific literary features in the concluding parts of a narrative or coherent portion thereof (e.g., a paragraph or episode). One source of closure is the “boundary marker”—a term discourse analysts use for a device signaling the end, or impending end, of a body of text (oral or written).28 Boundary markers for written works may consist of themes, topics, or formal aspects of the text, potentially including phonological, syntactic, lexical, and other elements. Boundary markers tend to be specific to culture and genre.29 One principle means by which they work is simply convention: readers note them in passing and expect an ending. The sense of rightness readers experience when their prediction is 27

Kermode, Sense of an Ending, 18. C. Wyckoff, “Have We Come Full Circle Yet? Closure, Psycholinguistics, and Problems of Recognition with the Inclusio,” JSOT 30 (2006), 475–505. 29 Longacre describes cultural and generic variations in boundary markers. R.E. Longacre, “The Paragraph as a Grammatical Unit,” Talmy Givón (ed.), Discourse and Syntax (SS, 12; New York: Academic, 1979), 115–134. 28

CLOSURE IN SAMSON

31

fulfilled adds to the markers’ closural force.30 An example of a formal boundary marker in biblical narrative is the end-frame for episodes in Judges, tallying the number of years a specific individual led Israel. Readers of the book of Judges recognize this device as code for “account over. Back to the Judges frame and the next story.” A lexical boundary marker is the word ‫אז‬, “then,” which may signal closure of a smaller-scale literary unit in poetry or narrative.31 A common topical boundary marker is a major character’s return to the place he occupied before the story began.32 As Smith points out, conventions for concluding a work often become so because they are closural in more ways than convention alone.33 The effects on the reader thus have the capacity to transcend place and time, so that modern as well as ancient readers respond to certain closural techniques. It is no surprise, then, that boundary markers identified by Smith or analysts of western narrative discourse overlap significantly with techniques recognized by biblical scholars. Smith analyzes a number of the processes by which closural devices work, above and beyond their function as conventions. Some devices work by using repetition to “complete” a structural form: circular patterns (ABA and variants) or symmetry (ABAB) are included here, whether of small units (words, lines) or larger sections of the work.34 Other techniques disrupt readers’ expectations that the work will continue by altering a pattern of repetition. Examples of such disruption include final lines which are markedly shorter or longer than average.35 A very common biblical boundary marker, found at the end of unified sections of text of any length, is a change from the standard verbsubject-object (VSO) order used in mainline narrative to SVO, and a concomitant switch from wayyiqtol verb forms to qatal. Heller finds this shift consistently in the narrative works he analyzes, typically in locations where no ‫ ויהי‬or other initial boundary marker indicates the succeeding paragraph.36 Expectations of an ending can also arise from changes in the 30

Smith, Poetic Closure, 154. Wyckoff, “Have We Come Full Circle Yet?” 32 S. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (JSOTSup, 70; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989), 130. 33 Smith, Poetic Closure, 30–31. 34 Ibid., 27–28. 35 Ibid., 42–44. Another common way to produce structural closure, particularly in poetry, is to significantly alter the pattern of repetition in the penultimate line with a return to the previous pattern at the end. 36 R. Heller, Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations. An Analysis of Clause Function in Biblical Hebrew Prose (HSS, 55; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 26, 54. Heller describes the function of single, independent non-wayyiqtol clauses as ending episodes and “divid[ing] the longer text into smaller, cohesive blocks (i.e., 31

32

MARIAN BROIDA

pattern of repetition of story events. This principle explains much of the closural effect of the “stair-step” or “folkloric” sequence of two or three repetitions of plot events (Cinderella’s step-sisters trying on the shoe) with a change in the next (Cinderella tries—and it fits!). Smith argues that some literary features—not necessarily those considered boundary markers by discourse linguists—enhance closure by adding to the sense of stability at the close, thus providing a sense of “conviction and aphoristic rightness.”37 One such feature is a gnomic or epigrammatic statement, typically marked by concision and internal parallelism and commonly containing alliteration or other wordplay. Another closural technique is an unqualified or superlative assertion (“the most,” “the best”). Also closural are words such as “end,” whether referring to the end of the work or not; and allusions to sleep, homecoming, or death.38 These last two categories suggest rest and stability by bringing to mind associated states or events. These features may occur at various points in a text, not only at the end; but when they occur at the end, they carry closural force. Labov’s classic analysis of oral narrative uses different language to describe several elements with closural effects.39 Adele Berlin has noted the applicability of his work to biblical literature.40 Labov describes six parts in a “complete” narrative, of which three typically occur at the end, “signalling that the narrative is finished.”41 The most basic of these is the result or resolution, which answers the question “what finally happened?” The second is the coda, “bridging the gap between the moment of time of the end of the narrative proper and the present”42 by informing the audience of the current status of actor or narrator. Codas seal off the series of events comprising the story, indicating that “none of the events that followed were important to the narrative.”43 The final closural element, the evaluation, paragraphs) of narrative.” In Judges 13–16 I found that such clauses did not appear at the end of episodes or smaller units with the consistency he describes in his own corpus (the Joseph novella and David’s Court Narrative). When these clauses did appear, however, they occurred at the ends of unified textual blocks. 37 Smith, Poetic Closure, 159. 38 Ibid., 172–185, 197. 39 W. Labov, Language in the Inner City. Studies in the Black English Vernacular (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972), 354–393. Many narratives lack some of these features. 40 A. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994). 41 Labov, Language, 365. 42 Labov, Language, 365. 43 Ibid., 366. Etiologies function as codas at the ends of many biblical

CLOSURE IN SAMSON

33

shows the point of the narrative. It answers the question “So what?” Evaluations—which need not occur at the narrative’s end—work to intensify aspects of the story, slow the action, or reveal the narrator’s or another’s thoughts, among other effects.44 Whether stated by the narrator, voiced by a character, or inferred from descriptions of activity, evaluations typically involve syntactical changes which slow the action, thereby heightening the resolution’s strength.45 Isaac Gottlieb identifies four patterns which often occur at the end of biblical books, in a list overlapping considerably with features Smith analyzes. The book-endings which Gottlieb describes include references to death or cycles of time; words which mean end or conclusion; and the root ‫שׁוב‬. Gottlieb considers these last two patterns to work by association, claiming that words phonologically similar to terms for end or ‫ שׁוב‬also appear frequently in closing passages.46 Although Gottlieb examines strategies for ending biblical books, some of those he describes appear in the terminal sections of smaller units of works as well. For example, the root ‫ שׁוב‬in either qal or hip'il appears at the end of the stories of the Binding of Isaac (Gen 22:19), Judah and Tamar (Gen 38:29), and Jephthah’s Daughter (Judg 11:31, 35, 39), among others. Returning to the circular pattern Smith describes, one structural closural device deserves special mention: the ring composition or chiasm (the difference being whether the central element is repeated or not; not all

narratives, as Ska notes in “Our Fathers Have Told Us,” 31. 44 Labov describes four varieties of evaluations. Intensifiers such as repetition, marked lexical items, ritual utterances (that is, formulaic phrases such as “and there it was”) and words such as all heighten and slow the action. Comparators contrast what did happen with what did not, by means such as questions, superlatives, comparatives, and metaphors. Correlatives constitute descriptive language or depictions of simultaneous events which provide a background to the main action. Explicatives present information meant to help the audience understand events, including new realizations by characters. Evaluation typically occurs just before the resolution but can occur elsewhere. Labov, Language. 45 H. Bonheim, The Narrative Modes: Techniques of the Short Story (Cambridge: Brewer, 1982) describes “narratorial comments,” similar to Labov’s evaluations (at least those voiced by the narrator) and including what Labov calls codas. Crouch has applied Bonheim’s work to closure in biblical narrative with interesting results. W. Crouch, Death and Closure in Biblical Narrative (SBL, 7; New York: Peter Lang, 2000). Both Crouch and Bonheim demonstrate that such comments slow the narrative pace near the end of a story, thus providing a boundary marker in the form of discourse type. 46 Isaac Gottlieb, “Sof Davar: Biblical Endings,” Prooftexts 11 (1991), 213–224.

34

MARIAN BROIDA

scholars consider this of significance).47 Welch notes that one of the purposes of such structures is “emphasizing the feeling of closure.”48 Variant forms range from the inclusio—where repetitions occur only at the beginning and end—to the more elaborate form described by Mary Douglas, which includes “an exposition, a split into two halves, a central place or mid-turn matched to the exposition, identifiable parallel series, and an ending.”49 The ending contains elements found in the exposition as well as the midpoint. A second ending Douglas calls a “latch” may follow, also reflecting back on motifs in the exposition.50 Ring compositions (as I use the term, meaning a series of concentric circles with or without a repeated center) provide built-in boundary markers; readers begin anticipating the ending once they recognize that the midpoint has been reached. Inclusios, on the other hand, merely signal the end. As with any form using distant repetition, the effectiveness of ring compositions requires the audience’s initial awareness and later recollection of re-occurring elements. Unusual or striking terminology, morphology, or syntax can draw the audience’s attention to the first use of elements to be repeated, thus making the structure perceptible.51 Robert Longacre and his fellow text linguists envision a narrative text as an expandable “paragraph,” into which smaller paragraphs can be embedded, each paragraph representing a section of discourse organized around a unified topic.52 Boundary markers help readers navigate the text, 47 Fokkelman and Martin, for example, distinguish the ABCC’B’A’ chiastic or criss-cross pattern from the ABCDC’B’A’ (concentric circle) pattern of ring composition. J. P. Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative. A Practical Guide (TBS, 1; trans. I. Smith; Leiden: Deo, 1999), 117; G. Martin, “Ring Composition and Related Phenomena in Herodotus,” 14 Dec. 2004: 1–40. Cited 10 December 2007. Online: http://faculty.washington.edu/garmar/RingCompositionHerodotus.pdf; Biblical Narrative.” In contrast, Radday diagrams the ‘perfect chiasm’ as ABC–D– C’B’A’. He also indicates that deviations are common. Y. Radday, “Chiasmus in Hebrew Biblical Narrative,” J. Welch (ed), Chiasmus in Antiquity (Siegburg: Gerstenberg, 1981), 50–117 (especially 52). 48 J. Welch, “Criteria for Identifying and Evaluating the Presence of Chiasmus,” J. Welch and D. B. McKinlay (eds), Chiasmus Bibliography (Provo, Utah: Research Press), 157–174 (162). 49 Douglas, Thinking in Circles, 43. 50 Many discussions of chiastic structure fail to mention two features Douglas describes: the optional latch or the convention of a midpoint matched to the exposition. 51 Wyckoff, “Have We Come Full Circle Yet?” The point has been made by others as well. 52 Longacre, “The Paragraph as a Grammatical Unit.”

CLOSURE IN SAMSON

35

signaling intermediate as well as final stopping points. In some cultures and genres, certain boundary markers have specific functions within a text genre, for example closing an episode but leave open its connection to a larger narrative, just as commas, semicolons, and periods signal different degrees of closure at the end of a clause.53 In other genres or cultures, boundary markers (or other closural devices) may be less specific: for example, story-length ring compositions may contain smaller units or episodes which are themselves structured as rings.54 Boundary markers may also cluster at the ends of episodes or larger units, their combined effects generating a greater sense of closure than any one used alone.

PART II: AN ANALYSIS OF CLOSURE IN JUDGES 13–16 Below I review the kind of closural and cohesive devices occurring in the Samson narrative at two different levels: larger units and smaller episodes. I analyzed the narrative for distinct and explicit chains of causality and character constellations, distinguishing three large units (13:2–25; 14:1– 15:19; and 16:4–31a) and one small (16:1–3, the story of the prostitute in Gaza).55 I divided the units into episodes based on changes in setting, primary characters, and topic. Each episode contains one or more scenes, summary expositions, or closings, and in most cases narratorial comments of various sorts. I evaluate separately the Judges framework in 13:1 and 16:31b as well as the anomalous 15:20, an early iteration of the end-frame in 16:31b tallying Samson’s twenty years as a judge. I analyze what an attentive modern reader knowledgeable in Hebrew and biblical narrative conventions might experience in the way of closure in each unit and episode. This reader does not correspond precisely to an actual individual, not even myself, and is in fact an impossible construction—for somehow the reader achieved some sensitivity to biblical language and conventions with no prior knowledge of the Samson story. At the end I consider how closural devices and retrospective patterning at different points in the narrative affect this reader’s understanding of Judges 13–16 as a unified composition. 53 See Philippe Hamon’s discussion of a hierarchy of closure within a text, including both internal and final closure, in “Clausules,” 504. 54 Many critics have described this feature. See, for example, Douglas, Thinking in Circles, 18, 39, and Radday, “Chiasmus in Hebrew Biblical Narrative.” 55 Most analysts consider chapter 16 as a block, although Kim in The Structure of the Samson Cycle considers 16:1–3 to form part of the same “canto” as chapters 14 and 15. Using my criteria for distinction, it belongs to neither unit two nor unit four.

36

MARIAN BROIDA

UNIT ONE: JUDG 13:2–25 The first unit—the angel’s annunciation of Manoah’s wife’s pregnancy— focuses on Samson’s parents, introducing Samson himself at the very end. Within the unit’s single episode appear a number of boundary markers, including independent qatal clauses, larger and smaller rings, and the word ‫אז‬. Boundary markers combine with other stylistic closural techniques at two principle junctures: 13:21, and the unit’s final two verses, 13:24–25. As I indicate below, verse 13:21b wraps up a major theme in the unit, while verses 13:24–25 resolve the problem identified at the beginning, so that the intensification of boundary markers coincides with closure at the level of theme and plot. Cohesive devices include repetitions of key words, phrases, and events—some unique to this unit, and others extending into other parts of the narrative. Both the unit’s content and its literary techniques leave the reader expecting more, relating this unit to those that follow. From its first verse, the narrative sets up the reader’s expectations regarding the way the unit is likely to end—regarding not only its plot, but its wording as well. The opening verse 13:2 serves as the unit’s exposition, introducing Samson’s parents and the unit’s central problem, Manoah’s wife’s infertility. The isolated, independent qatal clause ‫ ולא ילדה‬at the end of 13:2 indicates that the verse constitutes the first paragraph of text.56 Since the opening phrase (that is,‫ ) ויהי אישׁ אחד‬is standard for introducing a protagonist’s father or other ancestor,57 the reader expects both an annunciation type scene and a longer story, in which the child to be born is the real hero. Sensitive to biblical conventions, the reader notes in passing key words and syntax in the exposition, expecting to encounter them again in the likely event of an inclusio or ring composition. The reader’s expectations will be confirmed when key words from 13:2a recur both at the end of the unit and at the end of the entire Samson narrative. The effect of the qatal boundary marker at the verse’s end is to create a slight pause for comprehension, setting off both lexemes and message. In Judges 13–16, virtually all verbs in non-wayyiqtol forms communicate important information of one sort or another. Verse 13:2b informs the reader of the unit’s central plot issue, the infertility of Manoah’s wife, in the process making use of a peculiarity of Hebrew narrative syntax. Since the verb form used for mainline events, wayyiqtol, does not normally take a 56

As noted earlier, Heller, Narrative Structure, describes the isolated, independent qatal clause as ending paragraphs of text. 57 S. Niditch, Judges. A Commentary (OTL; Louisville/London: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 141nb. She cites Y. Amit, “‘There was a man … and his name …’: Editorial Variations and Their Tendenz” (Hebrew). Beth Mikra 30 (1984/85), 388– 99.

CLOSURE IN SAMSON

37

negative particle, negative clauses like this one frequently occur as ‫ לא‬plus qatal, a form ideally suited to identifying problems. Two key roots are particularly significant in this unit: ‫ ראה‬and ‫ידע‬, both addressing important themes. In Judges 13, the root ‫ ראה‬acts as a both a cohesive device and an indicator of theme. 58 Exum notes its structural use as well in framing the entire unit.59 The root’s salience is increased by its appearance at clause- or paragraph-ends, in marked forms, and in structurally-marked configurations, as in the ring 13:19b and 20b, where it appears as a masculine plural active participle reflecting the behavior of Manoah and his wife. The salience generated by this unusual morphology and its repetition in vv 19b and 20b may lead the reader to remember both its form and its context when the masculine plural active participle of ‫ראה‬ recurs in the final unit’s last episode. Thus this root serves to unite first and last units as well as unifying unit one, adding to the reader’s sense of the planfulness underlying the whole. Another thematically-important root in Judges 13–16 is ‫ידע‬, which occurs twice in this unit in narratorial comments, both times in qatal (13:16b, 21b). The first use appears in a comment indicating Manoah’s obliviousness to the angel’s identity as God’s messenger, the second in a comment indicating Manoah’s later recognition of the angel’s divine origin.60 The marked syntax leads the reader to give extra attention to each clause in which the verb occurs, resulting in a frisson of recognition when the root ‫ ידע‬recurs, twice in unit two and twice in unit four, always in nonwayyiqtol forms. As with ‫ראה‬, the repetition of a key-word increases the cohesion within unit and entire narrative, while the link between thematic meaning and plot events adds to coherence. (As Exum, Crenshaw, and others point out, the theme of knowing and not knowing will feature large in subsequent units involving secrets.)61 The highlighting of the two uses of ‫ ידע‬in chapter 13 by means of their marked syntax tells the reader that Manoah’s change of view is important. The character development which Manoah undergoes adds to the modern reader’s sense of the unit’s coherence to this point. Much later, in retrospective patterning after unit two, the reader may recognize the shift in Manoah’s understanding as a

58

M. Halliday and R. Hasan, Cohesion in English (London: Longman, 1976). Exum, “Promise and Fulfillment.” 60 Amit considers the whole of Judges 13 to be editorially recast from a birth story to one stressing Manoah’s shift from disbelief to belief in the angel’s appearance. Book of Judges, 289–304. 61 Crenshaw, “The Samson Saga,” 487–488; Exum, “Aspects of Symmetry and Balance,” 8–9. 59

38

MARIAN BROIDA

thematic foreshadowing of the shift in the reader’s own. This realization will increase the reader’s sense of closure at the unit’s end. The unit’s cohesion is increased as well through the three-fold repetition-with-changes of the angel’s instructions. The repetition of the instructions as well as their heightened, repetitive language (including repetitions of ‫כל‬, an intensifying “quantifier” in Labov’s terminology),62 enhances later recall, important for the plot. Verse 13:21 contains a number of closural features whose impact is diminished because of the verse’s structure. Verse 13:21a, on its own, appears to be the story-ending technique Labov calls a coda, which moves out of the story-time by addressing events later in time—or in this case, the non-existence of such events: “The angel of the Lord never appeared to Manoah and his wife again.” The verb’s qatal formulation suggests that the clause could end a paragraph or larger unit of text. The verse continues, however: “Then Manoah knew that he was an angel of the Lord,” with ‫ידע‬ in qatal, as noted above. Like the English word “then,” ‫ אז‬can have either a temporal or a logical meaning (i.e., “afterwards” vs. “therefore”).63 The order of clauses in 13:21 implies that here ‫ אז‬means “therefore”, as if 13:21a explained how Manoah came to the new understanding of the messenger’s divine origin revealed in 13:21b. Logic and context, however, suggest Manoah came to his realization when he observed the angel’s disappearance in the altar’s flame (13:20), rather than from a future non-event (the absence of the angel’s reappearance during his lifetime). The reader takes a moment to resolve this slight confusion, which undercuts the closural effects of ‫ אז‬as a lexical boundary marker.64 Two more verses (22–23) provide a bit of an anti-climax—the couple’s disagreement over the danger of their experience. Following this, a series of closural conventions and techniques signals the end of episode and unit: the expected resolution of an annunciation type-scene with the birth of a son in 13:24; the end-inclusio to 3:2 in 13:25, naming tribe and town in chiastic order; and the rhythmic, repetitive parallelism within the final phrase: ‫במחנה‬ ‫דן בין צרעה ובין אשתאל‬. Smith notes that parallelism or repetition in final lines adds to closure.65 Together these techniques provide a far greater sense of closure than do the ends of the preceding paragraphs. Yet despite the concatenation of terminal closural devices, several features leave the unit open. The angel’s pronouncement in v 5 that Samson 62

Labov, Language. B. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 658. 64 Wyckoff, “Have We Come Full Circle Yet?” 65 Smith, Poetic Closure, 157. 63

CLOSURE IN SAMSON

39

“will begin to save Israel from the Philistines’ hands” leaves the reader expecting a future fulfillment of the prediction. Exum notes the inclusio formed by Manoah’s name in 13:2 and Samson’s in 13:24, indicating “a shift in emphasis from father to son,”66 a shift confirmed by 13:24’s last clauses, stating that the lad grew up and the Lord blessed him. The first part of 13:25 gives rise to the anticipation of adventures to follow, with use of the root ‫חלל‬, “(to) begin.” The combination of these strategies serves both to close the unit and to open it to the rest of the narrative. In sum, the reader experiences the unit as an extended exposition, giving important information in story form about events preceding Samson’s birth, and promising great things of Samson, with a hint of foreboding in Manoah’s wife’s words, “until the day of his death.” UNIT TWO: JUDG 14:1–15:19 The second unit (14:1–15:19) contains four episodes. The first (14:1–14:20) presents Samson’s desire to wed the Philistine girl in Timnah; his barehanded slaying of the attacking lion; the riddle he presents at the wedding feast, involving the lion and honey; the cheating by the men of Timnah, who wheedle the riddle’s answer from Samson’s bride; and Samson’s final slaughter of thirty Philistines from Ashkelon in revenge. In the second episode (15:1–8), Samson’s father-in-law denies him access to the Timnah girl, whereupon Samson initiates a cycle of retaliation: burning the Philistines’ crops (the fox incident), having his wife and father-in-law burned alive by the Philistines, and defeating the Philistines in a fight. At the end he holes up in a cave in Eitam. In the third episode (15:9–13), Samson allows himself to be bound by men from Judah who are serving the Philistines, and is brought from Eitam to Lehi. The final episode (15:14–19) includes Samson’s massacre of three thousand Philistines, his thirst and desperate prayer, and his restoration when God creates the spring Ein Haqqoreh. As I indicate below, all episodes except the final one balance features leading to expectations of continuation with features suggesting finality. At the end of the unit’s final episode, the number and power of closural features increases significantly. In the first episode of unit two, 14:1–20, the problem appears in the opening verse: Samson’s interest in a Philistine girl. Meir Sternberg points 66

Exum, “Promise and Fulfillment,” 57. Judges 13 also contains smaller inclusios identified by Exum in “Promise and Fulfillment”: 13:3–10, framed by the messenger “appearing;” and 13:19–23, framed by “taking.” In between is a “fourfold asking and answer discourse between Manoah and the messenger.” Exum sees the first inclusio as linked to the second inclusio by the root ‫ראה‬, which “functions as a framing device for the whole” (45).

40

MARIAN BROIDA

out the immediate “gap” this creates for the reader—a hero, one whose birth was announced by an angel, marrying outside the nation of Israel!67 The reader predicts problems, and indeed they will occur: later in this episode the girl’s countrymen connive and threaten, and the girl chooses life and family over loyalty to Samson. Yet Samson is clearly acting at the Lord’s behest, as the reader learns at the end of the episode’s first scene (14:1–4). After the parents voice the reader’s own question—why doesn’t Samson marry a nice Israelite girl?—the narrator intones in 14:4, “His father and mother did not know that this originated with the Lord, because he sought a pretext against the Philistines, who were ruling Israel at that time.” The qatal form of the verb ‫ ידע‬in SVO clause-order, and the verse’s scene-ending position, underscore the verse’s significance as an explanation of what has gone before. This verse gives rare insight into the Lord’s thinking, placing the reader in a position of knowing more than Samson’s parents, but not much: only that Samson’s odd behavior “originated with the Lord” (literally, is “from the Lord”) and has to do with bringing down the Philistines. The reader registers that this statement coheres with the angel’s prediction in 13:5b, but the means by which Samson is to begin Israel’s deliverance seems preposterous: marriage? The verse tantalizes, giving closure to the scene but impelling the reader on. Soon the reader receives confirmation that Samson has a unique relationship with God. Seized by the Lord’s spirit (‫ )ותצלח עליו רוח יהוה‬in 14:6, Samson tears apart an onrushing lion barehanded. The later, miraculous appearance of a beehive in the lion’s carcass gives him the raw materials for his riddle, unsolvable by any who had not seen the lion or heard the answer. Structurally, the episode evinces a stair-step pattern. As Exum points out, four times Samson, his father, or both his parents “go down” (‫;)ירד‬ twice to Timnah, vv 1 and 5, and twice “to the woman”, vv 7 and 10.68 The frequent use of this key word adds cohesion, as does its patterned repetition, each use beginning a scene. The last descent, in v 10, moves the reader into the heightened action of the riddle, the dramatic means whereby the Philistines obtain the solution, and Samson’s retaliation. Exum notes 67 M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative. Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature; Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1985), 237–238. 68 Exum, “Aspects of Symmetry and Balance.” In v 5, Samson’s parents accompany him. In v 10, only Samson’s father goes down. Either Samson was already in Timnah, or his name was lost during the text’s redaction or transmission. In this unit, references to “going down” exceed those to “coming up,” although both act as key words here and in the following episode.

CLOSURE IN SAMSON

41

that this long fourth scene is approximately the length of the three prior “stair-steps,” and that this structural pattern (three short scenes followed by one three times longer) will repeat in chapter 15.69 Within this episode, the scene in which Samson presents the riddle has particular closural force. The riddle itself, with its heightened language (epigrammatic in style: alliterative, rhythmic, and concise), draws attention and slows the narrative pace. The deviation from the wayyiqtol pattern in the following clause, 14:14b, along with its terminal reference to time, marks its significance: “They were not able to solve the riddle in three days.” A dramatic pause surrounds this verse, preceded as it is by the riddle and followed by a new scene commencing with the initial boundary marker ‫ויהי‬. The key word ‫נגד‬, to tell, gives this episode additional cohesion, with tension between telling and not telling. The root features in Samson’s dealings with parents, wife, and Philistine men, appearing one or more times in 14:2, 6, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19, then disappearing from the narrative until unit four.70 Kim notes the symmetrical ring arrangement of the root in this episode, centering on 14:16, the wife’s plea that Samson only hates her and doesn’t love her. “Here the narrator begins to develop the theme of Samson’s helplessness before the wiles of Philistine women,” he writes.71 True as this claim may be, the sensitive reader is not likely to consciously observe more than the frequent use of the root at this point, enough to note its reappearance in unit four. Nonetheless the reader may respond to the root’s allusive quality, attempting to unriddle the story itself, to understand what it is not telling.72 The same divine influence described in the lion incident recurs in the episode’s penultimate verse, 14:19, as Samson, seized again by the spirit of the Lord (‫)ותצלח עליו רוח יהוה‬, takes an ironic revenge on the cheating Philistines—killing thirty men from Ashkelon to fulfill his promise of clothing to the Philistines. (Note that “solving” the riddle was not part of the original deal—just “telling” it.) Structurally and thematically, the episode is thus ringed by Samson’s divinely-inspired power. The reader notes the doubly-repeated clause, ‫ותצלח עליו רוח יהוה‬, and remembers the promise of future adventures impelled by the Lord’s spirit in the last verse of unit one, ‫ותחל רוח יהוה לפעמו‬. 69

Ibid. Crenshaw, “The Samson Saga,” 486–487. Crenshaw also assumes the root occurs in 16:2a (unit three), following the Septuagint. 71 Kim, Structure of the Samson Cycle, 388. 72 For more on this notion, see E. Greenstein, “The Riddle of Samson,” Prooftexts 1 (1981), 237–260. 70

42

MARIAN BROIDA

This episode provides solid closure on the level of plot, in several regards. First, Samson makes good on his pledge of a reward (even if he does so in a bad way), thus concluding a variant of the predictionfulfillment schema. His underhanded means of fulfilling the pledge match the underhanded means by which the Philistines procured the riddle’s answer, both sides having broken an unspoken behavioral code. The unexpected method by which Samson simultaneously keeps his promise and expresses his wrath meets Aristotle’s twin criteria of necessity and surprise. Finally, the last verse, 14:20, announces that Samson’s wife has been given to another, fulfilling the reader’s hypothesis that the problematic choice of wife would lead to marital failure, thus adding to closure through this confirmation of expectations. Yet this last line also opens the story to continuation on the level of plot: how will Samson deal with this new insult? Moreover, killing thirty Philistines hardly seems dramatic enough to fulfill the angel’s prediction. The reader is still unsure how Samson is to accomplish his divine mission against the Philistines. The second episode, 15:1–8, continues the story of Samson, his wife, and the Philistines. Samson’s parents are now out of the picture entirely; instead Samson speaks to his father-in-law, asking for access to the girl he married, using the root ‫ בוא‬with its sexual nuance. The father-in-law refuses, leading Samson to burn the Philistines’ crops in a distinctly memorable way—tying together foxes and setting their tails aflame. The episode’s first scene ends with 15:5, a long descriptive phrase with internal repetition, ‫ועד‬ ‫קמה ועד כרם זית‬, drawing attention to the magnitude of Samson’s vengeance. New Philistines enter the scene who do not initially know who set their crops on fire. When they learn, the cycle of revenge escalates. The Philistines torch Samson’s wife along with her family and their house, causing Samson first to vow vengeance, then to deal the Philistines a great defeat (‫מכה גדולה‬, in 15:8). Afterwards Samson goes down to the cave in the rock of Eitam, the verb ‫ ירד‬linking this episode to the previous one. The many references to burning in both episodes increase the cohesion between the two. The episode’s penultimate verse (15:7) contains an allusion to ending (the root ‫)חדל‬. Not only does the root itself suggest a conclusion, but its use in context does as well: Samson plans to carry out vengeance, “then stop.” The episode’s final verse (15:8) contains an evident idiom (‫שׁוק על־ירך‬, leg and thigh) indicating the completeness of Samson’s victory—an intensifying form of evaluation, in Labov’s terminology, as is the phrase ‫מכה גדולה‬ (“great defeat”) which immediately follows. Verse 15:8 ends with an alliterative phrase describing Samson’s refuge—another device with closural effects, as noted earlier. A number of closural devices thus converge in

CLOSURE IN SAMSON

43

15:7–8. If the story ended here, Samson’s ‫ מכה גדולה‬against the Philistines would be seen as justifying the angel’s promise. Still, no specific significance the reader knows of attaches to Eitam. The story could be closed, but if so, the reader might lack a sense of repleteness. The lengthy and dramatic introduction (chapter 13) would seem to require a heavier counterweight at the story’s end, at least to modern sensibilities. The reader attuned to biblical stylistics would look for an inclusio binding the last verses of this episode with the beginning of unit one, and find none. The third episode, 15:9–13, begins by describing the Philistines camping in Judah, with a reference to Lehi. Their goal of vengeance against Samson (15:10b) connects them to the Philistines in the preceding episode. The reader assumes that these are the Philistines who survived the previous battle, perhaps joined by others. New characters, three thousand Judahites, act as Philistine tools in binding Samson (with his permission!) in order to bring him to their overlords. Samson mirrors the language of 15:10bβ when he announces his plan to avenge himself on the Philistines in 15:11b. The matched expressions of vengeance escalate the reader’s sense of suspense. The two statements proclaiming vengeance cross lines of a more prominent structuring technique, references to going down and coming up, continued from the previous episode in modified form. As the reader might recognize, the root ‫ עלה‬provides an inclusio to the episode as a whole. The Judahites’ promise not to kill Samson in 15:13a, emphasized with an infinitive absolute, heightens tension by bringing up the possibility of death. The reader notes the “two new ropes” the Judahites use to bind Samson in v 13b. The Hebrew Bible’s paucity of adjectives enhances the words’ salience, so that the reader is more likely recall these ropes when a similar phrase occurs in unit four. The final terse clause in 15:13b, “and they brought him up from the rock,” contrasts with the previous descriptive clause, adding closural and dramatic force. The episode ends as a cliffhanger, definitely open to the next. Rushing on to learn the outcome in the following episode, the reader defers retrospective patterning. Once the tension drops at the end of unit two, the reader may think back to the specific ways that Samson and various Philistines have been matching blow for blow in this unit, with gradually escalating violence: the unfair riddle and its unfair solution, the burning of the fields (destroying the Philistines’ livelihood) and the burning of the family, the victory Samson won in battle and the Philistines’ massing against Samson. The final section of unit two, 15:14–20, first intensifies then resolves the narrative tension developed in the previous episode. This concluding episode begins with Samson’s entry into a new locale, expressed in a clause

44

MARIAN BROIDA

with two qatal forms, unusual opening syntax.73 The combination of the onrushing Philistines and the descent of the spirit of the Lord in 15:14 recalls the first episode of the unit, in which Samson tore apart an onrushing lion, and presages a successful outcome based on the Lord’s continued positive influence in his life. Still, the Judahites’ delivery of their bound captive to the Philistines massed at Lehi raises the unit’s narrative tension to its climax. This final episode contains two scenes. The first, 15:14–17, is strongly cohesive with the previous episode. It features characters the reader has already encountered—the vengeance-seeking Philistines from the previous episode—and begins with Samson’s tearing off the bonds the Judahites put on. The simile in 15:14, “the ropes melted off his arms like flax burned with fire,” links the scene to the fires in unit two, adding to the cohesion of the entire unit. In the second scene, the final reference to Lehi in the last clause of 15:19 links back to the first verse in the prior episode (15:9), in which Lehi appears as the final word, creating an inclusio. This adds to the strong cohesion between the two episodes of unit two created in the previous scene. Besides connecting to previous parts of the unit, this last episode also shows strong internal cohesion. Between vv 14 and 19 the word ‫ לחי‬appears eight times and the word ‫ יד‬five. The first scene’s cohesion is strengthened with an inclusio in 15b–17a, beginning and ending with the verb ‫ שׁלח‬and the suffixed noun ‫ידו‬, as Samson picks up the ass’s jawbone, then drops it. Between these two acts he wields the jawbone to slay a thousand men. The second, briefer scene, 15:18-19, shows high coherence as well as cohesion based on the ironic contrast between vv 18a and 18b. In 15:18a, Samson thanks the Lord for the “great victory that you placed in the hand of your servant” while in 15:18b he expresses fear that he will “fall into the hand of the uncircumcised.”74 This last episode in unit two also evinces greater closure than any of the unit’s previous episodes. Several techniques resemble those used earlier. After Samson’s slaughter of the Philistines, he sings his victory song, the latter as condensed, alliterative, and paronomastic as the riddle in episode one. Besides the end-inclusio with ‫ שׁלח‬and ‫ידו‬, verse 15:17a also contains the word ‫כלה‬, referring to Samson’s concluding his song, but also suggesting to the reader the idea of ending in general, as ‫ חדל‬did at the end of episode two. But here the reader sees another, seemingly stronger 73 In fact 15:14a could serve equally to end the previous episode, in which case the references to Lehi in 15:10 and in 15:14a would form a more obvious inclusio than the iterations of ‫ עלה‬in 15:9 and 15:14b. 74 The root ‫ קרא‬also occurs twice, once in 15:18a and once in 19b.

CLOSURE IN SAMSON

45

closural technique as well. After the pile-up of syntactical and allusive closural devices in 15:17a, the reader comes to the first of three adjacent codas, in 17b: ‫ויקרא למקום ההוא רמת לחי‬. By suggesting a time-frame after the end of the story, the clause carries closural force above and beyond the earlier techniques. Following this coda is another, introduced by the brief scene in vv 18–19. This scene focuses on Samson’s life-threatening thirst and brings the Lord onstage for the first time. In this story, the reader had previously encountered the Lord only through his messenger and narratorial explanatory asides (chapters 13 and 14). In the marked speech of his prayer to God, Samson alludes to the proximal cause of his death, if it occurs: falling into the hands of the uncircumcised Philistines. As Exum notes, this scene explicitly contrasts life and death.75 In 15:18b, Samson prays, “But now I am to die of thirst and fall into the hands of the uncircumcised” and in 15:19b, after God makes water burst forth, the text reads “he drank and his spirit returned and he came back to life” (‫)ויחי‬. This key-word combination comprises both ends of a divinely-controlled continuum, and so carries merismal (hence closural) force. As an added cementing factor, verse 15:19 contains the root ‫שׂוב‬, referring to the return of Samson’s spirit after he drinks. Regardless of its meaning in context, the word has powerful closural effects when used near the end of a text, as Gottlieb notes.76 The wording of the second coda, 19b, “therefore the place is called Ein Haqqoreh, in Lehi, to this very day,” strengthens the unit’s closure. The term “therefore,” ‫על־כן‬, indicates causality, and carries authoritative weight. The final phrase, “until this very day,” breaks the time-frame of the story even more conclusively than does the language of the previous coda, ending the scene with a greater dramatic flourish. Both these codas serve to show the relevance of the events to the reader’s own world, if only theoretically. On the level of plot, the ending provides strong closure as well. Events in this last episode fulfill some of the promises earlier in the story. By killing a thousand through military prowess, rather than murdering thirty through sneakiness, Samson has now clearly “begun to deliver Israel from the Philistines,” as promised by the angel in 13:5. Samson, identifying himself as God’s servant, has achieved a “great victory” with God’s help, the word “victory,” ‫תשׁועה‬, formed with the same root as appears in the angel’s prediction, ‫( והוא יחל להושׁיע את־ישׂראל מיד פלשׁתים‬13:5). Thus the climax at Lehi offers cohesion with the prediction raised in unit one in a way that the ‫ מכה גדולה‬of 15:8 did not, creating a stronger sense that the predictionfulfillment schema has come to a conclusion. The victory in 15:8 appears 75

Exum, “Aspects of Symmetry and Balance;” “The Theological Dimension of the Samson Saga.” 76 Elsewhere this verb occurs only at 14:8, in a non-terminal setting.

46

MARIAN BROIDA

now to be mere foreshadowing, this repetition-with-augmentation enhancing closure. All that is left, after unit two concludes, is the capstone verse 15:20: ‫וישׁפט את־ישׂראל בימי פלשׁתים עשׂרים שׁנה‬. The formulaic verse encourages retrospective patterning, for several reasons. First and most importantly, its conventional use to signal the end of an account of a judge leads the reader to expect that the story is over. Second, it provides an apparent end-inclusio to 13:1, the completion of the ring providing another terminal convention. Third, its reference to Samson’s years of service not only constitutes a conventional boundary marker, as noted by Gottlieb, but does so for a reason: it encourages the reader to think back over Samson’s life.77 Finally, as the third in a string of codas, the verse pulls the reader once more out of the story-time and story-world. Assuming that Samson’s story has ended, the reader now mentally reviews both plot events and narratorial comments recollected due to their salient position, content, and form. The reader sees how the spirit of the Lord “began to impel” Samson in 13:25, and finally understands what was meant in 14:4, that Samson’s insistence on a Philistine wife “originated with the Lord, because he sought a pretext against the Philistines.” Retrospective patterning puts Samson’s aberrant behavior into a larger context. Without the marriage and the Philistines’ bad faith, Samson would not have been led to begin the cycles of revenge culminating in the victory at Lehi. Moreover, the alert reader notes the similarity of the phrase ‫ ותשב רוחו‬in 15:19 to the triply-repeated phrase, ‫ ותצלח עליו רוח יהוה‬in 14:6, 14:19, and 15:14. Thinking back, the reader sees how each time God’s spirit gripped Samson, another event leading to Samson’s great victory occurred. The unfair riddle which prompted the Philistines’ (and Samson’s wife’s) betrayal was inspired by the honey in the lion’s carcass; but the lion’s carcass only existed because of Samson’s feat of prowess when gripped by God (14:6). Samson’s act of revenge in killing the men of Ashkelon in 14:19 (raising the level of violence from the Philistines’ murderous threat to murder itself) was also impelled by God. Finally, the victory at Lehi could take place only because Samson loosed the Judahites’ bonds (15:14)—once again empowered by God. These three events—the original “pretext,” the first escalation to slaughter, and the necessary precursor to victory—all arose from God’s ‫ רוח‬which “began to impel” this hero in the previous unit (13:25). Moreover, the key word ‫רוח‬ unites all three events to God’s revivification of Samson in 15:19. The Lord seems to have acted consistently in both giving Samson life, and keeping him alive, in order to kill Philistines. The reader now understands fully that 77

Gottlieb, Sof Davar.

CLOSURE IN SAMSON

47

Samson’s bad behavior, superficially contrary to God’s laws, was intended by God all along. With this re-reading of the story, previously incomprehensible points are explained and the predictions are recognized as fulfilled. The reader may wonder that consorting with a foreign woman led to success in battle and intimacy with God, but knows other biblical narratives left open at the level of question. The very unexpectedness of Samson’s means of fulfilling God’s will enhances the plot’s closure by providing substantial peripeteia, yielding strong discordant concordance. The reader takes some time to appreciate the thematic and structural correspondences between the various units (e.g., the various key words, and the balancing of structure in unit two’s first and second halves). Thinking back over the whole, the reader savors the familiar and utterly-consoling theme: that God operates behind the scenes, in mysterious ways, for the good of his people Israel. UNIT THREE: JUDG 16:1–3 The third main unit, 16:1–3, has Samson visiting a prostitute and carrying off Gaza’s gates in a single episode. After the culminating coda at the end of chapter 15, the reader has difficulty placing Samson’s visit to the Gaza prostitute in context. Based on the convention of tallying years at the end of lives as well as of narratives, the reader had assumed both that Samson’s narrative was over and that he was dead. Yet, here Samson is, not only alive but visiting a prostitute. The reader wonders if Samson was already a judge during this episode, or if the events transpired before his years of office or perhaps even afterward. Adding to the reader’s confusion is unit three’s lack of any introductory temporal marker relating it to the events in unit two. Only the briefest of expositions (‫)…וילך שׁמשׁון עזתה וירא־שׁם אשׁה זונה‬, in obvious parallel to 14:1 (‫)…וירד שׁמשׁון תמנתה וירא אשׁה בתמנתה‬, places Samson in Gaza, a locale not previously mentioned. The reader alone must decide how Samson got there, and why the Gazaites have it in for him. The reader is not content. Unit three manifests a high degree of internal cohesion due to its many repetitions and its unusually descriptive style. Several repeated phrases occur in this brief unit: “all night long” occurs twice in 16:2; “midnight” (‫ )חצי הלילה‬occurs twice in 16:3; and “the city gates” occurs twice as well, once in v 2 and once in v 3. Although each repeated phrase gives closural weight to its respective clause, only the last gives specific closure to the unit as a whole. The others serve different rhetorical functions. The Gazaites wait ‫ כל־הלילה בשׁער העיר‬according to 16:2. The length of the phrase acts as an iconic representation of the length of their wait, which is further underscored by the intensifying word ‫כל‬. Verse 16:3 contains a long

48

MARIAN BROIDA

description of the parts of the gate Samson grasps, emphasizing their immensity and the miraculous nature of his act. The reader will remember that Samson was strong enough to support a physical structure as heavy as a city gate when he later pulls down a temple. The final phrase of 16:3 is long and closural—“to the top of the hill that is by Hebron.” A main character’s departure to another location (often, but not always, home) is itself a closural convention for a narrative or an episode within it.78 Although this unit is the only one so far in which the key word ‫ ידע‬is absent (in all others it occurs twice), the reader notes the Gazaites’ ignorance and Samson’s savvy in escaping their trap. The theme of knowing and not knowing is thus present even if the key word is not. Just as the opening line links this unit to the start of unit two (“Samson went/went down to Gaza/Timnah and saw a woman there…”), the relatively florid descriptions as well as the root ‫( ארב‬in 16:2) will link it to unit four. Thus despite the reader’s sense that this unit is somehow floating, out of context, in terms of its setting, characters, and plot, nonetheless links to the larger narrative exist in the form of coherent themes and cohesive language. UNIT FOUR: JUDG 16:4–31A This final unit falls into two episodes: 16:4–22, the story of Samson and Delilah, and 16:23–31a, the events at the Dagon temple and Samson’s dramatic death. The unit’s opening transition marker (“afterwards”) indicates at least a loose temporal connection between the previous unit and the episode that follows. A new character appears, from another new setting: Delilah from Nahal Sorek, whom Samson loves (16:4). The appearance of affection in the hero, heretofore focused on lust, honor, and revenge, strikes the reader as a noteworthy change of pattern.79 In the world that produced the book of Judges, however, love between Israelite and Philistine does not bode well.80 Thus the reader predicts once again that complications will arise, and sure enough the Philistine lords approach Samson’s beloved with an offer of silver if she can entice (‫ )פתי‬from Samson the secret of his strength. The reader notes the familiar word from unit two (14:15) and begins to look for other similarities between the current episode and the story of Samson and his wife. The reader will discover multiple parallels, including plot complications, structures, and vocabulary, but will note distinctions as well. 78

Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art, 131. One clue that such affection is not wholly out of Samson’s character is his behavior in sharing honey with his parents in 14:9. 80 It is true that the Bible does not explicitly claim Delilah is Philistine. Nonetheless she acts as their agent. 79

CLOSURE IN SAMSON

49

One similarity is the use of stair-step parallelism to characterize the first episodes of unit two and unit four. In unit two, stair-steps based on the single repeated element of “going down” characterize the first episode from its inception through the riddle-challenge and its consequences. In the first episode of unit four, the technique is better-developed, serving to unify the episode so strongly as to set it somewhat apart from earlier parts of the narrative. Each of the four scenes in 16:4–22 contains Samson’s description of what ties might effectively bind him, Delilah’s use of these bonds, and (in the first three cases) Samson’s success in freeing himself. His escape is marked by extended descriptive language, including similes in 16:9 and 12. The repetition of vivid words and phrases in a stereotyped pattern links the four scenes together in very obvious fashion. Examples include the rhyming clause ‫( וחליתי והייתי כאחד האדם‬16:7, 11, with similar language in 16:17) and Delilah’s gleeful cry, “The Philistines are upon you, Samson!” (16:9, 12, 14, 20). The fourth scene in the sequence, preceded and marked by additional action-slowing devices, forms the turning point, altering the pattern of repetition without ending it. The reader, well-accustomed to the pattern by the time the third scene ends, pays close attention to the new elements in the dialogue between Samson and Delilah in 16:15–17. Delilah’s accusation in 16:15, “How can you love me when your heart is not with me?” brings back recollections of the tearful cry of Samson’s wife in 14:16 (“You only hate me, you don’t love me!”). In the former case, such a plea led to Samson’s divulging the answer to the riddle. The reader pauses to wonder if here, too, Samson will give in. The story continues to parallel the previous account. In both cases, the women needle Samson (‫הציקתהו‬, in 14:17; ‫ הציקה לו‬in 16:16) over a span of time—here rendered as ‫כל הימים‬. But in the current episode, the narrator adds a striking phrase to the verse, namely ‫ותקצר נפשׁו למות‬, literally “shortening his life until his death.” Read as a hyperbolic description of Samson’s feelings, it nonetheless contains a message the reader notes as potentially foreshadowing, resembling unit two’s last episode rather than the conflict over Samson’s secret in the first. As if doomed to repeat the past, Samson now tells Delilah “all his mind” (16:17), once again with the intensifying word ‫כל‬, and using the same theme-word as the story in the first episode of unit two, ‫נגד‬. He tells her “No razor shall go over my head, for I am a Nazirite to God from my mother’s womb” (16:17a), repeating memorable words and phrases from chapter 13. The contrast between “death,” ending the previous clause, and “womb,” ending this clause, highlights the life-and-death situation toward which the reader now fears Samson is heading.

50

MARIAN BROIDA

Samson’s next words provide the reader with new, somewhat puzzling information. “If I am shaved, my strength will leave me and I will become like any other man” (16:17b). Since the phrase ‫ וחליתי והייתי ככל האדם‬closely resembles the playful phrasing of 16:7, 11, the reader wonders if Samson is once again tricking Delilah with false information. But no, he has just confessed to her his Nazirite status, and the ‫ כל‬of this version of the refrain recalls the narrator’s comment, earlier in this verse, that Samson told Delilah “all his mind.” Therefore the reader guesses that his admission is true, even though nothing in the prior units linked Samson’s hair with his strength. Delilah now recognizes (using the root ‫ראה‬, once again recalling unit one) that Samson has told her (‫הגיד לה‬, from unit two) all his mind and sends for the Philistine lords (16:18). An end-inclusio follows, as the clause used when they came to make their offer—“the Philistine lords came up to her” (16:5) recurs with the addition, “the silver in their hand.” As they did in the case of Samson’s wife, the Philistines fulfill what they promise or threaten—another example of the prediction-fulfillment schema. Now there is nothing left but for Delilah to carry out the method of bondage Samson has described, producing the final stair-step. Putting him to sleep on her lap, she shaves off his seven locks and “began to subdue him, and his strength left him” (16:19b). The initial clause ‫ ותחל לענותו‬is rendered more memorable by a repetition of the root ‫ חלל‬in 16:22, ‫ויחל שער ראשו‬ ‫לצמח כאשר גלח‬. The alert reader might recall the double use of this root early in the narrative, in 13:5 (“he will begin to save Israel”) and 13:25 (“the Lord’s spirit began to impel him”). In v 20, the familiar elements in the stair-step pattern briefly resume, as Delilah once again calls, “The Philistines are upon you, Samson!” Oblivious to his changed circumstances, Samson awakes. The narrator creates irony by noting Samson’s assumption that he will be able to break free as before. The drama heightens considerably when the narrator informs the reader that not only has Samson’s strength departed, but the Lord has departed from him as well. The reader rethinks the previous units, puzzled over the connection between hair, strength, and the favor of the Lord. “Knowing” and “not knowing” are key motifs in this episode, as they were earlier in the narrative, occurring in 16:9—“[the source] of his strength was not known—and 16:20—“he did not know that the Lord had left him.” Both narratorial comments use non-mainline verbal forms, nip'al and qatal respectively, once again enhancing the theme words’ salience and making the reader more likely to connect the various “knowing” and “not knowing” comments and theme throughout the story. The isolated qatal form in 16:20 indicates the end of a scene, as the reader confronts the bleak

CLOSURE IN SAMSON

51

significance for Samson of a life without God’s protection and power. Immediately the reader sees the impact of this loss, as in a series of rapidfire wayyiqtol forms, the Philistines capture Samson, gouge out his eyes, bring him down (using the hip'il of the familiar root ‫ירד‬, here suggesting a descent in status as well as location), to Gaza (scene of unit three), and binding him in chains (one more repetition of binding, succeeding where all prior attempts have failed). The multiple connections to previous units as well as the unit’s own coherence gives these events a sense of rightness, even as the narrative tension stays high. Samson, the hero, now becomes a captive grinder of grain. The following verse (16:22), however, ends the episode with the hopeful thought that the hair on his head has begun to grow back. The final episode (16:23–31a) begins in a noteworthy fashion, with the SVO order and a nip'al verb drawing attention to the behavior of the characters known from the previous episode: the lords of the Philistines, those who bribed Delilah to deliver Samson, now gathering to thank their god Dagon for their own deliverance. Prayers of thanksgiving by the lords and the people suspend the action. The repeated triumphal clause “Our God gave [Samson] our enemy into our hand” in 16:23–24 recalls Samson’s fear in 15:19 that, weakened with thirst, he would indeed fall into the hands of the uncircumcised, thereby heightening the reader’s concern that Samson’s worst fear may come to pass. The language also raises the narrative tension by its inversion of the angel’s prediction in 13:5. The reader wonders how Samson will fulfill his mission to save Israel from the hands of the Philistines, as 13:5 promises, if the tables are turned and he is in Philistine hands. In the next scene, the Philistines call for Samson to entertain them. From this point forward, descriptive phrases portraying the temple’s structure and the position of the Philistines and Samson dot nearly every verse. The reader notes that Samson is literally in the hand of a Philistine when, in v 26, Samson asks to be guided between the pillars on which the temple stands. For the first time in the narrative, an entire verse (16:27) is given over to description, with intensifying terms stressing the packed temple, the presence of all the Philistine lords, and the three thousand men and women gathered on the roof to feast their eyes on the humiliated hero. Another prayer follows in 16:28, this time Samson’s, asking to be strengthened one more time so that he can avenge himself for one of his two eyes. In 16:29, the terminal phrase is uncharacteristically graphic in depicting Samson’s stance, poised with a hand on each pillar, and ending with the evocative phrase, ‫( אחד בימינו ואחד בשׂמאלו‬in so doing, incidentally continuing to emphasize the motif of hands). Syntax with similar terminal

52

MARIAN BROIDA

repetition will appear in the final clause of the episode and the story, 16:31a, ‫בין צרעה ובין אשׁתאל‬. Before the final verse, however, comes one more, 16:30, itself laden with closural strategies. In the first clause of 16:30, Samson cries out, “Let me die with the Philistines!” (‫)תמות נפשׁי עם־פלשׁתים‬, closely mimicking 16:16 in its lexemes (‫)ותקצר נפשׁו למות‬, thus confirming the reader’s premonition that Samson’s confession to Delilah would indeed lead to his death. The second clause tells us Samson’s action (‫)ויט בכח‬, while the third draws out the description of its effects in the verbal equivalent of slow motion: “the temple fell upon the lords and upon all the people in it” with the intensifier ‫ כל‬and two parallel participial phrases. The final clause bears the brunt of the closural force. It consists of a narratorial comment intertwining Samson’s death with his life’s purpose: “The number he killed at his death was greater than those he killed in his life.” Unlike most death reports, this clause never says bluntly that Samson dies. The ellipsis of the actual deathnotice is unexpected and itself closural, even as the fact of Samson’s death is hammered home with the verse’s four repetitions of the root ‫מות‬. This verse encourages retrospection over Samson’s life, both structurally (four repetitions of the root for death, then a final change to the root for “life”) and by invoking a comparison of his death tallies, prompting the attentive reader to go back over previous episodes and count the number he killed. The reader recalls that Samson’s victims were actually tallied only twice before: midway through unit two (the thirty dead Ashkelonites) and at its end (the thousand slain); but in order to come to this realization, the reader must think through the other episodes as well. During this retrospection, the reader focuses attention on the scene in 15:18–19, where the key-word antonyms life and death also appeared on the heels of Samson’s mighty victory. As the reader ponders the numerical comparison—one thousand vs. three thousand slain, Samson’s life and death in the balance each time— the realization strikes that in 15:18 Samson prayed for life, whereas in 16:30 he prayed for death—and in both cases, the Lord answered his prayer. The symmetry and contrast between the two scenes strike the reader with strong closural force. Having reached this epiphany, the reader appreciates the skill with which the narrative was constructed, and begins searching for other patterns that might evoke such a satisfying sense of unity. Perplexed by Samson’s prayer for vengeance for just one of his two eyes (16:28), the reader looks back for prior references to the root ‫עין‬. In the final unit, the root occurs twice—once when Samson’s eyes are gouged out, and once when he prays for vengeance. The reader notes that ‫ עין‬occurs twice early in the narrative as well, with the double reference to the Timnah girl as

CLOSURE IN SAMSON

53

“pleasing in Samson’s eyes” (14:3, 7). The symmetry suggests a ring composition. Continuing to ponder, the reader spots the root once more, with a different meaning, at the text’s midpoint: the etiology of the name ‫עין‬ ‫הקורא‬, the “Spring of the Caller” in 15:19. Appreciatively, the reader recognizes that the word “caller” (‫ )קורא‬applies to Samson both at 15:18 and at 16:28. Perhaps, wonders the reader, Ein Haqqoreh is Samson’s other ‫עין‬.81 Other links now appear to the reader which connect unit one and the final episode of unit four. The final episode’s double repetition of ‫חלל‬, as noted earlier, reflects the earlier double repetition in unit one. Both units feature sacrifices. In both, male and female spectators watch (in each case, with ‫ )ראים‬the individuals whose presence prompted the sacrifice (angel, Samson) just before the angel or hero prepares to depart the human world (13:19, 20; 16:27). The twofold repetition of “watching” with similar syntax in chapter 13 aids recall now. The reader experiences a feeling of rightness as these coherent elements hit home—a sense that all has been planned from the beginning. The sense of planfulness and coherence only increases as the reader notices additional cohesive motifs. One is fire, present in multiple verses.82 Another is the root ‫פעם‬, uniting the beginning of Samson’s exploits (13:25), his plans of fiery vengeance (15:3), the turning point of his affair with Delilah (16:15, 18, 20) and his prayer for a final burst of strength (16:28).83 In the midst of the reader’s retrospective patterning, the final verses of the narrative are not neglected. The reader notes that 16:31b ends the inclusio spanning from 13:2 as well as the more developed initial frame in 13:25, providing a conventional circle around the story. By having Samson’s kinfolk bring his body back, the final verse incorporates two common topical boundary markers for the end of a narrative: the principal character’s death as well as his homecoming.84 The contrast between Samson’s “going down” in 14:1, immediately after 13:25, and “being brought up” at the end of the narrative, adds to the strength of the inclusio by incorporating a pair of key antonyms. In addition, the reader realizes, Samson has been brought up from Gaza, the point where the Philistines brought him low in 16:21. The raising of Samson after his death suggests that Samson’s paradoxical mission—to fulfill God’s will by sinning against God—has been resolved to the good. Simultaneously, the moral dilemma posed by the first half of the narrative has been resolved as well. Samson 81

Crenshaw makes a similar point in “The Samson Saga,” 479–80. R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 94–95. 83 Alter, “Samson Without Folklore.” 84 Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art, 132–134. 82

54

MARIAN BROIDA

did indeed win through sin, but did not ultimately receive the unambiguous success signaled by God’s accession to his prayer for restoration in 15:19. To the degree that the reader had been concerned about Samson’s inappropriate alliances, the reader finds consolation that Samson’s greatest victory required his death. When the final end-inclusio occurs in 16:31b, the reader is firmly convinced that the narrative is over, not only because the conventional Judges boundary marker is in place, but because this time Samson is clearly both dead and buried. Another round of retrospective patterning follows, focused on contemplation of incongruities. Once again, the connection between hair, strength, and relationship to God arises as a dilemma. As Alter notes, the way Samson’s mother alters the angel’s prediction in her report to her husband (adding the phrase “until the day of his death” in 13:7) has ominous overtones,85 but in fact, she was wrong: Samson lost his Nazirite status when his head was shaved, and only regained it—if indeed he did—when he prayed for death. Nonetheless, the mother’s reference to death in relation to his status vis-à-vis God was prescient, since it was God who impelled Samson toward Philistine women, and God who answered his prayer for death. Discrepancies continue to niggle at the reader, but with less force. Perhaps, the reader thinks, the Philistine lords bribed Delilah because they were angry that Samson carried off Gaza’s gates—which could explain Samson’s imprisonment in Gaza. The reader finds it odd that Manoah’s death is not mentioned, but considers that it might have occurred during Samson’s judgeship. The reader finds it odd, as well, that a narrative so artfully constructed would have failed to mention Samson’s hair through much of its course, or to connect his hair with his strength; and strange, too, that Samson’s parents change behavior then disappear. But the main message is clear, present in units one, two, and three: that God uses Samson’s aberrant behavior—even his outright sin—to further God’s aims for his people.

CONCLUSION: A UNIFIED NARRATIVE OR NOT? As my depiction of an imaginary reader’s journey shows, the units in Judges 13–16, taken individually, show both internal cohesion and coherence of plot, structure and theme. As an example, Samson, having lost his eyes in 16:21 as a result of Delilah’s perfidy, stays blind to the end. To a modern reader, however, certain forces interfere with perception of the entire work as a unified narrative. The biggest obstacle to a sense of unity is 15:20, 85

Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, 101.

CLOSURE IN SAMSON

55

whose closural force disrupts the reader’s sense of continuity to such a degree that the following episodes seem to be almost an ad hoc collection, despite their many apparent thematic and structural parallels. The effect is heightened by the two preceding codas in 15:17–19 and the absence of boundary markers affirming the story’s continuity at the end of chapter 15 and the beginning of 16. Another obstacle to a modern reader’s sense of unity is the inconsistency of the supporting characters over the narrative as a whole—a problem that looms relatively large, given the current predilection for growth even among minor characters. Among the various supporting characters (Samson’s parents, Delilah, various named and unnamed Philistines, and the men of Judah), only Samson’s parents appear explicitly in more than one unit. Yet little connects the parents in unit two to those in unit one, not even a name. All that they share is their designation as Samson’s parents. Not until unit four does the reader encounter the parents of unit one again, reflected in Samson’s reference to his mother’s womb in 16:17 and the narrator’s mention of Manoah in 16:31. The absence elsewhere of supporting characters appearing in more than one unit, whether as actors or within analepses or prolepses, adds to the burden on other narrative aspects to carry the weight of coherence. As for Samson, the only character to appear in every unit, the very consistency of his behavior hinders coherence in another way. Even after the disastrous consequences of the wedding, he retains his draw toward inappropriate women and his readiness to divulge personally-important secrets.86 Readers expect characters’ behavior to alter based on key events in the plot, and wonder about Samson’s apparent failure to learn from his mistakes. Some may consider the possibility that the Samson who falls for Delilah never fell for the woman in Timnah—that the two accounts have no relationship whatsoever. Mitigating against this conclusion is Samson’s seeming inability to learn from Delilah’s perfidy within unit four itself. Related to the issue of Samson’s character is the general paucity of explicit analepses or prolepses connecting setting or plot points from unit to unit. This absence is most disconcerting with regard to Samson’s hair. The connection between Samson’s hair and his Nazirite status is made clear in unit one and explicitly recalled in unit four, aiding the coherence of the annunciation scene with the narrative’s conclusion. Yet the link between Samson’s strength and the length of his hair, first mentioned in unit four, conflicts with this account and raises an obstacle for the reader, who would have expected a helpful anticipatory explanation. Finally, the strong internal Alter refers to Samson’s proclivity to dangerous women as a “repetition compulsion” in Samson Without Folklore. 86

56

MARIAN BROIDA

cohesion of unit four’s first episode (Samson and Delilah) produced by its pronounced stair-step patterning poses a stylistic contrast with other episodes and units. If the redactors were so inclined, they could have attended to most of these issues with very little work. Omitting 15:20 and the other codas in unit two, and substituting a transitional discourse marker—like the one in 16:4—would increase the ease with which Judges 13–16 could be read as a continuous story, with earlier events now seen as foreshadowing later ones. A line or two explaining the links between Samson’s strength and his hair, dropped into units one, two or three; a reference to planned vengeance spoken by the Philistines lurking at Gaza’s gate; or the use of Manoah’s name in chapter 14 would have gone far to alleviate the modern reader’s sense of disjuncture. To modern eyes these are easy fixes, so why did the redactors let such obstacles to plot closure remain? Certainly errors in transmission may account for some missing features. So, too, may redactors’ reluctance to alter details considered sacred or otherwise significant. Yet the presence of so many structural and thematic parallels suggests the redactors’ willingness to make comprehensive changes, while the multiplicity of thematic and structural correspondences suggests as well that much of this editing has been transmitted beautifully. The parallels of structure and plot connecting chapter 13 with 16, chapter 14 with 15, and chapters 14–15 with 16; the coherent narratorial comments about the Lord’s dealings with Samson in units one, two, and four; and the patterned use of key words ‫ידע‬, ‫נגד‬, ‫ירד‬, ‫ראה‬, ‫יד‬, and ‫ פעם‬all argue for exacting attention toward coherence and cohesion in arenas unrelated to the reader’s perception of a causally-linked unifying plot.87 Clearly the redactors were capable of recognizing cogent and coherent plots, as the tightly-knit unit four indicates, as well as its links to unit one. The redactors were doubtless capable as well of making the minor adjustments that would add to perceptions of a causally-linked beginning, middle, and end. The lack of such coherence implies redactional choice. Instead of repairing the breaches in causality and cohesion, the redactors 87

Exum has noted an almost uncanny number of correspondences in chapters 14, 15, and 16 in “Aspects of Symmetry and Balance.” For example, both 14:1–4 and 15:1–3 contain a conversation between Samson and a parent or parents; an objection by the parent to his marriage; and “a question…about the possibility of another woman, which Samson rejects.” Further parallels occur between 14:5–6 and 15:4–6a; 14:7–9 and 15:6b–8 (although less obviously); and 14:10–20 and 15:9– 19. Additional correspondences in structure and plot events are described in Exum’s and others’ works. See, for example, Amit’s depiction of the relations between 14 and 15 in The Book of Judges, 270.

CLOSURE IN SAMSON

57

built an extraordinary degree of thematic and structural unity into the whole. They appear to have put greater weight on connections made through key words and motifs, parallel structures, and symmetrical plot events than on those created by a continuous plot and coherent portrayal of the story-world. This choice seems alien to the modern reader, even one somewhat attuned to biblical conventions. Why might the redactors have made it? Two thoughts come to mind, both of which address the issue Kermode raises: the function of narrative closure as consolation. First, in emphasizing structural over plot coherence, the redactors were likely responding to a somewhat different set of generic expectations than our own. In fact, the redactors plausibly had another model of coherence in mind than Aristotle’s, one equally attentive to correspondences between beginning, middle, and end: the ring composition. The overall arrangement of the Samson narrative corresponds most closely with Douglas’s description of a full-blown ring, albeit with a significant variation. To repeat her description, such a ring includes “an exposition, a split into two halves, a central place or mid-turn matched to the exposition, identifiable parallel series, and an ending.”88 The Samson narrative contains a clear exposition (unit one) strongly linked to the ending in Gaza (end of unit four); a turning point at Lehi (end of unit two) also strongly linked to the end of unit four; and strong parallels in plot, language, and theme between the two halves (unit two on one side, and unit three and four on the other) although involving different characters, places, and events. In addition, smaller-scale rings and parallels abound, including multiple correspondences (such as the word ‫ )פעם‬structured on different bases. Both smaller rings and a multiplicity of overlapping structures are not inconsistent with an overarching ring composition, as Exum and Douglas note.89 The primary difference between the Samson narrative and Douglas’s depiction of a ring composition is that the parallel events in the two halves (unit two on one side, vs. units three and four on the other) are arranged sequentially (ABA’B’), not chiastically (ABB’A’). To illustrate with just one example, in both unit two and unit four the woman in Samson’s life needles him until he divulges his secret (A), after which Samson is delivered, bound, to the Philistines (B). A true chiasm would require that in one case the binding (B) precede the woman’s efforts to obtain the secret from Samson (A) to create the pattern ABB’A. Yet in both unit two and four, Samson gives up his secret before being bound (in unit two, by the Judahites; in unit four, chained by the Philistine lords). This lack of chiastic or concentric 88 89

Douglas, Thinking in Circles, 43. Exum, Aspects of Symmetry, especially p. 28 n. 16. Douglas, Thinking in Circles.

58

MARIAN BROIDA

structure in the narrative’s details does not necessarily obviate the narrative’s comprehensive structure as a large-scale ring, so long as beginning, middle, and end clearly correspond. As noted above, deviations from strict chiastic structure are common, and the Samson narrative appears to be a variation on the structure. The lack of a comprehensive narrative with a clear-cut beginning, middle and end to its plot seems to run counter to the purpose of fiction as put forward by Kermode, who situates much of the consoling function of fiction in the plot events, the peripeteia, drawing the protagonist away from the predicted conclusion before arriving at it. Yet those attuned to ring compositions are likely to see the text as unified, even replete, despite an absence of an overarching causal chain. In fact, the early appearance of the end-frame in Judg 15:20 underscores the parallelism between the two halves, marking the beginning, middle, and end all the more clearly.90 In other words, the very verse that most impedes the sense of a coherent plot emphasizes the coherent structure. Moreover, the repetition of the message of Samson’s life—that God, who answers prayer, controls history—may have proved even more consoling than modern coherent fiction. The doubling of events, the recurrent key words, the other structural and thematic correspondences indicate a strong authorial hand just as readily as does a coherent plot, and just as easily lead to the analogy that such a creator gives meaning behind the scenes to the obstacles and confusions of ordinary life. Second, the absence of consistent supporting characters from unit to unit impels the reader to look for coherence wherever he or she can find it. One effect is to focus attention on coherence in the characters who do recur. Samson’s consistent portrayal has been described above. The other “character” appearing or mentioned in three of the four units is the Lord. Kermode sees narrative as providing its consolatory function in a world apparently without inherent meaning or direction. But the worldview of Samson’s redactors, at least as indicated by the narrative itself, betrays no such angst. In this world, the Lord rules both directly and from behind the scenes.91 In such a world, story closure reflects the world’s meaningfulness 90

Exum describes the issue thus: “It bears asking whether the appearance of this formula at the end of each cycle is an indication that the Deuteronomistic historian [who added the Judges frame] was aware of the parallelism of the accounts and accordingly provided symmetrical notices about Samson’s term of office as judge.” (Symmetry and Balance, 9). Perhaps it was a Deuteronomistic redactor who put the Samson narrative into its current form. 91 Exum, “Theological Dimension.” Exum notes that the Lord consistently responds positively and immediately to Israelite prayer. In unit one, Manoah

CLOSURE IN SAMSON

59

without needing to prove it. Large-scale coherent plots with exquisite closure become less vital. Given that the narrative highlights divine intentionality of which Samson and family are ignorant, that specific theme resonates at least as clearly here as in the contemporary fiction Kermode champions. Finally, the Samson narrative does demonstrate discordant concordance of the type Ricoeur describes. The main units in the Samson narrative, two and four, show clear peripeteia, in which God drives the unlikely hero Samson to win through sin. Unit two shows this pattern as positive for Samson, while unit four shows it as negative, with both outlooks, interestingly, foreshadowed by unit one; but in either case, the sense that God works behind the scenes, using humans to fulfill his goals without their perception, is consistently portrayed. It is for this sense of purpose lurking behind the world’s seeming “mere successivity” that Kermode claims modern people read fiction. Perhaps, in the world that produced the Bible, coherence of a different fashion fulfilled the same need. Retrospective patterning among Israelite audiences would have shown that Samson died as he lived, beneficiary and victim of God’s hidden plans. The gaps and discrepancies that plague modern readers may have added verisimilitude to the mix, in the same way Kermode claims peripeteia do: by reminding readers that no story can be completely closed, no questions completely answered, in the human task of discerning God’s mysterious work in the world.

successfully prays for the messenger’s return (13:8). In unit two, Samson successfully pleads for life-giving water (15:18). In unit four, Samson successfully prays for one more burst of strength, in order to die with the Philistines (16:28, 30). Exum notes the deity’s consistent portrayal in other regards as well. She also surmises that the redactor used, but intentionally did not develop, older traditions connecting Samson’s hair with his strength, in order to focus the reader’s attention on God’s control of Samson’s fate (44–45).

TO CREATE, TO SEPARATE OR TO CONSTRUCT: AN ALTERNATIVE FOR A RECENT PROPOSAL AS TO THE INTERPRETATION OF ‫ ברא‬IN GEN 1:1– 2:4A BOB BECKING & MARJO C. A. KORPEL

FACULTY OF HUMANITIES, UTRECHT UNIVERSITY* 1. INTRODUCTION “Where does it all come from?” The quest for the origin of cosmos, earth, and life belongs to the perennial exercises of homo sapiens. In the beginning of the Book of Genesis, the Israelite concept on the origin of “all things created” is displayed. In this hymnic text, the Hebrew verb ‫ ברא‬plays a pivotal role in describing the acts of God. The Greek rendition ἐποίησεν, “he created,” as well as the Vulgate “in principio creavit Deus” have given rise to the misconception that in Genesis the idea of a creatio ex nihilo is spelled out.1 Removing this common misconception, however, does not solve the main question: what concept of the origin of the world is portrayed in Gen 1:1–2:4a; hereafter, for the sake of simplicity, “Genesis 1”? Recently, Ellen van Wolde has proposed that in Genesis 1 the verb ‫ ברא‬has to be translated “to spatially separate” instead of “to create.”2 She * We would like to thank our colleagues Mariska Verbeek-Keizer, Corné Hanssen (both specialists in Arabic), Norbert Corver (Linguistics), Henry Stadhouders (Assyriology), and Johannes de Moor (Semitic languages) for their critical and stimulating remarks. 1 See, e.g., G. May, Schoepfung aus dem Nichts: Die Entstehung der Lehre von der Creatio Ex Nihilo (Arbeiten Zur Kirchengeschichte, 48; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1978), and the interesting essays in M. Treschow, W. Otten, W. Hannam (eds), Divine Creation in Ancient, Medieval, and Early Modern Thought: Essays Presented to the Rev’d Dr Robert D. Crouse (Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History, 151; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2007). 2 E. J. van Wolde, “Why the verb ‫ ברא‬does not mean ‘to create’ in Genesis 1,” JSOT 34 (2009), 3–23; E. J. van Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies: When Language and Text Meet Culture, Cognition, and Context (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2009),

61

62

BOB BECKING & MARJO C. A. KORPEL

arrived at this conclusion by applying linguistic, exegetical, and comparative methods. For instance, she compares the concept of origin in Genesis 1 with seven other creation stories from the ancient Near East that describe the first step of the construction of the cosmos as the separation of heaven and earth by a deity. She presents her proposal to translate ‫ ברא‬with “to separate,” as a new discovery which will revolutionize HB (or Old Testament) scholarship. If she is correct, translations, dictionaries, commentaries, biblical theologies would all be in need of revision. In this article we would like to test her proposal. We would like to question her claims in regards on the newness of her proposal, its linguistic and philological presuppositions, its exegetical adequacy, and the strength of her religio-historical comparison.

2. HISTORY OF RESEARCH ON ‫ ברא‬MEANING “SEPARATE” Van Wolde is not the first modern scholar to propose the meaning “to separate” for the Hebrew verb ‫ברא‬.3 The famous Hebräisches Handwörterbuch of 1810 by Wilhelm Gesenius offers the following: “der erste Begriff scheint: hauen, aushauen [zu bedeuten],” and Gesenius refers to the Arabic verb bry “to cut off.” After that, he goes on to attribute the meanings “bilden, schaffen, hervorbringen” to the Qal of the verb in Classical Hebrew. Only in the Piel the original meaning of “to cut off, chisel, shape” would have been preserved (Isa 17:15, 18; Ezek 21; 19; 23:47). For the Niphal he assumes the meaning “to be born” in Ezek 21:30 and Ps 102:19.4 In the first edition of his grammar Gesenius elucidates his point of view. In the Piel the “sinnliche Bedeutung” (literal meaning) has been preserved and in Qal the “tropische” (metaphorical). As an example he refers to ‫ברא‬, with the meaning of “schaffen” for Qal, and “hauen, aushauen” for Piel. He still relates the root to Arabic bry “to cut off.”5 In his monumental Thesaurus, Gesenius maintains and elaborates this view, but he criticises those who think that (on the basis of the supposed original meaning of “to cut off”) the concept of creatio ex nihilo would be absent in Genesis 1. The use of the verb ‫ ברא‬in many other texts in the HB proves―in his view―that it always 184-200. 3 Ibn Ezra, for instance, suggested that the verb has to do with cutting or setting a boundary. 4 W. Gesenius, Hebräisch-Deutsches Handwörterbuch über die Schriften des Alten Testaments mit einschluss der geographischen Namen und chaldäischen Wörter beym Esra und Daniel, Theil 1 (Leipzig: Vogel, 1810), 120. 5 W. Gesenius, Ausführliches grammatisch-kritisches Lehrgebäude der hebräischen Sprache, (Leipzig: Vogel, 1817), 242.

THE INTERPRETATION OF ‫ ברא‬IN GEN 1:1-2:4A

63

designates the production of something new. For the idea of the creatio ex nihilo he refers to 2 Macc 7:28; Heb 11:3; Rom 4:17; Ibn Ezra and Maimonides.6 On the well-deserved authority of Gesenius many authors repeated that the basic meaning of ‫ ברא‬would have been “to cut” or “to separate.”7 Like Brongers and Dantinne,8 Raymond Van Leeuwen and Nick Wyatt compare Gen 1:1 to the Babylonian Enuma Elish epic and arrive at the same conclusion.9 The latest edition of Gesenius’ dictionary cautiously mentions 6 G. (=W.) Gesenius, Thesaurus philologicus criticus lingvae hebraeae et chaldaeae Veteris Testamenti (Lipsiae: Vogel, 1829), 236. 7 S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis: With Introduction and Notes (4th ed., London: Methuen, 1905), 3, without any reference to dictionaries or other Semitic languages: “The root signifies to cut … so probably the proper meaning of ‫ ברא‬is to fashion by cutting, to shape.” Samuel Driver was one of the editors of A Hebrew and English Lexicon that was based on Gesenius’ lexicon; E. König, Hebräisches und aramäisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament, (2nd – 3rd ed., Leipzig: Dieterich, 1922), 47: “heraushauen, schaffen,” with explicit reference to Gen 1:1; although not specifically referring to ‫ברא‬, the Dutch theologian Noordmans stated confidently “to create is to separate, not to form,” O. Noordmans, Herschepping: Beknopte dogmatische handleiding voor godsdienstige toespraken en besprekingen, (Zeist: Nederlandsche Christen Studenten Vereeniging, 1934), 70; H. A. Brongers, De Scheppingstradities bij de profete (Amsterdam: H.J. Paris, 1945), 17: “These data only leave one conclusion: ‘to create’ here [i.e. Gen 1] has the meaning of to split, making separation. The work is done with existing material: in the beginning there was chaos.” (our ET); J. P. M. van der Ploeg, “Le sens du verbe Hébreu ‫ברא‬: Étude sémasiologique,” le Muséon 59 (1946), 143–157; Dantinne also refers to the similarities with ancient Near Eastern creation stories and bases his theory for ‫“ ברא‬to cut” merely on the occurrences of the verb where it might be from the verb ‫ ברא‬III, namely Josh 17:15, 18; 1 Sam 2:23; Ezek 21:24; 23:47, see E. Dantinne, “Création et separation,” le Muséon 74 (1961), 441–451, esp. 446: “BâRâ is ‘to separate, to cut, to carve, to make by carving like a sculptor’, and finally ‘to create’,” and for this he explicitly refers to Gesenius’ Thesaurus and the 1883 edition of his Handwörterbuch and to Driver; P. Beauchamp,Création et séparation: Étude exégetique du chapitre premier de la Genèse (Paris: Éditions Cerf, 1969), who mentions Dantinne on p. 234, where he admits that there might be an original meaning “separate” but that research into etymology is not always fitting on the level of words in their particular context. In his opinion it certainly does not fit in the context of Genesis 1; D. J. A. Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch (JSOTSup, 10; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1978), 74: “Genesis 1 depicts creation as largely a matter of separation and distinction;” K. H. Bernhardt, “‫ברא‬,” ThWAT, Vol. 2, 773, who refers for this meaning only to Dantinne. 8 See above, footnote 7. 9 R. C. Van Leeuwen, “‫ברא‬,” NIDOTTE, vol. 1 (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1996),

64

BOB BECKING & MARJO C. A. KORPEL

the possibility of translating “to cut” under the lemma ‫ ברא‬I, only referring to Bernhardt in ThWAT, who on his part referred only to Dantinne.10 In other words, Ellen van Wolde has many predecessors. This being so, two two questions arise: (1) What is so specific in her proposal? (2) Why has recent scholarship abandoned the path designed by Gesenius? We will come to both questions after a little detour.

3. AN ETYMOLOGICAL DETOUR AND THE CURRENT CONSENSUS It is worth noting that in the 17th edition of Gesenius’ Handwörterbuch―edited by Franz Buhl―the idea of an original meaning “to cut off” was abandoned on the basis of further research on the matter. Now “schaffen, hervorbringen” is the basic meaning of the Qal of ‫ ברא‬I and “abholzen, zerhauen” (Piel in Josh 17:15, 18; Ezek 23:47 and perhaps Ezek 21:24) is relegated to ‫ ברא‬III, whereas ‫ ברא‬II in the Hiphil in 1 Sam 2:29 is seen as doubtful, but perhaps meaning “fett machen, mästen.”11 It had been recognized meanwhile that the Arabic root br’, “to create” is probably an Aramaic (or Hebrew?) loanword which was confused early on with Arabic brw/bry “to cut off, form by cutting.”12 In Classical Arabic the phonetic difference between various forms of these verbs is slight and in unvocalized texts invisible. Already the early Arabic lexicographers noticed the confusion of the two roots.13 Because the existence of a Hebrew root ‫