Prophecy and Its Cultic Dimensions [1 ed.] 9783666570865, 9783525570869

Citation preview

Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements Edited by Armin Lange, Bernard M. Levinson and Vered Noam Advisory Board Katell Berthelot (University of Aix-Marseille), George Brooke (University of Manchester), Jonathan Ben Dov (University of Haifa), Beate Ego (University of Osnabruck), Ester Eshel (Bar-Ilan University), Heinz-Josef Fabry (University of Bonn), Steven Fraade (Yale University), Maxine L. Grossman (University of Maryland), Christine Hayes (Yale University), Catherine Hezser (University of London), Alex P. Jassen (University of Minnesota), James L. Kugel (Bar-Ilan University), Jodi Magness (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), Carol Meyers, (Duke University), Eric Meyers (Duke University), Hillel Newman (University of Haifa), Christophe Nihan (University of Lausanne), Lawrence H. Schiffman (New York University), Konrad Schmid (University of Zurich), Adiel Schremer (Bar-Ilan University), Michael Segal (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Aharon Shemesh (Bar-Ilan University), Gunter Stemberger (University of Vienna), Kristin De Troyer (University of St. Andrews), Azzan Yadin-Israel (Rutgers University) Volume 31

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer (ed.)

Prophecy and Its Cultic Dimensions

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek: The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.de. © 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Theaterstraße 13, D-37073 Göttingen All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Cover image: “Miriam”. (Sister of Moses and Aaron; singer of the “Song of the Sea”, Exodus 15, 20f.). Etching by Eichens after the painting by Hensel. Berlin, Sammlung Archiv für Kunst und Geschichte @akg-images / Wilhelm Hensel. Typesetting: NEUNPLUS1, Berlin Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISSN 2197-0092 ISBN 978-3-666-57086-5

Contents Foreword������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������7 Abbreviations���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������13 Marian Broida Ritualization in Prophetic Intercession��������������������������������������������������������������������17 Lester L. Grabbe Cultic Prophecy Déjà vu���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������39 John W. Hilber Prophetic Ritual in the Egyptian Royal Cult�����������������������������������������������������������51 Alex P. Jassen Prophecy and Priests in the Second Temple Period�����������������������������������������������63 Anja Klein Poetry, Prophecy and History: Divine Speech in Psalms 81 and 95��������������������89 Martti Nissinen The Ritual Aspect of Prophecy��������������������������������������������������������������������������������101 Jonathan Stökl Ready or Not, Here I Come: Triggering Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible�����������115 Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer The Seer and the Priest: The Case of the So-called Linen Ephod�����������������������135 Bibliography���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������153 Author Index��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������173 Reference Index���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������179 List of Contributors���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������191

Foreword This volume rose out of two consecutive meetings of the Prophetic Texts in their Ancient Contexts section of the Society of Biblical Literature in Atlanta (2015) and San Antonio (2016). Over the course of these two years, this section explored the intersection between the realms of prophecy and cult. All contributors were asked to reflect on whether there is a strict division between these two types of religious expressions and between the various religious specialists involved in them. The eight essays in the present volume constitute the result of this investigation. All the essays have the available textual evidence as their basis and they explore how the interaction between cult and prophecy is described in these texts. In parallel, the essays also carefully seek ways to use these texts with the aim of reconstructing the reality of the societies of the ancient Near East, Egypt, and Greece. The essays deal with a wide range of historical, literary, and methodological issues. First, what were the links between the cultic and the prophetic personnel? Did prophets have ritual / cultic functions in temples? Did prophetic actions and/or utterances play a role in the performance of the cult? What were the ritual aspects of divinations? Second, how do literary texts describe the interaction between prophecy and the cult? Third, how can various theories (e.g. religious theory, performance theory) enable us to reach a better understanding of the interplay between divination and cultic ritual in ancient Israel and the wider ancient Near East? In her article on ritualization of prophetic intercession, Marian Broida explores the ritual elements present in the biblical accounts. She begins her study by defining intercession and outlining its two goals: to solve “real-world problems” like lack of potable water, and to persuade Yhwh to reverse his planned acts of punishment (here called apotropaic intercession). She differentiates between “naturalistic” efficacy (conforming to cultural understandings of ordinary physical or persuasive cause-and-effect) and “occult efficacy” (mysterious ways that religious ritual was understood to alter reality). Turning to the biblical texts, Broida distinguishes between two groups of prophets: “atypical prophets,” i.e. characters such as Moses, Elijah, and Elisha, and “typical prophets,” i.e. characters such as Isaiah, Amos, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. She argues that the former group displays a much higher degree of ritualization than the latter group, especially when interceding to resolve real-world problems, and notes a pattern where location, formalization, performance, and divine prescription are significant factors. She concludes that such ritual strategies probably played a role in this kind of intercession. In apotropaic intercession, however, individual intercessors appeared to have had more freedom to shape their communication to suit the occasion. In

Foreword

short, the prophets were able to present their arguments to the deity in their own words with fewer ritualizing strategies. Two essays revisit the important question of whether cultic prophecy existed in the Jerusalem temple in ancient Israel. Lester Grabbe answers this question in the affirmative. He defines cult prophets as men and women who were members of the temple personnel and who, at times, acted as prophets in the temple. Grabbe begins by assessing the evidence supporting cultic prophecy and argues that there were prophetic guilds in ancient Israel. There is, however, much that we do not know about them, such as where the prophets who belonged to them lived and whether their dwelling place constituted a cult location. Turning to the prophets at the Jerusalem court, Grabbe highlights the possibility that prophets were not an unusual feature of court-life. He further questions whether we should make a germane distinction between court and temple. Also, we should be careful not to dismiss a certain prophet because s/he does not fit the stereotypical profile of a cult prophet: we do not know whether such a stereotype actually existed in the first place. In parallel, Grabbe points out that many of the “false” prophets, i.e. prophets of Yhwh that other prophets deemed to be false, appear in contexts associated with the temple. Finally, the references to the temple singers in 1–2 Chronicles may point to a situation where cultic prophecy had assimilated into a role related to cultic worship. Grabbe ends by offering some cross-cultural comparisons from other parts of the ancient Near East in support of the existence of cult prophets in ancient Israel. Anja Klein’s essay sheds light on the question of cultic prophecy from a different angle, focusing on Pss 81 and 95. In particular, Klein asks to what extent these two psalms can be understood as examples of cultic prophecy, inasmuch as they draw on forms of divine speech. Klein begins by discussing each of the psalms in detail. In the case of Ps 81, she argues that it can be characterized by a mixture of psalmody and prophecy. Several features, such as the use of “hearing” as a leitmotif, suggest a prophetic setting. Turning to Ps 95, Klein acknowledges that the statement in verse 7 to “hear the divine voice” may be understood as a reference to prophetic speech. Even so, Klein ultimately casts doubt upon our ability to use Pss 81 and 95 as arguments in favour of the existence of cultic prophecy in ancient Israel. Rather, these two psalms are scribal products from post-exilic times that blend history and prophecy with cultic elements. They may indeed testify to a form of cultic prophecy in an indirect manner; they do not themselves constitute cultic prophecy. Continuing with the biblical material, Jonathan Stökl explores the notion of “triggering” prophecy. Contrary to what is often assumed, select material in the Hebrew Bible suggests that prophets used ritual behaviour in order to elicit a divine response. Stökl begins with a brief discussion of “technical” versus “intuitive” divination. While the former constitutes divine communication that needs to be “translated” (such as signs in the entrails of a sheep or in the stars), the

Foreword

latter constitutes divine communication in a language easily understood by humans (such as an oracle). The main body of the essay explores whether the use of triggers should be equated with ritual behaviour. To answer this question, he looks at a wide range of texts. Stökl argues that the narrative about Elijah in 2 Kgs 3 and the narrative about King Saul in 1 Sam 10 both support the notion that music might have been used to trigger prophecy. Likewise, he postulates that the narrative about Balaam in Num 22–24 may reflect the use of ritual slaughter as a possible trigger. In all these cases, though, God is at liberty to choose to deliver an oracle or not. Stökl also discusses the use of sleep and intoxicating liquids, as well as the possibility, hinted at in the narrative about Huldah in 1 Kgs 22, of controlled inquiry. He concludes that enquiring of Yhwh may likely have included some form of action and that this action should in itself be understood as a kind of ritualized behaviour. Moving beyond the Hebrew Bible, John Hilber builds upon his previous work on Egyptian prophetic texts as he explores the rituals that accompany prophetic affirmation of victory in the Egyptian cult. Presupposing an oral setting of many of these oracles, Hilber investigates the performance of their delivery. He proceeds systematically through a wide range of texts and notes the ways in which they were delivered. Concerning the Pyramid Texts, for example, Hilber wonders whether the depictions of priests wearing a mask reflect a ritual whereby the masks sought to establish a link between the performer and the divine persona. Likewise, the depictions of offerings, dancers, and musicians alongside the Coronation Texts may at least in part portray ritual elements that accompanied the oral delivery of the divine words. In greater detail, Hilber discusses the Triumph Hymns and the ritual violence that was performed together with the declaration of divine words during victory celebrations. In particular, Hilber cites Amun’s Triumphal Welcome for Shoshenq I and postulates that the encouragement to the king to accept a sword is best understood as part of a performed ritual. Hilber emphasises the symbiosis between oracle and actions, and argues that rituals enacted visually the divine word. He concludes by discussing the affinity in terms of language between some of these Triumph Hymns and select Psalms. Although it cannot be proven, it is possible that ritual actions accompanied the recitation of some of these psalms. Martti Nissinen looks more broadly at the question whether prophetic divination took place in a ritual setting and whether prophets in the ancient world functioned as ritual performers. He further asks whether the very act of prophecy, as a sub-category of divination, was conceived of as a ritual act. On the one hand, Mesopotamian extispicy, for instance, was a ritual act with the aim of obtaining a verdict. Likewise, the Greek acts of sacrificial divinations can easily be labelled rituals. Against this background, Nissinen explores the prophetic performances at the temples of Apollo at Didyma, Delphi, and Claros, and highlights how the reception of the divine oracles took place within a ritual procedure. Turning to

Foreword

Mesopotamian sources, Nissinen likewise shows that many of the prophetic oracles were delivered in ritual settings. On the other hand, the prophetic performances are seldom presented as rituals in their own right. Rather, the prophets, alongside other cultic functionaries, were part of a larger performance. Nissinen shows that prophetic performances often took place in ritual contexts but it does not follow that prophecy itself was perceived of as a ritual. Furthermore, prophecy is agent-based (rather than action-based or object-based) in the sense that the prophet functions as the facilitator of the divine-human communication, with the result that the significance of ritual actions and objects are reduced to a ­minimum. The final two essays turn the perspective around and look at the prophetic aspects of the priestly role. Beginning in the Hebrew Bible, Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer explores the priests’ mediating and predictive functions as depicted in the Deuteronomistic History, with focus on the use of the so-called “linen ephod” (‫אפוד‬ ‫ )בד‬in 1 Sam 2:18; 1 Sam 22:18; and 2 Sam 6:14. She begins by exploring the use and outer appearance of the ephod elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. She notes, among other things, that the ephod could denote a garment that one might wear, a smaller item that one might pin on a garment, or even a free-standing larger object. Furthermore, it clearly was used as part of the ritual of divination and played a role within the cult of ancient Israel. Turning to the above-mentioned three passages, Tiemeyer rejects the customary translation “linen ephod” and instead, in dialogue with Isa 44:25; Jer 50:36; and Hos 11:6, as well as with the Ancient Versions, suggests a new translation that emphasizes the divinatory aspects of this priestly tool, namely “the diviners’ ephod.” Alex Jassen takes the question further afield and discusses how Jews in the Second Temple Period perceived the priests and the temple to be a new locus of prophetic activity. In particular, he notes how a wide range of texts conflate prophets and priests and how they locate prophetic activity within the temple. Jassen highlights how the writings of Hecataeus of Abdera portrays the priests as God’s messengers and as mediators. Likewise, turning to the Testament of Levi, Jassen emphasizes the High Priests’ divinatory role. The Apocryphon of Moses (4Q375– 376) stands in the same tradition insofar as it elaborates on the High Priestly divinatory use of the Urim and Thummim. A similar impression is also given by the Lives of the Prophets where prophecy is portrayed as a priestly endeavour, as well as by John 11:49–51 where Caiaphas’ prophecy regarding the significance of Jesus’ death is presented as something unremarkable: priests prophesy. Finally, looking at Philo’s Special Laws and at Josephus’ writings, the same impression persevere: priests are given the gift of prophecy. Looking at all the essays together we can draw several conclusions. First of all, as hinted earlier, any strict division between the cultic and the prophetic realms is not supported by the available textual material. Rather, priests and prophets shared the task of facilitating the communication between humans and

Foreword

the divine. Priests often performed tasks that were more closely associated with prophecy and prophets often dealt with matters that were more closely associated with the cult. Furthermore, it is likely that prophecy took place in ritual settings, such as temples, and was accompanied by ritual actions. Secondly, however, we should not conflate cult and prophecy, as there are also salient differences between the activities of the two types of cultic personnel. Overall, prophets had more freedom than priests to shape their approach to the deity. Also, although there is evidence to suggest that some forms of prophetic inquiry were perceived to be a kind of ritualized behaviour, this is not true for all prophetic performances. Furthermore, even though many prophets probably served in a cultic setting, this does not mean that prophecy in itself was seen as a ritual. It is my hope that this volume will stimulate a deeper discussion of the intersection between cult and prophecy and inspire more studies on the topic. This volume could not have been done without the help of a number of people. First of all, I wish to thank the leaders and the steering committee of the Prophetic Texts in their Ancient Contexts section of the Society of Biblical Literature. Your feedback and encouragement supported me throughout the process of turning a set of orally delivered papers into a coherent collection of written articles. Secondly, I would like to express my gratitude to the peer-reviewers who volunteered and gracefully read the contributions and offered constructive feedback. Although you must remain anonymous, you know who you are. Thank you! Last but not least, I am, as always, indebted to my husband Andreas who never grumbles when I spend week-ends reading proofs and who always supports me by cooking delicious and nourishing meals. Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

Aberdeen, September 2018

Abbreviations ÄAT AB ABD AGAJU AHw AIL AIRF Ä&L AMD ANEM AOAT AOS Arch BaF BBB BBET BBRS BCSMS BDB BEATAJ Bib BibOr BKAT / BK BThS BWANT BZAW CAD CBET CBQ CHANE CJAS

Ägypten und Altes Testament Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Wolfram von Soden, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch: Unter Benutzung des lexikalischen Nachlasses von Bruno Meissner. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1868–1947 Ancient Israel and Its Literature Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae Ägypten und Levante Ancient Magic and Divination Ancient Near Eastern Monographs Alter Orient und Altes Testament American Oriental Series Archaeology Baghdader Forschungen Bonner biblische Beiträge Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement The Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. F ­ rancis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs (eds.). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907/1953. Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums Biblica Biblica et orientalia Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament Biblisch-theologische Studien Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Ignace Gelb et al. (eds.). Chicago, IL: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1956 Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Catholic Biblical Quarterly Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series

Abbreviations

CM CSHJ DJD EHAT EI FAOS FAT FRLANT FzB GMTR HAT HBM HBS HeBAI HOD HR HSM HThK.AT. HTR HTS HUCA ICC JAOS JBL JEOL JHS JJS JNSL JPOS JPS JQR JSJS JSOT JSOTS JSPS JSS KTU LCL LHBOTS

Cuneiform Monographs Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism Discoveries in the Judean Desert Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament Eretz Israel Freiburger altorientalische Studien Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Forschung zur Bibel Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record Handkommentar zum Alten Testament Hebrew Bible Monographs Herders biblische Studien Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel Handbuch der Orientalistik History of Religions Harvard Semitic Monographs Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament Harvard Theological Review Harvard Theological Studies Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Gezelschap (Genootschap) Ex oriente lux Journal of Hebrew Scripture Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society Jewish Publication Society Jewish Quarterly Review Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha. Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Keilschrift Texte aus Ugarit Loeb Classical library Library of the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies

Abbreviations

MARI NEA NovTest OBO OIP OIS OLA OTL OTM OtSt PAE RA RB RGRW SAA SAAS SBB SBLDS SBLEJ SBLMS SBLSymS SBLWGRW SJLA SJOT SNT STDJ SVTP TAPS TBN TCS TDNT TDOT TSAJ TUAT TynBul VT VTS WAW WBC WMANT

Mari: Annales de recherches interdisciplinaires Near Eastern Archaeology Novum Testamentum Orbis biblicus et orientalis Oriental Institute Publications University of Chicago Oriental Institute Seminars Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta Old Testament Library Oxford Theological Monographs Oudtestamentische studiën Probleme der Ägyptologie Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale Revue Biblique Religions in the Graeco-Roman World State Archives of Assyria State Archives of Assyria Studies Stuttgarter biblische Beiträge Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and its Literature Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Greco-­Roman World Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Supplements to Novum Testamentum Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha Transactions of the American Philosophical Society Themes in Biblical Narrative Texts from Cuneiform Sources Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments Tyndale Bulletin Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum Supplement Writings from the Ancient World Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen ­Testament

Abbreviations

WO ZA ZAR ZAW

Die Welt des Orients Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Marian Broida Ritualization in Prophetic Intercession

Introduction Ritual draws attention to specific human activities, signalling that they have a special meaning, power, or purpose.1 As a historical phenomenon, then, prophetic intercession in ancient Israel and Judah was almost certainly ritualized. Not only did prophets communicate with Yhwh—surely an event of major importance—but, if biblical portrayals are to be believed, they interceded on occasions of grave danger. Yet ritualization of Israelite prophetic intercession is understudied, perhaps because biblical portrayals of prophetic intercession contain little evidence of prescribed or stereotyped behaviour—attributes often viewed as intrinsic to ritual. Nowhere do we see detailed instructions like those in Lev 4:27–31, prescribing priestly interventions on behalf of unwitting sinners. Rarely do we see repeated verbal or behavioural formulae in depictions of prophetic intercession itself. Instead we see diverse prophetic conversations with Yhwh, sometimes linked to visions, props, or gestures, and occasionally, requests for prophetic intercession with the intercession itself offstage. Yet when we begin by assuming ritualization, several discrete patterns emerge from the biblical material. One pattern in particular may correspond to actual Israelite prophetic behaviour: intercession while soliciting an oracle from Yhwh. In this essay I use a performance theory of ritual to examine portrayals of the prophetic intercession in the HB, in hopes of shedding light on the behaviour of actual Israelite prophets. I begin by discussing prophetic intercession, the challenges of historical reconstruction, and the approach to ritual. After categorizing the biblical accounts by the goal of intercession and the type of prophet, I examine them for specific ritualizing strategies. Finally, I discuss the implications of these patterns for shaping our understanding of the Israelite prophet and the role of the prophet’s voice in divine-human relations.

1  Ronald L. Grimes, Deeply into the Bone: Re-Inventing Rites of Passage (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2000), 70–71; Catherine Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1992), 74.

1. Prophetic Intercession I define intercession, in general, as a voluntary appeal to an authority figure on behalf of another individual or group. Since the Hebrew Bible lacks a consistent term for intercession,2 I identify it by examining interactions among these three entities: intercessor, authority, and the beneficiary of the intercession. Intercession may be solicited by another, or may occur at the intercessor’s own initiative. In the Bible, the description may be limited to a verbal appeal, or may include other words, gestures, objects, or acts, some of which may be commanded by Yhwh after the initial intercessory appeal (e.g., Num 21:7–9). Rare examples lack reference to a verbal appeal, but contain actions that may serve as metonyms for prayer.3 The HB portrays many cases of people interceding with human authorities. Elisha offered to intercede with officials on behalf of a Shunammite woman (2 Kgs 4:13). This essay, however, focuses solely on prophetic intercession with Yhwh. Because intercession, as I define it, is voluntary, legislated priestly interventions on behalf of sinners (e.g., the sacrificial rituals in Leviticus 4–5) fall outside of this domain, although they fulfil an analogous function at times by restoring a proper relationship between sinner and deity. Evidence from Mari and Neo-Assyria indicates that prophets spoke for the gods in societies beyond the borders of Israel. Their role in intercession, if any, is less clear.4 In contrast, biblical texts suggest that both prophetic proclamation and intercession were important, at least in some traditions. True, relatively few biblical texts depict explicit prophetic intercession, compared to the multitude of texts portraying prophetic proclamations. Yet quite a few of these depictions of intercession show it as critical to Israel’s survival. These include Moses’s crucial acts of intercession in Exod 32:11–13, Num 14:13–19, and Deut 9:25–29; the emphasis on Samuel’s ongoing intercession in 1 Sam 6:8 and 12:23; Jeremiah’s receipt of multiple divine prohibitions of intercession, suggesting that Yhwh was 2  Some of the more common terms used are ‫התפלל‬, ‫פגע‬, ‫עתר‬. All these terms have ranges of meaning beyond that of “intercede.” See Samuel E. Balentine, “The Prophet as Intercessor: A Reassessment,” JBL 103 (1984): 161–173, and Rannfrid I. Thelle, Ask God: Divine Consultation in the Literature of the Hebrew Bible (BBET 30; Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2002). 3  Almost always, this appeal contains an explicit verbal component; in a few cases, specific gestures such as stretching out the palms (Exod 9:29, 33) or prostration (Num 17:10) can be understood as metonyms or stand-ins for this verbal appeal. Cf. Franz Hesse, Die Fürbitte im Alten Testament (Erlangen: Freidrich Alexander Universität, 1951), 41. 4  Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, “Were the Neo-Assyrian Prophets Intercessors? A Comparative Study of Neo-Assyrian and Hebrew Texts,” in Robert P. Gordon and Hans M. Barstad (eds.), “Thus Speaks Ishtar of Arbela”: Prophecy in Israel, Assyria, and Egypt in the Neo-Assyrian Period (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 253–272, and Jonathan Stökl, Prophecy in the Ancient Near East: A Philological and Sociological Comparison (CHANE 56; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 215–216.

taking pains to avoid it (Jer 7:16; 11:14; 14:11; cf. 15:1); and the intriguing suggestion that an effective intercessor would have prevented Yhwh’s destruction of Judah (Ezek 22:30). According to Rannfrid I. Thelle, scholars have neglected many more likely cases of prophetic intercession. She points to the multiple biblical texts in which prophets are asked to consult God and concludes that intercession was an expected element.5 I discuss her points further below. Apart from blessings—not considered here—biblical prophetic intercession generally has one of two goals. (1) The first is to enlist Yhwh’s help in protecting a group or individual from a real-world threat or problem, such as illness, drought, or war. For example, Moses asks Yhwh to heal Miriam after Yhwh strikes her with skin disease (Num 12:13); and Hezekiah’s delegation requests Isaiah’s intercession with Yhwh in the face of the Assyrian Rabshakeh’s threats (2 Kgs 19:1–4). I call intercession with this goal “real-world problem-solving,” or “problem-solving” for short. (2) The second goal is to persuade Yhwh to reverse his own stated decree of disaster, one that has not yet been enacted, as when Amos pleads that Yhwh not send the plague of locusts that Amos envisioned (Amos 7:1–2). I call intercession with this goal “apotropaic.”6 Unopposed, such a decree is understood to lead to real world problems. Yochanan Muffs has described the prophetic task of protesting overly harsh decrees as crucial to God’s dealings with his people.7 Although these two goals are distinct, they are animated by the same underlying beliefs: that Yhwh controls the cosmos and its inhabitants and is inclined to exact judgment on those who offend against him, and that various human activities, including intercession, may sway him toward mercy. The two goals of intercession are also causally related, at least in theory, since a divine decree of doom will inevitably lead to real-world problems unless intercession or another factor causes the deity to change his mind.8

5 Thelle, God, discusses a pattern throughout the HB in which multiple religious specialists consult Yhwh on behalf of others during times of distress. Here I concentrate on the prophet’s role. 6 Elsewhere I use this term to highlight the similarities between biblical intercession against a divine decree of doom and ANE rituals designed to offset the evil effects of bad omens. See Marian Broida, Forestalling Doom: ‘Apotropaic Intercession’ in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (AOAT 417; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2014). 7  Yochanan Muffs, “Who Will Stand in the Breach? A Study of Prophetic Intercession,” in Love & Joy: Law, Language and Religion in Ancient Israel (New York, NY: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992), 9–48. 8  This logic resembles that of the Neo-Assyrian rituals known as namburbû, intended to ward off the harm foretold by bad omens. Francesca Rochberg, The Heavenly Writing: Divination, Horoscopy, and Astronomy in Mesopotamian Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 202.

2. The Bible and Historical Reconstruction As many have pointed out, the Hebrew Bible is an imperfect witness to Israelite society. Considerable caution is needed in drawing conclusions about actual prophetic behaviour. Confounding factors include accidents of transmission, idealization, the possible minority positions held by its writers, and redaction by later scribes with different views. We do not know, for example, how closely the ritual texts in Leviticus 4–5 corresponded to actual practice,9 or what accounts of prophetic behaviour may have been omitted because they did not accord with the views of later redactors.10 Moreover, scribes may have radically altered prophetic texts to promote their messages to new audiences. Doan and Giles argue that the book of Amos shows the scribal intent to present a unified, dramatic work that would convey the prophet’s message effectively.11 Apparent invariance (stereotypy) in Amos’ two intercessory speeches (7:2, 5) may appear ritual-like, but more likely represents literary shaping, as described below. Ultimately, all claims of ritual invariance must be tentative because of the impossibility of distinguishing it from intertextual influence. Finally, ANE evidence shows that even ritual texts meant to provide explicit instructions to religious practitioners sometimes omit steps or prescribed utterances, presumably because their audiences were expected to fill in the gaps.12 The same may be true of the Bible. In particular, narrative summaries of ritual may omit certain steps that were assumed by ancient audiences. For these reasons, our conclusions about actual prophetic behaviour will be speculative. For example, we cannot conclude with certainty that prophetic intercession usually lacked sacrifice. Nonetheless, the texts rather consistently reveal different patterns of ritualization, depending on the type of prophet and the goal of intercession (problem-solving or apotropaic). At least two such patterns may be rooted in actual prophetic behaviour. 9  James W. Watt, “The Torah as the Rhetoric of Priesthood,” in Gary Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson (eds.), The Reception of the Torah in the Second Temple Period (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 319–332, writes that Leviticus 1–16 was most likely put together for read-aloud purposes rather than as a priestly manual. 10  For example, 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 (VTS 117; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 285, writes that the prophecies of first Isaiah “were preserved, probably, because his political assessment proved to be right.” 11  William Doan and Terry Giles, Prophets, Performance, and Power: Performance Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (New York, NY: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2005), 155. 12  For example, Stefan M. Maul, Zukunftsbewältigung: Eine Untersuchung Altorientalischen Denkens Anhand Der Babylonisch-Assyrischen Löserituale (Namburbi) (BaF 18; Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern, 1994), 321 n. 56, notes that namburbi texts frequently omit instructions.

3. Ritual and Ritualization In order to capture a wide variety of rituals, I define ritual minimally in this essay: as a framed performance of a culturally constructed sequence of behaviours intended to enact some change or transformation. This definition falls under the general rubric of “performance theories of ritual.” I follow Ryan Davis in considering rituals to constitute “social domains”—that is, arenas of conventional activity.13 Other social domains include drama, specific sports, or, in Davis’s terminology, “‘everyday’ life.” Within each domain, participants’ behaviour is “constrained and channelled” according to social and cultural criteria.14 Social domains are culturally specific and incorporate social roles. In the U.S. today, the same person might act as a mother in one domain, a dentist in another, and a participant in a Passover Seder in a third, with specific routines of behaviour expected in each domain.15 In my definition of ritual, “framing” refers to the ways in which a ritual performance signals that it constitutes a particular social domain, with specific roles for participants, established behaviours, and expected outcomes. In practical terms a frame corresponds to the adherence to a set of accepted “constitutive rules.”16 In the example of a prophetic ritual involving intercession, those rules define the ritual being enacted, just as the constitutive rules of chess define it as chess and not some other game. The frame is not external to the ritual itself. Rather, it incorporates the sequence of behaviours as well as other defining details, such as the relationships among the participants and (if relevant) ritual characteristics such as special time and location, the degree of formalization, the vividness of the performance, and so on.17 Ritual as I define it here is understood, within its cultural context, as efficacious: it is intended to transform some aspect of reality. I do not count as “ritual” sequences of behaviours that celebrate, commemorate, or maintain the status quo.18 For this reason I exclude blessings from my discussion of intercession, since blessings are often meant to maintain a set of circumstances rather than transform them. The acts of intercession I study are intended to either resolve (or 13  Ryan C. Davis, “Relating with Gods: Investigating Human-Divine Relationships in the Prayers of Israel and Mesopotamia Using a Performance Approach to Ritual,” PhD diss., University of Texas at Austin, 2016), 17. Davis’s use of the term “social domain” is unrelated to “Social Domain Theory” as developed in the work of Elliot Turiel and Larry P. Nucci. 14  Davis, “Relating with Gods,” 15. 15  See Davis, “Relating with Gods,” 21, for similar examples. 16  John R. Searle, Speech Acts: An Essay on the Philosophy of Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 33–35. See also Davis, “Relating with Gods,” 20. 17  Davis, “Relating with Gods,” 20. 18  Victor Witter Turner, The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1970), 95, distinguishes “ritual” from “celebration” in this way.

at least improve) current suffering of the beneficiary, or to change a divine decree so that the beneficiary’s punishment is prevented (or at least decreased). Efficacy can be of two general types. One I term “naturalistic”—that is, conforming to cultural understandings of ordinary physical or persuasive cause-and-effect. The other type I term “occult efficacy,” based on Roy A. Rappaport’s use of the term to indicate the more mysterious ways that religious rituals can be understood to alter reality.19 Changing a deity’s mind through persuasive prayer would indicate naturalistic efficacy, while preventing death from snakebite by erecting a copper serpent would manifest occult efficacy. “Occult efficacy” can be viewed as a ritualizing strategy (or characteristic) in itself. Finally, I have left the term “sequences of behaviours” purposefully vague. Some theorists build into their definitions of ritual specific attributes of these behaviours, such as invariance and formalization.20 Instead, I view these as strategies of ritualization, which I define as the process whereby certain behaviours are demarcated as “special.” The presence, absence, or degree of specific strategies can tell us much about the values and relationships, including human-divine relations, that the ritual both expresses and constructs. Some strategies, for example, constrain the behaviour of ritual participants more than others. In the following I will point out the presence of several specific ritualizing strategies in biblical depictions of prophetic intercession, adapted from lists by Catherine Bell, Ronald L. Grimes, and Jan A. M. Snoek.21 Generally, scholars term these strategies “ritual characteristics” or (in Bell’s case) “characteristics of ritual-like activities.” Unlike Grimes, I have not attempted to be all-inclusive. I have adopted, and in some cases combined, adapted, or renamed, a subset of these lists of ritualizing strategies.22 I will discuss them as they come up in my analyses.

19  Roy A. Rappaport, Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity (Cambridge Studies in Social and Cultural Anthropology; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 23. Elsewhere I distinguish “magical efficacy” from “ritual efficacy,” with the former a subset of the latter (Broida, Forestalling Doom, 46–47). 20  E.g., Rappaport, Ritual and Religion, 24. 21  Catherine Bell, Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 138–169; Ronald L. Grimes, The Craft of Ritual Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 194; Jan A. M. Snoek, “Defining ‘Rituals’,” in Jens Kreinath, Jan A. M. Snoek, and Michael Stausberg (eds.), Theorizing Rituals: Issues, Topics, Approaches, Concepts (Studies in the History of Religions 114; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 11. 22  An example of a strategy I adapted is “divine prescription.” Lists of possible ritual characteristics commonly include “prescription” or “rule governance”—that is, the requirement that actions be performed properly, according to a set of implicit or explicit rules. In the HB, most ritual prescriptions are explicitly attributed to Yhwh.

4. Categorizing the Prophets Not all biblical prophets engage in intercession. I divide those portrayed as interceding into two groups: typical and atypical. I consider a prophet “atypical” for one of three reasons. 1) The prophet is portrayed as serving in multiple roles (e.g., priest, lawgiver, or military leader). 2) The prophet is portrayed as having special powers beyond the ability to communicate with Yhwh—for example, the ability to resuscitate a child or command the weather by channelling Yhwh’s power. 3) In Moses’ case, another reason to consider him atypical is that his mode of communication with Yhwh is explicitly distinguished from that of later prophets (Exod 33:11; Num 12:6–8). Besides Moses, atypical prophets include Aaron (who intercedes alongside Moses in Num 17:11–13, but normally functions as priest); Samuel, who combines multiple roles—priest, prophet, and military leader—and has the power to call on Yhwh to produce rain in midsummer (1 Sam 12:17–18); and the miracle-working men of God, primarily Elijah and Elisha. Just as these atypical prophets differ, so do the various patterns of intercession they deploy in the HB. “Typical prophets” involved in intercession include Ezekiel and Jeremiah (though of priestly background, they do not act as priests in the HB), Amos, and Isaiah (in 2 Kings and Isa 37).23

5. Analyzing the Texts In the following, I look first at depictions of problem-solving intercession by atypical and typical prophets, then at apotropaic intercession by atypical and typical prophets. Finally, I examine one more group of texts in which delegations solicit intercession from typical prophets. Although in this last group of texts the intercession (if any) occurs off-stage, these texts suggest a likely social context for apotropaic intercession with implications for its ritualization.

5.1  Problem-solving Intercession In these accounts, the beneficiary is already in danger because of illness, the threat of snakebite, lack of potable water, or war. All these difficulties are presented as manifestations of divine judgment.

23  Some consider the Temple vision scene in Isa 6 sufficient evidence to consider Isaiah as both priest and prophet. If so, his priestly role is not otherwise obvious.

5.1.1  Problem-solving Intercession by Atypical Prophets

Moses (once with Aaron), Elijah, Elisha, and an anonymous man of God are all shown interceding to solve existing problems: cure physical ailments, provide potable water, or otherwise help their beneficiaries in dangerous situations. Accounts range from a simple statement that Moses “prayed to Yhwh” (Num 11:2) to blow-by-blow descriptions of resuscitations by Elijah and Elisha (1 Kgs 17:17–24; 2 Kgs 4:18–37). Within this category, Moses intercedes the most. His intercessions relieve suffering caused by divine punishment of the Egyptians (Exod 8:5–8, 26; 9:33; 10:18), the Israelites (Exod 5:22–23; 15:22–25, 17:1–7; Num 11:2; 20:6–11; 21:7– 9), and Miriam (Num 12:13). Aaron intercedes once, on Moses’ instructions, in Num 17:11–13, using incense to protect Israelites from plague. Samuel intercedes at Mizpah (1 Sam 7:6, 9) to prevent Philistine victory. Men of God intercede three times: Elijah in 1 Kgs 17:19–24 and Elisha in 2 Kgs 4:32–37, both to resuscitate boys; and an anonymous Man of God in 1 Kgs 13:4–6, on behalf of Jeroboam.24 Below I analyse the ritual characteristics found in accounts of problem-solving intercession by different atypical prophets, beginning with Moses. Moses’ intercessions on behalf of Pharaoh (Exod 8:5–8, 26; 9:33; 10:18) form the first pattern. Their brief descriptions lack direct discourse. Verb roots include ‫( צעק‬Exod 8:8) and ‫( עתר‬8:26; 10:18, with a reference in 8:5), and the expression ‫ פרש כפיו‬in 9:33, a gesture that serves as a metonym for prayer. Location is significant (Exod 8:8, 26; 9:33; 10:18). Moses leaves Pharaoh’s presence (and in 9:33, the city) prior to interceding. This reported consistency could reflect literary patterning or ritual characteristics, perhaps related to the notion of worshipping Yhwh in t he wil derness (e.g., Exod 7:16). A second pattern is evident in four of Moses’s five problem-solving intercessions on behalf of the Israelites (Exod 5:22–23; 15:22–25, 17:1–7; Num 20:6–11; 21:7–9).25 In each of these, Yhwh follows Moses’ verbal appeal with a specific instruction (divine prescription). Three times Yhwh instructs Moses to use different non-ordinary techniques to obtain potable water (Exod 15:22–25, 17:1–7; Num 20:6–11), once by throwing a stick into bitter water, a second time by striking a rock with his rod, and a third time by speaking to the rock.26 Yhwh also 24  Another possible act of intercession by Elisha appears in 2 Kgs 3:13–19 (to alleviate water shortage). There, three kings approach Elisha, who agrees reluctantly to help them. After demanding a musician, he responds to their need with an oracle promising both water and victory. Nowhere, however, do we see an explicit request for or offer of intercession. 25  The sole remaining intercession by Moses in this group, Num 11:2, merely states that he prayed to Yhwh (‫)התפלל‬. 26  In Num 20:6–11, a doublet of Exod 17:1–7, a frustrated Moses famously rebukes the people and strikes the rock instead of speaking to the rock itself. I count this episode as intercession because Moses and Aaron prostrate themselves before the Tent of Meeting v. 6, in response to the people’s complaint, and they are answered with Yhwh’s appearance and instructions.

instructs Moses to erect a copper serpent on a pole to prevent deaths from snakebite (Num 21:7–9). None of these acts are naturalistic—in other words, none would ordinarily lead to resolution of the problem without magic or miracle. Yhwh’s command alone could account for the ritual’s efficacy in the minds of observers. Alternatively, audiences could attribute magical agency to Moses, his gestures, or the objects themselves.27 Regardless, we can describe the prescribed parts of these rituals as manifesting “occult (or non-physical) efficacy.”28 Given that most of the intercessions in this group occur during the wilderness wanderings, locations vary. Two intercessions in this group (Exod 5:22–23 and 17:1–7), however, occur at a special location: Horeb.29 Moses’ intervention on behalf of Miriam (Num 12:13) is unique in containing an incantation-like utterance: ‫“( אל נא רפא נא לה‬Please, God, heal her”). This speech act shows heavy formalization, a term referring, in part, to use of a “more limited and rigidly organized set of expressions and gestures.”30 The utterance’s features appear in incantations in numerous cultures: concision, alliteration, rhyme, rhythm, and chiasmus, suggesting that these words were understood to carry occult efficacy, although they also make sense as a prayer.31 We also see a special location: the Tent of Meeting, site of divine encounters. The next atypical prophet, Aaron, intercedes only once with a goal of problem-solving. His intercession is also unique, and fits his primary identity as priest. Yhwh announces his intent to destroy the Israelites and immediately sends a plague (Num 17:12). Following Moses’ instructions, Aaron silently protects many Israelites from death by exposing them to incense in a pan filled with fire from the altar (Num 17:11–13). The intercessory nature of this act is evident from the story’s introduction, in which Moses and Aaron respond to Yhwh’s 27  For a discussion on magical agency attributed to people, acts, or objects, see Jesper Sørensen, A Cognitive Theory of Magic (Lanham, MD: AltaMira, 2007). 28 Rappaport, Ritual and Religion, 48–50. Although one can view “occult efficacy” as resulting from other ritualizing strategies, it is (or a belief in it is) a way that a set of behaviors is ritualized. Snoek lists “not instrumental” (with similar meaning) as one of his ritual characteristics (“Defining ‘Rituals,’” 11). 29  In Exod 5:22–23, Moses “returns to Yhwh” (presumably the site of the burning bush) to protest his failure to save the Hebrews expeditiously. 30 Bell, Perspectives, 139. 31  For discussions of these features in ANE magical texts as well as others, see for example Henk S. Versnel, ““The Poetics of the Magical Charm: An Essay on the Power of Words,” in Paul A. Mirecki and Marvin Meyer (eds.), Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World (RGRW 141; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 105–158, Niek Veldhuis, “The Poetry of Magic,” in I. Tzvi Abusch and Karel van der Toorn (eds.), Mesopotamian Magic: Textual, Historical, and Interpretative Perspectives (AMD 1; Groningen: Styx, 1999), 35–48, Nathan Wasserman, Style and Form in Old-Babylonian Literary Texts (CM 27; Leiden: Brill, 2003); Christopher Faraone, “The Agonistic Context of Early Greek Binding Spells,” in Christopher A Faraone and Dirk Obbink (eds.), Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1991), 3–32.

initial decree of destruction with prostration—possibly a metonym for verbal appeal.32 This episode manifests vivid performance,33 with the smell and smoke of the incense billowing from Aaron’s censor; special location, at the Tent of Meeting; and prescription, although notably, Aaron follows Moses’ instructions rather than Yhwh’s, who gives none. The incense may have been understood as a placating substance, in keeping with its traditional use by Israelite priests, or as a means of purification.34 Like Aaron, Samuel engages in only one act of problem-solving intercession.35 Combining the roles of priest, military leader, and prophet,36 Samuel intercedes at Mizpah both to prevent a military loss and to overthrow Philistine rule, a cause of Israelite suffering (1 Sam 7:6, 9). Prior to interceding, Samuel urges the Israelites to stop worshipping foreign gods and takes them through a penitential ritual involving water libation, confession of sin, and collective fasting (1 Sam 7:3–6). Among prophetic intercessory texts, only here do we see reference to a burnt offering: a familiar feature in many biblical rituals conducted by priests and others, including David (2 Sam 24:21–25, 1 Chron 21:18–27) and Job (Job 42:8). Ritual characteristics linked to burnt offerings in ancient Israel include formalization, vivid performance, and divine prescription (e.g., applicable ritual laws, understood as divinely ordained). Marvin A. Sweeney argues that sacrifice was a regular part of the “oracular prophecy” ritual in the ancient world, based on texts describing the Mesopotamian bārû and Balaam’s behaviour in Numbers 22–24.37 References to sacrifice during intercession by typical prophets—or other atypical prophets—are, however, lacking. A very different pattern is discernible in the parallel acts of reviving dead or dying boys by Elijah and Elisha, both designated “Men of God” (1 Kgs 17:19–24; 2 Kgs 4:32–37). These atypical prophets are elsewhere shown capable of working 32  The early part of the narrative (Num 17:9–10) is virtually identical to Num 16:20–22, a clear rendering of apotropaic intercession. In this case, however, the plague arrives before the remainder of the intercession is undertaken. 33  By “vivid performance,” I mean the use of special garb, props, music, incense, or evocative actions, including gestures. This strategy combines Snoek’s “multi-medial” ritual characteristic with aspects of what Bell (Perspectives, 159–160) calls “performance” such as the spectacular, multisensory elements of some rituals. 34  The use of incense censers to purify temples and people was common in Mesopotamia, for example in the namburbû. See Kjeld Nielsen, Incense in Ancient Israel (VTS 38; Leiden: Brill, 1986), 88, on the use of incense as purifying in this story. 35  In 1 Sam 12:19–25, Samuel promises to continually intercede, but his intercession is not shown. 36  Samuel is called both “man of God” and ‫ראה‬, with the latter glossed as ‫ נביא‬in 1 Sam 9:9. 37  Marvin A. Sweeney, “Prophets and Priests in the Deuteronomistic History: Elijah and Elisha,” in Mignon R. Jacobs and Raymond F. Person Jr. (eds.), Israelite Prophecy and the Deuteronomistic History: Portrait, Reality, and the Formation of a History (AIL 14; Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2013), 35–49.

miracles without obvious divine assistance (e.g., floating an axe head in 2 Kgs 6:1–7)—although as modern readers, we cannot know if early audiences assumed step-by-step divine instructions and empowerment. In both acts of resuscitation, the men of God combine words of prayer with formalized postures, stretching out over the boy on their own beds. Elijah’s first utterance is specific to the situation in a way that minimizes the likelihood of invariance: “O Lord my God, will you bring calamity upon this widow whose guest I am, and let her son die?” (1 Kgs 17:20, NJPS). His words combine a petition with a justice-based argument (one that also highlights the prophet’s personal interest). Clearly, he is not just repeating a well-known ritual utterance. Because his words are meaningful in context and relate to the specifics of the situation, his own agency is not fully subsumed by his ritual role. His next acts manifest vivid performance: he stretches out over the boy three times, uttering “O Lord my God, let this child’s life return to his body!” (1 Kgs 17:21, NJPS). Elisha’s intercession is even more dramatic. Before he even comes to the boy, he orders his servant to place Elisha’s staff over the boy’s face (2 Kgs 4:29)—a vivid performance suggesting occult efficacy linked to the staff, the gesture, or Elisha himself. On arrival, Elisha places his own mouth, eyes, and hands over the boy’s corresponding body parts (2 Kgs 4:34). Such acts are unattested elsewhere in the HB, but Elisha’s matching of his own body parts to the boy’s bears some resemblance to certain Mesopotamian magical practices.38 One more man of God, this one anonymous, intercedes in 1 Kgs 13:4–6. Like Moses in the plague accounts, he intercedes at the villain’s request to undo a divine punishment: paralysis (or “withering”) of Jeroboam’s arm. His successful intercession indicates Yhwh’s utter control. Here the location is significant: an illegitimate temple erected by Jeroboam at Bethel, whose altar the man of God has just cursed. No other ritualizing strategies are apparent in the brief account of the intercession. In subsequent verses (1 Kgs 13:8–10), however, the man of God first reports, then follows divine instructions to avoid eating, drinking, or returning by the road he used when arriving. The last of these divine instructions echoes a ritual instruction at the end of some Mesopotamian namburbû—rituals averting the evil portended by various terrestrial omens—to return home afterward by another route.39 According to Stefan M. Maul, this namburbi instruction prevents the newly-purified beneficiaries of these rituals from “reinfecting” themselves by stepping in the footprints they left when unpurified.40 It is unclear 38  Bob Becking, “‘Touch for Health …’: Magic in 11 Reg 4,31–37 with a Remark on the History Of Yahwism,” ZAW 108 (1996): 34–54. 39  For example, LKA 112 line 40. Maul, Zukunftsbewältigung, 334. 40  Stefan M. Maul, “How the Babylonians Protected Themselves against Calamities Announced by Omens,” in Tzvi Abusch and Karel van der Toorn (eds.), Mesopotamian Magic: Textual, Historical, and Interpretative Perspectives (AMD 1; Groningen: Styx, 1999), 123–129.

if the gesture has the same meaning here; if impurity is involved, it likely has little to do with the intercession itself.41 Notably, two of the other intercessory actions described earlier in this section do appear intended to resolve impurity, typically a concern of priests. Moses utters ‫ אל נא רפא נא לה‬when his sister is afflicted with skin disease that requires her to stay outside the camp, a strong indicator of impurity. And in Num 17:12, Aaron uses incense in ways that resemble purification rituals in surrounding cultures.42 Outside of doublets and the symmetry of the plague narratives, invariance in this category is minimal.43 The only element suggestive of invariance is special location (at a site associated with divine theophany—Horeb; at the Tent of Meeting; and in 1 Kgs 13, at a temple, although an illegitimate one). Although these vary, all are traditional locations for divine-human encounters.44 Given the other ritualizing strategies present in many of these episodes, the relative absence of invariance is surprising. One possible explanation is that many of these narratives served as etiologies for later ritual acts, rather than simple depictions of the character’s behaviour. This explanation seems particularly likely for those narratives containing explicit instructions from Yhwh. In fact, the standard against snakebite that Moses erects in Num 21:9, appears in 2 Kgs 18:4 as the Nehushtan, destroyed by Hezekiah because it was being worshipped.45 Divine prescription is a common strategy to justify or reinforce the effectiveness of specific ritual acts, particularly those involving occult efficacy—that is, mysterious of magical causality. Overall, this category indicates several specific patterns of intercession: The plague pattern, in which Moses and Aaron leave Pharaoh’s presence prior to their appeals (special location). An appeal to Yhwh followed by divine prescription, found in Moses’ intercessions in the wilderness. The prescribed acts and props manifest occult efficacy. Some of these accounts emphasize special location and vivid performance as well. 41  If impurity is at issue here, it may result from the setting: the unorthodox altar Jeroboam erected at Bethel, as well as the unorthodox sacrificial service he was enacting thereon; or from the man of God’s utterance of an oracle about the altar (1 Kgs 13:2) in which he predicts the future slaughter to be committed thereon. 42 Nielsen, Incense, 88. 43  We do see later depictions of salt thrown into water to sweeten it—a ritual act performed by Elisha—and another ritualized act wherein Elisha throws a stick in the water to make an axe head float. Neither of these texts describes intercession, however, although Elisha attributes one of them to Yhwh’s power. 44  See Tiemeyer, “Prophets.” 45  Cf. Richard Lederman, “Nehushtan, the Copper Serpent: Its Origins and Fate,” in TheTorah.com. http://thetorah.com/nehushtan-the-copper-serpent-its-origins-and-fate/.

Samuel’s intercession at Mizpah, which combines a petition with a burnt offering, following a pattern more common for other religious officials, particularly priests. Other acts of intercession are less easily categorized. Intercessory acts by men of God include more vivid performance, suggesting occult efficacy, as does Moses’ intercession on behalf of Miriam. Aaron’s unique use of incense seems more relevant to his role as priest.

5.1.2  Problem-solving Intercession by Typical Prophets

After the long list of this type of intercession by atypical prophets, the dearth of biblical examples for typical prophets is telling. One hint that typical prophets interceded to resolve real-world problems lies in Jer 27:18, wherein Jeremiah advises true prophets—those with access to the divine word—to entreat (‫ )פגע‬the deity that the remaining vessels from the temple and palace not go to Babylon. Entreaty is the only ritual act mentioned, with the nuance of divine encounter.46 In 2 Chron 32:20, Hezekiah and Isaiah together pray to Yhwh in response t o Assyrian threats; this text, however, adapts earlier versions of the story. In one (2 Kgs 19:14–19), Hezekiah prays alone. I address the other (Isa 37:1–4) in section 5.2.3 below.47

5.2 Apotropaic Intercession 5.2.1  Apotropaic Intercession by Atypical Prophets

Accounts of apotropaic intercession by atypical prophets include some of the most famous stories in the Bible, such as Moses’ appeals after the sin of the Golden Calf (Exod 32:11–13; 31–32; Deut 9:25–29) and after the people’s refusal to enter the Promised Land (Num 14:13–19). Moses also intercedes twice to keep God’s presence in the people’s midst, in Exod 33:12–16, 34:8–9, after Yhwh says that to accompany them would mean their destruction (Exod 33:5). In other examples, Moses and Aaron intercede on behalf of the Israelite community in Num 16:22, following Korah’s rebellion; and Samuel cries out all night to Yhwh in 1 Sam 15:11.48 46  BDB, s.v. “‫פגַ ע‬. ָ” 47  Other examples of typical prophets’ interventions in resolving real-world problems turn on others’ prayer. For example, Isaiah’s sole reported involvement in the face of Hezekiah’s mortal illness is to pronounce oracles of doom and salvation (2 Kgs 20:1–6; Isa 38:1–6) and to advise the application of figs (2 Kgs 20:7, Isa 38:21)—the latter presumably a ritual act, after Hezekiah’s own tearful prayer swayed Yhwh’s mind. In Joel 2:17, faced with devastating drought, Joel directs the priests to pray. 48  Habakkuk 1–2 could theoretically also be understood as warding off a divine threat, but more likely it represents an after-the-fact representation. Dona Dykes, “Diversity and Unity in Habakkuk” (Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University, 1976), 6, 8.

Ritualizing strategies are both less common and less extreme in this group. Most of these depictions state that the prophet appealed or prayed to Yhwh, often with direct discourse. In a few cases the speech is accompanied by prostration (Exod 34:8, Num 16:22, Deut 9:18, 25), indicating a degree of formalization. In contrast, we saw only one example of prostration in the earlier group, in Num 17:10. Prostration is an element common to supplication of both human and divine authorities. It is not limited to intercession. Other repeated elements in these texts are best explained, not as ritual invariance, but as doublets (Exod 32:11–13 and Deut 9:25–29), or as other intertextual influence (e.g., Moses’ similar arguments in Exod 32:11–13 and Num 14:13–16).49 In the list of divine attributes that Moses recites in Num 14:17–18, we see a hint of possible invariance linked to other citations of this formula. The attributes are presented in Exod 34:6–7 as Yhwh’s self-description. Other versions appear in prophetic and non-prophetic texts, but nowhere else in prophetic intercession.50 Thus the link to prophetic ritual utterance is nebulous. We can, however, identify the strategy of divine citation (a kind of traditionalism) in Moses’ citation of Yhwh’s speech. Bell defines traditionalism as “the attempt to make a set of activities appear to be identical to or thoroughly consistent with older cultural precedents.”51 When the tradition is originated by a deity, however, imitating it can carry occult efficacy. In fact, a major class of rituals in the ANE and elsewhere incorporate historiolae, defined by David Frankfurter as “abbreviated narrative[s] … incorporated into a magical spell.”52 Other examples of divine prescription or citation are absent from these examples. In fact, in two accounts of Moses interceding after the sin of the golden calf, Yhwh explicitly tells Moses to leave him alone (Exod 32:10 and Deut 9:14). Other ritualizing strategies in this group include special time and location, and hints of stylization and vivid performance. Time may be a factor in 1 Sam 15:11, in which Samuel cries out to Yhwh all night. Night-time rituals and prayers 49  Both Exod 32:11–13 and Num 14:13–16 are commonly considered to be Deuteronomic inserts. The Numbers text is likely adapted from the Exodus version. Martin Noth, Numbers: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1968), 108–109; Jean Louis Ska, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 93, and Suzanne Boorer, The Promise of the Land as Oath: A Key to the Formation of the Pentateuch (BZAW 205; New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1992), 356–363. 50  A variant of this wording appears in Jer 32:18–19, as part of Jeremiah’s lament to Yhwh on his own behalf; also in Joel 2:13, when bidding people to repent; and in Jon 4:2, part of Jonah’s complaint that Yhwh failed to destroy Nineveh as Jonah prophesied. Variants appear as well in Pss 103:8; 145:8; and Neh 9:17, with more distant echoes in Exod 20:5–6; Deut 5:9–10; Dan 9:4; and Nah 1:3. 51 Bell, Perspectives, 145. 52  David Frankfurter, “Narrating Power: The Theory and Practice of the Magical Historiola in Ritual Spells,” in M. Meyer and P. Mirecki (eds.), Ancient Magic and Ritual Power (Boston, MA: Brill Academic, 2001), 457–476 [458].

played a role in Mesopotamian divination, and certain “prayers to the gods of the night” may have served as alternatives to the namburbû in warding off the effects of negative omens.53 Special location is significant in a number of these episodes, which mostly occur at Mt. Sinai/Horeb or before the Tent of Meeting, traditional sites of Yhwh’s manifestations. Although few non-verbal behaviours are described, we do see Moses’ prolonged fasting in Deut 9:18. Formalization is evident in prostration, and in the laudatory address used by Moses and Aaron in Num 16:22.

5.2.2  Apotropaic Intercession by Typical Prophets (Vision Reports)

Apotropaic intercession by typical prophets is explicitly depicted four times, all in vision reports. In Ezek 9:8, 11:13, and Amos 7:2, 5, the prophets receive divinely-sent visions of impending destruction and immediately intercede, responding to the deity with direct discourse. From a form-critical perspective, Amos 7:1–3 and 4–6 represent two complete vision reports. In Ezekiel 9 and 11, Ezekiel intercedes within the context of much longer, more complex visions of the temple. When Ezekiel witnesses Yhwh order the death of the people of Jerusalem, Ezekiel throws himself onto his face (9:8), and does the same when he envisions Pelatiah’s death (11:13). Yhwh answers Ezekiel’s first intercession directly (9:9–10) and responds to his second intercession with an oracle (11:14–21). In Amos 7, the deity’s responses appear in both narration and direct discourse (7:3, 6). In two back-to-back, intensely parallel accounts, Amos verbally intercedes with Yhwh immediately after being shown a vision of destruction (Amos 7:1–2, 4–5). Both times, the intercession is effective (Amos 7:3, 6). All four reports appear highly stereotypic, yet as noted earlier this is almost certainly a result of literary patterning rather than ritualization. In Amos 7:1–3 and 4–6, Amos responds to visions of destruction with nearly identical words. Amos 7:2: “Lord Yhwh, please pardon! How can Jacob stand? He is so small!”; Amos 7:5: “Lord Yhwh, please cease! How can Jacob stand? He is so small!” But on closer look we see that the introductions and conclusions of the vision reports, including the divine response, are likewise virtually identical. These two reports are part of a tight-knit composition with two matched pairs of vision reports, then one more. Literary patterning is also the most likely explanation of the similarities between Ezekiel’s two intercessory speeches in Ezek 9:8 and 11:13, in response to visions of judgment.54 Both are brief, open with the address “Lord Yhwh” and

13.

53  Erle Leichty, The Omen Series Šumma Izbu (TCS 4; Locust Valley, NY: Augustin, 1970),

54 Both take place within a vision in which Ezekiel witnesses Yhwh’s harsh judgment against Israel for committing abominations in the Temple. In the first, Ezekiel responds, “Ahah, Lord Yhwh, will you destroy the entire remnant of Israel when you pour out your rage upon

contain the phrase “the remnant of Israel”; and both are preceded by the prophet’s throwing himself on the ground. The address is a standard term for the deity throughout the book of Ezekiel. The repeated reference to the “remnant” reflects a common theme in the book. Nonetheless, we cannot rule out the possibility that these depictions reflect genuine ritual invariance. All four contain a common address. Ezekiel’s prostration (within the context of the vision) may also have reflected real-life prophetic intercession, particularly since Moses also prostrates himself in Exod 34:8, Num 16:22 (with Aaron), and Deut 9:18, 25. Neither address nor prostration was unique to intercession, nor even to human communication with Yhwh. Throughout the ancient Near East, supplication of both human and divine authorities frequently featured prostration and an address.55 One intriguing possibility is that apotropaic intercession may have been a largely internal process. In other words, any prostration or special wording might have been understood to occur within the prophet’s visionary encounter with the deity, invisible to outsiders. We can turn to 2 Kgs 8 for a possible model, in a story of Elisha and Hazael of Aram. The foreign ruler Ben-Hadad, who is ill, has told Hazael to go to Elisha to inquire of Yhwh (using ‫ )דרש‬about Ben-Hadad’s prognosis. Elisha evidently has a vision56 that Ben-Hadad will die, but tells Hazael to lie to his master. In v. 11, Elisha stares fixedly for a period (‫)עד־בש‬57 then weeps. When Hazael asks the reason for his weeping, he says, “Because I know how much misery you will do to the Israelites,” then describes the slaughter of infants and other horrors. The pause is suggestive. Presumably, we are to understand that Elisha received a divine communication—perhaps another vision—during that pause.58 According to Muffs, a prophet’s shock at a divine decree is what prompts him to intercede.59 Perhaps we are to see Elisha as not only receiving a second communication, but also responding to it with intercession as well as tears. If so, the beneficiary would surely not have been Hazael, but the Israelites, and the intercession unsuccessful.

5.2.3  Solicitations of Intercession by Typical Prophets

The third kind of text I analyse is a variant of the “prophetic inquiry schema” or “script” described by Burke O. Long and Rannfrid I. Thelle: 2 Kgs 19:1–7 [Isa

Jerusalem?” In the second, Ezekiel says, “Ahah, Lord Yhwh, are you wreaking the final destruction of the remnant of Israel?” 55  F. S. Naiden, Ancient Supplication (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006). 56  Based on his use of the Hiphil of ‫ ראה‬in 2 Kgs 8:10; cf. 8:13. 57 Interpreting ‫ בש‬with NJPS as “a long time.” NRSV, NAS, NIV: “until he (or Hazael) was ashamed.” Regardless, a pause is indicated. 58  Thelle makes this suggestion in Ask God, 95. 59  Muffs, “Who Will Stand in the Breach.”

37:1–7]; Jer 37:3–10; and Jer 42:1–22.60 Ordinarily, in this schema, individuals or delegations approach a prophet seeking an oracle in time of need, such as illness or war. In the three cases I cite, however, groups explicitly ask for the prophet’s help, not (simply) a consultation with Yhwh. For example, in 2 Kgs 19:1–7 [Isa 37:1–7], a delegation asks Isaiah to “lift up a prayer” (‫ )נשאת תפלה‬on behalf of the remnant surviving Assyria’s siege of Jerusalem. The prophet responds with a positive oracle. In one case, there is a ten-day delay; in the other cases the prophet responds—apparently promptly—with an oracle. In none of these three reports is there any depiction of the intercession itself; in fact, only in Jer 42:4 does the prophet explicitly agree to intercede. If we accept Thelle’s argument, mentioned earlier, Israelite intercession (whether by prophets or by other religious experts) was largely inseparable from the act of consulting the divine will through prayer. Thelle points to the synonymous use of the term ‫ התפלל‬and ‫ דרש‬in Jer 37:3, 7. Although in prior studies, ‫דרש‬ has been identified with oracle-seeking, and ‫ התפלל‬with intercession, Thelle argues that both terms are used to refer to the same act: mediating with the deity, in hopes that the response will be positive.61 Knowledge of human nature supports Thelle’s conclusion. In many inquiry schemas—which likely reflected a measure of reality—patients or their parents approach prophets in times of illness or war, asking that the prophet access Yhwh (typically using the root ‫)דרש‬. It is easy to imagine that they hoped for more than a mere prognosis. Putting the elements together, we can surmise that the prophet was expected to approach Yhwh for an oracle and to intercede if appropriate, perhaps within the same divine encounter. Any intercession would then be apotropaic.62 60  Burke O. Long, “The Effect of Divination upon Israelite Literature,” JBL 92 (1973): 489– 497, idem, “2 Kings III and Genres of Prophetic Narrative,” in David Orton (ed.), Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible: Selected Studies from Vetus Testamentum (Brill’s Readers in Biblical Studies 5; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 72–83; Rannfrid I. Thelle, “Reflections of Ancient Israelite Divination in the Former Prophets,” in R. F. Person and M. R. Jacobs (eds.), Israelite Prophecy and the Deuteronomistic History: Portrait, Reality, and the Formation of a History (AIL 14; Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2013), 18. Thelle’s understanding of “script” resembles the notion of social domain as used in this paper, although her focus is on verbal allusions to framed experiences. 61  Rannfrid I. Thelle, “The Prophetic Act of Consulting Yhwh in Jeremiah 21,2 and 37,7,” SJOT 12 (1998): 249–256. In Ask God, 201, Thelle writes that “both terms can entail the expectation of an oracle, and both terms can entail an act of restoration in response to a situation of distress.” Burke O. Long, “Two Question and Answer Schemata,” JBL 90 (1971): 129–139 (136), concludes similarly. 62  The expectation of an oracle does not preclude the hope for a miracle as well. In 2 Kgs 3:9–20, a variant of the “divine consultation schema,” Elisha contacts the deity—albeit reluctantly—when visited by the kings of Israel, Judah, and Edom, who confront drought as they seek to wage war on Moab (2 Kgs 3:9–20). The kings do not explicitly request Elisha’s help for this pre-existing problem, nor does Elisha promise intercession. Yet after uniquely demanding the help of a musician, the prophet is seized by the hand of Yhwh and proceeds to give an oracle promising both water and victory.

B. O. Long connects the prophetic inquiry schema with vision reports. Long suggests that “reports of vision were a commonly accepted form of response made by prophets when they were sought out for oracles.”63 We might take another step and ask if the prophet’s divine encounter was understood to take place in the setting of the divine council. Long associates the prophetic inquiry schema with the depiction of Micaiah participating in the divine council in 1 Kgs 22:13–23.64 We read in Jer 23:18 that prophets stand in Yhwh’s council, where they see and hear his word and must obey, lending credence to this notion.65 Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer notes that locating intercessory appeals atop Mt. Sinai, considered to be Yhwh’s home in some biblical texts, is suggestive.66 Although we lack biblical examples of explicit intercession within a vision of the divine council,67 Hesse calls Isaiah’s question in Isa 6:11, “How long, my Lord?” a “restrained intercession.”68 This point is worth discussing in some detail because it appears that the socalled prophetic inquiry schema is the most likely context for real-life prophetic intercession. The framed social domain—well-attested in the HB—would be “seeking (‫ )דרש‬Yhwh.”69 First, an individual or groups would request that the prophet “seek God” on their behalf, expecting not only an oracle but intercession, if necessary. This first part would include a ritualized request and acceptance by the prophet.70 The next step would be the prophet’s visionary encounter with Yhwh. This step was quite likely largely invisible to outsiders, apart from any techniques used to induce trance (e.g., the musician in 2 Kgs 3:15) and any changes in the prophet’s demeanour (e.g., Elisha’s pause and weeping in 2 Kgs 8:11). Ritualized behaviour might well occur within the prophet’s inner experience, however, including the prophet’s envisioned prostration. The final step, once again public, would be the proclamation of the oracle, whether immediately or after a delay. In this hypothetical reconstruction, we see a number of ritualizing strategies: formalization (in all three parts), potentially vivid performance (e.g., music, or perhaps dramatization of the oracle), possibly invariance in the prophet’s visions of his own behaviour (the language used to address Yhwh, prostration, perhaps more), potentially traditionalism if the prophet views himself as following the 63  Burke O. Long, “Reports of Visions among the Prophets,” JBL 95 (1976): 353–365 (365). 64  Long, “Effects of Divination,” 495. 65  Muffs also assumes that prophetic intercession occurs in the “divine court” (“Who Will Stand in the Breach”). 66  Tiemeyer, “Prophets,” 269–270. 67  Tiemeyer, “Prophets,” 268. 68 Hesse, Fürbitte, 44. 69  See the large number of examples described by Thelle in Ask God, 73–115. 70  The prophet’s acceptance should not be assumed. Cf. Elisha’s near-refusal in 2 Kgs 3:13– 14. Note as well Ezek 14:1–11.

example of Moses. The final oracle sometimes involves divine prescription for those seeking the oracle. Yet in comparison to priestly sacrifice on behalf of inadvertent sinners, the ritualizing strategies in this domain are fairly weak. Solicitations of prophetic intercession are similar but not identical in wording. As we have seen, reports of apotropaic intercession by prophets lack much in the way of invariance. Rather than subsuming his or her agency to a script, as is common in many rituals, the prophet here seems to rely on presumptions of intimacy with the deity, and the ability to influence divine decisions through prayer, modelled on petitions to human authorities. In particular, we see little in the way of occult efficacy in these accounts.

6. Summing up Biblical Evidence of Prophetic Intercession Looking at the most common patterns of intercession in the HB, we can discern distinctions between problem-solving intercession performed by atypical prophets, and apotropaic intercession performed by both atypical and typical prophets. Common to both patterns is the frequent use of special locations—those traditionally linked to Yhwh’s communications with humanity. Among the first group, we see vivid performances that are singular in nature. These include erecting the image of a snake on a standard; reciting an incantation; using incense to purify and prevent individuals from getting plague;71 striking a rock (or speaking to a rock) to bring forth water; and throwing a stick into water to make it potable.72 Each of these is portrayed as prescribed, either by Yhwh (all but one case) or by Moses (incense). The absence of invariance despite the presence of so many other ritualizing strategies suggests that the ritual behaviour described is intentionally unique, and that some episodes may serve as etiologies for later rituals.73 Many societies use historiolae74 or otherwise assert divine origins to bolster the legitimacy of healing or other magical rituals. There 71  This episode is something of a cross between apotropaic and problem-solving intercession, as noted. 72  Sweetening water by throwing in a piece of wood as in Exod 15:25 resembles two of Elisha’s acts of magic. In 2 Kgs 2:21, Elisha uses salt and invokes Yhwh to heal the water. In 2 Kgs 6:6 he throws a stick into water to make an axe head float. 73  An alternative explanation for the unusual use of incense in Num 17:11–15 is a literary one, because incense plays a significant role in the preceding episode. Jacob Milgrom, Numbers: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1990), 141. 74 Frankfurter, “Narrating Power,” understands historiolae to involve “the performative transmission of power from a mythic realm articulated in narrative to the human present” in the form of oral rites or re-enactments of events located in mythic precedent (464–465).

is no biblical evidence, however, that these later rituals existed, or that they would necessarily have been performed by prophets. In only one act of intercession (1 Sam 7:9) do we see sacrifice.75 The urging of confession and the presentation of his petition together with a whole burnt offering corresponds more to priestly patterns than prophetic ones, as best we can determine. Yet Samuel, who combines multiple roles, nonetheless manifests a certain intimacy with Yhwh, based in part on his unique role as Israel’s last premonarchic leader in biblical accounts. The other clear pattern consists of apotropaic intercession by typical prophets. Depictions in Amos and Ezekiel suggest a visionary context. It appears that the main element was prayer, sometimes accompanied by prostration. The most common verb used for intercession is ‫התפלל‬. Thelle notes that ‫ התפלל‬is linked to “formal prayer” and places of worship, in a variety of contexts.76 Some appeals may have included a version of the divine attributes cited in Exod 34:6–7, although there is little that specifically connects this to prophetic intercession. Otherwise—based on biblical examples—petitions and arguments seem to have been tailored to the situation. The HB presents prophets (including the figures of Moses and Aaron) as using persuasive tactics, pleading for mercy and arguing for justice, in texts such as Exod 32:11–13, 31–32; Num 14:13–19, 16:22; Ezek 9:8, 11:13; and Amos 7:2, 5. Prophets seemingly had considerable leeway to address Yhwh in their own ways, using the kind of language that Moshe Greenberg calls “prose prayer”: speech that appears freely-composed and specifically related to the circumstances described in the narrative, although potentially formal in style.77 It is of course possible that other elements were standard parts of prophetic intercessory performances and that biblical writers or redactors deemed them unnecessary or inappropriate for routine mention. Some ritualized behaviours may have been part of the general process of consulting the divine, described earlier. Elisha demands a musician prior to prophesying in 2 Kgs 3:15, within a prophetic inquiry schema; potentially music was a standard element in inducing a trance state.78 Sweeney claims that sacrifice was universal. Overall, however, there is quite limited biblical evidence of music or sacrifice in intercession performed by prophets.

75  See Davis, “Relating with Gods,” 185–187. 76 Thelle, God, 236. 77  Moshe Greenberg, Biblical Prose Prayer as a Window to the Religion of Ancient Israel (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1983), 7. 78  Alternatively, one can argue that his request is anomalous, an extra demand illustrating his reluctance to help the king.

7. Conclusion In this paper, I have examined the evidence for ritualization in Israelite prophetic intercession, using the HB as my primary source. The bulk of evidence leans in two directions. First, we have quite a few sequences of behaviour, all by atypical prophets, that incorporate multiple strategies of ritualization such as stylization, special location, and often explicit divine prescription, aimed at resolving existing problems such as a military threat (e.g., 1 Sam 5–6, 9). Doublets aside, the lack of invariance suggests that some of these were intentionally preserved for their uniqueness, perhaps because they were etiologies for later ritual practices. As for apotropaic intercession per se, two kinds of evidence suggest that it was framed as a single encounter with the deity that incorporated an oracle (solicited or not). First are the vision reports, in which we see precisely this kind of framing. Second are the prophetic inquiry schemas. Only a few of those explicitly incorporate a request for the prophet’s help along with (or in one case, instead of) the request for an oracle. Such solicited oracles may have generated far more instances of apotropaic intercession in Israelite history than unsolicited oracles. Unlike problem-solving intercession, reports of apotropaic intercession contain ritualizing strategies relying on naturalistic efficacy and with little subordination of agency. These strategies used are consistent with supplication in general. They result in a model of respectful but relatively free communication with the divine, in which the prophets express their petitions and arguments in a manner akin to ordinary, albeit formal, communication with a superior. The strategies of ritualization do not fully subsume the prophet’s agency into a ritual role, but rather allow the prophet to influence the divine will with his own.

Lester L. Grabbe Cultic Prophecy Déjà vu

Introduction Although the terms “cult prophet” and “cultic prophecy” are found throughout the literature on prophecy, there seem to be few if any recent lengthy studies or discussion. This is surprising, considering the discussions in the past. However, part of the reason might be that the subject has been of little interest, despite the fact that prophecy remains one of the more ploughed fields in Hebrew Bible scholarship and there is a current resurgence of interest in the temple cult. The only major study since 2000 seems to be John Hilber’s Cultic Prophecy in the Psalms.1 The idea that some prophets may have had a place in the temple cult goes back at least to the nineteenth century, though the first major treatment of the subject seems to be Sigmund Mowinckel’s exposition of it in Part III of his Psalmenstudien.2 Actually, much of Mowinckel’s argument was based on the genre of certain psalms, which he thought were composed by prophets. His argument was also tied into his thesis of an important and wide-ranging New Year festival in ancient Israel, a thesis now less widely held. A. R. Johnson’s work has become a standard treatment of the subject in English.3 Like Mowinckel, he argued in part on the basis of the book of Psalms, but his monograph, The Cult Prophet in Israel, is quite thorough in considering all the various passages that might be relevant to the topic. In his latest book Martti Nissinen devotes a chapter to “prophets and temples.”4 I think this is a very helpful discussion, particularly because it gives essential background to an important aspect of prophecy in its broader context. However, 1  John W. Hilber, Cultic Prophecy in the Psalms (BZAW 352; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2005). 2 Sigmund Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien: III. Kultprophetie und prophetische Psalmen (Skrifter utgit av Videnskapsselskapets i Kristiania I: Hist.-Filos. Klasse. Oslo: Dybwad, 1922). For a history of the concept of cult prophecy, see Johannes Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Blackwell, 1962). Hilber, Cultic Prophecy in the Psalms, chap. 1, also gives a good survey of the study of cult prophecy to about the year 2000. 3  Aubrey R. Johnson, The Cult Prophet in Israel (Cardiff: University of Wales, 1944; 2nd edition, 1962). 4  Martti Nissinen, Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), especially 201–256.

40

Lester L. Grabbe

I would define “cult prophet” more narrowly than prophecy in a temple context. While a number of prophets had a lot to do with the temple, such as Jeremiah who spent much time in and around the temple, that does not make them cult prophets (though a few would consider Jeremiah a cult prophet). According to my definition, he or she is a member of the temple personnel who acts (at least sometimes) in the temple as a prophet. This might be in the regular liturgy or service but might simply be to give formal prophecies now and then, perhaps addressed to the king or the administration. It seems to me there are good arguments for believing that cultic prophecy existed in ancient Israel. Some of these arguments are not new, but others are, especially in the light of prophetic texts now known from Mesopotamia and elsewhere. In the rest of this paper, I shall present some of the main arguments for the existence of cultic prophecy in the Jerusalem temple in ancient Israel.

1. Arguments Supporting Cultic Prophecy in Antiquity 1.1  Prophetic Guilds Samuel was the chief cultic figure in Israel under Saul. In his time we first come across a phenomenon known as the “band or company of prophets” (‫חבל נביאים‬, 1 Sam 10:5, 10) or perhaps even “senate or school of the prophets” (‫לקחת הנביאים‬, 1 Sam 19:20) or just “disciples or sons of the prophets” (‫בני הנביאים‬, 2 Kgs 2:3). First, they are simply a group of prophets coming down from a high place of worship (1 Sam 10:10–11), whom Saul meets; at this point he is taken over by God’s spirit and prophesies with the prophets. Note their association with a place of worship, just as later ones are associated with the Jerusalem temple (see below). The next time this group of prophets is mentioned Samuel is at their head (1 Sam 19:18–24). We hear nothing further about them until the time of Ahab, Elijah, and Elisha. In 1 Kgs 22 Ahab brings together 400 prophets of Yhwh (v. 6). It is unlikely that these were just prophets living in isolated areas across the country who were brought to Samaria by Ahab. More believable is that they were regular prophets associated with the court and temple whom he could call on as needed. A similar gathering of prophets is associated with Elijah. When the time came for Elijah to leave the earth, he went to two separate groups of the “sons of the prophets,” at Bethel and Jericho, with whom he seems to have had a connection (2 Kgs 2:3–18); again, Bethel is a known cult site. Elisha was also involved with the “sons of the prophets” on a number of occasions and seems to have been their leader (2 Kgs 4:1, 38–41; 6:1–7; 9:1–3). Whether these prophets lived at or even constituted a cult location is not clear from the text, though they may have done.

Cultic Prophecy Déjà vu

41

1.2  Prophets in the Court of David and Other Kings One of the things we find throughout the biblical text is how intertwined prophets are with the temple and priesthood. Not all prophets have a temple association, of course, but many do. Far from being opposed to the temple and priesthood, most prophets in the Bible are intensely concerned with priests and temple, and even their criticisms show this desire to make these institutions better and stronger, not do away with them. In the story of David, there are frequent references to religious figures in his court. Zadok the priest is one, of course, but there are many references to prophetic individuals. One such individual was Nathan the prophet. He appears at a number of crucial points during David’s rule (e.g., 2 Sam 7:1–17; 12:1–14). The other main prophet was Gad the seer. He is referred to in 1 Chron 21:9 as “Gad, David’s seer (‫)חזה‬,” but he is “Gad the prophet (‫)נביא‬, David’s seer (‫ ”)חזה‬in 2 Sam 24:11. Nathan and Gad are often mentioned together with Zadok, indicating their partnership in advising David (2 Sam 24:11; 1 Kgs 1:8, 26, 32, 34, 38, 44–45). In both 1 Chron 21 and the parallel passage of 2 Sam 24, David sins by taking a census of the young men capable of military service. It is Gad who brings the message of God’s displeasure. According to the text (which is our only real source), after the time of David prophets appear sporadically in narratives about the Israelite or Judaean court: if there was a regular office of court prophet, we are not informed of this. Curiously, Solomon is not linked to a particular prophet. Nathan the prophet is associated with the scheme to get Solomon made king and then with anointing him to that office, as is Zadok the priest (1 Kgs 1:7–45), but both disappear from the story afterward. Solomon is criticized for being led astray by his “foreign women” (1 Kgs 11:1–13); the text continues that “Yhwh” spoke to him and predicted that he will take away all the kingdom, except for one tribe, and give it to a servant (1 Kgs 11:11–13). How Yhwh spoke to him is not specified. Possibly it was directly, but this is seldom the way that God would act. More likely is that a prophet delivered the message, but we do not know for sure. Yet we should not overlook the fact that later kings often had named prophets associated with them. If they were not official court prophets, they seem to have spent a lot of time around the court and also the temple. Some of the most interesting episodes have to do with the various prophets associated with Ahab (1 Kgs 17–22). The most significant one is Elijah. In confronting the prophets of Baal, Elijah carries out the priestly function of repairing an altar of Yhwh on Mt Carmel and offering a sacrifice on it (1 Kgs 18:30–39). It is interesting that one of Ahab’s ministers, Obadiah, hides a hundred prophets to protect them from Jezebel (1 Kgs 18:4), though why they are not mentioned subsequently, especially as giving assistance to Elijah in his difficulties, is a puzzle. Later on, contrary to the impression sometimes given, the 400 prophets consulted by Ahab were not

42

Lester L. Grabbe

pagan prophets but prophets of “Yhwh,” just l ike Micaiah who gave a different message (1 Kgs 22:5–28). They seem to have been cultic prophets, connected with the temple, since Ahab as the head of the cult would probably have freely called on temple resources for his needs when it suited him.5 A little later, Amos has an episode relating to the Bethel temple (7:10–17). The priest of Bethel sends a message to king Jeroboam that Amos is preaching conspiracy (7:10–11). Amos is not depicted as a prophet of the Bethel cult; on the contrary, he is presented as a foreigner. This has not prevented some from identifying him as a cult prophet.6 Another curious situation was that with regard to Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18–20). A particular point to note is that the main prophet attached to his court was Isaiah, not least in 2 Kgs 18–20 (which describes the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib, as well as other episodes; these chapters are repeated with only a few minor differences of wording in Isa 36–39). Isaiah had his call in the temple (Isa 6) but was often in the royal palace and the presence of the king with messages and business. In Isa 7:3–9 with his message to Ahaz, king of Judah, we are not told of the king’s reaction. The messages of Isa 6–11 are all positive in that Judah would eventually triumph, but they also contain warnings of sins and that Judah would suffer from the Assyrians before they are finally punished. Isaiah does not fit the stereotype of the cultic prophet, but is the stereotype right? At the time of King Josiah, the book of the law was supposedly found in the temple (2 Kgs 22:12–20). The scroll was given to the high priest Hilkiah, who had it brought to the attention of the king. The king took the initiative to consult the prophetess Huldah, who delivered a message to Josiah about the future of Jerusalem and his own future. When Josiah concluded a covenant with the deity on behalf of the people, he associated the prophets, as well as the priests and people, with the ceremony (2 Kgs 23:1–3). Which prophets were these? This looks like a group around the court or temple (was there even a distinction?). As the wife of “the keeper of the wardrobe,” who seems to have been a temple official, Huldah could well have been a temple prophet. The last years of the kingdom of Judah, in the late seventh and early sixth centuries b.c.e., reveal several prophets in the biblical text. The most notable is Jeremiah, who not only had access to the king (at least some of the time) but was also intimately associated with the temple. He was himself of a priestly family 5  On the king as the head of the cult, see Lester L. Grabbe, Priests, Prophets, Diviners, Sages: A Socio-historical Study of Religious Specialists in Ancient Israel (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995), chap. 2. 6  Ernst Würthwein, “Amos-Studien,” ZAW 62 (1950): 10–52; Henning Reventlow, Das Amt des Propheten bei Amos (FRLANT 80; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962). For an argument that Amos is not anti-temple, as sometimes argued, see Göran Eidevall, “A Farewell to the Anticultic Prophet: Attitudes towards the Cult in the Book of Amos,” in Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer (ed.), Priests and Cults in the Book of the Twelve (ANEM 14; Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2016), 99–114.

Cultic Prophecy Déjà vu

43

from Anathoth, though there is no evidence that he ever served at the altar (Jer 1:1). He often spoke in the temple or at the temple gate (Jer 7:1–2; 19:14–15; 20:1–3; 26:2–19; 28; 38:14; cf. 36:5–20), and there were times when he had access to a room in the temple itself (35:2–4). This is why a few put Jeremiah in the category of cult prophet. Jeremiah does not fit our stereotype but, again, is our stereotype wrong? He was sometimes opposed by temple personnel (“priests and prophets,” in Jer 26:7, 8, 11, 16; also 20:2–6), but at other times such personnel were his followers or at least consulted him (e.g., Jer 21:1–2; 29:29–32; 36:9–19, 25; 37:3). Was these “prophets” cultic prophets? Another prophet, often overlooked (because he seems to be presented as a false prophet in the text) is Hananiah (Jer 28). He is a prophet of Yhwh and speaks in the name of Yhwh (even though Jeremiah claims that he was not sent by Yhwh [28:15]). His message to Jeremiah is delivered in the temple, in the presence of the priests (28:1). Jeremiah’s reply is also in the presence of the priests (28:5). The temple as the stage for this prophetic contest, with the priests as the main audience, illustrates the importance of the temple to at least some prophets. Could Hananiah have been a cult prophet? Yet he seems to be the mirror image of Jeremiah. Among the Lachish letters in the late period of the Judahite monarchy, there seems to be mention of a prophet. This is in a letter from a military officer during the final period of fighting with the Babylonian army before the fall of Jerusalem. Letter number 3 refers to an individual known as the “prophet” (3:20, ‫)הנביא‬. It has been argued that his role in the letter was to intercede with Yhwh for the nation.7 This brief mention is intriguing but tells us little. Some have speculated that the prophet was Jeremiah, but that is only a guess. In the early post-exilic period, the prophets Haggai and Zechariah son of Iddo support Zerubbabel and Joshua in rebuilding the temple and restoring the religious situation in Judah. They could well be temple prophets, since their concern is almost solely with the temple.

1.3  Groups of “False” Prophets Many of the attacks on “false” prophets imply that they work in groups and proclaim only peace and good for Israel. This is a somewhat tricky situation, since a number of references to “priests and prophets” seem to be a conventional expression to imply comprehensive inclusion of religious specialists, or a listing with other officials which also implies the whole of society (e.g., Jer 2:26, 30; 4:9; 6:13; 8:1, 10; 13:13; 14:18; 29:1; 32:32; Mic 3:11; Zeph 3:4; Lam 2:9, 20; 4:13). But a number of these seem to be a reference to a social grouping well known 7  Hans M. Barstad, “Lachish Ostracon III and Ancient Israelite Prophecy,” EI 24 (1993): 8*–12*.

44

Lester L. Grabbe

in Israelite society. We shall ignore the prophets labelled the prophets of Baal or Asherah, since they really tell us nothing about the Yhwh prophets and the temple. We have already considered the prophets under Ahab (1 Kgs 18–19) above. A number of passages talk about prophets who prophesy falsely, which are sometimes included as part of a list of officials who sin or act badly (Isa 9:14; 28:7; 29:10–11; Jer 5:13, 31; 27:9–10, 14–18; 29:8–9; 37:19; Ezek 22:28; Hos 4:5; Mic 3:5–7; Zech 13:2–5; Lam 2:14). Jeremiah 14:13–16 talks of prophets who lie by predicting that bad things (like sword and famine) will not come. The statement could be a general one, but does it not suggest that there is a group or category of prophets who predicts such “good” things? Jeremiah 23 is even more categorical, with an oracle headed, “Against the prophets” (‫)לנביאים‬. Mentioned are prophets of both Samaria and Jerusalem (vv. 13–14). The people are told not to listen to these prophets, because their prophecies promising that nothing bad will happen are false (vv. 16–17). Jeremiah is of course contrasting himself with these prophets (vv. 18–20, 28–29). The group is not specified and could include a number of individual prophets, but one has the impression of some sort of grouping to which many of them are attached. A similar condemnation against prophets collectively is found in Ezek 13, with verses 1–16 detailing false prophecies that all would be well, and verses 17–23 against women prophets (the charges here are random, though they include lying to the people). Jer 26 presents an interesting scenario in which Jeremiah is sent to speak out in the temple court. Those who hear him are especially “priests and prophets,” who also respond negatively to his message (vv. 7, 8, 11, 16). One expects to find priests within the temple, along with some ordinary people. Yet prophets appear alongside the priests, and they and the priests seem to act collectively. Of course, we may well have a stereotyped scene created (at least to some extent) by the author, but it seems strange that prophets would have been added to the mix if prophets were not normally a part of the temple scene—indeed, part of the temple personnel along with the priests. Zech 7:3 speaks of inquiring of the temple priests and prophets. To deny that these are temple prophets—at least, in some cases—seems perverse.

1.4  Late References to Temple Singers 1 and 2 Chronicles mention prophets who occur nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible. For example, in 1 Chron 9:22 a seer (‫ )ראה‬named Samuel helps David to establish the temple gatekeepers in their office. (The gatekeepers, while not priests as such, were temple personnel). 1 and 2 Chronicles also indicate that some of the Levites prophesied. 1 Chron 25:1–6 associates the sons of Asaph and others, who sing and play instruments, with prophesying: some of these “prophesied” to the accompaniment of musical instruments (25:1–3). 2 Kgs 23:2 mentions that the priests and prophets went up with the king to the temple. That itself seems to

Cultic Prophecy Déjà vu

45

hint at a cultic position for these particular prophets, but also the parallel passage in 2 Chron 34:30 has “Levites” instead of prophets. Some of these were sons of Heman, the seer (‫ )ראה‬of the king who pronounced “words of God” (25:5). Elsewhere Heman is called a “singer” (1 Chron 6:18; 15:19; 2 Chron 5:12). 2 Chron 29:25, supposedly at the time of Hezekiah, makes reference to the establishment of Levites as players of musical instruments by David, Gad the seer, and Nathan the prophet. This has all been interpreted to mean that the books of Chronicles are indicating that the former cult prophets have been assimilated into the Levites and temple singers. One of the sons of Asaph gives what seems to be a prophecy to Jehoshaphat (2 Chron 20:14–17). 2 Chron 20 describes an episode in which Judah was threatened by a coalition of Moabites and Ammonites, including the inhabitants of Mt Seir (20:1, 10, 22–23). When Jehoshaphat addressed a congregation of Judahites, calling on “Yhwh” to protect them (20:3–13), Jahaziel (son of Zechariah son of Benaiah son of Jeiel son of Mattaniah the Levite, belonging to the sons of Asaph) responded with a message when the spirit of Yhwh came on him: they were not to fear but let Yhwh fight the battle (20:14–19). The next day the soldiers of the opposing army fought among themselves, killing each other and leaving nothing but corpses and vast spoil for the Judahites to take (20:20–28). It is not stated that Jahaziel is a prophet, but his position among the sons of Asaph suggests that he functions as a prophet, at least in this instance. Two listings in Ezra-Nehemiah give a division of temple personnel not found anywhere else. Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 divide the returnees into the people of Israel (Ezra 2:2–35//Neh 7:7–38), the priests (Ezra 2:36–39//Neh 7:39–42), the Levites (Ezra 2:40//Neh 7:43), the singers (Ezra 2:41//Neh 7:44), the gatekeepers (Ezra 2:42//Neh 7:45), the temple servants (Ezra 2:43–54//Neh 7:46–56), and the sons of Solomon’s servants (Ezra 2:55–57//Neh 7:57–59). Ezra 2:65//Neh 7:67 also mentions 200 or so male and female singers without designating them further, though one presumes they were associated with the temple cult. These references are difficult because such descriptions of temple singers who “prophesy” are found only in these late texts. But it becomes entirely understandable as a development from cultic prophets to an assimilation of cultic prophecy into an enhanced role for singing in the temple service. These texts in Chronicles and in Ezra-Nehemiah cannot just be dismissed but must be accepted as a reflection on the later temple situation, perhaps in the Persian period.

1.5  Language and Themes in the Psalms Sigmund Mowinckel was at the forefront of comparing psalms and prophetic speeches. He argued that the language used and the themes treated by some of the canonical prophets suggest that the writers functioned in the cult. For example, Pss 60, 75, 82, 110 look very much like prophetic utterances even though a part

46

Lester L. Grabbe

of the Psalter. The sons of Asaph who prophecy in 1 Chron 25 have a number of psalms ascribed to them (Pss 50, 73–83). The sons of Hanan son of Igdaliah, “the man of God,” had a chamber in the temple (Jer 35:4). If he was a prophet, he could well have been a cultic prophet. Some prophecies in the Bible, especially the oracles against foreign nations (e.g., Amos 1–3; Jer 1:4,10; 28:8; 25; 46–51 [MT = LXX: 25:1–13; 46:1–51:58, but different order; 25:15–38]; Isa 13; 15–25; Ezek 25–32; Num 22:36–24:25), have been thought to originate with prophets in the temple, whose concern—indeed, part of whose job—was to make sure that Israel or Judah was defended against external threats. Even if some or all these passages were by non-cultic prophets, they could well have been imitating the oracles of cultic prophets. John Hilber has recently returned to the subject where Mowinckel and others left off. He concludes: Examination of psalms containing first-person divine speech has demonstrated their authentic prophetic character. Complementing the first person divine speech are framing devices, formal structure, rhetoric, themes, as well as life settings, which conform to what ancient Israelite worshippers would have expected of actual prophetic speech. Alternative explanations of prophetic speech in psalms, such as the sermon or poetic imitation, lack comparable examples external to psalms.8

1.6  Prophecy as a Form of Divination in the Temple It took an anthropologist, Mary Douglas, to point out the obvious: the importance of divination in a sacrificial system.9 How were you to know a sacrifice was needed? How were you to know what sort of sacrifice to bring? How would you know that Yhwh had accepted you—had accepted your sacrifice and forgiven your sin? She points out that Leviticus in its present form is against divination; however, such may once have been part of the sacrificial system. If so (and her discussion is incomplete because she is not trying to reconstruct the earlier system), this divination would have been the responsibility of the priests: they were to pronounce the person forgiven and accepted by God, just as they pronounced on leprosy and also that the leper had been cleansed after certain criteria had been fulfilled (cf. Lev 13–14). But they also had priestly forms of divination, such

8 Hilber, Cultic Prophecy in the Psalms, 225. Cf. also his articles, “Cultic Prophecy in the Psalms in the Light of Assyrian Prophetic Sources,” TynBul 56 (2005): 141–145; “Cultic Prophecy in Assyria and in the Psalms,” JAOS 127 (2007): 29–40. 9  Mary Douglas, Leviticus as Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 109–133. Cf. Lester L. Grabbe, “Review of M. Douglas, Leviticus as Literature,” Journal of Ritual Studies 18 (2004): 157–161.

Cultic Prophecy Déjà vu

47

as the divine lots of the urim and thumim. Perhaps these were used only on special occasions, not in the routine cultic activity, but who knows? Likewise, the priestly forms of divination might have sufficed in ordinary cases, but what about extraordinary ones? And, especially, what about the case of national emergencies? Here is where cultic prophets might have come into their own. Many of us would classify prophecy as a form of divination.10 Many think of divination primarily in terms of manipulation of mechanical devices, such as casting lots or interpreting the inner organs of sacrificed animals (extispicy). But prophecy would be a type of “spirit divination.” Note, for example, that the “spirit of God” (‫רוח אלהים‬, 1 Sam 10:10) came on Saul, causing him to prophesy. We have one example in 2 Chron 20 which was discussed in 1.4, in which Jahaziel prophesied divine aid in a time of a national crisis.

1.7  Cross-cultural Comparisons Although the situation in other cultures is not proof that the same phenomenon can be found in ancient Israel, the analogy from another contemporary culture can be useful in considering whether certain things are possible and with asking questions of the data. In this case, we find that many examples of prophecy in Mesopotamia take place in a temple environment and involve personnel associated with the temple. This is made clear in the writings of a number of specialists in Mesopotamian prophecy.11 First, most Mari prophecies take place in a temple or cultic place of some sort: “revelations occur in the sanctuary. This is an important point that has not received the attention it deserves.”12 The same also seems to be the case with Neo-Assyrian prophecies, most of which occur at Ishtar cult sites.13 The many examples now available led Hilber to conclude, “It appears that temple prophecy constituted an ongoing part of the cult in Mesopotamia.”14 Only a few examples can be given here, but many more are catalogued in the recent studies cited here. One Neo-Assyrian prophecy concerns the throne of the king as used in the ceremony of the substitute king. As Beate Pongratz-Leisten 10  See the discussion in Grabbe, Priests, 139–141. 11  See Nissinen, Ancient Prophecy, especially chap. 6; also Hilber, Cultic Prophecy in the Psalms, especially chap. 2. For texts in transliteration and translation, see Martti Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East (with contributions by C. L. Seow and Robert K. Ritner, edited by Peter Machinist; SBLWAW 12; Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003). See also nn. 12 and 15. 12  Karel van der Toorn, “From the Oral to the Written: The Case of Old Babylonian Prophecy,” in Ehud Ben Zvi and Michael H. Floyd (eds.), Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy (SBLSymS 10; Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 219–234, especially 221–223. 13 Hilber, Cultic Prophecy in the Psalms, 54–56. 14 Hilber, Cultic Prophecy in the Psalms, 60.

48

Lester L. Grabbe

notes, “This confirms the impression that the oracle medium [prophecy] was anchored firmly in the cult.”15 Two ritual texts from Mari describe the participation of prophets in a liturgical ritual, very much as Mowinckel had envisaged in ­theory.16 In this case, the king, singers, and prophets all take part in the temple ceremony. We also have temple ration lists from Mari that include prophets among the temple personnel.17 Granted, we cannot automatically project the situation in Mesopotamia into the Israelite context. On the other hand, Assyria/Babylonia and Israel shared a great deal of culture, and where we have knowledge of what went on in Mesopotamian temples, we have to ask whether the same or something similar occurred in the Jerusalem sanctuary. Some Israelite prophets seem to have had little or nothing to do with the temple of Yhwh, yet others have much to do with it (e.g., Jeremiah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi).

2. Conclusions Who were these pesky cultic prophets, then, if they existed? Some of these arguments carry more weight than others. The main difficulty we have is that cultic prophets are not described as such anywhere in the biblical text. We often have prophets mentioned in connection with the temple, including some important canonical prophets, such as Isaiah and Jeremiah, but this is in passing. No specific function of cultic prophets is laid out for us to use. Often this is enough to deter us, but Hebrew Bible scholars are made of sterner stuff: one does not have to have explicit information before developing hypotheses. Yet before we hike up our skirts and run swiftly away with righteous harumphs, we also need to recognize that all of us accept certain hypotheses for which the biblical text is less than explicit. Perhaps the canonical prophets most often accepted as being cultic are Habakkuk and Nahum.18 On the other hand, there has been a good deal of resistance 15  Beate Pongratz-Leisten, Herrschaftswissen in Mesopotamien: Formen der Kommunikation zwischen Gott und König im 2. und 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (SAAS 10; Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1999), 83: “Dies bestätigt die Annahme, daß das Orakelwesen im Kult fest verankert war.” Text and translation of the text (SAA 13 37) are found in Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, 167–168; Nissinen also discusses the text in References to Prophecy in Neo-Assyrian Sources (SAAS 7; Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1998), 78–81. 16  Described in Nissinen, Ancient Prophecy, 176–177. Text and translation of the texts (FM 3 2 and 3 3) are found in Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, 80–83. 17 Nissinen, Ancient Prophecy, 208–209. 18  Cf. Jörg Jeremias, Kultprophetie und Gerichtsverkündigung in der späten Königszeit Israels (WMANT 35; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1970), though he sees no evidence for Nahum.

Cultic Prophecy Déjà vu

49

to seeing some of the “classical” prophets as coming out of the cult. For example, the proposals that Amos and Jeremiah were cult prophets have met with little sympathy.19 There are indeed problems with the argumentation used to prove this last point, yet one cannot help suspecting that ideology has had a heavy hand in bringing scholars to this conclusion. One cannot deny the close association that figures like Isaiah and Jeremiah had with the temple. Yet the clinching evidence for me are the passages in which “prophets”— plural—are associated with the priests and/or the temple. Jer 26 is a prime example, but there are other passages, such as 2 Kgs 23:2. Then there is the situation in the books of Chronicles (which I would date as probably from the early Greek period) which clearly assimilate prophecy and temple/liturgical singing. Here, it seems to me, is a historical development outlined by the text in some detail. This would also help explain why cultic prophecy is not so clearly described in the text as we presently have it: by the time of the final editing of much of the biblical text, cultic prophecy had been assimilated to the temple singing. Yet even though some arguments are stronger than others, there is a cumulative force to the various points of evidence. The revival of interest in the cult and the recognition of the importance of formal worship in the sanctuary can only reinforce the necessity of recognizing the diversity of prophecy in Israel. The prophets were not, on the whole, anti-temple or anti-cult, and it has now become more and more evident that some prophets were temple personnel and that some prophecies arose within the temple and the temple ritual.

19  Henning Reventlow, Liturgie und prophetisches Ich bei Jeremia (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1963); idem, Amt; Würthwein, “Amos-Studien.”

John W. Hilber Prophetic Ritual in the Egyptian Royal Cult

Introduction1 Prophecy, properly speaking, is a divine message intuitively received for transmission to a third party.2 Nissinen has summarized the elements to look for in considering whether any particular text reports prophetic speech: (1) Does it explicitly mention a prophet? (2) Does it quote or paraphrase divine words that otherwise can be characterized as prophetic? (3) Is there evidence that other methods of divination might account for the message?3 In addition, as described below, one can look for a prophetic performance scenario, which is often marked by an accompanying ritual that symbolizes action on the part of the deity whose words are being spoken. Regarding ancient Egypt, it is generally held that prophecy, in the sense of divine messenger speech, did not exist.4 The texts that have been considered (e.g., 1  The foundational study for this paper was read at the 2008 Annual Meeting of the SBL and subsequently published in a Festschrift article for Graham I. Davies. See John W. Hilber, “Prophetic Speech in the Egyptian Royal Cult,” in James K. Aitken, Katharine J. Dell, and Brian A. Mastin (eds.), On Stone and Scroll: Essays in Honour of Graham Ivor Davies (BZAW 420; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 39–53. The program committee for the “Prophetic Texts and their Ancient Context” section of SBL invited me to present a summary of this material. However, in so doing I have augmented this previous research to focus more on the ritual that accompanied prophetic affirmations of victory in the Egyptian royal cult. 2  Manfred Weippert, “Aspekte israelitischer Prophetie im Lichte verwandter Erscheinungen des Alten Orients,” in Gerlinde Mauer and Ursula Magen (eds.), Ad Bene et Fideliter Seminandum: Festgabe für Karlheinz Deller zum 21. Februar 1987 (AOAT 220; Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker, 1988), 287–319, col. 197. This definition excludes inductive divination (e.g., extispicy), literary predictive texts (e.g., Marduk Prophecy), or first person divine speech not mediated by human agency to a third party (e.g., divine love poetry, city laments, cosmic epics, private revelation in dreams). A more recent nuance by Ann K. Guinan is also helpful—In prophecy, a deity intervenes “directly […] in human cognition.” See “A Severed Head Laughed: Stories of Divinatory Interpretation,” in Leda Ciraolo and Jonathan Seidel (eds.), Magic and Divination in the Ancient World (AMD 2; Leiden: Brill / Groningen: Styx, 2002), 7–40 (18). 3  Martti Nissinen, References to Prophecy in Neo-Assyrian Sources (SAAS 7; Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 1998), 2. 4  E.g., Siegfried Herrmann, “Prophetie in Israel und Ägypten Recht und Grenze eines Vergleichs,” in Congress Volume Bonn, 1962 (VTS 9; Leiden: Brill, 1963), 47–65 (56–60, 63–64); Robert Schlichting, “Prophetie.” Lexikon der Ägyptologie 4:1122–1125 (1122); Hans Bonnet, “Prophezeiung,” in Reallexikon der Ägyptischen Religionsgeschichte (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000),

Prophecies of Neferti; Admonitions of Ipuwer) are correctly classified as a subspecies of wisdom literature.5 Most important in Shupak’s classic assessment is the absence of divine messenger speech and the observation that the element of prediction stems from the employment of magic by priests and sages.6 As such, these texts fail two of Nissinen’s criteria. There are Egyptian texts, however, that report divine speech to the king in the royal cult. They even utilize introductory speech formulas equivalent to those associated with prophetic speech in Mesopotamian and biblical texts. The difficulty in recognizing these texts as “prophetic” is the absence of vocabulary in Egyptian religion that refers distinctly to prophets or descriptions of human intermediaries delivering divine messages. Mesopotamian and biblical texts amply attest to such prophetic functionaries by distinct titles, describe their activities, and record the divine words they mediated to third parties. However, Egyptian texts only report the first-person divine speech to the king, without reference to the source of the words or means of delivery. In the absence of explicit textual references to prophets or their activities, one might explore the setting of these divine speeches in order to assess whether these messages were performed by human agents whom we might call “prophets,” even if the functionary might be a priest. One might presuppose an oral performance of divine speech, since Egyptian texts of all varieties were primarily composed for oral performance. Redford notes, “Publicly displayed royal inscriptions expect an audience (italics his), not a readership.”7 Eyre argues that papyrus copies of texts on display walls were used “for public celebration and cult of the king.”8 Speaking of Egyptian literary composition in general, he writes that its “structures, forms, and genres are those of an aural communication to a hearer—a performance.”9 In 608–609; Bernd Ulrich Schipper, “‘Apocalyptik’, ‘Messianismus’, ‘Prophetie’–Eine Begriffsbestimmung,” in Andreas Blasius and Bernd Ulrich Schipper (eds.), Apokalyptik und Ägypten: Eine kritische Analyse der relevanten Texte aus dem griechisch-römischen Ägypten (OLA 107; Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 21–40 (38). 5  For the most comprehensive discussion, see Nili Shupak, “Egyptian ‘Prophecy’ and Biblical Prophecy: Did the Phenomenon of Prophecy, in the Biblical Sense, Exist in Ancient Egypt?” JEOL 31 (1989): 5–40; eadem, “The Egyptian ‘Prophecy’—A Reconsideration,” in Hans-W. Fischer-Elfert and Karol Zibelius-Chen (eds.), Von reichlich aegyptischem Verstande: Festschrift für Waltraud Guglielmi zum 65. Geburtstag (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2006), 133–144. An overview of texts and expansion of this paragraph is in Hilber, “Speech,” 40–41. 6  Shupak, “Prophecy,” 24, 27. Cf. Schipper, “Apocalyptik,” 38. 7  Donald B. Redford, “Scribe and Speaker,” in Ehud Ben Zvi and Michael H. Floyd (eds.), Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy (SBLSymS 10; Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 145–218 (159–163), quote p. 162. 8  Christopher J. Eyre, “Is Egyptian Historical Literature ‘Historical’ or ‘Literary’?” in Antonio Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms (PAE 10; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 415–433 (424–427), quote p. 427. 9  Christopher J. Eyre, “The Practice of Literature: The Relationship Between Content, Form, Audience, and Performance,” in Roland Enmarch and Verena M. Lepper (eds.), Ancient

addition, descriptions of ritual in texts, sometimes combined with iconographic images, offer a rich glimpse into ritually performed, divine speech.

1. Non-Prophetic Revelatory Settings Oracles derived from movement of the divine bark are binary messages of an essentially inductive rather than intuitive nature. Except for an example from the Ptolemaic Archive of Ḥ or, Egyptian dreams constitute private revelation, not messenger speech, as is also the case in communication with the dead. Similarly, Egyptian narratives incorporate foretelling of individual fates but without the role of human intermediaries. It is unclear the manner in which the “wise woman” acquires her knowledge when advising people about the future. While none of these examples can demonstrate prophecy, per se, they do demonstrate the Egyptian acceptance of revelatory messages, which is a socio-religious prerequisite for prophecy.10

2. Divine Speech and Ritual in the Royal Cult The following examples are not exhaustive of the evidence but are particularly illustrative:

2.1  Pyramid Texts Depictions of priests wearing masks while addressing the deceased with divine words during funeral rituals might be viewed as prophecy.11 The masks suggest an identification of the human intermediary with the deity, similar to the impersonation by Mesopotamian or biblical prophets who use first-person divine speech. In Mesopotamia and ancient Israel, there are degrees to which prophets became identified (“possessed”) with the deities whose words they transmit. Ecstatics exhibit some degree of eccentric behaviour that socially demonstrates that they are channels for the deity’s words. In Egyptian ritual, the mask might be their way of establishing or at least symbolizing the link with the divine personality. Unfortunately, the meaning or utility of the mask remains uncertain.

Egyptian Literature: Theory and Practice (Proceedings of the British Academy 188; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 101–142 (103). 10  Hilber, “Speech,” 42–46. 11  For bibliography, see Hilber, “Speech,” 47 n. 42. For brief overview, one may consult Arelene Wolinski, “Egyptian Masks: The Priest and His Role,” Arch 40/1 (1987): 22–29.

2.2  Coronation Texts Hatshepsut’s birth and coronation reliefs feature addresses to the queen from the gods. Ritual performance with these divine words seems likely—the iconography portrays goddesses holding crowns as Amun addresses the queen regarding their presentation. A later statement in the text might be related, when it states that Thutmosis I “commanded that the ritual priests be brought to [proclaim] her great names […] They proclaimed her royal names, for the god caused that it should be in their hearts to make her names according to the form with which he had made them before.” Breasted writes, “They were inspired to announce the same names which the god had already conferred upon her before.”12 This may be an assertion of prophetic inspiration.13 Horemheb’s coronation texts describe Amun-Re coming forth in procession to meet the crown prince, and one fragment preserves the common, divine declaration of sonship in this context: “You are my son, my heir, who issued from my body .”14 It is difficult to know in the grand arc of coronation proceedings what transformation the Egyptians envisioned happening during the rituals at specific moments. The rituals associated with coronation were vast and complex. Horemheb usurped representations of Tutankhamun’s Opet Festival that set divine address to the king in context with iconographic depictions of ritual procession, including the towing of the divine bark, presentation of offerings, dancers and musicians, and records of human speeches and songs celebrating the event.15 It is unlikely that performance of these divine speeches played no role in the otherwise real-life ritual being portrayed.

2.3  Building Inscriptions A dedication inscription, possibly of Ramesses II, for the temple of Ptah in Memphis, is recorded on a stela for the “Station of the King,” marking his position in temple ritual. It contains divine speech similar to coronation inscriptions.16 12  James Henry Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt II (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1906), §§229–230, 239, and pages 99 n. a. 13  Alternatively, Thomas Schneider has suggested (private communication) that the name selection came via bark queries, which would not constitute prophecy. 14  William J. Murnane and Edmund S. Meltzer, Texts From the Amarna Period in Egypt (WAW 5; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1995), §§106–107A (cf. Barbara Cumming and Benedict G. Davies, Egyptian Historical Records of the Later Eighteenth Dynasty, vol. 6 [Warminster: Aris & Philips, 1982], no. 826). 15  Cumming and Davies, Records, no. 826. For iconography and texts, see Walter Wreszinski, Atlas zur altaegyptischen Kulturgeschichte. Teil 2 (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichssche Buchhandlung, 1935), folios 189–202. 16 Breasted, Records III, §§533–537.

Similar to this, Ramesses II’s The Blessing of Ptah features an extended speech by the god enumerating his many favours upon the king, to which Ramesses replies with a list of his own pious acts.17 Such conversation reports are common in texts of this period.18 It is possible that divine words in these inscriptions are scribal creations offering silent testimony to the pleasure of the gods; however, it seems likely that such words were actually spoken through human agency in the rituals of dedication.

2.4  Triumph Hymns A style of royal hymns that contain divine words of affirmation to the king are attested beginning in the 18th dynasty with Thutmosis III and Amenhotep III. These divine speeches began a 500-year tradition of texts accompanied by reliefs depicting ritual actions.19 The stelae of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep III are decorated with depictions of the king making offerings to the god, implying a ritual setting.20 More illuminating are other reliefs that depict sword conferral and ritual slaughter of enemies accompanied by similar divine speeches. Othmar Keel suggests that the sword conferral motif on 18th- and 19th-dynasty reliefs often portrays a real event. Important in his assessment is a dream report of Merneptah in which the statue of Ptah presents to him a sword of victory. Such a dream is possible if this experience would correspond to a ritual reality.21 Similarly, Hans Müller points to a battle relief of Thutmosis IV who is in characteristic posture slaying a fleeing Asiatic with a battle axe. The accompanying inscription reads “Lord of the Ritual”; so he concludes that rather than simply 17 Breasted, Records III, §§398–414; Kenneth A. Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations. Vol. 2 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996), no. 68, §§258:1–281:12. 18 Kenneth A. Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments. Vol. 2 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999), 2:161, §252. One might also compare these Egyptian examples with a Mesopotamian text that presents a dialogue between Nabu and Assurbanipal and reports prophetic speech (SAA 3 13 embeds prophetic speech akin to SAA 9 9; John W. Hilber, Cultic Prophecy in the Psalms [BZAW 352; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005], 70–74). 19  For these two prototypes, see Kenneth A. Kitchen, Poetry of Ancient Egypt (Documenta Mundi: Aegyptiaca 1; Jonsered: Paul Åströms, 1999), §§28 and 29. These divine speeches are characteristically introduced by “words spoken” (ḏd mdw). This formula introduces direct quotations in religious and magical texts (James P. Allen, Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001], 165). 20  Eyre states that “Such monumental texts [e.g., The Poetical Stela of Tuthmosis III] are directly addressed to a public, and exploit forms that are performative, or even purport to record a specific performance (Eyre, “Practice,” 123–124). 21  Othmar Keel, Wirkmächtige Siegeszeichen im Alten Testament (OBO 5; Freiberg: Universitätsverlag, 1974), 74–75; idem, “Powerful Symbols of Victory: The Parts Stay the Same, the Actors Change,” JNSL 21/2 (1999): 205–240 (esp. 209). Cf. Hans Wolfgang Müller, Der Waffenfund von Balata-Sichem und die Sichelschwerter (München: Der Bayerischen Akadamie der Wissenschaft, 1987), 147.

a record of a campaign event, the text and iconography portray a ritual that the king is obligated to observe.22 While this is not sword conferral, it suggests that performance of a ritual is in view in portrayals of the king smiting enemies while the god holds forth to him the sword. Working to the same conclusion but from a different direction, Alan Schulman determined that temple reliefs depicting the ceremonial execution of prisoners and sword conferral often served as prototypes for similar motifs on private stelae.23 When displaying royal motifs, scenes on these private stelae were commemorative of the experience of the dedicators who actually witnessed the ceremonies. Hence the prototypes in royal iconography likely portrayed real ritual. He also notes how funeral reliefs of rituals such as the “Opening of the Mouth” depict real events and compares the role of priests wearing divine masks in funeral rites to the impersonation of deities at the sword conferral. Just as spells and utterances were made in the Opening of the Mouth ritual, so the utterances in the performance of the sword presentation were actually spoken.24 Kerry Muhlestein argues that ritual violence against enemy captives at coronation and victory celebrations is a type of capital punishment against rebels that fits within the larger culture of execution for heinous crimes.25 The practice is akin to that of smashing clay pots in the execration ritual, symbolizing maintenance of order. He suggests that unique features in iconography in slaying scenes as well as deviation from stock artistic elements point toward real representation of ritual and not simply to ideological statements using stock motifs. He also notes reports of the killing of prisoners after battle and depictions of transportation of captives on royal barques, both dead and alive, for probable use in festivals of victory. The reliefs and inscriptions preserved in Ramesses III’s mortuary temple offer a good illustration of the performance of divine speech accompanied by ritual actions. In her monograph on the subject, Shlomit Israeli argues that some of the speeches, when accompanied by a segment of relief, “appeared to provide a quotation of what is being said in a scene.”26 For example, among the post-war speeches are some in which the king addresses his officials who are bringing the spoils of war to him. The relief depicts the king on his balcony surrounded by his 22 Müller, Waffenfund, 144. 23  Alan R. Schulman, “Take for Yourself the Sword,” in Betsy M. Bryan and David Lorton (eds.), Essays in Egyptology in Honor of Hans Goedicke (San Antonio, TX: Van Siclen, 1994), 265–295. For critical discussion and defense of Schulman’s thesis, see Kerry Muhlestein, Violence in the Service of Order: The Religious Framework for Sanctioned Killing in Ancient Egypt (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2011), 86–88. 24  Schulman, “Sword,” 269–271. 25 Muhlestein, Violence, 85–91; idem, “Sacred Violence: When Ancient Egyptian Punishment Was Dressed in Ritual Trappings.” NEA 78 (2015): 244–251 (250). 26  Shlomit Israeli, Ceremonial Speech Patterns in the Medinet Habu War Inscriptions (ÄAT 79; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2015), 1.

men.27 He instructs his officials: “Catalog the captives that the strong scimitar of Pharaoh, l/p/h has captured. Place them in a position in the house of Amon-Re, king of the gods. It is his hand that has captured them.”28 In subsequent ritual action, the king presents these spoils to Amun. The god replies with praise for the king. The first speech opens with the formula, “Words spoken by Amon-Re,” and contains lines such as “I grant awe of me to you, through your body, so that you should overthrow the Nine Bows” and “I grant (to) you the kingdom of Atum, while you appear upon the throne of Re.” Israeli understands the verb translated “I grant” to be performative. She writes, “The granting of awe was not a one-time action, but something that needed to be ritualistically reinforced from time to time.”29 A human agent would be necessary to deliver these divine words in order to be performative. In conjunction with depictions of prisoner dedication, the captives address the king and beg him to spare their lives: “Give us breath, in accordance with your ability to give, so that we should be presented as gifts to your Two Serpent-Goddesses, and to you, lord of the Two Lands, given life like Re.”30 Related to this phase of the victory celebration are the ritual slaughter of captives and the conferral of the sword of victory. These two portraits are the most prominent visual scenes of the temple, inscribed on the two sides of the first pylon. Accompanying the presentation of captives, the god announces, “You have granted breath to whom you want among them, and slain whom is in your heart, in accordance with that which you wish.”31 Accompanying sword conferral are the words, “I have given you my scimitar as a shield for your breast” and “My scimitar is yours—as strength—in order to destroy them.”32 Such divine speeches seem to pertain to real, ceremonial events and so necessitated the participation of a human messenger.33 27 Israeli, Patterns, 17. 28 Israeli, Patterns, 47. 29 Israeli, Patterns, 90. These verbs are “performative” in that they accomplish something independent of any attendant action (Pascal Vernus, “‘Ritual’ Sḏm.n.f and Some Values of the ‘Accompli’ in the Bible and in the Koran,” in Sarah Israelit-Groll [ed.], Pharaonic Egypt: The Bible and Christianity [Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1985], 307–316 [308–309]). A performative illocution contrasts with “synchronous present,” which are statements that merely accompany the ritual, such as the sword conferral discussed below. 30 Israeli, Patterns, 152. 31 Israeli, Patterns, 101. 32 Israeli, Patterns, 98–99. 33  After carefully comparing the vocabulary and grammar of the speeches at Ramesses III’s Medinet Habu funerary chapel, Israeli concludes that the dialect and register is not what is normally thought to be “non-literary” Egyptian. This might mean that the speeches are not direct quotation or perhaps that “non-literary” Egyptian of this period does not reflect what was actually spoken at the time. The writing used in these speeches is in a more formal style of earlier tradition; the higher the status of the speaker, the more elements of classical Middle

An illustration of the convergence of ritual and speech is Amun’s Triumphal Welcome for Shoshenq I.34 Embedded between the first two parts of the speech is the pronouncement of sword conferral: The opening lines of Part 1 include: Words spoken: Welcome in peace, My dear son, (followed by royal titulary) […] (9 verse sets containing a narrative praising the king’s victory in second-person address together with the god’s first-person claims of intervention)

Then follow the only words in the poem stated in the second-person imperative: Receive for yourself the Sword, O Victorious King! Your mace has struck down the chiefs of the foreign lands!

After this pronouncement of sword conferral, the praise continues in Part 2 with a reintroduction of divine speech: Words spoken by Amen-Re, Lord of the Thrones of Both Lands, Presiding in Karnak, Lord of heaven, ruler of Thebes: My heart is greatly gladdened, as I have seen your victories, My son, Shoshenq I, whom I love for you came forth from Me, to be My champion.

The best explanation of the invitation to receive the sword is that it accompanies an actual ritual in which the performer of the divine speech, or an associate, hands the scimitar to the king. In summary, since presentation of weapons, offerings, and ceremonial execution are part of actual ritual, it is reasonable to suppose that royal and divine speeches recorded on these reliefs were actually performed. Especially where the king encounters the divine bark in procession to meet him, it seems reasonable to posit that a human messenger either impersonated the deity directly or spoke on behalf of the deity whose presence was indicated by the bark and image. Such performance scenarios would constitute prophecy.

Egyptian it exhibits. Thus Amon’s speeches bear closest similarity to classical style (Israeli, Patterns, 165). In my view, this does not preclude the actual performance of these speeches by human agents. The situation need be no different than the preservation of King James English in modern Christian liturgy. 34 Kitchen, Poetry, §64.

3. Ritual Performance and Significance Western modernity tends to overlook the value attached to ritual by the ancients, or even by modern, non-Western societies. But attention to ritual is important as part of the context that informs the meaning of speech performance. Ritual not only symbolizes, but in some instances society views the ritual as actually effecting change. So, prophetic speech receives potent reinforcement from accompanying ritual. For example, Catherine Bell describes political rituals as “practices that specifically construct, display and promote the power of political institutions.”35 These rituals both depict and legitimate social values. She notes that rituals also effect social-cosmic order. This design (to effect cosmic order) is particularly evident in the Egyptian royal rituals under consideration in this essay. Temples were microcosms for the maintenance of divine order; and temple symbolism, including the reliefs and texts under discussion, as well as the ritual ceremonies behind them, advanced this agenda. Baines writes, “royal aggression is a ritual action dedicated to the gods and serving to defend the microcosm against encroaching disorder.”36 Similarly, Müller notes that conferral of the sickle-sword was symbolic of the divine pledge to grant the king dominion over neighbours and to help in maintaining world order.37 In Israeli’s view, the intent of these pious, ritualistic speeches “was to stress the Egyptian king’s preservation of divine order under the auspices of his god.”38 So, for the Egyptians, the performative words of prophetic speech, combined with ritual action, contributed to this order. Furthermore, ritual derives power from tradition.39 Hence, the longevity of the sword conferral ritual (over 500 years, noted above) reinforced its efficacy. There exists an inherent danger in misinterpreting or overreading ritual actions. As Bell notes, ritual actions are often deciphered by the theorist whose method determines the interpretation. Ritual actions, by themselves, are mute.40 But in the case of the sword conferral, there are accompanying verbal texts that integrate prophetic words spoken in these rituals with the actions, explicitly illuminating the meaning in the transfer of the sword. Conversely, conferral of the

35 Catherine M. Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 128, 136. 36  John Baines, “Kingship, Definition of Culture, and Legitimation,” in David B. O’Connor and David P. Silverman (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Kingship (PAE 9; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 3–47 (14); idem, “Ancient Egyptian Kingship: Official Forms, Rhetoric, Context,” in John Day (ed.), King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (JSOTS 270; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 16–53 (16–17, 41–43). 37 Müller, Waffenfund, 139. 38 Israeli, Patterns, 3. 39 Bell, Theory, 120. 40 Bell, Theory, 54, 93.

sword visually transfers the overwhelming power granted to and exercised by the king to effect cosmic order.41

4. Old Testament Correlates As noted above under introductory remarks, the absence of distinct vocabulary in Egyptian religion for “prophet” suggests that these agents were priests, even though their function was prophetic. This dual function is similar to Old Testament descriptions of priests acting as prophets. For example, both Moses and Samuel functioned as priests and prophets (Exod 24:4–8; Deut 34:10; 1 Sam 3:20; 7:9), and the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel are identified by their priestly class (Jer 1:1; Ezek 1:3).42 Because Egyptian prophetic speech by priests is related in a positive way to cultic ritual, it cautions against too quickly drawing antagonistic boundaries between priests and prophets in the Israelite cult.43 Performative speech in the Egyptian cult reinforced the divine infusion of majestic awe in the human-divine king and empowerment to subdue rebellion against divine order. Presentation of a sword of victory and slaughter of foreign captives accompanied spoken divine words that chaos had been defeated and the king had restored order by the power of the god. Old Testament psalms correspond to the religious ideals expressed by these Egyptian prophetic rituals. Elsewhere I have correlated the motifs from the divine speeches of Amun in Thutmosis III’s, Amonhotep III’s, and Shoshenq I’s victory stelae (all of which are related to the Egyptian royal cult described above) with Pss 2; 89; 110; and 132 as well as Neo-Assyrian prophecy for the king.44 Similar to Egypt, the cultic setting for the Assyrian oracles is secure.45 In brief, all three regions preserve texts with framed, first-person divine speech directed to the king in support of his power, sharing no less than a dozen motifs. These include the affirmation of divine relationship in 41  This combines speech-act and performance theory to view the efficacy, not just symbolism, of ritual (Bell, Ritual: Perspective and Dimensions [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997], 69–75). 42  For the blurring of functional boundaries between prophet and priest not only in ancient Israel but in other cultural contexts, see Lester L. Grabbe, “Prophets, Priests, Diviners and Sages in Ancient Israel,” in Heather A. McKay and David J. A. Clines (eds.), Of Prophets’ Visions and the Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honour of R. Norman Whybray on his Seventieth Birthday (JSOTS 162; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 43–62. 43  In this regard, see the important nuances by Tiemeyer (Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, Priestly Rites and Prophetic Rage: Early Post-exilic Prophetic Critique of the Priesthood [FAT II/19; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006). 44  John W. Hilber, “Royal Cultic Prophecy in Assyria, Judah, and Egypt,” in Robert P. Gordon and Hans M. Barstad (eds.), ‘Thus Speaks Ishtar of Arbela’: Prophecy in Israel, Assyria, and Egypt in the Neo-Assyrian Period (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 161–186. 45  For the Assyrian context, see Hilber, Prophecy, 53–74.

the context of military domination and slaughter of enemies as described above in the Egyptian context (e.g. SAA 9 3.2 i 28; Pss 2:9; 89:20; 110:6; 132:17–18). The oracles of victory, such as Pss 21–22 also come to mind with respect to royal aggression and maintenance of world order. While these two psalms do not employ framing formulas to introduce divine speech in unequivocal manner, van der Toorn has argued cogently that they are oracles of victory.46 There is no evidence that ritual acts of slaughter played out in the Assyrian or Israelite royal cult. Violence in Israel’s temple was ideally avoided (2 Kgs 11:15). Symbolic acts of dominance after a victory are, however, known outside the temple, such as placing feet on the necks of enemies (Josh 10:24).47 Such ritual actions would not have been prohibited from Israel’s temple. Assyrian brutality after conquest is legendary; but these deeds were recounted in the form of campaign reports to the deity in the temple, and in at least one instance the divine response took the form of prophetic speech.48 In any event, the cultic setting and ritual actions for the Egyptian speeches supports the idea that ritual action of some kind accompanied prophetic speech to the king in Israel’s cult as well. The Old Testament testifies to a “Pillar” in the temple, which served as a customary station for the king (2 Kgs 11:14; 23:3). Cogan and Tadmor note that the Chronicler locates this pillar at the entrance to the temple, perhaps one of the pillars of the portico (2 Chr 23:13; cf. 1 Kgs 7:15–22).49 Regardless of exact location, these texts set a designated place for the king in a royal covenant ceremony within the temple. It was distinctive enough that young Joash’s liturgical presence there signalled to Athalia that she had been replaced. Some suggest that this station might have been the setting for cultic performance of prophetic speech such as recorded in Pss 2 and 110.50 This suggestion finds support from the Egyptian royal cult. As noted above, an Egyptian prophetic speech of the type under discussion here was part of a dedication inscription recorded on a stela for the “Station of the King,” marking his position in temple ritual.

46  Karel van der Toorn, “L’oracle de victoire comme expression prophétique au ProcheOrient ancien,” RB 94 (1987): 79–85. 47  Artur Weiser, The Psalms (transl. Herbert Hartwell; OTL; Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1998), 649. 48  For summary and bibliography, see John W. Hilber, “The Culture of Prophecy and Writing in the Ancient Near East,” in James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis Magary (eds.), Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 219–241 (234–237). 49  Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings (AB 11; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1988), 129. 50 Weiser, Psalms, 649 n. 1; Gerhard von Rad, “The Royal Ritual in Judah,” in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (transl. E. W. Trueman; Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1966), 222–242 (223–224).

In conclusion, the location of Egyptian royal prophecy and ritual in the cult adds credibility to arguments that Old Testament royal psalms also had a cultic origin. It seems likely that they were part of the royal ritual observed at coronations and at the time of military campaigns.

Alex P. Jassen Prophecy and Priests in the Second Temple Period

Introduction1 Recent scholarship on prophecy in ancient Judaism has made a persuasive case for rejecting the long held scholarly assumption regarding the “end of prophecy.” Judaism in antiquity was not monolithic. Texts from ancient Judaism that assert that prophets were no longer active and that prophecy was a dormant institution reflect the viewpoint of the individuals and groups that produced these texts.2 Other Jews affirmed that prophets and prophecy were not merely vestiges of ancient Israel. Indeed, there were individuals who regarded themselves as recipients of ongoing revelation and therefore saw themselves in continuity with the prophets of old. Yet, Jews in antiquity recognized that the character and modes of revelation had changed. The Second Temple period evidence points to shifting conceptualizations of the meaning of prophecy. In light of the evidence, our understanding of prophecy is greatly enriched if we take a phenomenological approach to the meaning of prophecy and not always be bound by specific technical terminology. Here, I am in agreement with Martti Nissinen and Lester Grabbe, both of whom have made important contributions to understanding what prophecy is. Nissinen asserts that prophecy is “the transmission of allegedly divine messages by a human intermediary to a third party.”3 Nissinen’s focus on the method matches well Grabbe’s suggestion that

1  I am thankful to the participants of the 2016 PTAC meeting for their helpful feedback on the oral version of this article. 2  See, e.g., Ps 74:9; 1 Mac 9:27; 4:46; 14:41; m. Sot. 9:13; t. Sot. 13:2–3. For treatment of the key texts and social settings, see Alex P. Jassen, Mediating the Divine: Prophecy and Revelation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism (STDJ 68; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 11–19; L. Stephen Cook, On the Question of the “Cessation of Prophecy” in Ancient Judaism (TSAJ 145; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). On the issue of prophecy in Second Temple Judaism, see further Kristin de Troyer, Armin Lange, and Lucas L. Schulte (eds.), Prophecy after the Prophets? The Contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Understanding of Biblical and Extra-Biblical Prophecy (CBET 52; Leuven: Peeters, 2009); Donald W. Parry, Stephen D. Ricks, and Andrew C. Skinner, eds., The Prophetic Voice at Qumran: The Leonardo Museum Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 11–12 April 2014 (STDJ 120; Leiden: Brill, 2017). 3  Martti Nissinen, “Preface,” in Martti Nissinen (ed.), Prophecy in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context: Mesopotamian, Biblical and Arabian Perspectives (SBLSymS 13; Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), vii–viii (vii).

prophecy should be regarded as a form of divination.4 Prophets employ various techniques in order to ascertain the divine word and will. The modified modes of revelation found in the Second Temple period point to a vibrant and fluid notion of how humans perceived their interaction with the divine realm. Jews in the Second Temple period recognized the disjunctive nature of their relationship with the ancient prophets. The particulars of revelation had changed over time. This recognition is one reason for the modified language for prophetic activity. Yet, in all these settings, individuals and groups stake claim to the enduring legacy of ancient prophets and prophecy. This article explores the extent to which Jews in the Second Temple period regarded priests and the temple as a new locus of prophetic activity and how they understood the priestly/prophetic dimension as a new mode of prophetic revelation. The intersection of priests and prophets was not an entirely new concept for Jews in the Second Temple period. They could look to their collection of sacred scriptures to see examples of priest-prophets, ways in which the temple and its priestly officiants functioned as a locus for prophetic communication with the divine, and general overlap between prophecy and the priesthood.5 It is also possible that they were aware of similar phenomena in other Mediterranean settings.6 These models took on new meaning as Jews in the Second Temple period re-examined the manner in which divine mediation operated. I focus on the portrait of prophets in both historical and literary texts. Both corpora reflect the frequent conflation of prophets and priests and often locate prophetic activity in the proximity of the temple. In my treatment of these prophetic portraits, I examine the extent to which the Second Temple writers both rely upon and modify scriptural portraits of prophets and priests. As I have suggested, different groups in the Second Temple period have different perspectives on the end of prophecy. Because of the diversity of perspectives, we must take a documentary approach by first analyzing individual texts or authors. We can then look for shared phenomena that reflect broader trends in the developing conceptualizations of prophecy in Second Temple Judaism.

4 Lester L. Grabbe, “Prophecy and Apocalyptic: Time for New Definitions—and New Thinking,” in Lester L. Grabbe and Robert D. Haak (eds.), Knowing the End from the Beginning: The Prophetic, the Apocalyptic and Their Relationships (JSPS 46; London: T & T Clark, 2003), 107–133. 5  See further Grabbe, “Prophecy and Priesthood,” in Carolyn Sharp (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Prophets (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 23–36. On the issue of cult prophets in ancient Israel, see also Aubrey R. Johnson, The Cult Prophet in Israel (2nd ed.; ­Cardiff: University of Wales, 1962). 6  On these phenomena and their connections to the world of Second Temple Judaism, see especially David E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983).

1. Hecataeus of Abdera I begin my survey with an author who is viewing Jews and Judaism from the outside, though likely has Jewish informants. Hecataeus of Abdera (ca. 300 b.c.e.) provides an account of the priesthood as part of his broader description of Jews and Judaism: The colony was headed by a man called Moses, outstanding both for his wisdom and for his courage. On taking possession of the land he founded, besides other cities, one that is now the most renowned of all, called Jerusalem. In addition, he established the temple that they hold in chief veneration, instituted their forms of worship and ritual, drew up their laws and ordered their political institutions. He also divided them into twelve tribes, since this is regarded as the most perfect number and corresponds to the number of months that make up a year. But he had no images whatsoever of the gods made for them, being of the opinion that God is not in human form; rather the Heaven that surrounds the earth is alone divine, and rules the universe. The sacrifices that he established differ from those of other nations, as does their way of living, for as a result of their own expulsion from Egypt he introduced an unsocial and intolerant mode of life. He picked out the men of most refinement and with the greatest ability to head the entire nation, and appointed them priests; and he ordained that they should occupy themselves with the temple and the honours and sacrifices offered to their god. These same men he appointed to be judges in all major disputes, and entrusted to them the guardianship of the laws and customs. For this reason, the Jews never have a king, and authority over the people is regularly vested in whichever priest is regarded as superior to his colleagues in wisdom and virtue. They call this man the high priest, and believe that he acts as a messenger (ἂγγελος) to them of God’s commandments. It is he, we are told, who in their assemblies and other gatherings announces what is ordained, and the Jews are so docile in such matters that straightway they fall to the ground and do reverence to the high priest when he expounds the commandments to them. And at the end of their laws there is even appended the statement: “These are the words that Moses heard from God and declares unto the Jews.”7

Despite the many historical inaccuracies in Hecataeus’ account, he seems to transmit some reliable information about the Jerusalem temple and its priest-

7  This passage was originally part of a now lost work Aegyptiaca. The section describing the Jews is transmitted in Diodorus Siculus’ Historical Library, 40.3.1–8, though this particular section is only preserved by Photius, a ninth century Byzantine Patriarch. Translation follows Francis R. Walton, Diodorus Siculus: Library of History, Volume XII: Fragments of Books 33–40 (LCL 423; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), 281–283.

hood.8 For Hecataeus, the high priest is regarded as an authority on Jewish law and custom. The high priest is uniquely singled out as a messenger (ἂγγελος) of God’s commands who discloses them to the people. Some scholars have argued that ἂγγελος is a technical term for a prophetic priest.9 The similar locution ‫מלאך‬ ‫יהוה‬/ἄγγελος κυρίου appears in Mal 2:7, where it describes a priest who transmits divine knowledge. Elsewhere in Malachi, the term ‫מלאך‬/ἄγγελος refers to the prophet who acts as a divine mediator. The designation ‫מלאך יהוה‬/ἄγγελος κυ��ρίου is also ascribed to the prophetic role of Haggai (Hag 1:13). As such, Mal 2:7 subtly merges the instructional role of the priests with the mediating role of the prophets.10 This same conflation may stand behind Hecataeus’ assumption that the high priest transmits the divine law.11 Moreover, Hecataeus concludes the section on the lawgiving of the high priest by noting that the “end of the laws” contains a statement affirming Moses’ central role as a divine mediator in transmitting law. Scholars have observed that the specific formulation “These are the words that Moses heard from God and declares unto the Jews” approximates several biblical passages pertaining to Moses’ role in transmitting divine law.12 The “end” may simply refer to a formulation that is appended to laws transmitted by Moses or the end point of the law as a whole.13 In so doing, Hecataeus creates a bookend to the historical experience of transmitting divine law. Moses, as the “founder” of the temple and priesthood is the first to transmit divine law through prophetic means. The high priest continues the role originated by Moses by similarly acting as a mediator of divine law. The 8  Scholarship on this passage is voluminous. See especially Frances H. Diamond, “Hecataeus of Abdera: A New Historical Approach” (Ph.D. diss., University of California. Los Angeles, CA, 1970); Bezalel Bar-Kochva, Pseudo Hecataeus, “On the Jews”: Legitimizing the Jewish Diaspora (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1996), 18–43. See also Deborah W. Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel (Oxford Theological Monographs; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 246–250, who dismisses the historical reliability of the passage on account of the obvious historical inaccuracies. 9  See, e.g., Francis Walton, “The Messenger of God in Hecataeus of Abdera,” HTR 48 (1955): 255–257. Walton builds on the earlier argument in W. D. Davies, “A Note on Josephus, Antiquities, 15:136,” HTR 47 (1954): 135–140.” 10  Andrew E. Hill, Malachi: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 25D; New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998), 212. 11  See also Doron Mendels, “Hecataeus of Abdera and a Jewish ‘patrios politeia’ of the Persian Period (Diodorus Siculus XL, 3),” ZAW 95 (1983): 96–110 (106). 12  E.g., Exod 24:3–4; Lev 26:46; 27:34; Deut 1:3; 5:5; 28:69; LXX 32:44 (Walton, “The Messenger of God,” 155; Diamond, “Hecataeus of Abdera,” 300 n. 39; Bar-Kochva, Pseudo Hecataeus, 27). 13  Louis H. Feldman and Meyer Reinhold (eds.), Jewish Life and Thought among Greeks and Romans: Primary Readings (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1996), 9, suggest that the Hecataeus has in mind a concluding verse in the Pentateuch such as Deut 28:69. John G. Gager, Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1972), 32, also raises the possibility of LXX Deut 32:44.

notion that the transmission of divine law is a prophetic process aligns with several sources from the Second Temple period, both in late biblical texts (e.g., Ezra 9:10–11; Dan 9:10; 2 Chr 29:25) and in several passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls.14 Hecataeus, however, does not elaborate on the mechanism for how the high priest would have acted as a prophetic mediator of law.15 Scholars have observed that the scene painted by Hecataeus is very similar to the description of the priestly exposition of Mosaic Torah in Neh 8:1–8.16 In Nehemiah, Ezra and his priestly colleagues are described as reading and expounding on the meaning of the Torah of Moses. Moreover, their process of reading is indistinguishable from the exegetical amplification of the text.17 Neh 8:6 recounts how during the event, the people “bowed their heads and prostrated themselves before the Lord with their faces to the ground” (cf. Sir 50:17). This particular passage has the closest affinities with Hecataeus’ description of the responses to the priest’s exposition of the law: “they fall to the ground and do reverence to the high priest when he expounds the commandments to them.” Hecataeus’ Jewish informants shared with him a portrait of priestly lawgiving similar to what is outlined in Neh 8:1–8. While Neh 8:1–8 never explicitly identifies the priestly lawgiving in prophetic terms, Hecataeus frames these processes as part of the high priest’s mediating function.

2. Testament of Levi The second text for consideration is Testament of Levi 8:1–17: 8:1And

there again I saw a happening similar to the former after we had spent seventy days. 2And I saw seven men in white clothing saying to me: Arise, put on the robe of the priesthood, and the crown of righteousness, and the oracle (λόγιον) of under�standing, and the garment of truth, and the plate of faith, and the turban of (giving) a sign, and the ephod of prophecy (τὸ ἐφοὺδ τῆς προφητεία) 3And each of them carried these things and put them on me, and said: From now on become a priest of the Lord, you and your seed forever. 4And the first anointed me with holy oil, and gave to me a staff of judgment. 5The second washed me with pure water, and fed me with bread and wine, the most holy things, and put round me a holy and glorious robe. 6The third clothed me with a linen vestment like an ephod. 7The fourth put round 14  See Alex P. Jassen, “The Presentation of the Ancient Prophets as Lawgivers at Qumran,” JBL 127 (2008): 307–337. 15  Lisbeth Fried, “Did Second Temple Priests Possess the Urim and Thummim?” JHS 7 (2007): 1–25 (8–9), suggests that the Urim and Thummim may have been utilized. 16  Diamond, “Hecataeus of Abdera,” 11; Bar-Kochva, Pseudo Hecataeus, 27. 17  On this passage, see Alex P. Jassen, Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Oxford, 2014), 23–25.

me a girdle like (a) purple (robe). 8The fifth gave to me a branch of rich olive. 9The sixth placed a crown on my head.10The seventh put on me a diadem of priesthood, and they filled my hands with incense, that I might serve as priest to the Lord God. 11And they said to me: Levi, your seed will be divided into three offices, for a sign of the glory of the Lord who is to come. 12And he who believes will be the first; no portion will be greater than he. 13The second shall be in the priesthood. 14The third, he will be called with a new name, because a king will arise in Judah, and will establish a new priesthood, after the fashion of the Gentiles for all the Gentiles. 15And his presence will be marvelous, as that of a high prophet (προφήτου ὑψηλοῦ),18 from the seed of Abraham our father. 16Every desirable thing in Israel shall be for you and for your seed, and you shall eat everything beautiful to see, and you seed will divide among themselves the table of the Lord. 17And from them there will be high priests and judges, and scribes, because the holy place will be guarded on their command.19

Levi is in the heavens when he experiences a vision in which seven men in white clothing bestow upon him the vestments of the priesthood, thus marking his formal investiture as first priest. As expected, much of the technical aspects of the priestly garments are drawn from biblical portraits of the high priest.20 Yet, the author amplifies this portrait in several ways. In particular, Levi is provided with an “ephod of prophecy” in 8:2. The association of the ephod with prophecy stems from the description of the priestly ephod in Exod 28 as the place upon which hung the breastplate (‫חשן‬ ‫)המשפט‬, which itself housed the Urim and Thummim (esp. Exod 28:30; cf. Lev 8:7–8). While the precise manner in which the Urim and Thummim operated is unclear, the biblical texts indicate that they fulfilled a divinatory function for the high priest (e.g., Num 27:18–21).21 Levi’s breastplate is identified as τὸ λόγιον τῆς συνέσεως, “the oracle of under�standing.” The identification of the ‫ חשן המשפט‬as λόγιον/“oracle” is consistent with other ways that this expression in understood among Greek writers. The Septuagint renders ‫ חשן המשפט‬as λογεῖον τῶν κρίσεων, “oracle of judgements” (Exod 28:15, 29, 30; Lev 8:8).22 The Letter of Aristeas (Arist. 97), Sirach (45:10), and Philo (e.g., Moses 2.112–113; Spec. Laws 1.88) all use similar language for the 18  Other manuscripts have προφήτου ὑψίστου, “prophet of the Most High.” See Harm W. Hollander and Marinus de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary (SVTP 8; Leiden: Brill, 1985), 150. 19  Translation follows Hollander and de Jonge, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 149– 150. 20  See Hollander and de Jonge, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 151–152. 21  See Cornelis van Dam, The Urim and Thummim: A Means of Revelation in Ancient Israel (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997). 22  See Fried, “Did Second Temple Priests Possess the Urim and Thummim,” 4–7, on the expanded role of the Urim and Thummim in the Septuagint.

breastplate. In outlining the priestly garments, Josephus describes the ‫חשן המש־‬ ‫ פט‬as ἐσσὴν μὲν καλεῖται, σημαίνει δὲ τοῦτο κατὰ τὴν Ἑλλήνων γλῶτταν λόγιον, “It is called an essen; and this, in the tongue of the Greeks, signifies an oracle” (Ant. 3.163; cf. 3.217; 8.93).23 The unique expression “the oracle of understanding” in the Testament of Levi makes explicit the connection between the breastplate and its divinatory use. It is meaningful that the description of Levi’s garments does not include the Urim and Thummim. Their absence likely stems from the fact that priests in the late Second Temple period did not possess the Urim and Thummim.24 Notwithstanding the absence of the Urim and Thummim, Levi’s priestly garments are uniquely singled out for their divinatory abilities on account of the oracular ephod. By putting on these garments, Levi—and by extension all high priests—draws upon the divinatory function of the garments in order to act as a divine mediator.25 The Testament of Levi merges this divinatory function with its own expanded notion of prophecy. Any discussion of the Testament of Levi must account for its complicated transmission history. The Aramaic Levi Document indicates that there clearly was an Aramaic Jewish text related to the Testament of Levi with a Second Temple period Jewish provenance. In its current form, however, the Testament of Levi is a work transmitted among later Christian scribes. Scholars debate whether the text is at its core a Jewish text with later Christian interpolations, or in its entirety a Christian text.26 23  The term ἐσσὴν seems to be a transliteration of ‫חשן‬. On attempts to connect the term with the name Essene, see Geza Vermes, “The Etymology of ‘Essenes’,” in Post-Biblical Jewish Studies (SJLA 8; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 8–29 (11–12); John Kampen, “A Reconsideration of the Name ‘Essene’ in Greco-Jewish Literature in Light of Recent Perceptions of the Qumran Sect.” HUCA 57 (1986): 61–81 (67–68). Matthew J. Grey has recently revived the argument in favour of this connection based on his understanding of the role of the Urim and Thummim in the Dead Sea Scrolls community. See Matthew Grey, “Priestly Divination and Illuminating Stones in Second Temple Judaism,” in Donald W. Parry, Stephen D. Ricks, and Andrew C. Skinner (eds.), The Prophetic Voice at Qumran: The Leonardo Museum Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 11–12 April 2014 (STDJ 120; Leiden: Brill, 2017), 21–57 (53–54). 24  For detailed studies on the Urim and Thummim in early Jewish sources, see Christophe Batsch, La guerre et les rites de guerre dans le judaïsme du deuxième Temple (JSJS 93: Leiden: Brill, 2005), 308–343; Fried, “Did Second Temple Priests Possess the Urim and Thummim”; Grey, “Priestly Divination.” 25  This point is similarly emphasized in Fried, “Did Second Temple Priests Possess the Urim and Thummim,” 16. Compare the treatment of the priestly garments in Pseudo-Philo, who does not assign the garments oracular capabilities and in fact dissociates the Urim and Thummim from the priestly garments all together. See further Robert Hayward, “Pseudo-Philo and the Priestly Oracle,” JJS 46 (1995): 43–54; Grey, “Priestly Divination,” 29–30. 26  See Marinus de Jonge, “Levi in Aramaic Levi and in the Testament of Levi,” in Esther G. Chazon and Michael Stone with the collaboration of Avital Pinnick (eds.), Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of

The Aramaic fragments do not provide any direct textual parallels to chapter 8 of the Testament of Levi. Jonas C. Greenfield, Michael E. Stone, and Esther Eshel observe that the Aramaic Levi Document 4:11 contains a reference to seven angels and in 5:2–8 Jacob and Isaac recognize Levi’s priestly status. They therefore infer that some material related to what is found in Testament of Levi 8:2–17 was located in the now lost section of Aramaic Levi Document between 4:6 and 4:9.27 They follow Jósef Milik in placing at 4:7 content from 1Q21 1 1–2 “[…] because the thirds will be 2[…] the kingdom of the high priesthood [is greater] than the kingdom 3[…]”28 As in other passages in the Aramaic Levi Document and the Testament of Levi, the fragment from Cave 1 presents Levi with both priestly and royal identities. The fragmentary reference to “thirds” in line one, however, is presumed to be related to the three offices of Levi’s descendants in Testament of Levi 8:11–14.29 The parallels adduced between the fragmentary remains of the Aramaic Levi Document and the Testament of Levi 8 suggest that at least some version of Levi’s investiture scene stems from a Second Temple period Jewish provenance. Moreover, Martha Himmelfarb notes the similarities between Levi’s investiture in the Testament of Levi and the book of Jubilees, thus making a Second Temple period Jewish origin more likely at least for verses 1–10.30

the International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 January, 1997 (STDJ 31; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 71–89; Robert Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest: The Levi-Priestly Tradition from Aramaic Levi to Testament of Levi (SBLEJ 9; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1996), esp. 171–220 (cf. idem, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs [Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001], 47–57); Stone, Michael E. “Aramaic Levi Document and Greek Testament of Levi,” in Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and Armenian Studies: Collected Papers. Vol. 1 (OLA 144; Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 265–274. 27  See Jonas C. Greenfield, Michael E. Stone, and Esther Eshel, Aramaic Levi Document: Edition, Translation, Commentary (SVTP 19; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 16. 28  Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, Aramaic Levi Document, 66, 139–140. See Jósef T. Milik, “1Q21. Testament de Lévi,” in Dominique Barthélemy and Jósef T. Milik (eds.), Qumrân Cave 1 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1955), 87–91 (88). See further Drawnel, Aramaic Wisdom Text from Qumran, 112. The translation provided here follows Edward Cook in The Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Library, which is based on Milik’s restoration of the text. 29  See Milik, “1Q21,” 88; Grelot, “Notes,” 395; Henryk Drawnel, Aramaic Wisdom Text from Qumran: A New Interpretation of the Levi Document (JSJS 86; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 240; Fried, “Did Second Temple Priests Possess the Urim and Thummim,” 16. Thus, the more ambitious restoration found in Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel: “[…] from that they were third [… to your so]ns the kingdom of the priesthood is greater than the kingdom[…] to the [Most H]igh G[o] d.” The restoration “[… to your so]ns” is proposed by Grelot, “Notes,” 396 n. 2. The restoration of the third line follows Milik’s tentative suggestion provided in his textual notes. 30  Martha Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 37. See also Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest, 185.

In verses 11–15, Levi is told that his offspring will be divided into three offices. R. H. Charles, followed by others, suggested that these three offices should be identified as king, priest, and prophet and thus the author has in view the Hasmonean king John Hyrcanus, who was thought to combine these three offices (as we shall see below).31 As noted above, 1Q21 may be related to this passage. In its present form, however, Harm Hollander and Marinus de Jonge see clear signs of a Christian provenance, as in, for example, the reference to “a priesthood after the fashion of the Gentile for the Gentiles.”32 They therefore regard the individual in view here as Jesus. Pierre Grelot asserts that a Christian redactor modified an original Jewish text that simply outlined the threefold division of Levi’s descendants into high priest, priests, and Levites.33 Robert Kugler further argues that the heavily redacted nature of verses 11–15 make it difficult to separate the Jewish and Christian redactional layers.34 Thus, the reference to the “high prophet” (or prophet of the Most High) in verse 15 does not shed light on perceptions of prophetic identity among Second Temple period Jewish writers. Rather, it most likely captures the dual priestly and prophetic identity associated with Jesus.

3. Apocryphon of Moses (4Q375–376) 4Q375 and 4Q376 are two fragmentary manuscripts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. John Strugnell gave these manuscripts the title 4QApocrypon of Mosesa–b and associated them with two other Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts previously known from Qumran Cave 1 (1Q22, 1Q29).35 Scholars subsequently identified 31  See R. H. Charles, The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1908), 45; Rudolph Meyer, “Prophecy and Prophets in the Judaism of the HellenisticRoman Period,” TDNT 6:812–828 (825–826). See also Blenkinsopp, “Prophecy and Priesthood,” 250–251. 32  Hollander and de Jonge, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 152. Compare Charles, The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, 45, who emends the text in a way that mutes potential Christian echoes. 33  Grelot, “Notes,” 394–397. 34 Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest, 185 (cf. idem, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 51–52). 35  Translations of 4Q375–376 follow John Strugnell, “375. 4QApocrypon of Mosesa, 376. 4QApocrypon of Mosesb,” in Magen Broshi et al (eds.), Qumran Cave 4.XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2 (DJD XIX; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 111–136 (with slight modifications). See further idem, “Moses-Pseudepigrapha at Qumran: 4Q375, 4Q376, and Similar Works,” in Lawrence H. Schiffman (ed.), Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin (JSPS 8 / JSOT/ASOR Monographs 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 221–256; Gershon Brin, “Issues Concerning Prophets (Studies in 4Q375),” in Studies in Biblical Law (JSOTS 176; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 128–163; Ariel Feldman and Liora Goldman, Scripture and Interpretation: Qumran Texts that Rework the Bible (BZAW 449; Berlin; de Gruyter, 2014), 263–258 (the section on the Apocryphon of Moses is written by Goldman).

overlap between 1Q29 and 4Q408. The precise relationship between all five manuscripts is unclear and thus their identification as part of single ancient text is speculative.36 Although discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls, the five manuscripts do not preserve elements that are distinctive of texts composed by the Dead Sea Scrolls community.37 The manuscripts were all copied in the second half of the first century b.c.e., though their date of composition is uncertain.38 4Q375 and 4Q376 are significant because of their interest in prophecy and priestly divination. 4Q375 frg. 1 col. i 1(You shall perform) [all that] your God shall command you by the prophet, and you shall observe 2[all] these [sta]tutes. You shall return to the Lord your God with all 3[your heart and with al]l your soul; then your God will himself turn from his furious anger 4[to save you] from all your dire straits. But any prophet who arises to urge you 5[to apostasy, to turn] you from following your God, must be put to death. Yet if the tribe to [which] he belongs 6comes forward and argues, “He must not be executed, for he is a righteous man, he is 7a [trus]tworthy prophet,” then you are to come with that tribe and your elders and judges 8[t]o the place that your God shall choose in one of the territories of your tribes. You are to come before 9[the pr]iest who has been anointed, upon whose head has been poured the anointing oil. 4Q375 frg. 1 col. ii 3and he shall take [one young bull from the herd, and one ram … he shall take some of its blood] 4upon [his] fing[er and sprinkle it on the four corners of the altar of burnt offerings …] 5the flesh of the ra[m … one] ma[le] goat 6for a sin offering. Let him ta[ke the goat and ato]ne with it on behalf of the entire assembly. Afterwards, [he is to sprinkle some of the blood] 7before the curtain [of the veil, then dra]w near to the Ark of the Testimony. There he shall study [all the commandments of ] 8the Lord, comparing all the [laws] that have been ke[pt sec] ret from you. Finally he shall emerge into the presence of a[ll the leaders of the] 9assembly. This, then, […]

The two fragments of 4Q375 follow Deut 13 in outlining a procedure for testing and exposing a prophet who leads the public to apostasy.39 Fragment 1, lines 4–5, mandates death for the false prophet. The prophet’s tribe may intervene and assert his innocence. At that point, the prophet must undergo an ordeal before the priest. The description of the priest as “anointed” indicates that the text is 36  See Strugnell, “Moses-Pseudepigrapha at Qumran”; idem, “375–376,” 129–131; Brin, “Issues Concerning Prophets,” 158–159; Goldman, Scripture and Interpretation, 351–158. 37 Strugnell, “Moses-Pseudepigrapha at Qumran,” 247–248; idem, “375–376,” 130–131; Goldman, Scripture and Interpretation, 356–358. 38  For discussion of the dating, see especially Strugnell, “375–376,” 130–131. 39  See further Brin, “Issues Concerning Prophets”; Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 301–304; Goldman, Scripture and Interpretation, 283–286.

almost certainly referring to the high priest.40 John Strugnell, the editor of 4Q375, observes that the amount of blank space below line nine in column one marks it as the last line in the column and that only the first three lines of column two are lacking. It is unlikely that the subject matter of column one would have been completed in these lines and an entirely new subject begun. As such, the contents of column two should be read as a continuation of column one.41 Column two outlines a series of sacrifices to be undertaken by the priest. Strugnell notes the similarity to the Day of Atonement ritual in Lev 16 and posits that the text introduces a special Day of Atonement ritual or an intercalated day with rituals similar to the Day of Atonement. These special rites would have been undertaken because of the urgent matter of the priestly assessment of the prophet.42 Liora Goldman, however, argues against a connection to Lev 16 and the Day of Atonement rituals. She suggests instead that column two is a reworking of the sin offering of the congregation in Lev 4:21–23. This offering would have been necessary because the false prophet misled the congregation.43 The text breaks off at line nine and no further fragments of 4Q375 exist. Thus, there is no clear sense of how much more was involved in the ordeal or the manner of its final resolution. 4Q376 frg. 1 col. i 1[…] of the anointed priest 2[… one bullo]ck from the herd, and a ram 3[…] for the Urim […] 4Q376 frg. 1 col. ii 1… and they shall give light to thee and he shall go out with him, with tongues of fire. The left–hand stone which is on his left hand 2side shall shine forth to the eyes of all the assembly until the priest finishes speaking. And after [the cloud or the light] has been removed 3[…] then thou shalt keep and per[form al]l [that] he (i.e., the priest) shall tell [t]hee. Frg. 1 col. iii 1[…]in accordance with all this judgement. And if there shall be in the camp the Prince of all the congregation, and […] 2of his enemies, while Israel is with him, or if they march to a city to besiege it, or on any business that […] 3to the Prince […] the field is distant […]

4Q376 contains several elements that suggest a connection to 4Q375. As in 4Q375, Column 1 of 4Q376 refers to an “anointed priest” and sacrificial rituals. The two texts also contain similar language regarding obedience to the law: “(You 40  Brin, “Issues Concerning Prophets,” 147; Goldman, Scripture and Interpretation, 276– 277. 41  Strugnell, “4Q375–376,” 116. 42  Strugnell, “4Q375–376,” 116. See further Brin, “Issues Concerning Prophets,” 148–152. 43 Goldman, Scripture and Interpretation, 277–287, esp. 286–287.

shall perform) [all that] your God shall command you by the prophet” (4Q375 1 i 1) and “then thou shalt keep and per[form al]l [that] he (i.e., the priest) shall tell [t]hee” (4Q376 1 ii 3). The mediator of the law, however, differs. In 4Q375, it is a prophet, while in 4Q376 it is the priest.44 Strugnell further observes the similarities in the sacrificial rituals in column two of 4Q375 and the fragmentary column one of 4Q376.45 The primary focal point of 4Q376, however, seems to be rituals associated with the Urim. Because of the fragmentary nature of 4Q376 1 i 3, it is unclear if only the Urim are in view or the line should be reconstructed to include the Thummim. Column two seems to preserve a further allusion to the Urim: “and they shall give light to thee” and describes the priest making pronouncements to the congregation with the aid of the Urim. Based on his speculative understanding of the relationship between 4Q375 and 4Q376, Strugnell offers the “tempting” suggestion that 4Q376 “looks like a divinatory or testing process, such as the end of 4Q375 has left us expecting.”46 Matthew Grey has recently repeated this same argument in his study of the use of the Urim and Thummim in Second Temple Judaism. In particular, Grey calls attention to Josephus’ introduction of the Urim and Thummim as infallible in contrast to human prophets, who can abuse their divine authority (Ant. 3.214–218; see below).47 The precise connection between the priestly use of the Urim and the ordeal concerning the false prophet must remain speculative. Goldman, for example, argues against any such connection between the two manuscripts. Rather, Goldman asserts, 4Q376 represents rules for engaging in warfare. The fragmentary portions of column one describe the priest offering a sacrifice prior to consulting the Urim and Thummim with regard to the question of whether the army should go out to war. In the second column, the priest receives a divine response in view of the army. Column three continues by outlining several regulations regarding the war. The connection between 4Q375 and and 4Q376 is simply that both texts outline the supreme authoritative role played by the high priest.48

44  See further Brin, “Issues Concerning Prophets,” 158–159. 45  Strugnell, “4Q375–376,” 129–130. Other attempts to create a much closer textual link between 4Q375 and 4Q376 are unconvincing. Elisha Qimron restores 4Q376 i 2–3 as the missing lines in 4Q375 1 ii 1–3 (The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings. Vol 2. [Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi, 2013], 313). Thus, the reference to the Urim in 4Q376 comes right before the sacrificial procedure in column 2 of 4Q375. See, however, Goldman, Scripture and Interpretation, 279. 46  Strugnell, “4Q375–376,” 130. Based on this theory, he reconstructs 4Q376 1 ii 4–6 as “4[and the prophet … ] 5[ … who utters rebellion…] 6[ … ]to [Y]ahweh thy G[od.” 47  Grey, “Priestly Divination,” 48. Compare Pseudo-Philo, L.A.B. 25, where the Urim and Thummim play a role in an ordeal that serves to uncover guilt. See Hayward, “Pseudo-Philo,” 46–47. 48 Goldman, Scripture and Interpretation, 300–304.

Based on this understanding of the text, Goldman associates the priest in 4Q376 with the priest who speaks to the army prior to warfare in Deut 20:2–4. In 4Q376, the priest is the high priest who guides the king in all matters related to warfare. This includes consulting the Urim and Thummim. This function for the Urim and Thummim can be traced back to Num 27:21 and 1 Sam 28:6. In Num 27:21, Joshua is instructed to consult with Eleazar the priest, who will seek direction from the Urim prior to the Israelites engaging in warfare. Similarly, 1 Sam 28:6 recounts how Saul could find no guidance from the Urim with regard to engaging in battle with the Philistines.49 The association of the Urim and Thummim and priestly divination regarding warfare continues into the Second Temple period.50 Josephus repeatedly makes this connection, both in his rewriting of scriptural material and other content (see below). In 1 Macc 3:46–54, Judah Maccabee consults the priestly garments in preparation for warfare.51 Scholars have reconstructed a passage in the Apocryphon of Joshua (4Q522 9 ii 9–11) to indicate that the Gibeonites were able to defeat Joshua and cause him to sin because he did not properly consult the Urim and Thummim—clearly an extension of the directive outlined in Num 27:21.52 In Pseudo-Philo’s retelling of the attack on the Benjaminites from Judg 19–20, the Israelites first consult the Urim and Thummim with the help of the high priest Phinehas (L.A.B. 46:1).53 The Temple Scroll provides the most meaningful parallel to the role of the Urim and Thummim in 4Q376. 15And

if he will go out to battle against 16his enemies, one fifth of the people shall go out with him, the warriors, all the mighty men of 17valour, and they shall keep themselves from all unclean things, and from all indecent things, and from all sin and guilt. 18And he shall not go out until he comes before the high priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgement of the Urim 19and the Thummim. At his word he shall go out, and at his word he shall come in, both he and all the people of Israel with 20him; he shall not go out by the counsel of his heart until he inquires by the judgement of the Urim 21and the Thummim. (11QTa 58:15–21)54 49  Only the Urim are mentioned in both scriptural passages regarding warfare. This could suggest that 4Q376 only refers to the Urim, and that Thummim should not be reconstructed in the lacuna of the manuscript (see above). 50  See further Batsch, La guerre, 316–333. 51  See Fried, “Did Second Temple Priests Possess the Urim and Thummim,” 23–24. 52  See further Devorah Dimant, “The ‘Apocryphon of Joshua’—4Q522 9 ii: A Reappraisal,” in History, Ideology and Bible Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Collected Studies (FAT 90; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 335–352 (345–346). 53  See Hayward, “Pseudo-Philo,” 47. 54  Translation follows Yigael Yadin, The Temple Scroll. 3 Vols. (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Shrine of the Book, 1983), 2:263–265. See further

The Temple Scroll incorporates Num 27:21 into the law of the king. As in Numbers, the king cannot go to war prior to consulting the high priest and the Urim and Thummim. Both 4Q376 and the Temple Scroll subordinate the military tactics of the king to the divinatory inquiry of the high priest.55 4Q376 is unique among all these texts in that it provides far greater detail regarding the mechanics and location of the priest’s divinatory use of the Urim and Thummim. 4Q376 1 ii 1 describes the priest exiting a space alongside somebody. Goldman reconstructs the scene as the high priest entering the temple in order to inquire of the Urim regarding the war. Once the priest has received an answer, he exits the temple along with the prince in order to deliver the answer in public to the assembly of gathered people.56 The message is conveyed through the flashing stones and the movement of the cloud.

4. Lives of the Prophets The Greek Lives of the Prophets, is a work whose provenance is highly disputed. Anna M. Schwemer, for example, argues that is a first century c.e. Jewish t ext that is preserved in Christian scribal tradition and hence subject to Christian redaction.57 David Satran asserts that the Lives of the Prophets is entirely of Christian origin, stemming from the fourth century.58 Satran does, however, suggest that the text likely incorporates earlier Jewish material for the sections on Isaiah and Zechariah son of Jehoiada.59 For our purposes, the most striking passage comes at the end of the book in the entry on Zechariah son of Jehoiada, where the author reflects on the presenttime absence of prophecy: Zechariah was from Jerusalem, son of Jehoiada the priest, and Joash the king of Judah killed him by the altar; and the house of David poured out his blood in the middle (or: in public) near the porch, and seizing him the priests buries him with Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Laws of War in the Temple Scroll,” in Florentino García Martínez (ed.), The Courtyards of the House of the Lord: Studies on the Temple Scroll (STDJ 75; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 505–517 (512–513). 55 Goldman, Scripture and Interpretation, 303–304. 56 Goldman, Scripture and Interpretation, 293–294, 304. Strugnell’s translation of 4Q376 1 ii 1 (“he/it [i.e., ‘the priest’ or ‘the cloud’] shall go forth together with it”) retains the ambiguity regarding the subject of the “going out.” The translation provided above follows Goldman’s philological and conceptual analysis of the passage. 57  Anna M. Schwemer, Studien zu den frühjüdischen Prophetenlegenden Vitae Prophetarum. 2 Vols. (TSAJ 90; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995–1996). 58  David Satran, Biblical Prophets in Byzantine Palestine: Reassessing the Lives of the Prophets (SVTP 11; Leiden: Brill, 1995). 59 Satran, Biblical Prophets in Byzantine Palestine, 53.

his father (see 2 Chron 24:20–22).60 From that time there were apparitions in the temple, and the priests were no longer able to see a vision of the angels of God nor to give oracles from the inner sanctuary, nor to inquire by the Ephod, nor to give answer to the people by means of the Urim as formerly.61

Prophecy is remembered in this text as a uniquely priestly endeavour. Priests access the divine word through visions and oracles received in the inner sanctum of the temple. The tools by which this transmission takes place are outlined here: visions of angels and inquiry with the ephod and the Urim and Thummim. As in the Testament of Levi, the priestly garments—the ephod, here with the inclusion of the Urim and Thummim—possess an oracular function. As in the Apocryphon of Moses, priestly divination takes place in the temple.

5. The Gospel of John I include here one passage from the Gospel of John that contains a reference to a high priest making predictions. In John 11:49–51, we are told that the high priest Caiaphas prophesied Jesus’ death. 49But

one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all! 50You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed.” 51He did not say this on his own, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation. (NRSV)

No information is provided regarding the mechanism in which this prophecy occurred. Indeed, the fact that the high priest is described as prophesying is presented as unremarkable. These features suggest that this scene would have been regarded as a normal occurrence for a first century Jewish audience.62

60  On the legends surrounding Zechariah’s death, see especially Sheldon Blank, “The Death of Zechariah in Rabbinic Literature,” HUCA 12/13 (1937–1938): 327–346; Catherine Sider Hamilton, The Death of Jesus in Matthew: Innocent Blood and the End of Exile (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 130–148. 61  Translation follows Satran, Biblical Prophets in Byzantine Palestine, 128 (following Codex Marchalianus). 62  See further C. H. Dodd, “The Prophecy of Caiaphas,” in Bo Reicke and Willy Rordorf (eds.), Neotestamentica et Patristica: eine Freundesgabe, Herrn Professor Dr. Oscar Cullmann zu seinem 60. Geburtstag überreicht (SNT 6; Leiden: Brill, 1962), 134–143; Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity, 138–139.

6. Philo In book 4 of the Special Laws, Philo provides an exposition on guidelines for the ideal ruler, which is based in part on Deuteronomy’s law of the king (Spec. Laws 4.151–192). Philo concludes this unit by observing that “a vast number of circumstances slip away from or are unnoticed by the human mind” (Spec. Laws 4.188).63 In these situations, neither the ruler nor the judge is fit to resolve the issues. Rather, Philo asserts, the issue should be determined by the high priest and other priests. Sarah Pearce argues that Philo’s exposition is intended as an exegetical amplification of Deut 17:8–13, which outlines the role of the priests and the judges in expounding difficult cases of law.64 Philo asserts that priests are uniquely qualified to take on this role, because their superior training, lifestyle choices, and overall infallibility make them “genuine ministers of God” (Spec. Laws 4.191).65 Philo concludes by adding one additional explanation for the priests assuming this role: Another possible reason for sending such cases to the priests is that the true priest is necessarily a prophet, advanced to the service of the truly Existent by virtue rather than by birth, and to a prophet nothing is unknown since he has within him a spiritual sun and unclouded rays to give him a full and clear apprehension of things unseen by sense but apprehended by the understanding. (Spec. Laws 4.192).66

Harry Wolfson long ago surmised that one of the fundamental premises regarding prophecy for Philo is that a prophet has “the power to know things beyond sense-perception.”67 This particular characteristic explains why Philo identifies the “true priest” as also a prophet. As the arbiter of cases that are too challenging for the normal human mind, the priests must draw on a superhuman set of qualities. For Philo, the priest is a mediator of divine law because he has special knowledge on account of his prophetic capabilities. The threefold explanation 63  Translation follows F. H. Colson, On the Special Laws, Book 4. On the Virtues. On Rewards and Punishments (LCL 341; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1939), 125. 64  Sarah K. Pearce, The Words of Moses: Studies in the Reception of Deuteronomy in the Second Temple Period (TSAJ 152; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 289–306. 65 Pearce, The Words of Moses, 298–302. Pearce’s analysis of this section further explains Philo’s elision of the role of the judges in Deut 17:8–13 in favour of the exclusive role of the priests. 66 Colson, On the Special Laws, 127. 67  Harry Austryn Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. 2 Vols. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1947), 2:21. For further treatment of prophecy in Philo, see Wolfson, ibid., 2.3–72; Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity, 147–152; John R. Levison, “Philo’s Personal Experience and the Persistence of Prophecy,” in Michael H. Floyd and Robert D. Haak (eds.), Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism (LHBOTS 427; New York: T & T Clark, 2006), 194–209.

Philo provides in the previous paragraph for privileging the priests in judicial matters receives its final approbation here: “to a prophet nothing is unknown.” Pearce further observes that Deut 17:8–13 in the Septuagint makes the words of the priestly judges commensurate with the words of God.68 This reinforces the notion that the priestly judges are simultaneously drawing on their prophetic capabilities. Philo’s general understanding of the intersection of priests and prophets in the discernment of divine law helps explain his repeated reference to Moses as embodying four characteristics: king, lawgiver, priest, and prophet (Rewards 53; Moses 2.3, 187; cf. 275). Wolfson argues that prophet is a general term under which Philo includes lawgiver and priest.69 Moses is not a prophet in the usual way it is understood in the Greek world as a diviner. Rather, Moses possesses the powers of otherworldly discernment, which he applies for both priestly (e.g., Moses 2.74–76) and lawgiving purposes (e.g., Moses 2.263–65).70

7. Josephus Josephus represents our richest source for understanding priests and prophecy in the Second Temple period.71 In working through the relevant passages from Josephus, it is important to keep in mind that some of this material represents “traditional” sources—i.e., ideas that stem from broader segments of Second Temple Judaism—and some represents Josephus’ unique perspective. Scholars often introduce Josephus as evidence for the end of prophecy on account of this statement that the “exact succession of prophecy” ended during the time of Artaxerxes (Ag. Ap. 1.37–40), which lines up closely with the early post-exilic period ending for prophecy presumed by several other ancient Jewish sources:72 Naturally, then, or rather necessarily—seeing that it is not open to anyone to write of their own accord, nor is there any disagreement present in what is written, but the

68 Pearce, The Words of Moses, 269–274, 304. 69 Wolfson, Philo, 2:17. 70 Wolfson, Philo, 2:18–19. See also Feldman, Philo’s Portrayal of Moses, 302–304. 71  See especially Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus,” JJS 25 (1974): 239–262; Feldman, “Prophets and Prophecy in Josephus”; Rebecca Gray, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Period Palestine: The Evidence of Josephus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993); Grabbe, “Thus Spake the Prophet Josephus…: The Jewish Historian on Prophets and Prophecy,” in Michael H. Floyd and Robert D. Haak (eds.), Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism (LHBOTS 427; New York: T & T Clark, 2006), 240–247; Cook, Cessation of Prophecy, 122–148. 72  See discussion in Gray, Prophetic Figures, 7–16; Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 17–18; Cook, Cessation of Prophecy, 132–136.

prophets alone learned, by inspiration from God, what had happened in the distant and most ancient past and recorded plainly events in their own time just as they occurred—among us there are not thousands of books in disagreement and conflict with each other, but only twenty-two books, containing the record of all time, which are rightly trusted. Five of these are the books of Moses, which contain both the laws and the tradition from the birth of humanity up to his death; this is a period of a little less than 3,000 years. From the death of Moses until Artaxerxes, king of the Persians after Xerxes, the prophets after Moses wrote the history of what took place in their own times in thirteen books; the remaining four books contain hymns to God and instructions for people on life. From Artaxerxes up to our own time every event has been recorded, but this is not judged worthy of the same trust, since the exact line of succession of the prophets did not continue.73

In this passage, however, Josephus is asserting that only prophetic books composed before the early post–exilic period are worthy of inclusion in the sacred scriptures. His explanation is not that prophecy ended, but rather than it changed. Prophecy as it was performed and perceived in the pre-exilic period had come to an end at some point in the early post–exilic period. At the same time, new prophetic models emerged that performed similar mediating functions.74 For Josephus, this prophetic rupture renders any writings of the later set of prophets unfit for inclusion into the sacred history. The distinction in prophecy for Josephus is readily apparent in the terminology that he employs. Whenever Josephus discusses prophets from ancient Israel, he introduces them with the designation προφήτης (“prophet”). When Josephus treats individuals in the Second Temple period who he believes possess mediating abilities, he either uses an alternate title such as μάντῐς (“mantic”) or merely re�frains from using a descriptive title.75 For example, Josephus describes Judah the Essene’s prediction of the murder of Antigonus (War 1.78–80) not as prophecy, but rather as προρρηθέντων (“predictions”) and μάντευμα̣ (“oracles”). Similarly, Judah is a μάντῐς (“mantic”), not a προφήτης (“prophet”). The activity of Judah 73  Translation follows John Barclay, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, Volume 10, Against Apion (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 28–30. 74  See further similar treatment of these general questions in David L. Petersen, “Rethinking the End of Prophecy,” in Matthias Augustin and Klaus-Dietrich Schunck (eds.), Wünschent Jerusalem Frieden: Collected Communications to the XIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Jerusalem 1986 (BEATAJ 13; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1988), 65–71; Grabbe, “Thus Spake the Prophet Josephus,” 241–242. 75  This feature has been well documented in the scholarly literature. See Jannes Reiling, “The Use of ΨΕΥΔΟΠΡΟΦΗΤΗΣ in the Septuagint, Philo and Josephus,” NovTest 13 (1971): 147–156 (156); Blenkinsopp, “Prophecy,” 240, 262; Gray, Prophetic Figures, 23–26; Grabbe, “Thus Spake the Prophet Josephus,” 245–246. Two exceptions are treated in Aune, “The Use of ΠΡΟΦΗΤΗΣ in Josephus,” JBL 101 (1982): 419–421. See further Cook, Cessation of Prophecy, 129–132.

the Essene comports with Josephus’ more general understanding of the predictive role of prophecy.76 While Judah’s actions fits Josephus’ broad conceptualization of prophetic activity, Josephus carefully refrains from identifying him as a prophet. As Lester Grabbe observes, however, not every non-scriptural individual who predicts events is identified with Josephus’ modified prophetic terminology.77 Indeed, the degree of inconsistency in Josephus may reflect an ongoing uncertainty regarding who exactly should be regarded as the heir of the ancient prophets. Interestingly, Josephus does not hesitate to use the explicit term “prophet” when referring to contemporary false prophets (e.g., War 2.259, 261; 6.285; Ant. 20.167).78 The most prominent other exception to Josephus’ terminological distinctions is his treatment of John Hyrcanus, which I discuss below. My treatment of priests and prophecy in Josephus covers three areas: (1) priests in general, particularly the high priest; (2) John Hyrcanus; (3) Josephus himself. If we want to obtain an understanding of what Josephus regards as prophetic in his own day, it is helpful to examine how he re-imagines the world of ancient Israel in his scriptural rewriting. For example, scholars have noted that Josephus places considerable emphasis on prophets as predictors of the future. While this feature is certainly prominent in biblical portraits of prophets, Josephus amplifies this feature in his rewriting. If we turn to Josephus’ rewriting of scriptural priests, we see a recurring emphasis on the prophetic qualities of ancient Israelite priests. As I have observed above, priests in biblical texts are presented as divine mediators. Yet, the biblical material on the whole does not characterize this as a prophetic experience. Josephus, in retelling their story, merges the mediating role of the priests and prophets. In Ant. 3.190–192, Josephus recounts the installation of Aaron as the first high priest: But now God Himself has judged Aaron worthy of this honor and has chosen him as priest, knowing that he is the more deserving among us. Thus, he will put on the garment consecrated to God and he will have care of the altars and concern for the sacrifices; and he will offer the prayers on our behalf to God, who will gladly listen to them, both because he bestows his care upon our race and because he welcomes 76  On Josephus’ focus on prediction as prophecy, see especially Blenkinsopp, “Prophecy,” 242–246; Feldman, “Prophets,” 227–230; Gray, Prophetic Figures, 30–34. 77  Grabbe, “Thus Spake the Prophet Josephus,” 245–246. 78  See Blenkinsopp, “Prophecy,” 246; Grabbe, “Thus Spake the Prophet Josephus,” 241; Cook, Cessation of Prophecy, 125–128. For more on the rhetorical effect of the accusation of false prophecy, see Alex P. Jassen, “Prophecy, Power, and Politics in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism,” in Alan Lenzi and Jonathan Stökl (eds.), Divination, Politics, and Ancient Near Eastern Empires (ANEM 7; Atlanta, GA: Society for Biblical Literature, 2014), 171–198.

these, having come from a man whom he himself has designated. The Hebrews were pleased with these words and concurred in the appointment by God. For Aaron, both because of his origin and his gift of prophecy and the merit of his brother, was more deserving of esteem with regard to the honor than anyone else. At that time he also had four sons—Nabados, Abious, Eleazaros, and Ithamaros.79

Aaron is uniquely qualified for this job, asserts Josephus, because of his “gift of prophecy” (among other attributes).80 Although Josephus does not make the connection explicit, this passage indicates that Aaron’s act of putting on of the priestly garments constitutes the transformative nature of his investiture (similar to Levi in the Testament of Levi). In several other scriptural rewritings, Josephus makes explicit the connection between the priestly garments and prophecy. For example, Saul instructs the high priest to put on the priestly garments in order to prophesy regarding the impending battle with the Philistines (Ant. 6.115). David instructs his high priest to do the same thing in the context of a battle with the Amalekites (Ant. 6.359). A recurring pattern can be detected. Josephus imagines scriptural high priests drawing upon the power of prophecy to predict future military outcomes, at times with the aid of the priestly garments (see also Ant. 5.120; 6.254, 257; 7.73, 76; cf. 6.271). Josephus’ portrait of priestly prophecy matches closely his general emphasis on the predictive nature of prophecy. At the same time, Josephus never explicitly identifies any of these priests as prophets.81 Even as Josephus rewrites the scriptural narrative to reimagine prophecy, he retains some sense of terminological distinction as he maps out different forms of prophetic activity. For Josephus, these ancient high priests are engaging in activity that is commensurate with prophecy in much the same way as he imagines priests in the Second Temple period doing so. Here, I think Josephus’ portrait of priestly prophecy works well with Grabbe’s reframing of prophecy as a subcategory of the divinatory arts. Indeed, elsewhere Josephus makes a clear distinction between prophecy broadly speaking and the divinatory prophecy practiced by the priests: I wish, however, to report a detail that I omitted concerning the clothing of the high priest. For he [Moyses] left behind no starting-point for the evil deeds of prophets, if indeed there should be some such to abuse the dignity of God, but entrusted to God as sole ruler to be present at the sacred rites whenever He wished or not to be present, and he desired this to be evident not only to the Hebrews but also to as many strangers as happen to be present. Of those stones that I previously stated 79  Translation follows Feldman, Judean Antiquities, Books 1–4, 282–283. 80  On Aaron’s attributes, see further Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, 57–64. 81 Cook, Cessation of Prophecy, 135.

the high priest bore on his shoulders, they were sardonyxes; and I think that it is superfluous to indicate their nature to all who have arrived at this knowledge. It happened that the one that was fastened with a clasp to the right shoulder shone, with a radiance flashing and appearing to the one furthest away, although previously this was not present in the stone. This, therefore, was wondrous to those who have not cultivated their wisdom for disparagement of divine matters, but I shall mention a more wondrous thing than this, for through the twelve stones that the high priest wore upon his breast stitched into the essen, God previously communicated victory to those about to go to war. For such a radiance flashed forth from them, though the army had not yet been roused, that it was recognizable to all the multitude that God was at hand to aid them, whence the Greeks who honor our customs, because they are in no way able to contradict them, call the essen an oracle. Now the essen and the sardonyx ceased to shine 200 years before I composed this work, since God was displeased at the violation of the laws. Concerning them we shall speak at a more appropriate time, but now I shall turn to the following account. (Ant. 3.214–218)82

As we have seen in other passages, there is a close association between the priest’s prophetic abilities and the priestly garments. More specifically, it is the priestly garments that function as the divinatory medium for the priests. While Josephus never uses the precise name, he likely is referring to the lore surrounding the Urim and Thummim. The divinatory stones, argues Josephus, allow no room for human misinterpretation and are therefore superior to prophets.83 Of the various functions that they carry out, Josephus notes that they foretell when the army will be victorious in battle. This function of the priestly divination matches how he imagines the ancient priests operating in his scriptural rewriting. Finally, Josephus mentions that the Urim and Thummim ceased functioning about 200 years earlier. Josephus’ statement stands in contrast to earlier Second Temple period material that asserts that that Urim and Thummim were not present in the Second Temple period (Ezra 2:61–63; Neh 7:63–65). I am not interested in the historical question of whether the Urim and Thummim continued to exist among the Second Temple period priests.84 Josephus takes this as a given and locates their function in continuity with the divinatory arts among the priests from ancient Israel. Yet, there is a clear end point even to this modified prophetic activity.85

82 Feldman, Judean Antiquities, Books 1–4, 288–290. 83  Blenkinsopp, “Prophecy,” 252–253. Pseudo-Philo, in contrast, presents the Urim and Thummim as being able to lead the consulting priest astray (L.A.B., 46:1; 47:2). See further Grey, “Priestly Divination,” 29. 84  On which, see Fried, “Did Second Temple Priests Possess the Urim and Thummim”; Grey, “Priestly Divination.” 85  Blenkinsopp, “Prophecy,” 253.

Josephus’ portrait of prophetic high priests extends beyond the world of ancient Israel. Josephus narrates how the high priest Jaddua is uncertain on how to proceed when Alexander’s armies are approaching Jerusalem (Ant. 11.327–328). He undertakes various cultic initiatives that result in God appearing to him in a dream and providing direction on how to respond to the military threat. Later, Josephus singles out the Hasmonean king and high priest John Hyrcanus for his prophetic abilities.86 Josephus concludes his account of Hyrcanus’ reign with the following summation: And so Hyrcanus quieted the outbreak, and lived happily thereafter; and when he died after administering the government excellently for thirty-one years, he left five sons. Now he was accounted by God worthy of three of the greatest privileges, the rule of the nation, the office of high-priest, and the gift of prophecy; for the Deity was with him and enabled him to foresee and foretell the future; so, for example, he foretold of his two elder sons that they would not remain masters of the state. And the story of their downfall is worth relating, to show how far they were from having their father’s good fortune. (Ant. 13.299–300; cf. War 1.68–69)87

In this particular passage, Josephus provides one example of Hyrcanus’ prophetic abilities: he was able to predict future events, in this case regarding his sons. Elsewhere, Josephus provides greater detail regarding how Hyrcanus obtained this prophetic knowledge. Like Jaddua, Hyrcanus received his divine message in a dream (Ant. 13.322). Josephus also recounts an oracle that Hyrcanus experiences while officiating in the temple: Now about the high priest Hyrcanus an extraordinary story is told how the Deity communicated with him, for they say that on the very day on which his sons fought with Cyzicenus, Hyrcanus, who was alone in the temple, burning incense as high priest, heard a voice saying that his sons had just defeated Antiochus. And on coming out of the temple he revealed this to the entire multitude, and so it actually happened. This, then, was how the affairs of Hyrcanus were going. (Ant. 13.282–283)88

Blenkinsopp suggests, based on the rabbinic parallel (b. Sot. 33a) that Hyrcanus was officiating as high priest on the Day of Atonement and would therefore have been in the Holy of Holies. Blenkinsopp extends the comparative 86 Gray, Prophetic Figures, 22–23. For discussion of streams within Second Temple Judaism that push back against Hyrcanus’ prophetic identity, see Jassen, “Prophecy, Power, and Politics.” 87  Translation follows Ralph Marcus, Jewish Antiquities, Volume V, Books 12–13 (LCL 365; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1943), 377–379. 88 Marcus, Jewish Antiquities, Books 12–13, 369–371.

approach in order to suggest that the voice in this passage is akin to the rabbinic bat qol.89 What I find most interesting here is that the temple is the locus of the prophetic experience. I wonder if what is happening here is the Hyrcanus is actively soliciting a divine oracle. Similar to Jaddua who engages in several cultic acts to seek divine assistance, Hyrcanus employs the space of the temple and the ritual of the incense as preparatory for the divine communication. In the midst of all the places where Hyrcanus is attributed prophetic capabilities, Josephus never indicates that Hyrcanus utilized the priestly garments for divinatory purposes. This is particularly surprising because, as we saw, Josephus locates the end of the divinatory use of the priestly garments about 200 years before his own time – which would coincide with the end of the reign of John Hyrcanus. But, Hyrcanus does not use the Urim and Thummim. Rather, he turns to other divinatory practices. Let me now turn to the Josephus’ prophetic self-consciousness. I use this term because, while Josephus never calls himself a prophet, he clearly views himself in continuity with the ancient prophets, especially Jeremiah.90 Like Jeremiah, Josephus is a priest who witnesses the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. It is unclear to what extent Josephus regarded his prophetic identity as linked to his priestly lineage. Here, I wish to highlight two particular passages that suggest that at least some of Josephus’ prophetic self-consciousness does in fact stem from his membership in an elite group of prophetic priests. In his account of his surrender at Jotapata, Josephus appeals to his priestly and prophetic identity to justify his actions: While Josephus was still hesitating, even after Nicanor’s assurances, the soldiers in their rage attempted to set fire to the cave, but were restrained by their commander, who was anxious to take the Jewish general alive. But as Nicanor was urgently pressing his proposals and Josephus overheard the threats of the hostile crowd, suddenly there came back into his mind those nightly dreams, in which God had foretold to him the impending fate of the Jews and the destinies of the Roman sovereigns. He was an interpreter of dreams and skilled in divining the meaning of ambiguous utterances of the Deity; a priest himself and of priestly descent, he was not ignorant of the prophecies in the sacred books. At that hour he was inspired to read their meaning, and, recalling the dreadful images of his recent dreams, he offered up a silent prayer to God. “Since it pleases thee,” so it ran, “who didst create the Jewish nation, to break thy work, since fortune has wholly passed to the Romans, and since 89  Blenkinsopp, “Prophecy,” 251. 90  See further Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity, 137–138; Gray, Prophetic Figures, 35– 79; Robert K. Gnuse, Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writings of Josephus: A Traditio-Critical Analysis (AGAJU 36; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 21–33; Grabbe, “Thus Spake the Prophet Josephus,” 24.

thou hast made choice of my spirit to announce the things that are to come, I willingly surrender to the Romans His intention to surrender and consent to live; but I take thee to witness that I go, not as a traitor, but as thy minister.” (War 3.350–354)91

There are multiple intersecting issues embedded in this text.92 What I find significant is Josephus’ juxtaposition of his priestly identity and his knowledge of the prophecies in the sacred books: “A priest himself and of priestly descent, he was not ignorant of the prophecies in the sacred books.” In Ant. 4.303–304, Josephus recounts how Moses composed a poem, which he included in a book that was deposited in the temple: Then he read to them a poem in hexameters, which he has left behind in a book in the Temple, containing a prediction of what will be, in accordance with which everything has happened and is happening, since he has not at all deviated from the truth. Therefore, he handed over to the priests these books (Ant. 4.303–304).93

This passage is modelled on the account in Deut 31:9 where Moses gives a copy of the Torah (e.g., Deuteronomy) to the priests. Josephus identifies the text as having a predictive function and the priests as the custodians of this text. Josephus’ claim that he is knowledgeable about the prophecies in sacred books is not merely because he is a priest and therefore part of the elite scribal class of Torah interpreters. Rather, his priestly lineage stakes claim to an ancient tradition of prophetic knowledge of scripture. Josephus’ emphasis on the textualized nature of revelation comports well with the rise of inspired interpretation of scripture throughout Second Temple Judaism.94 The second important text comes later in Josephus’ account of his surrender when he explains to Vespasian why he did not commit suicide: You imagine, Vespasian, that in the person of Josephus you have taken a mere captive; but I come to you as a messenger of greater destinies. Had I not been sent on this errand by God, I knew the law of the Jews and how it becomes a general to die. (War 3.400)95

The specific language used here by Josephus—messenger (ἄγγελος)—is the same term that Hecataeus employs to describe the mediating function of the high 91  Translation follows H. St. J. Thackeray, Josephus, The Jewish War, Volume II: Books 3–4 (LCL 487; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927), 103–105. 92  See the extensive analysis in Gray, Prophetic Figures, 52–70. 93 Feldman, Judean Antiquities, Books 1–4, 464–465. 94  On this feature more broadly, see Alex P. Jassen, “Scribes, Visionaries, and Prophets: On the Place of Apocalyptic in the History of Prophecy,” HeBAI 5 (2016): 51–72. 95 Feldman, Judean Antiquities, Books 1–4, 117.

priest. This passage continues by indicating that Josephus regarded his role as a messenger to foretell the future—a skill that Vespasian eventually praises based on Josephus’ successful track record. As we saw in the previous passage, Josephus lays claim to this skill based on the longstanding priestly claim to have access to hidden secrets in the sacred texts.

8. Conclusions By way of conclusion, let me pull together some broader trends that emerge from my documentary analysis of these eight sets of texts. First, each of these texts and authors is grappling with the question of the new location and language of prophecy in the Second Temple period. Priests in ancient Israel and biblical texts are clearly mediating figures. Yet, this is rarely framed in prophetic terms. As Second Temple period Jews expanded the notion of prophetic mediation, the priestly and prophetic begin to intersect. In these particular texts—and presumably in the worldview of the individual and social groups that produced them—priests and the temple represent one of the new spaces in which prophecy can thrive. In particular, several of these texts single out the high priest as unique among all the priests for his mediating qualities. Second, the authors of all of these texts are generally very careful in the terminology they employ. While priests are merged with prophets and prophetic activity, they are almost never actually called prophets. Here, I am not merely splitting hairs. There is a general reluctance to name the new practitioners of prophecy in the Second Temple period with the technical title “prophet.” Indeed, Josephus even seems to keep this distinction when reimagining the biblical priests. Third, the media for prophetic activity at times matches techniques otherwise employed by prophets and visionaries—for example, dreams. In most cases, however, these texts reflect a uniquely priestly medium for prophecy. Most prominently, the priestly garments—the ephod, the breastplate, and the Urim and Thummim—are tools of the priestly divinatory arts. Several texts also identify the temple as a space for prophetic activity and elements of the priestly cult as preparatory acts for revelation. Here as well, the Second Temple authors are expanding on ideas already present in the scriptural heritage; they are now relocated to an explicitly prophetic context. Fourth, the content of priestly prophecy also at times matches other prophetic activity in the Second Temple period. For Josephus, prophetic priests engage in foretelling just like other prophets. Priestly prophets draw upon the priestly garments and the Urim and Thummim to provide guidance on military affairs. Yet, there is a uniquely priestly element here as well in that the priests are thought to possess special knowledge of the sacred texts. Moreover, several of the texts I

have examined build on the identity of the priests as teachers of Jewish law. In these texts, the priests are more than merely expert teachers. Rather their knowledge of the law stems from their identity as mediators of divinely revealed law and bearers of otherworldly knowledge.

Anja Klein Poetry, Prophecy and History Divine Speech in Psalms 81 and 95

1. Cultic Prophecy in Scholarship Even though there were some early discussions in scholarship, the debate about cultic prophecy picked up pace only with scholars Sigmund Mowinckel and Hermann Gunkel. While Mowinckel in the 1923 third volume of his Psalmenstudien put forward the idea that prophets played a significant role in the Ancient Israel cult and that their original oracles were preserved in some of the psalms,1 Hermann Gunkel (and his student Joachim Begrich respectively) took the opposite stand. In their 1933 introduction to the psalms, Gunkel and Begrich explained the prophetic poems (§9 “Das Prophetische in den Psalmen”) by an imitation of prophetic form and content, questioning the actual performance of a prophetic word in the cult.2 Since then, no consensus has been reached on the relationship between prophecy and psalmody. While Mowinckel’s cultic model has been taken up by a number of scholars,3 Gunkel’s idea of imitation finds reception especially in studies focusing on the function of divine speech in the psalms.4 1 Sigmund Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien: III. Kultprophetie und prophetische Psalmen (Skrifter utgit av Videnskapsselskapets i Kristiania I: Hist.-Filos. Klasse. Oslo: Dybwad, 1922), esp. 1–29; see also the contribution by Lester Grabbe in this volume. 2  Hermann Gunkel/Joachim Begrich, Einleitung in die Psalmen: Die Gattungen der religiösen Lyrik Israels (HAT II; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1933), 329–381. 3  See, e.g., Jörg Jeremias, Kultprophetie und Gerichtsverkündigung in der späten Königszeit Israels (WMANT 35; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1970); James G. Harris III, “Prophetic Oracles in the Psalter” (PhD Diss, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1970); Aubrey R. Johnson, The Cultic Prophet and Israel’s Psalmody (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1979); Klaus Koenen, Gottesworte in den Psalmen: Eine formgeschichtliche Untersuchung (BThS 30; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1996), and more recently, John W. Hilber, Cultic Prophecy in the Psalms (BZAW 352; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005). 4  See the studies by William H. Bellinger Jr., Psalmody and Prophecy (JSOTS 27; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984); Raymond J. Tournay, Seeing and Hearing God with the Psalms: The Prophetic Liturgy of the Second Temple in Jerusalem (JSOTS 118; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991); Hermann Spieckermann, “Rede Gottes und Wort Gottes: Die Entdeckung der Antwort Gottes im Gebet,” in Hermann Spieckermann (ed.), Lebenskunst und Gotteslob in Israel: Anregungen aus Psalter und Weisheit für die Theologie (FAT 91; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014 [1994 revised]), 217–231; Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, “Psalm 95: Gattungsgeschichtliche, kompositionskritische und bibeltheologische Anfragen,” in Klaus Seybold and Erich Zenger (eds.), Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung. FS W. Beyerlin (HBS 1; Freiburg: Herder, 1998), 29–44; and Andrea Doeker,

This essay is only a small contribution to this question, focusing on divine speech in the two festal psalms 81 and 95. The two psalms do not only feature divine speech and are deemed to be prime examples of cultic prophecy,5 but this feature is combined with an interest into biblical history, which makes the pair an ideal object of study. In the following, I shall investigate first how the interaction between poetry, prophecy, and history can be described, before I want to ask which model can best account for the literary evidence in these two psalms.

2. Analysis of Content and Function 2.1  Psalm 81 In the case of Ps 81, there is wide agreement that the psalm exhibits a two-fold structure, with a festal summons in the first part (81:2–5[6b]) and a divine speech in the second part (81:6[6c]–17).6 First, let us have a short look how the text functions in its present form. The psalm starts in 81:2–4 with a hymnic summons to praise the God of Jacob on the occasion of a specific feast day (81:4, “the day of our festival” ‫)ליום חגנו‬. This day is deemed to be a divine mandate for Jacob in 81:5 (‫)כי חק לישראל הוא משפט לאלהי יעקב‬. The following verse 6 has been described as a transitional verse,7 changing both in metrum and topic. By featuring a tricolon, the first two stanzas 81:6a–b relate the feast to the time when Yhwh ventured out against Egypt (‫)בצאתו על־ארץ מצרים‬.8 Die Funktion der Gottesrede in den Psalmen: Eine poetologische Untersuchung (BBB 135; Berlin/ Wien: Philo, 2002). 5  See Gunkel and Begrich, Einleitung, 329 (classifying both Ps 81:6c–11 and 95:7d–11 as examples of “prophetic sections of mixed liturgies” [“prophetische(n) Stücke(n) aus ‘gemischten Liturgien’”]); Hilber, Cultic Prophecy, 150–159, 179–185; and idem, “Cultic Prophecy in Assyria and in the Psalms,” JAOS 127 (2007): 29–40 (33–34). 6  While mainly older studies assume a caesura in the middle of Ps 81:6 (see Charles A. Briggs and Emilie G. Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms [London: T&T Clark, 1907], 209–210; Gunkel, Psalmen, 356; Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalmen: 2. Teilband: Psalmen 60–150 [BK XV/2; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 72003], 727–728; Michael L. Dahood, Psalms II: 51–100 [AB 17; Garden City, NJ / New York, NY: Doubleday, 1968], 263; Thijs Booij, “The Background of the Oracle in Psalm 81,” Bib 65 (1984): 465–475 [465]; Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51–100 [WBC 20; Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1990], 321–323; Tournay, Seeing, 173–175), more recent studies suggest a break between 81:5 and 81:6, mostly combined with a redaction historical model (see Norbert Lohfink, “Noch einmal ḥ ōq ûmišpāṭ [zu Ps 81.5f],” Bib 73 [1992]: 253–254; Klaus Seybold, Die Psalmen [HAT I/15; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996], 322; Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalmen 51–100 [HThK.AT. Freiburg/Basel/ Wien: Herder, 2000], 470–471; and Doeker, Gottesrede, 208–211). 7  See Lohfink, “Noch einmal,” 254 (“eine Gelenkstelle der Gedankenführung”). 8  The variants that testify to a reading ‫ מן‬instead of ‫( על‬LXX, Vulgate to Jerome, and Peshitta) represent a harmonisation with the more common motif “to go out from Egypt”; thus

The third colon 81:6c, however, marks the beginning of a new part by introducing the voice of a first person, who in present tense reports an audition through a voice that he/she does not recognise (‫)שפת לא־ידעתי אשמע‬. What the speaker hears is a four-part divine oracle in 81:7–17, which is characterized by a change of addressees throughout.9 At first, in 81:7–8, God recalls his saving actions for his people in the past. Highlighted is the episode at the waters in Meribah, which is, however, not presented as an example of the people’s misconduct, but referred to as an episode, where Yhwh “tested” them (81:8: ‫אבחנך על־מי‬ ‫)מריבה‬. The Hebrew verb used to describe the testing, ‫בחן‬, does not occur in the Exodus narratives, but it can be found also in Ps 95:9, which suggests that the interpretation of the narrative episode in these two psalms is related.10 With the exception of the reference to Meribah, the terminology in Ps 81 is rather general, which makes it difficult to relate the narrative action to specific events in biblical history. For example, the removal of the load in 81:7 (‫הסירותי‬ ‫ )מסבל שכמו‬has been described as “Exodus terminology” by some scholars,11 yet the psalm uses the noun ‫ס ֶבל‬, ֵ whereas the Exodus narrative features the noun ‫ ְס ָבלֹות‬throughout (Exod 1:11; 2:11; 5:4, 5; 6:6, 7). Furthermore, the specific ­notion that Yhwh will free the shoulder from the burden (81:7: ‫)ׁש ֶכם‬, ְ refers to prophetic literature (Isa 9:3; 10:27; 14:25, see Gen 49:15). In a similar way, the verse Ps 81:8 brings in theophany imagery, which recalls the events at Sinai, but the language does not allow for a clear identification of a specific narrative Vorlage. In the second part of the speech 81:9–11, God directly addresses his people. Starting from a rather wooing summons to listen (81:9, ‫ )שמע עמי‬that recalls clearly the introduction of the Schema Israel (Deut 6:4, ‫ )שמע ישראל‬as well as prophetic summons,12 Yhwh starts to admonish his people by calling to mind the MT reading should be retained as lectio difficilior (see Lohfink, “Noch einmal,” 245; Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalmen 51–100, 474; Tate, Psalms 51–100, 319; and Anja Klein, Geschichte und Gebet: Die Rezeption der biblischen Geschichte in den Psalmen des Alten Testaments [FAT 94; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014], 162–163). 9  In a previous publication, I offered a literary critical analysis of Ps 81 on the basis of the change of addresses, arriving at a three-stage redaction of an original law paraenesis in 81:1–6b, 9–11, 14, 17a (see Klein, Geschichte, 161–166). At present, however, I am less convinced that this model can account adequately for the literary problems, and will thus focus on the function of the psalm rather than its development. 10  However, Ps 95:9 assumes the reverse test set-up with the biblical fathers “testing” Yhwh in Massah and Meribah, whereby the main verb is ‫)אשר נסוני אבותיכם בחנוני( נסה‬, see in the following; one might consider if ‫ בחנוני‬in 95:9 represents a later addition that assimilates Ps 95 with Ps 81. 11  Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalmen 51–100, 475. For an Exodus reference, note also Hermann Gunkel, Die Psalmen: Übersetzt und erklärt (previously HK II/2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 61986 [1926]), 358; Dahood, Psalms II, 265; Tate, Psalms 51–100, 323; and Seybold, Psalmen, 323. 12  See in the prophetic books Isa 39:5: 44:1; 48:2; Jer 22:2; 28:7, 15; 34:4; 38:20; Ezek 2:8; 3:10; 21:3; 40:4; 44:5; Amos 7:16; Zech 3:8. The closeness to Deut 6:4 and the deuteronomistic

the deuteronomistic central law: “There shall be no strange god among you; you shall not bow down to a foreign god” (81:10, ‫לא־יהיה בך אל זר ולא תשתחוה לאל‬ ‫)נכר‬. Yet by using the terms ‫“( ֵאל זָ ר‬strange god”) and ‫“( ֵאל נֵ ָכר‬foreign god”), the formulation combines the versions in Deut 32:12 and Ps 44:21, rather than drawing on Decalogue terminology.13 The divine admonition in Ps 81 continues with a self-introduction in 81:11, where Yhwh uses the Exodus credo to remind Israel that he had led them out of Egypt (‫)אנכי יהוה אלהיך המעלך מארץ מצרים‬, followed by a command to open their mouth so that he can fill them (‫הרחב־פיך‬ ‫)ואמלאהו‬. This formulation has a polyvalent background in alluding both to the food miracles of the desert narratives and the spiritual nourishment with the (divine) word.14 The third oracle part in 81:12–13 is again formulated as a speech about the people that similarly to the previous section starts from a statement about their willingness to listen. This time, however, it concerns their disobedience in the past, when according to 81:12 “they did not hear” (‫ )ולא־שמע‬and refused obedience to Yhwh (‫)לא־אבה לי‬. In consequence, God consigns the people to their stubborn hearts, thus to walk in their own counsels (81:13, ‫ואשלחהו בשרירות לבם‬ ‫)ילכו במועצותיהם‬. The terminology of these two verses is highly reminiscent of prophetic literature: Firstly, the verb ‫ אבה‬is in the Hebrew Bible nearly consistently negated, and in combination with the verb ‫ שמע‬it expresses the enhanced disobedience of the people, especially in Isaiah and Ezekiel.15 Secondly, the idea of the stubborn heart (‫ )בשרירות לבם‬is a leitmotif especially in the book of Jeremiah, where in most cases the judgement on Israel and the people is explained with reference to the people’s obstinacy.16 The expression describes the “evil disposition of Israel/Judah, which manifests itself in constant apostasy from Yhwh and thus stands in the way of the optimum goal of divine history.”17 tradition in general is also commented on by Kraus, Psalmen, 2, 731; Tournay, Seeing, 174; and Doeker, Gottesrede, 217. 13  Deut 32:12: “Yhwh alone guided him, no foreign God (‫ )אל נכר‬guided him”; Ps 44:21: “If we had forgotten our God’s name and spread our hands in prayer to a strange God (‫)לאל זר‬.” On this literary background, see Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalmen 51–100, 575, and following these Klein, Geschichte, 164. 14  Similarly Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalmen 51–100, 476. Dahood, Psalms 51–100, 266, focuses on “the feeding of the Israelites in the wilderness,” while Tate, Psalms, 51–100, sees the meaning tilting to the idea of “filling the mouth and opening the mouth to receive and express speech.” 15  See Isa 1:19; 28:12; 30:9, 15; Ezek 3:7; 20:8; see also Bo Johnson, “‫אבה‬,” TDOT I (1974): 24–26 (26), who argues that ‫ לא אבה‬is a technical term for the hardness of heart. 16  See Jer 3:17; 7:24; 9:13; 11:8; 13:10; 16:12; 18:12; 23:17, further Deut 29:18. On the literary differentiation of the occurrences, see Fabry and van Meeteren, “‫שררות‬,” TDOT XV (2006): 482–488 (485–487). 17  Fabry and van Meeteren, “‫שררות‬,” 487. They further note for Ps 81:13(12): “But Israel’s stubbornness is so overwhelming that God consigns Israel to its stubbornness—with the reser-

With the final part of the psalm in 81:14–17, the focus is now on the present, when Yhwh voices the desire that his people would listen to him. The optative aspect is expressed with a participle together with the conditional particle ‫לו‬: “Oh that my people would listen to me, that Israel would walk in my ways” (81:14, ‫)לו עמי שמע לי ישראל בדרכי יהלכו‬.18 For this case, in the following two verses 81:15–16, Yhwh outlines his action in return that comprises subduing their enemies (81:15–16), and providing provisions for his people (81:17). This promise of provisions, however, presents some exegetical challenges. While the first half of the verse 81:17 contains a statement about the people with a subject third person (‫ויאכילהו מחלב חטה‬:19 “He would feed him from the best of the wheat”), the people are addressed directly in the second half, changing to a speech of a first person singular: “I would satisfy you with honey from the rock” (‫ומצור דבש‬ ‫)אשביעך‬. Most exegetes suggest a conjecture of the initial verb ‫ ויאכילהו‬to make this part of the divine speech (“I would”),20 while the incongruence of the suffixes is then explained with the overall style of the psalm.21 It is certainly possible that the first half of 81:17 has been influenced by the preceding verse 81:16, but there is no manuscript evidence for the conjectural reading. With regard to content, the promises in 81:17 draw on the imagery in Deut 32:13–14 and thus refer to the life in the Promised Land.22 However, the idea that the people are sustained from the rock (Ps 81:17, ‫ומצור דבש אשביעך‬, see Deut 32:13) does not only recall the miracles of the desert wanderings, where Yhwh provided sustenance from vation that repentance is still possible—and thus turns Israel’s sin into its punishment” (Fabry and van Meeteren, “‫שררות‬,” 487). 18  Literally, see Friedrich Baethgen, Die Psalmen: Übersetzt und erklärt (HAT II; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 31904), 256: “Wenn doch mein Volk ein auf mich hörendes wäre.” 19  The initial verb in 81:17 is an imperfect consecutivum (‫)ויאכילהו‬, which sits oddly in the sequence of imperfect forms following on from the optative in 81:14. However, only Seybold, Psalmen, 321, seems to take this into account (“Und er speiste es von Fett [und] Korn”(, while most scholars refrain from comment and continue the conditional sequence in 81:14ff. (see, however, Baethgen, Psalmen, 256, who decides to read a simple waw instead of the imperfect consecutivum, arguing: “Man erwartet aber eine Fortsetzung der Verheissung”). Following GK §111x, it could be assumed that the imperfect consecutivum in 81:17 is dependent on the previous sequence of imperfect forms, “which represents an action occurring only conditionally” and the imperfect consecutivum is thus “likewise used only in a hypothetical sense.” 20  Thus Baethgen, Psalmen, 256; Gunkel, Psalmen, 360; Kraus, Psalmen, 2, 726; Seybold, Psalmen, 321; Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalmen 51–100, 469; differently Dahood, Psalms II, 263 (“He would feed him”), and Tate, Psalms 51–100, 318 (“Also, he would feed him”). 21 Dahood, Psalms II, 267 (“The shift from the third person subject and object in the first colon to the first person verb and second person object in the final colon may be explained as court style”); similarly Doeker, Gottesrede, 219 (“Der unterschiedliche Numerus der Suffixe greift das Changieren des Psalms in der Bezeichnung des Volkes auf.”). 22  See Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalmen 51–100, 476. On the literary background in Deut 32:13–14, see further Baethgen, Psalmen, 256; Tate, Psalms 51–100, 326; and Tournay, Seeing, 175.

the rock (see Exod 17:6; Pss 78:15, 20; 105:41), but the association of ‫ צור‬as divine title (see Deut 32:4, 18, 30, 31, 37; Pss 73:26; 78:35) also suggests a spiritual understanding.23 To sum up, the festal psalm 81 is characterized clearly by a mixture of psalmody and prophecy. Further to the distinctive divine speech, it is mainly the paraenetic content and the links with prophetic literary traditions that demonstrate why the psalm has been classified as “cultic prophecy” in the past. There are some more distinctive prophetic features, most remarkably the use of hearing as a leitmotif (Pss 81:6, 9, 12, 14) that structures the second part of the psalm and interweaves the present of the audience with the past of biblical history.24 It starts with the audience participating in the speaker’s audition (81:6), while the divine speech summons the people to listen (81:9), recalling the father’s failure to do so in the past (81:12); the oracle finally leads into the wish that the people would listen to their god (81:14). As such, the divine speech in 81:9–17 transcends the psalm’s setting and addresses the present readership, establishing an immediacy between deity and audience.25 In this process of actualization, the lessons from the past are shown to carry weight in the present,26 and it is Yhwh’s salvation action in biblical history, from which the hope for future obedience of the people is derived: they are given the choice, if they want to continue the willfulness of biblical Israel, or if they want to listen and partake of future salvation.27

2.2  Psalm 95 Our second example is Ps 95, a psalm that has frequently been classed with the Asaphite psalms due to form and content, even though it stands outside the collection in Pss 73–83.28 Similar to Ps 81, Ps 95 features a clear two-partite division, 23  Thus Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalmen 51–100, 476–477; and Doeker, Gottesrede, 219–220. 24  On the structuring use of the verb ‫ שמע‬with regard to Ps 81:9–15, see also Doeker, Gottesrede, 219. 25  See Doeker, Gottesrede, 220. 26  Thus Booij, “Background,” 469, labels Ps 81 appropriately as “a theological reflection” using a specific “pattern of remembrances” that Booij identifies in a number of texts; however, he ascribes this specific theological reflection to prophets, which in the case of Ps 81 means a “temple singer” (Booij, “Background,” 468(. 27  Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalmen 51–100, 473: “Im Stil einer deuteronomistischen Alternativpredigt werden zwei Möglichkeiten des Verhaltens vor Augen gestellt: auf der einen Seite Undank und Ungehorsam Israels, belegbar aus der Geschichte und in den Konsequenzen bis in die Gegenwart des Sprechers erfahrbar und auf der anderen Seite das gehorsame Hören, das Israel ans Herz gelegt wird, ja, um das mit Versprechungen für die Zukunft geworben wird, die allerdings bestimmte Bedingungen stellen.” 28  See Harry P. Nasuti, Tradition History and the Psalms of Asaph (SBLDS 88; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1988), 66–67; Hossfeld, “Das Prophetische in den Psalmen—zur Gottesrede der Asafpsalmen im Vergleich mit der des ersten und zweiten Davidpsalters,” in Friedrich Diedrich

starting from a call to worship in 95:1–7 that is followed by a divine speech in verses 95:8–11, featuring a review of biblical history.29 The initial call in 95:1–7 comprises three summons to praise (95:1, 2, 6), which feature different rationales. The first summons to shout with joy addresses Yhwh as “rock of our salvation” (95:1: ‫;)לצור‬30 a divine predication that recalls Ps 81:17, and in the present context is equally ambiguous in anticipating the remembrance of the divine actions in the second part of the psalm. The second call to make a joyful noise (95:2) refers to Yhwh’s credentials as king and creator (95:3–4), while the last call to worship employs the image of Yhwh as divine shepherd (95:7a–b), which is a dominating motif in both Psalms and Prophets (see e.g. Ps 23; Jer 23; Ezek 31).31 The end of this first part in 95:7c constitutes a break in the flow of the psalm, with what has frequently been described as the onset of a prophetic speech.32 Calling to attention with an emphatic “today,” the speaker expresses his wish that his audience would listen to the divine voice (‫)היום אם־בקלו תשמעו‬.33 This distinct reference to the present-day recalls not only Ps 82, but also the exhortations in the book of Deuteronomy (Deut 4:40; 5:3; 6:6; 7:11; 9:3; 11:2) that similarly occur in the context of paraenetic addresses. In our psalm, the call in 95:7c is followed by an admonition not to harden their hearts (95:8); a misconduct, for which the events of the desert wandering in Massah and Meribah serve as a paradigm.34 Recalling these, the biblical fathers are accused of willfulness, which made them testing Yhwh, even though they had witnessed his miracle work before (95:9, ‫)נסוני אבותיכם בחנוני גם־ראו פעלי‬. This notion is in line with the accounts in the historical psalms, which equally assume that the people “tested” God (‫נסה‬, see Ps 78:18, 41, 56; 106:14), while the narrative materials assume the opposite test and Bernd Willmes (eds.), Ich bewirke das Heil und erschaffe das Unheil (Jes 45,7): Studien zur Botschaft der Propheten. FS L. Ruppert (FzB 88; Würzburg: Echter, 1998), 223–243 (239–239); and Hilber, Cultic Prophecy, 179. 29  On the two-part structure, see Gunkel, Psalmen, 417; Kraus, Psalmen 2, 828–829; Dahood, Psalms II, 353; Tate, Psalms 51–100, 498. Some exegetes, however, arrive at a three partstructure, including a middle section (vv. 6–7a) between the call to worship and the historical review. See Seybold, Psalmen, 376–377, and Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalmen 51–100, 662–664. On the history of research, see in detail Willem S. Prinsloo, “Psalm 95: If Only you Will Listen to His Voice!” in M. Daniel Carroll R., David J. A. Clines, and Philip R. Davies (eds.), The Bible in Human Society: Essays in Honour of John Rogerson (JSOTS 200; Sheffield: Academic Press, 1995), 393–410 (393–397). Finally, Doeker, Gottesrede, 249, assumes a structure of five strophes, but similarly identifies a divine speech in Ps 95:8–11. 30  On the different associations of this divine title, see Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalmen 51– 100, 662. 31  On the image of God as divine shepherd in the Hebrew Bible, see in general Regine Hunziker-Rodewald, Hirt und Herde: Ein Beitrag zum alttestamentlichen Gottesverständnis (BWANT 155; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001). 32  See Gunkel, Psalmen, 417; Kraus, Psalmen 2, 831; and Tate, Psalms 51–100, 499. 33  On the optative aspect in Ps 95:7, see Joüon and Muraoka, Grammar, §163c. 34  See Doeker, Gottesrede, 37.

set-up.35 Here, it is God putting his people to the test (see Exod 16:4; Deut 8:2; 13:4; Judg 2:22; 3:4). In the last part Ps 95:10–11, perspective changes to a speech about the people, with God reflecting that he had detested this generation for forty years (95:10, ‫)ארבעים שנה אקוט בדור‬. His feeling of disgust (‫)קוט‬36 is expressed in the selfquotation that these people have wayward hearts and have not known the divine ways (95:10, ‫ ;)עם תעי לבב הם והם לא־ידעו דרכי‬a terminology that clearly recalls wisdom and prophetic traditions (see Job 12:24; Prov 7:25; Isa 21:4 53:6; 63:17). The psalm comes to a rather sudden and implacable end with God remembering his punishment that resulted in the vow that the people should be deprived from entering his rest (95:11, ‫)אם־יבאון אל־מנוחתי‬. This formulation is clearly a cultic interpretation of the ban to enter the Promised Land, which, however, has a double literary background. While the reference to the Meribah-episode in the previous section recalls how Moses and Aaron were prohibited to enter the promised land (cf. Num 20:12; Deut 32:51; Ps 106:32),37 the idea that the people as a whole are banned refers to the divine oath in the scouts’ story, when Yhwh vows that the present generation shall not enter the land (Num 14:20–23, 28–30).38 Ps 95, however, offers a cultic interpretation of the ban, as the focus is on the banishment from Yhwh’s resting place (‫)מנוחה‬, which can be understood as cutting the people off from the divine presence in the sanctuary and depriving them from the relationship with their God.39 Thus, it serves as a warning for the present audience, which in Ps 95:1–7 is assembled in God’s cultic presence: if they fail to be obedient by hardening their hearts (95:8), they will be deprived of the relationship with their god—just as their historical fathers were. There is no identifiable feast in Ps 95, and over the last years, scholarship has moved towards recognizing a general situation of worship rather than a specific 35  On the reception of this narrative tradition in the psalms, see Klein, Geschichte, 115, 119, 250. 36  Ps 95:10 is the only instance, where the verb is used with God as subject; the context shows that “in this case qûṭ refers less to disgust than to hostile rejection” (Hans Schmoldt, “‫קוט‬,” TDOT XII (2003): 573–575 [574]). 37  See Doeker, Gottesrede, 255. 38  See already Baethgen, Psalmen, 295 (“Der Schwur ist der Num 14,28 erzählte.”), further Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalmen 51–100, 663. 39  In his analysis of the idea of God’s rest in Ps 95:11, Georg Braulik, “Gottes Ruhe—das Land oder der Tempel? Zu Psalm 95,11,” in Ernst Haag and Frank-Lothar Hossfeld (eds.), Freude an der Weisung des Herrn: Beiträge zur Theologie der Psalmen. FS H. Groß (SBB 13; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 21987), 33–44 (41–44), shows that the noun ‫ מנוחה‬points to a deuteronomistic understanding, whereby not only the land, but also especially the temple (as the place of God’s rest) is the goal of the conquest. Therein, the temple is the place where the people have communion with their God “in his rest,” see Braulik, “Gottes Ruhe,” 43; similarly Hossfeld, “Psalm 95,” 38–39; Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalmen 51–100, 663; and Doeker, Gottesrede, 255.

festal event.40 That fits with the observation that the cultic presence of God is the central motif of the psalm. The first part calls the audience and readership to enjoy his presence, while the references to the past misbehavior of their biblical fathers serve as a cautionary tale to remind them that Yhwh grants his cultic presence only subject to their conduct. Therein, the emphatic call ‫( היום‬95:7), followed by the admonition to listen and to keep a soft heart, serves to bridge past and present and makes biblical history relevant for the here and now.41

3. Examples of Cultic Prophecy or Scribal Theology? The preceding analyses have shown that the element of divine speech plays a significant part in both Ps 81 and Ps 95, which accounts for their frequent classification as examples of cultic prophecy in the past. As this classification relies heavily on a specific socio-cultural model, let us firstly assess the influences of prophetic tradition both from the Hebrew Bible and the ancient Near Eastern parallels,42 before we can review the question which model can best account for the literary evidence. Obviously, it is first of all the form of a divine oracle in the two psalms that led to the claim of cultic prophecy. Both the divine speeches in Ps 81 and Ps 95 show some peculiarities, though. The divine speech in Ps 81 lacks a proper introduction, but features the rather unique notion of the speaker in 81:6c that he/she does not recognise the speech. As far as I can see, this is without parallel both in the biblical and the ancient Near Eastern materials,43 and Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger point out convincingly that a cult prophet, who is unaccustomed to the audition, does not fit the (cult-prophetic) picture.44 Differently, in Ps 95, the oracle is clearly identified as a Yhwh-oracle by way of the reference to “his voice” (‫ )אם־בקלו תשמעו‬in 95:7. Next, both psalms feature the call to listen, which has a literary background in the deuteronomistic exhortation that occurs frequently both in Deuteronomy and the Jeremianic materials. In Ps 95:7, these 40  Gwynne H. Davies, “Psalm 95,” ZAW 85 (1973): 183–195 (187): “On the whole commentators have gradually come to relate the parts of the Psalm more clearly to the scene of worship—the temple, even if there is no agreement concerning the occasion.” 41  Several authors comment on this use of the biblical past in Ps 95 for the purpose of admonishing the present audience. See, e.g., Tate, Psalms 51–100, 502; Prinsloo, “Psalm 95,” 403; and Doeker, Gottesrede, 253. 42  On the comparison of the Psalms with the ancient Near Eastern materials, see John W. Hilber, Cultic Prophecy, and in summary, idem, “Cultic Prophecy in Assyria and in the Psalms,” JAOS 127 (2007): 29–40. 43 Gunkel, Psalmen, 357, relates the introduction in Ps 81:6 in this aspect with 1 Sam 3:7, where, however, at least for the reader the message is clearly characterised as a message from Yhwh. 44  See Zenger and Hossfeld, Psalmen 51–100, 475.

links are strengthened further by the focus on the present-day impact. However, John Hilber also identifies a parallel in the Assyrian materials, where one oracle contains an address to the congregation, which is comparable to the prophetic summons in Ps 81:9 (SAA 9 3.2 i 27: “[Lis]ten carefully, O Assyrians”).45 Finally, the self-introduction formula in Ps 81:11 with reference to the Exodus occurs frequently in the prophetic books, though it is equally at home in the narrative or legislative biblical literature.46 As to content, we have identified some motifs in both Ps 81 and Ps 95 with a distinct literary background in the Prophets. These are the idea of Yhwh as the divine shepherd, the motif of the people’s wayward hearts, and the divine action of having freed the shoulder from the burden, to name just a few. Yet on the other hand, there stands a good deal of material with a literary background in the narrative and legislative tradition such as the references to Massah and Meribah in the two psalms, the reformulation of the central deuteronomistic law in 81:10–11, or the idea of the forty-year-wanderings in the desert, which is reinterpreted as a time of the people testing their god in the desert (95:9). When it comes to the ancient Near Eastern materials, the Assyrian oracles contain—to quote Hilber—“nothing comparable to Psalm 81 with regard to rebuke of the people for disobedience,”47 but he points to one prophecy, in which the king is admonished for his failure in his cultic duties after having been delivered by the deity (SAA 9 3.5 iii 18–24).48 Hilber further wants to demonstrate a general closeness between Ps 81 and the SAA 9.3 oracle collection, pointing to similarities in structure and content.49 It should be pointed out, though, that the main characteristics of Ps 81 and Ps 95, namely the two-partite structure of summons and oracle, remain unparalleled in the ancient Near Eastern materials. This suggests that—even though similarities exist—the psalms cannot be explained solely on the basis of the ancient Near Eastern materials.

45  On the parallel, see Hilber, Cultic Prophecy, 159; the translation follows the edition of the oracle in Martti Nissinen (with contributions by Choon-Leong Seow and Robert K. Ritner, edited by Peter Machinist), Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East (WAW 12; Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2003), 119; see further Simo Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies (SAA 9; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1997), 23. 46  On the reception of the Exodus in biblical tradition, see Kenneth A. Kitchen, “Exodus, The,” ABD 2 (1992): 700–708 (701); or the contributions in the volume edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Craig A. Evans, and Joel N. Lohr, The Book of Exodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (VTS 164; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2014). 47 Hilber, Cultic Prophecy, 159. 48  See the translation in Nissinen, Prophets, 122–123: “As if I had not done or given to you anything! Did I not bend and give to you the four doorjambs of Assyria? Did I not vanquish your enemy? Did I not gather your foes and adversaries [like but]terflies?” On the edition, see further Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies, 25–27. 49  See Hilber, Cultic Prophecy, 159–161.

Thus, what can be said about the prophetic influence on the two psalms 81 and 95? First, it is obvious that in both form and content, the two psalms exhibit prophetic features, and that there are similarities with ancient Near Eastern materials. However, these features do not stand alone in the two psalms, but they occur in a blend with both narrative and legislative tradition elements. By offering a mosaic of different literary and tradition-historical backgrounds, the two psalms reveal themselves to be scribal products from post-exilic times that blend biblical history and prophecy with cultic elements.50 As the textual evidence demonstrates that they are not clear-cut copies of the ancient Near Eastern materials, and as they have a wider theological and form-critical background, I am rather hesitant to classify these texts as examples of “cultic prophecy.”51 This is not to deny that the phenomenon was known in the ancient Near East and that it was certainly present in the cult of ancient Israel, but both Ps 81 and Ps 95 should not be used as evidence for the religious historical phenomenon. Rather, in the same way that biblical prophecy represents an offshoot of ancient Near Eastern prophecy, Pss 81 and 95 might be considered an offshoot of ancient Near Eastern cultic prophecy—or as Hermann Spieckermann puts it, “a mediate heir to prophecy.”52 Against this background, it is now possible to assess the specific inheritance of these psalms. It is obvious that in both texts the remembrance of biblical history in the divine speech serves to legitimate the present proclamation of judgement and salvation.53 However, it is striking that both psalms comprise elements of what I want to denote realisation, a way to make the past relevant to the present audience: in Ps 81, the introduction of the audition uses a Hebrew imperfect 50  This thesis proceeds from the assumption that the phenomenon of biblical interpretation developed mainly in scribal circles that were responsible for the formation of biblical tradition, see, e.g., the overview by Reinhard G. Kratz, Historical and Biblical Israel: The History, Tradition, and Archives of Israel and Judah (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015). Differently, David M. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), has recently challenged the dichotomy between oral and written tradition, arguing for an “oral-written” transmission throughout the formation of the Hebrew Bible; this would certainly allow to see Ps 81 and Ps 95 as liturgical works that draw on different (oral and literary) traditions. However, the variety of materials in the two psalms and the fact that the characteristic of divine speech appears only as one form element in a mix with others, speaks— to my mind—rather for a scribal adaptation of “cultic prophecy,” see in the following. 51  This hesitancy is shared e.g. by Hossfeld, “Das Prophetische,” 243, who sees the psalms in question as the products of theologians rather than institutional cult prophets, and Doeker, Gottesrede, 306–307, who comments on the distinct biblical interpretation (“Schriftgelehrsamkeit”) that represents a characteristic feature of these texts. 52  Spieckermann, “Rede Gottes,” 217, with regard to divine speech in the Book of Psalms: “Sie scheint in ihm [dem Psalter, A.K.] aufs Ganze gesehen ein Erbe der Prophetie zu sein, kein direkter Erbfall allerdings, sondern ein mittelbarer.” 53  See Hossfeld, “Das Prophetische,” 243. See also Doeker, Gottesrede, 296–298, who classifies the function of the divine speech in Pss 81 and 95 as examples of a “divine speech with paraenetic function” (“Gottesreden mit paränetischer Funktion”).

tense (81:6, ‫)אשמע‬, thus speaking into the present of the reader/hearer, who are made the direct addressee of the call to listen (81:9). Consequently, the present audience becomes the successors of the biblical fathers, and they are admonished to learn from their fathers’ disobedience if they want to enjoy the divine presence and delight in Yhwh’s provisions. Similarly, in Ps 95 the summons to listen to God’s voice on the present day (95:7c, ‫ )היום‬transcends the psalm’s present and speaks into the here and now of the audience. In this way, the cultic wrapping of the prophetic message opens up a space, by which the audience can appropriate the divine admonition and participate in the relationship between God and his people, entering into the divine rest (95:11). To sum up, in this contribution I have set out to investigate if Pss 81 and 95 could qualify as examples of cultic prophecy in the Hebrew Bible. I do not want to exclude the possibility that there were cultic prophets in Ancient Israel, but for both psalms I hope to have demonstrated that they are documents of scribal theology rather than cultic prophecy. We deal with scribal theology that in the form of prophetic psalms spiritualises the divine oracle and instructs the present audience with didactic references about the past in biblical history.

Martti Nissinen The Ritual Aspect of Prophecy

1. Prophets and Rituals in Ancient Eastern Mediterranean Sources 1.1  Prophetic Performances in Temples Prophets and temples belong together. This is what ancient Eastern Mediterranean sources suggest, whether one reads them in Akkadian, in Hebrew, or in Greek. Prophetic divination often takes place in temples, prophets are time and again mentioned together with temple functionaries, and even appear as advocates of temples and their worship. The strong link between prophets and temples makes it probable that temple institutions provided the venue for prophetic performances and even employed prophets. Abundant evidence of this can be found in Mesopotamian letters and administrative texts as well as from Greek literary sources.1 Even in the prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible, despite the so-called “cultic criticism” to be sporadically found in some of them, the temple of Jerusalem is a vitally important topic. Both ancient Near Eastern and Greek texts give reason to assume that prophets, temples, and their worship were intertwined in different ways in the ancient Eastern Mediterranean world. This raises the question to what extent and in which way prophetic divination typically took place in a ritual setting, and whether prophets can be found as ritual performers. A second question to be asked is whether prophecy, as another type of divination, could itself be considered a ritual. Divination is affiliated with ritual action in various ways depending on its method and purpose, and different types of divination function differently when it comes to the involvement of diviners in ritual actions. Mesopotamian extispicy, for instance, was itself a ritual act for the purpose of têrtam epēšum (“to produce a directive”)—that is, to obtain a verdict (dīnu) of the divine court presided by Šamaš and/or Adad as an answer to the binary question of the client.2 The verdict of the gods was presented in the exta of the sacrificial animal, and the ritual procedure lasted from dusk to dawn, 1  For a detailed analysis, see Martti Nissinen, Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017). 2  See Piotr Steinkeller, “Of Stars and Men: The Conceptual and Mythological Setup of Babylonian Extispicy,” in Agustinus Gianto (ed.), Biblical and Oriental Essays in Memory of William L. Moran (BibOr 48; Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2005), 11–47.

requiring a sequence of prayers and sacrifices, culminating in the slaughter of the animal and the interpretation of its entrails by the diviner (bārû).3 Even Greek sources describe two types of sacrificial divination, typically performed before the engagement in military campaigns.4 The type of divination involving the act of extispicy was called hiera (τὰ ἱερά, “signs” or “omens”), which was performed in the campground by examining the sacrificial animal’s liver. The other type, sphagia (τὰ σφάγια > σφάζειν, “to cut the throat”), involved cutting the throat of the victim and observing the flow of the blood. It was performed in the battle-line when the two opposing armies were on the point of engaging. The act of extispicy can itself be called a ritual, but the same cannot be easily said of prophecy. From the sources one gets the general impression that the prophetic performance does not in principle presuppose any kind of a predetermined context; it is often unprovoked and not inherently bound to specific ritual procedures. This cannot be taken as an absolute rule, though. Prophetic performances certainly took place in ancient Near Eastern temples, sometimes even within a ritual framework, and in the Greek oracle sites, such as the temples of Apollo at Delphi, Didyma, and Claros the prophetic performance seems to have been thoroughly ritualized. At Didyma, according to Iamblichus (De Myst. 3.11)5 who is dependent on Porphyry, the female prophet of Apollo at Didyma prepared herself for the reception of the god by fasting and bathing in the sacred precinct. During the preparations and/or the oracular process itself, the female prophet held a staff, sat on an axle, and dipped her feet in the water of the sacred spring rising within the inner sanctum (adyton); the exact order of these elements in the oracular ritual is not clear. The contact with the water of the sacred spring, and especially inhaling its vapors, enabled the prophet, in Iamblichus’ Neoplatonist terms, to “partake of 3  See Ulla Susanne Koch, Mesopotamian Divination Texts: Conversing with Gods. Sources from the First Millennium bce (GMTR 7; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2015), 46–47, 122–127; Stefan M. Maul, Die Wahrsagekunst im Alten Orient: Zeichen des Himmels und der Erde (Munich: Beck, 2013), 29–109; Ivan Starr, The Rituals of the Diviner (Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 12; Malibu, CA: Undena Publications, 1983). 4  See Michael Attyah Flower, The Seer in Ancient Greece (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2008), 159–165; Robert Parker, “Sacrifice and Battle,” in Hans van Wees (ed.), War and Violence in Ancient Greece (Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2009), 299–314; Michael H. Jameson, “Sacrifice before Battle,” in Victor D. Hanson (ed.), Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience (London: Routledge, 1991), 197–228. 5  Emma C. Clarke, John M. Dillon, and Jackson P. Hershbell, Iamblichus: De Mysteriis. Translated with Introduction and Notes (SBLWGRW 4; Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 148–151; cf. Joseph Fontenrose, Didyma: Apollo’s Oracle, Cult, and Companions (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1988), 78–85; Antti Lampinen, “Θεῷ μεμελημένε Φοίβῳ: Oracular Functionaries at Claros and Didyma in the Imperial Period,” in Mika Kajava (ed.), Studies in Ancient Oracle and Divination (AIRF 40; Rome: Institutum Romanum Finlandiae, 2013), 49–88 (84–87).

the god,” that is, to become possessed by Apollo and becoming his instrument.6 The oracular session was participated by a person called prophētēs who was not an inspired speaker but the temple official who mediated the divine words uttered by the female prophet to the consultants. The whole Didymaean procedure from the preparations of the female prophet to writing down the oracles in the khrēsmographeion can be perceived of as a divinatory ritual. The oracular process at the sanctuaries of Apollo at Delphi7 and Claros8 were not identical but well comparable to that at Didyma. At Delphi, both the enquirers and the female prophet, the Pythia, herself had to undergo ritual preparations before the actual inquiry could take place. After these preparations, the Pythia would enter the sanctuary and, sitting on a tripod, utter the words of Apollo to the enquirer.9 It is possible that the words of the Pythia were mediated to the inquirer by a prophētēs who was not an inspired speaker but a cultic functionary presiding the session. At Claros, according to Iamblichus, the oracle functioned by means of water which the prophet drank to receive divine inspiration. The inscriptions from Claros always mention five funtionaries involving in the oracular process:10 the administrator of the temple (prytanis); the priest (hiereus) who presided the session and performed sacrifices; the (male) prophētēs who uttered the oracle; the singer (thespiōdos) who recited the oracle in verse, and the scribe (grammateus) who kept the written record.11 6  See Crystal Addey, Divination and Theurgy in Neoplatonism: Oracles of the Gods (Ashgate Studies in Philosophy and Theology in Late Antiquity; Farnham: Ashgate, 2014); eadem, “Divine Possession and Divination in the Graeco-Roman World: The Evidence from Iamblichus’s On the Mysteries,” in Bettina E. Schmidt and Lucy Huskinson (eds.), Spirit Possession and Trance: New Interdisciplinary Perspectives (Continuum Advances in Religious Studies; London: Continuum, 2010), 171–185. 7  See Hugh Bowden, Classical Athens and the Delphic Oracle: Divination and Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 17–38; cf., in comparison with the Near East, Herbert B. Huffmon, “The Oracular Process: Delphi and the Near East,” VT 57 (2007): 449–460. 8  See Jean-Charles Moretti Nicolas Bresch, Isabel Bonora, Didier Laroche, and Olivier Riss, “Le temple d’Apollon et le fonctionnement de l’oracle,” in Jean-Charles Moretti (ed.), Le sanctuaire de Claros et son oracle (Travaux de la Maison del’Orient et de la Méditerranée 65; Lyon: Maison del’Orient et de la Méditerranée, 2014), 33–49; Lampinen, “Oracular Functionaries at Claros and Didyma,” 80–84. 9  This reconstruction is based on Euripides, Ion 93, 419; Phoen. 224; Plutarch, Mor. 3.397a; 3.435b. 10  See Jean-Louis Ferrary, Les Mémoriaux de délegations du sanctuaire oraculaire de Claros, d’après la documentation conservée dans le Fonds Louis Robert (Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres). Vols. 1–2 (Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 49; Paris: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 2014). 11  Thus Herbert W. Parke, The Oracles of Apollo in Asia Minor (London: Croom Helm, 1985), 220–221, and Lampinen, “Oracular Functionaries at Claros and Didyma,” 60–64. Some scholars have doubted the ability of the prophētēs, who was selected annually, to be able to function as an inspired speaker and, therefore, reversed the roles of the prophētēs and the thespiōdos;

The knowledge of the ritual procedures in the Greek oracles sites is dependent on a rather uneven set of sources from different ages, hence the reconstruction may be more or less consistent with what actually took place dyring the oracular sessions. In all three cases it is beyond any doubt that the reception of the divine word was organized as the focal point of a ritual procedure. The picture gets different in Mesopotamian sources, in which the connection between prophecy and ritual is much more difficult to figure out even though it clearly exists. There are no descriptions revealing whether prophetic performances followed any standard ritual procedures, but there is a fair amount of direct and indirect evidence of the presence of prophets in the temples. Administrative documents from different times and places mention prophets among the temple personnel.12 Moreover, lexical lists routinely associate prophets with many kinds of temple personnel, suggesting a common socio-religious setting.13 These texts indisputably document the institutional background of the prophets in sanctuaries without, however, revealing much of their ritual functions. A prophetic oracle from Assyria presents itself as a response to the prayer of the queen mother Naqia on behalf of her son,14 and royal inscriptions from Assyria tell how Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal implored the gods, receiving prophetic responses to their prayers.15 Likewise, the Aramaic inscription of Zakkur, the king of Hamath, reports how this king received an oracle of Baalshamayn “through seers and through visionaries.”16 It is evident that all these royal prayers are expected to have taken place in a ritual setting. Many letters from Mari and Assyria tell how prophets deliver divine messages in temples.17 These messages can be imagined to have happened within a ritual framework, as is the case in the letter of Mar-Issar reporting a prophetic thus, e.g., Jean-Louis Ferrary, “La distribution topographique des mémoriaux de délégations dans le sanctuaire de Claros,” in Moretti (ed.), Le sanctuaire de Claros et son oracle, 88. 12  Ur III (21st cent. b.c.e.): SBLWAW 12 119 (TCS 1 369); Old Babylonian (20th–17th cent. b.c.e.): SBLWAW 12 67a (OECT 13 263: Ešnunna); 135c (CM 33 1: Larsa); 135h (IM 50.852: Sippar); Middle Assyrian (14th–10th cent. b.c.e.): SBLWAW 12 123 (VS 19 1: Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta); Neo-Assyrian (10th–7th cent. b.c.e.): SBLWAW 12 110 (SAA 12 69: Assur); 118c (ZTT 25: Tušḫan) Neo-Babylonian (7th–6th cent. b.c.e.): SBLWAW 12 130 (OECT 1 20–21: Uruk). 13 Old Babylonian: SBLWAW 12 120 (MSL 12 5.22); Middle Assyrian: SBLWAW 135l (Erimhuš III); Neo-Assyrian: SBLWAW 124 (MSL 12 4.121); 125 (MSL 12 4.222); 126 (MSL 12 6.2); 135m (LTBA 2 1); Neo-Babylonian: SBLWAW 12 135n (OIP 114 122); Late Babylonian (5th–2nd cent. b.c.e.): SBLWAW 12 135q (SpTU 3 116). 14  SBLWAW 12 75 (SAA 9 1.8). 15  Esarhaddon: SBLWAW 12 97 (Nin. A), lines i 59–62; Assurbanipal: SBLWAW 12 101 (RINAP 5 3), lines v 25–76. 16  SBLWAW 12 137 (KAI 202), lines A 10ff. (line A 12: [b]yd ḥ zyn wbyd ‘ddn). 17  E.g. SBLWAW 12 6 (ARM 26 196), lines 8–10: “Write to me whatever oracle is delivered in the temple of God and which you hear!” Cf., e.g., SBLWAW 12 5 (ARM 26 195); 23 (ARM 26 213); 24 (ARM 26 214); 25 (ARM 26 215); 29 (ARM 26 219); 42 (ARM 26 237); 111 (SAA 13 37); 113 (SAA 13 144).

performance that took place on occasion of the substitute king ritual in Akkad in 671 b.c.e.:18 [I] have heard that before these rituals, a female prophet has prophesied, saying to Damqî, the son of the chief administrator: “You will take over the kingship!” [Moreover], the female prophet had spoken to him in the assembly of the country: “I have revealed the thieving polecat of my lord and placed it in your hands.”

The text refers to the apotropaic Namburbi rituals performed on behalf of Esarhaddon while Damqî, the substitute king, gave his life for his redemption and was buried together with his wife. The prophecies had been uttered to Damqî while he was still alive, and they clearly emulated royal oracles pronounced to the actual king.19 The female prophet had appeared in different phases of the substitute king ritual, but the letter does not give more specific details of the ritual context of each of the two oracles.

1.2  Prophets as Ritual Performers Inspired divination at the major Greek oracle sites, Delphi, Didyma, and Claros, was clearly organized as a ritual procedure in which the performance of the prophet (that is, the inspired speaker20) was the focal point of the divinatory ritual. Considering the strong link between prophets and temples even in the Near Eastern sources, one would expect the prophets to feature often in descriptions of rituals. Such texts, unfortunately, are very few—indeed, barely enough to demonstrate that prophets indeed had a role to play in some Mesopotamian rituals. Two texts from the eighteenth century b.c.e. Mari pertaining to the ritual of Ištar, include sections in which prophets are mentioned.21 One of the texts mentions a male prophet (muḫḫûm) and the other a group of female prophets (muḫḫātum) performing during the ritual in interplay with musicians (kalûm or nārum/mārē nāri):

18  SBLWAW 12 109 (SAA 10 352), lines 22–r. 4. 19  For similar sayings, cf. SBLWAW 12 74 (SAA 9 1.7); 75 (SAA 9 1.8); 89 (SAA 9 4). 20  Note that the male word prophētēs does not denote the inspired speaker (except, perhaps, for Claros), whereas the female prophētis does refer to the Pythia of Delphi and the female prophet at Didyma. 21  SBLWAW 12 51 and 52 (FM 3 2 and 3 3); see Jean-Marie Durand and Michaël Guichard, “Les rituels de Mari,” in Dominique Charpin and Jean-Marie Durand (eds.), Florilegium Marianum 3: Recueil d’études à la mémoire de Marie-Thèrése Barrelet (Mémoires de NABU 4; Paris: SEPOA, 1997), 19–78 (72–75); Nele Ziegler, Florilegium marianum 9: Les musiciens et la musique d’après les archives de Mari (Mémoires de NABU 10. Paris: SEPOA, 2007), 55–64.

The gerseqqû-courtiers stand on his [scil. the king’s] right and left side. The chanters st[r]ik[e] up the “ú-ru am-ma-da-ru-bi” of the [e]nd of the month. If by the end of the mo[nth] the prophet maintains his equili[brium] and is not a[ble] t[o] prophes[y] when it is time for [the chant] “mà-e-ú-re-m[én],” the temple officials let the m[usicians] go. If he pr[ophecies, they strike up] “mà-e-ú-re-m[én].”22 […] the prophe[t …] who arises […] When the musicians have entered before her [scil. Ištar], the female prophets […] and the musi[cians]. I[f the female prophets] main[tain their equilibrium], two [musicians … enter] the […. They sing] and eršemmakkum before [the goddess for Enlil].23

Broken as both texts are, they do not enable the exact description of the ritual procedure, but in both of them, the performance of the musicians is somehow dependent on the prophets’ ability to reach the altered state of consciousness. Evidently, the divine inspiration could not be taken for granted, but neither was the successful performance of the ritual dependent on the prophetic element. The first tablet has a practical instruction written on the edge, which gives the whole procedure a touch of reality: “Water in a container and four meḫsû-jars are installed; they are always at the disposal of the prophets.”24 One can only speculate whether these jars contained something that was used, not just for refreshment, but to enhance the prophetic ecstasy. The repertoire of the musicians surrounding the performance of the prophet consists of laments known from other Old Babylonian rituals of Ištar.25 This connects the ritual performed at Mari with the tradition of Ištar rituals involving ecstatic performances, the purpose of which was probably to impersonate the goddess, to symbolize her contrasting aspects, and, in the case of laments, to emulate her agony.26 The altered state of consciousness of a muḫḫûm typically results in 22  SBLWAW 12 51 (FM 3 2), lines ii 17–27. 23  SBLWAW 12 52 (FM 3 3), lines iii 2–13. 24  SBLWAW 12 51 (FM 3 2), lines s. ii 1–3. 25  See Brigitte Groneberg, Lob der Ištar: Gebet und Ritual an die altbabylonische Venusgöttin (CM 8; Groningen: Styx, 1997), 137–150. For ú-ru am-ma-da-ru-bi, which is probably identical to úru àm-ma-ir-ra-bi, is a canonical lament to Ištar; see Konrad Volk, Die Balaĝ-Komposition úru àm-ma-ir-ra-bi: Rekonstruktion und Bearbeitung der Tafeln 18 (19’ff.), 19, 20 und 21 der späten, kanonischen Version (FAOS 18; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1989); Brigitte Groneberg, “Ein Ritual an Ištar,” MARI 8 (1997): 291–303 (293–295); eadem, Lob der Ištar, 148–150. The other lament mà-e-ú-re-mén, probably equals the canonical lament me-e ur-re-mèn (see Durand and Guichard, “Les rituels de Mari,” 54). 26 Cf. Simo Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies (SAA 9; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1997), xxxiv, who finds the purpose of ecstasy and wailing in “the purification of the soul so that it would regain its original unity with God,” and Groneberg, Lob der Ištar, 152–154, who compares the ecstasy and transgression of gender typical of the rituals of Ištar with shamanism.

acting as the mouthpiece of a deity, which even here should be the most probable function of the prophet’s ecstasy, even though this is not explicitly stated.27 Neo-Assyrian evidence of the participation of prophets in rituals comes from the collection of prophecies pertaining to Esarhaddon’s coronation (SAA 9 3). The tablet is an edited collection comprising five sections divided by rulings and a concluding colophon. The text organizes prophetic oracles between ritual procedures as elements of the coronation ceremonies.28 The five prophecies are embedded in different phases of the ceremony that takes place in Ešarra, the temple of Aššur in the city of Assur. The first of them, pronouncing peace and well-being for Esarhaddon, Assyria, the heaven, and the earth seems to belong to the ritual procession leading to Ešarra before the actual ceremony. The second prophecy is an oracle of salvation (šulmu) of Aššur to the Assyrians proclaiming the victory and global rule of Esarhaddon at the courtyard of Ešarra; the oracle is placed before the courtyard gods, which presents it as already having a written form. The third oracle is another šulmu of Aššur referring to the events leading to Esarhaddon’s victory over his brothers in the civil war. This oracle is followed by two cultic instructions: the placing of the šulmu before the statue of Aššur in the temple, and reading out a different text, the “tablet of the covenant” (ṭuppi adê), before Esarhaddon.29 The setting of the fourth prophecy, separated from the previous by a double ruling, is the meal of covenant on the temple terrace hosted by Ištar and served to the vassal kings and representatives of Assyrian citizens, involving a 27  Jonathan Stökl, Prophecy in the Ancient Near East: A Philological and Sociological Comparison (CHANE 56; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 65–66, 211–214, prefers to translate the verb maḫû here as “raving” rather than “prophesying”: “I argue that the muḫḫû’s role is as a cult ecstatic here. The question is whether he goes into ecstasy, whether he raves, not whether he prophesies or not” (p. 214). However, the ecstasy probably had a specific purpose and did not happen only for the sake of raving. 28  For the structure, content, and historical setting of the tablet, see Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies, l, lviii-lix, lxx, 22–27; Eckart Otto, “Die Ursprünge der Bundestheologie im Alten Testament und im Alten Orient,” ZAR 4 (1998): 1–84 (58–59); Beate Pongratz-Leisten, Herrschaftswissen in Mesopotamien: Formen der Kommunikation zwischen Gott und König im 2. und 1. Jahrtausend v.Chr (SAAS 10; Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1999), 77–80; Martti Nissinen, “Spoken, Written, Quoted and Invented: Orality and Writtenness in Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy,” in Ehud Ben Zvi and Michael H. Floyd (eds.), Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy (SBLSymS 10; Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 235–271 (251–253); 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 (VTS 117; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 408–412; Stökl, Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, 138–140; Manfred Weippert, Götterwort in Menschenmund: Studien zur Prophetie in Assyrien, Israel und Juda (FRLANT 252; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014), 121–123. 29 Pongratz-Leisten, Herrschaftswissen, 78: “Der Zusammenschluß sowohl des Heils­orakels wie auch der Ritualanweisung läßt vermuten, daß das Heilsorakel zum Zeitpunkt der adê-­ Vereidigung geschah”; ibid., 80: “Der Schreiber schildert erst das Heilsorakel, das kurz vor der adê-Zeremonie erging, und dann erst diese selbst.”

specific drink, mê ṣarṣāri. The fifth oracle is spoken by the goddess who demands proper treatment, food, and drink from Esarhaddon; no further cultic instructions are given in this final section of the tablet. The enthronement ceremony of Esarhaddon serves as a prime example of the use of prophetic divination in a most prestigious ritual setting. The tablet SAA 9 3 can be understood as a post-event summary of the prophecies pronounced on this occasion. As such, it is most probably an edited, literary compilation of oracles pronounced on-site during different phases of the ceremony.30 Placing the šulmu before the gods gives the impression that the oracles have already been written down on a tablet. If this is the case, the prophecies were not spontaneous outbursts but, rather, belonged to the script of the ritual. Yet another ritual text, dating from the Neo-Babylonian period more than a millennium after the texts from Mari, also mentions a prophet (lú.gub.ba/ maḫḫû) together with musicians performing in the ritual of the Lady of Uruk at the Eanna temple: In the month of Adar, on the first, second, sixth, […], fourteenth and fifteenth day: duties of the ch[anter and the musician]; the edūtu is fulfilled. On the second day, on offering […] kettledrum is played […] the purify. On the third day, the Lady of Uruk proceeds and takes a seat between the curtains […] The prophet goes around it three times, carries the water basin and proceeds […] [On the fourth day], the prophet goes around it three times, carries the water basin and proce[eds …] the copper [kettledrum] is played, sacrificial me[als] are offered, the offering […] kettledrum is played and danc[e …] the censer. The musician takes a seat and shou[ts …]31

The ritual functioning of the prophet is quite remarkable. He goes around something, probably the statue of the goddess situated in a cubicular space surrounded by curtains (birīt šiddī). The prophet carries a water-basin used for the ritual washing of hands, elsewhere accompanied with a linen towel.32 While the prophet is circumambulating the goddess, perhaps for purification, copper kettledrum 30  Cf. de Jong, Isaiah, 411. 31  SBLWAW 12 135o (LKU 51); see Paul-Alain Beaulieu, The Pantheon of Uruk during the Neo-Babylonian Period (CM 23; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 375. 32 Beaulieu, Pantheon of Uruk, 140. For ritual circumambulations in cuneiform texts, see Amalia Catagnoti, “Ritual Circumambulations in the Syro-Mesopotamian Cuneiform Texts,” in Nicola Laneri (ed.), Defining the Sacred: Approaches to the Archaeology of Religion in the Near East (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2015), 134–141.

is played and sacrificial meals are offered. The text says nothing of the prophet’s actual prophesying; neither does it refer to his ecstatic comportment. The verb ragāmu is not used of the prophet’s performance but of the ritual shouting of the musician (lú.nar/nāru). The prophet appears in this Neo-Babylonian text as another cultic functionary in a ritual not primarily focused on divination. The larger ritual framework of LKU 51 does not suggest any divinatory elements embedded in the rituals consisting primarily of sacrifices and music, which raises the question of whether this reflects a change in the function of the prophets from diviners to cultic functionaries. If this was the case, however, one should also ask what, then, might have been the specific task of the maḫḫû that could not be performed by another cultic functionary. There is, unfortunately, too little evidence of the function and position of prophets in the Neo-Babylonian period to answer these questions with any degree of certainty. A word-list from Nippur mentions the word maḫḫû together with exorcists, diviners, musicians, and men-women (kulu’u, sinnišānu), following the lexical tradition deriving from Old Babylonian times.33 A Neo-Babylonian list of temple offerings distributes parts of the sacrificial animals among the temple personnel: the high priest, the prophet, the kurgarrû (man-woman), and the butcher, which demonstrates that the Babylonian temples actually accommodated prophets.34 No prophetic oracles or references to their delivery have been preserved from the Neo-Babylonian period. The different interfaces of ritual and divination seem to be partly, but not entirely due to the method of divination. Extispicy, requiring the slaughter of a sacrificial animal, is by necessity intertwined with (other) ritual acts. Even prophecy could be organized as a ritual procedure, as was the case in the major Greek oracle sites. In the Near Eastern sources, however, prophetic performances are not presented as rituals in their own right; if prophets perform in ritual contexts, their performance is subordinate to the main purpose of the ritual in which the prophets participate among other cultic functionaries. The prophetic performance may be of divinatory nature as in the case of the enthronement ceremony of Esarhaddon and, probably, of the Ištar ritual of Mari, but they may also appear as cultic functionaries without a specifically divinatory role, which is the case in the Neo-Babylonian ritual of the Lady of Uruk.

33  SBLWAW 12 135n (OIP 114 122); see Steven W. Cole, Nippur IV: The Early Neo-Babylonian Governor’s Archive from Nippur (OIP 114; Chicago, IL: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1996), 254–255. 34  SBLWAW 12 130 (OECT 1 20–21).

2. Is Prophetic Performance a Ritual? From Text to Theory However fragmentary the evidence of the prophets’ ritual functions and prophetic performances in sanctuaries is, it demonstrates on the one hand that prophets indeed were involved in rituals, and on the other hand that rituals were not the exclusive venues of intermediation of divine words by the prophets. Yet, considering the nature of a prophetic performance as an act of divine-human communication, it is worth asking if such an act could itself be regarded as a ritual, even without a temple context.35 Divination, including prophetic divination, can be understood as a cognitive process that links human action both with its allegedly divine preconditions and its presumed effects. The effects, however, are not the direct result of divinatory acts (as they are in magical acts), because divination functions as a method of acquiring and transmitting superhuman knowledge to humans, whose actions are then supposed to follow the divine will. The purpose of divination can certainly be characterized as Zukunftsbewältigung,36 but this does not mean that divination is all about prognostication. However, implementing Jesper Sørensen’s model of human action (Fig. 1) comprising the conditional space, the action space, and the effect space, we can see that the acquisition and transfer of superhuman knowledge belongs essentially to the diagnosis which connects the symbolic, superhuman conditional space with the human action space. The prognosis, again, links the action with the effects, and is therefore the second step linking the action space with the effect space. The prognosis no longer belongs to the realm of the diviner but instead to that of the addressee who decides what consequences should be drawn from the acquired divine knowledge.

35  Cf. my analysis in Martti Nissinen, “Ritual in Ancient Eastern Mediterranean Divination,” in Risto Uro, Juliette Day, Richard E. DeMaris, and Rikard Roitto (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Ritual (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), forthcoming. 36  Cf. Maul, Wahrsagekunst, 315–232.

Conditional Space

DIAGNOSIS

(1)

(2) Action Space

PROGNOSIS

(1)

(2) Effect Space

(1) Domain-specific expectations. Evolutionary developed causal intuitions. Agency-detection: Intentionality.

(2) Directly perceived meaning-structures. Weak causal cognition: contiguity/similarity Biological evolved communication.

Fig. 1: Representations of ordinary actions37

With regard to ritual action this means that the divinatory ritual is typically not designed to bring about change, and, unlike the magical ritual, does not have an immediate efficacy: “what divination reveals, magic can resolve.”38 What is ritualized is the act of divine-human communication happening in the conditional space. Apparently, however, divine-human communication was not restricted to ritual actions. Divination itself and the ritual actions accompanying it belong to the same event frame but are not identical.39 Prophecy (at least in the Near East)

37  See Jesper Sørensen, A Cognitive Theory of Magic (Cognitive Science of Religion Series; Lanham, MD: Altamira, 2007), 141–153. 38  Ann K. Guinan, “A Severed Head Laughed: Stories of Divinatory Interpretation,” in Leda Ciraolo and Jonathan Seidel (eds.), Magic and Divination in the Ancient World (AMD 2; Leiden: Brill / Groningen: Styx, 2002), 7–40 (18). 39  See Ulla Susanne Koch, “Three Strikes and You’re Out: A View on Cognitive Theory and the First-Millennium Extispicy Ritual,” in Amar Annus (ed.), Divination and Interpretation of Signs in the Ancient World (Oriental Institute Seminars 6; Chicago, IL: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2010), 43–57 (45).

could take place independently of rituals performed in sanctuaries—unless the prophetic performance as such is defined as a ritual. That prophets appear in ritual contexts means that the prophetic performance sometimes was set in a ritual context, but it does not follow from this that prophecy as such should be understood as a ritual. The interface between ritual and prophetic performance may be best understood from the point of view of agency. Again, I rely on Jesper Sørensen’s division in agent-based, action-based, and object-based agencies.40 Agent-based agency is at stake when the performer functions as the facilitator of the communication between the sacred and the profane space. This is clearly what happens in prophetic performances, not action-based agency in which the connection between the sacred and profane spaces is dependent in the correct performance of a ritual sequence. Still further from prophetic performance is the object-based agency, which requires certain objects to be used in the ritual. While such objects are essentially important in many forms of technical divination, prophetic divination seldom makes use of any objects, and even if it does, no specific efficacy is ascribed to such objects. The strong emphasis on agent-based agency reduces the significance of fixed ritual actions in prophetic divination, making the prophetic performances independent of objects and ritual paraphernalia. The role of the prophet is that of an identity connector.41 In fact, the human agent is believed to be taken over by the superhuman agent who is perceived of as the actual agent of the prophet performance. This emphasizes the agent even more: if the superhuman source of knowledge is the actual agent of the action, the significance of ritual actions and objects is reduced to a minimum. This, in my view, is the main reason why prophecy (at least in the Near Eastern sources) differs from other methods of divination with regard to ritual practices. Is the prophetic performance, then, itself a ritual? Prophecy, like ritual, is social action and symbolic communication; like ritual, prophecy has an agent (the prophet) and a patient (the addressee), even a kind of instrument, if the verbal message can be understood as such. Prophecy has certain affinities with what Robert McCauley and Thomas Lawson call a “special agent ritual.”42 The prophetic performance is not repeatable because the transmission of the divine word is bound to time, place, and specific addressees. The Near Eastern sources make abundantly clear that it does not follow a set ritual procedure (in Greece, however, this ssems to have been the case). The connection between the superhuman agent and the audience happens exclusively through the special agent, the 40 Sørensen, Cognitive Theory of Magic, 65–74. 41  For the ritual agent as identity connector, see Sørensen, Cognitive Theory of Magic, 66–67. 42  Robert N. McCauley and E. Thomas Lawson, Bringing Ritual to Mind: Psychological Foundations of Cultural Forms (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 120–122; cf. the critical review by Risto Uro, Ritual and Christian Beginnings: A Socio-Cognitive Analysis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 33–34, 85–87.

prophet, who is believed to be capable of acting as the mouthpiece of the god and, thus the identity connector. However, prophecy does not share all the features of the special agent ritual. Prophetic oracles are not only performed for one single patient at a time but can be pronouced to a wider audience, even to a group of people that is not present. Moreover, from the point of view of ritual efficacy, the effects of the prophetic performance are indirect at the best— the question of the prophecy “coming true” is notoriously difficult and ultimately a matter of societal interpretation. If it is essential that ritual participants always do something to something or somebody, then prophetic performance can be considered a ritual only if the effects of the “doing” may be dependent on the patient’s own action and interpretation. The theories developed by cognitive scientists of religion have recently been successfully implemented in the study of magic,43 less so with regard to divination.44 I hope to have been able to show in this essay the usefulness of the cognitive tool in the study of the ritual aspect of prophecy.

Primary Editions of Cuneiform Sources ARM 26 195; 196; 213; 214; 215; 219; 237 (SBLWAW 12 5, 6, 23, 24, 25, 29, 42): Jean-Marie Durand, Archives épistolaires de Mari I/1 (ARM 26/1. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1988), 421–23, 441–44, 447–48, 478–79. CM 33 1 (SBLWAW 12 135c): Joan Goodnick Westenholz and Aage Westenholz, Cuneiform Inscriptions in the Collection of the Bible Lands Museum Jerusalem: The Old Babylonian Inscriptions (CM 33. Leiden: Brill, 2006), 44–45. Erimhuš III (SBLWAW 135l): Antoine Cavigneaux, Hans G. Güterbock, and Martha T. Roth, The Series Erim-ḫuš = anantu and An-ta-gál = šaqû (MSL 17; Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1985), 51. FM 3 2; 3 (SBLWAW 12 51; 52): Jean Marie Durand and Michaël Guichard, “Les rituels de Mari,” in Dominique Charpin and Jean-Marie Durand (eds.), Florilegium Marianum 3: Recueil d’études à la mémoire de Marie-Thérèse Barrelet (Mémoires de NABU 4. Paris: SEPOA, 1997), 19–78 (52–63). IM 50.852 (SBLWAW 12 135h): Dietz Otto Edzard, Altbabylonische Rechts- und Wirtschafts­ urkunden aus Tell ed-Dēr im Iraq Museum, Baghdad (Bayerische Akademie des Wissenschaften, Philologisch-historische Klasse, Abhandlungen NF 72. Munich: Bayerische Aka­ demie des Wissenschaften, 1970), 134.

43  E.g., Sørensen, Cognitive Theory of Magic; Uro, Ritual and Christian Beginnings; István Czachesz, “Magic and Mind: Toward a Cognitive Theory of Magic, with Special Attention to the Canonical and Apocryphical Acts of the Apostles,” Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi 24 (2007): 295–321; and the articles included in István Czachesz and Risto Uro (eds.), Mind, Morality, and Magic: Cognitive Science Approaches in Biblical Studies (Durham: Acumen, 2013). 44  See, however, Koch, “Three Strikes and You’re Out!”

KAI 202 (SBLWAW 12 137): Herbert Donner and Wolfgang Röllig, Kanaanäische und ara­ mäische Inschriften (5th rev. ed., Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002). LKU 51 (SBLWAW 12 135o): Paul-Alain Beaulieu, The Pantheon of Uruk during the Neo-Babylonian Period (Cuneiform Monographs 23; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 375. LTBA 2 1 (SBLWAW 12 135m): Wolfram von Soden, Die lexikalischen Tafelserien der Baby­ lonier und Assyrer in den Berliner Museen, Vol. 2: Die akkadischen Synonymenlisten (Berlin: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Vorderasiatische Abteilung, 1933), pl. 1, 3. MSL 12 4.121; 4.122; 5.22; 6.2 (SBLWAW 12 120; 124; 125; 126): M. Civil et al, Materials for Sumerian Lexicon, Vol. 12: The Series lú= ša and Related Texts (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum 1969), 102–3, 132, 158, 225–26. OECT 1 20–21 (SBLWAW 12 130): Stephen Langdon, The H. Weld-Blundell Collection of the Ashmolean Museum, Vol. 1: Sumerian and Semitic Religious and Historical Texts (OECT 1; Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1923), pl. 20–21. OECT 13 263 (SBLWAW 12 67a): Salvatore Viaggio, “Sull’amministrazione del tempio di Ištar Kitītum a Ishjali.” EVO 29 (2006): 185–217 (186–88). OIP 114 122 (SBLWAW 12 135n): Steven W. Cole, Nippur IV: The Early Neo-Babylonian Governor’s Archive from Nippur (OIP 114. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1996), 254–55. RINAP 4 1 (SBLWAW 12 97): Erle Leichty, The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680–669 bc) (RINAP 4. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 11–14. RINAP 5 3 (SBLWAW 12 101): Rykle Borger, Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals: Die Prismenklassen A, B, C = K, D, E, F, G, H, J und T sowie andere Inschriften (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 1996), 99–105. (http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap5/pager). SAA 9 1.7; 1.8; 4 (SBLWAW 12 74; 75; 89): Simo Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies (SAA 9; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1997), 9, 30. SAA 10 352 (SBLWAW 12 109): Simo. Parpola, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars (SAA 10; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1993), 288–89. SAA 12 69 (SBLWAW 12 110): Laura Kataja and Robert M. Whiting, Grants, Decrees and Gifts in the Neo-Assyrian Period (SAA 12; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1995), 71–77. SAA 13 37; 144 (SBLWAW 12 111; 113): Steven W., Cole and Peter Machinist, Letters from Priests to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal (SAA 13; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1998), 36–37, 116–17. SpTU 3 116 (SBLWAW 12 135q): Egbert von Weiher, Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk, Teil III (Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka 12. Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 1988), 239. TCS 1 369 (SBLWAW 12 119): Edmond Sollberger, The Business and Administrative Correspondence under the Kings of Ur (TCS 1; Locust Valley, N.Y.: Augustin, 1966), 90. VS 19 1 (SBLWAW 12 123): Helmut Freydank, “Zwei Verpflegungstexte aus Kār-TukultīNinurta.” AOF 1 (1974): 55–89. ZTT 25 (SBLWAW 12 118c): Simo Parpola, “Cuneiform Texts from Ziyaret Tepe (Tušḫan), 2002–2003.” SAAB 17 (2008): 1–113 (98).

Jonathan Stökl Ready or Not, Here I Come Triggering Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible

well?

said Death, in a voice with all the warmth and colour of an iceberg. He caught the wizards’ gaze, and glanced down at the stick. i was at a party,

he added, a shade reproachfully.

‘O Creature of Earth and Darkness, we do charge thee to abjure from—’ began Galder in a firm, commanding voice. Death nodded. yes, yes, i know all that, he said. why have you summoned me?

(Terry Pratchett, A Light Fantastic, 34–35)

Introduction As the subtitle suggests, this essay examines the phenomenon of “triggered” prophecy as it is attested in the Hebrew Bible. It is sometimes said that the Hebrew Bible prefers prophecy over other forms of divination (e.g., ‫)קסם‬, because God maintains the initiative in prophetic communication. It is my contention here that quite to the contrary, the biblical text can be read to allow divinatory communication that is initiated by humans not just when using tools such as the Urim and Tummim, but also in cases, that might otherwise be described as prophetic, by using several triggers such as music and ritual sacrifice—even when at the hand of a non-Israelite religious expert, as the example of Balaam illustrates. The aim of this essay is to show that biblical texts are much less concerned with prompting God to correspond with humans through a prophet than it is often assumed. To the contrary, a number of biblical texts appear to express approval of ritual behaviour to encourage God to respond to a given situation through omens. It is possible that an aspect of the individual carrying out such triggered behaviour plays a role in this process. Yet it is difficult to find a clear impression of what such conditions would have been, as the range of people using triggered prophecy includes both Elisha and Balaam. Before discussing the texts themselves it is necessary to define clearly my use of the terms “intuitive” and “technical” divination to avoid any misunderstandings.

The distinction between “intuitive” and “technical” divination goes back to Plato.1 It can serve as a helpful heuristic tool for understanding processes in religious lives in antiquity as well as in modernity. By distinguishing two forms of divination it also establishes that all of these forms of communication with the divine can be understood as part of the same system: divination. But Plato’s distinction can also lead us astray when trying to understand phenomena that cut across this divide. Plato—and much scholarship—distinguishes forms of divination based on the manner by which a divine message was received. However, more recently some scholars have pointed out that incubated dreams and stimuli such as music or drugs for prophetic forms of divination, undermine this distinction. In the study of ancient Near Eastern prophecy and divination a different distinction, albeit using the same terminology, has been accepted.2 All divination seeks to provide people who need to make a decision now with the information that they require in order to make it. In that diviners might be compared to modern special advisers to governments or intelligence officers.3 Diviners, as the name suggests, provide information from the divine and supernatural spheres, whether that information appears to forecast the future, provides information about the opinion of deities, spirits, or dead ancestors, or refers back to past actions by a deity. Deities and other supernatural beings communicate with humans in a variety of ways. They can influence the physical shape of the liver of a sacrificial lamb, influence the paths of the stars, and 1 See, Phaedrus 244 b–e, Christopher J. Rowe, Plato: Phaedrus. With Translation and Commentary (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1988), 56–57. 2  For recent summaries of the discussion, see Esther J. Hamori, Women’s Divination in Biblical Literature: Prophecy, Necromancy and Other Arts of Knowledge (Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library; New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2015), 4–8; Jonathan Stökl, Prophecy in the Ancient Near East: A Philological and Sociological Comparison (CHANE 56; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 7–11. Instrumental voices in the discussion have been Anne Marie Kitz, “Prophecy as Divination,” CBQ 65 (2003): 22–42; JoAnn Scurlock, “Prophecy as a Form of Divination: Divination as a Form of Prophecy,” in Amar Annus (ed.), Divination and Interpretation of Signs in the Ancient World (OIS 6; Chicago, IL: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2010), 277–316; Lester L. Grabbe, Priests, Prophets, Diviners, Sages: A Socio-Historical Study of Religious Specialists in Ancient Israel (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995); Martti Nissinen, “Prophecy and Omen Divination: Two Sides of the Same Coin,” in Divination and Interpretation of Signs in the Ancient World, 341–351; Martti Nissinen, “What is Prophecy? An Ancient Near Eastern Perspective,” in John Kaltner, and Louis Stulman (eds.), Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honour of Herbert B. Huffmon (JSOTS 378; London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 17–37. 3  Naturally, this is only valid for those diviners employed by the crown. Diviners acting on behalf of private clients also provide their clients with the necessary information to make decisions. See, e.g., Netanel Anor, “Mesopotamian Divinatory Inquiry: A Private or a State Matter,” in R. de Boer and J. G. Dercksen (eds.), Private and State in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 58th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Leiden 16–20 July 2012 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2017), 71–78, as well as the work of Parsa Daneshmand (personal communication).

send mysterious dreams and visions, all of which need to be “translated” into a human language so that the addressee can begin to understand the message. This is referred to as “technical” divination. Deities can also talk to humans in a variety of ways, in dreams and visions or just like that, in a way so that the message itself does not require first to be “translated”—“intuitive” divination. That is, the distinction between “technical” and “intuitive” divination rests on whether a deity or supernatural power has communicated with their human addressee in a human language or not.4 Whether or not the message then requires further interpretation is a different question, as prophetic oracles and symbolic dreams can either be very clear or more enigmatic. Thus, religious experts all over the world use techniques in order to help them attain the right frame of mind to receive messages from ancestors and deities.5 Music is often used as part of such triggers, but other mind or consciousnessaltering techniques are also employed for similar purposes. While the purpose of such techniques can be prophetic activity, that is not always its express purpose.6 Thus, dervishes may dance themselves into a trance, but they do not do so in order to receive prophetic oracles. Indeed, their belief-system likely would discourage this as unorthodox. Notwithstanding, dervishes appear in folktales as capable of performing rituals that result in them receiving answers to questions, much in the same vein as an ancient Near Eastern diviner, or, indeed the biblical prophet Huldah in response to the question by Josiah and Hilkiah (2 Kgs 22 ||

4  In my view texts such as ARM 26 237 which contains Addu-duri’s dream of going into the temple of Bēlet-ekallim and finding the temple empty do not present a problem to this classification. The dream itself is a visual experience. However, just like the aural / visual experience of a prophetic oracle, the first time that others can perceive it is in the shape of the report by the dreamer / prophet—in other words, the divine message is already in human language. The use of hair and hem to double check dreams and prophetic messages is to check whether or not the perceived message is, in fact, of divine origin, see, e.g., Stökl, Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, 81–86. 5  For a helpful overview, see I. M. Lewis, Ecstatic Religion: A Study of Shamanism and Spirit Possession (3rd ed.; London: Routledge, 2003) and, reliant on Lewis, Robert R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1980). Already Simon B. Parker, “Possession Trance and Prophecy in Pre-Exilic Israel,” VT 28 (1978): 271–285 reports on the work by Erika Bourguignon, ed. Religion, Altered States of Consciousness and Social Change (Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, 1973). For a medical perspective on altered states of consciousness and possession, see also Erika Bourguignon, Possession (San Francisco, CA: Chandler & Sharp Publishers, 1976). See also the contributions by Thomas W. Overholt, Prophecy in Cross-Cultural Perspective: A Sourcebook for Biblical Researchers (Sources for Biblical Study 17; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1986); Thomas W. Overholt, “Prophecy: The Problem of Cross-Cultural Comparison,” Semeia 21 (1981): 55–78. 6 See, e.g., Mircea Eliade, Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy (Princeton, CT: Princeton University Press, 1964).

2 Chron 34).7 In the case of ancient Near Eastern diviners, triggers for their own receptivity to divine messages are only rarely attested, but there are some hints that they may, on occasion, have been used.8 It is my intention in this essay to reinvestigate those occurrences in the Hebrew Bible. This essay also raises a methodological question: to what extent are the triggers discussed in this essay to be understood as equivalent to ritual(ized) behaviour. Ritual theory, developed by anthropologists, has been used productively in Biblical Studies and related fields. As with other complex theories and ideas adopted from the social sciences, ritual theory encourages modern readers to ask new questions of their ancient texts. However, a number of scholars are reading and interpreting biblical ritual texts as ‘objective’ reports of actual rituals, rather than as textualised rituals. As Catherine Bell’s short summary of the history of ritual theory illustrates, as ritual theory was developed largely by western scholars in the twentieth century it focused on beliefs and on official religion.9 Since Bell’s work most ritual theorists and those who use ritual theory have taken on board the criticism that a focus on beliefs and textualized ritual skews our understanding of rituals. Bell’s arguments are well founded and have had considerable influence on most subsequent study of ritualization. However, with regard to the specifics of studying ancient rituals, we do not have access to the ritual as it is performed, but to textualized representations of such rituals—and even creations of rituals in textual form. This does not, naturally, mean that questions inspired by ritual theory are illegitimate. But we as modern readers have to remain careful not to equate our ritual texts with rituals too readily. Anthropologist would warn biblical scholars about the difference of experiencing a ritual and basing one’s 7  One such example is the dervish in the Yugoslav folktale ‘Kabadaluk: The Little Arab Boy’, see e.g., Nada Curcija-Prodanovic, ed. Yugoslav Folk-Tales (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957), 20–26. On the way in which Dervish ritual engenders a merging of the divine the cosmos and the human body see Shahzad Bashir, Sufi Bodies: Religion and Society in Medieval Islam (New York: Columbia University, 2013), especially pp. 27–77. I would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for pointing me to this excellent book. 8  For the purposes of this discussion I do not consider the ritual slaughter of sacrificial lambs to read their livers as a trigger mechanism. My reason for this is that in the case of these rituals it is the sheep—or more precisely its liver—that is prepared for the deity to “write” on. One could argue that in many ways the sheep and its liver are akin to the dreamer whose dream needs decoding (“translating”). Against this argument, however, stands the—admittedly “speciest” point—that people in the ancient Near East would have distinguished between humans and sacrificial animals. Not included in the discussion of this article are the majority of prophetic texts in the Hebrew Bible, as they do not include any obvious triggers. Indeed, not every prophetic oracle goes back to a request for an oracle, at least not according to the preserved texts. 9  Catherine M. Bell, “Ritual,” in Robert A. Segal (ed.) The Blackwell Companion to the Study of Religion (Blackwell Companions to Religion; Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2006), 397– 411. See also the discussion of definitions in Gerald A. Klingbeil, Bridging the Gap: Rituals and Ritual Texts in the Bible (BBRS 1; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 14–18, and by Ronald L. Grimes, The Craft of Ritual Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 185–210.

understanding solely on a textual(ized) description of that ritual. In the following, questions of ritual and ritualized behaviour will be raised where informative, but the distinction between ritual on the one hand and either ritual text or textualized ritual on the other should always be kept in mind.

1. Music as a Trigger The clearest case of triggered prophecy from the Hebrew Bible—indeed from the entire ancient Near East—that I am aware of is reported in 2 Kgs 3.10 The narrative is easily summaries: the kings of Israel, Judah, and Edom, Jehoram, Jehoshaphat, and a nameless Edomite King, jointly attack King Mesha of Moab, when he is rebelling against his nominal overlord, Jehoram.11 According to the biblical text, the three kings and their joint task-force march through the territory of Edom around the Dead Sea north towards Moab, but before they reach Moabite territory, they run out of water and all seems lost. As a direct reaction to Jehoram’s despair at the situation, Jehoshaphat suggests that “enquiring of a prophet” (‫ )האין פה נביא ליהוה ונדרשׁה את־יהוה מאותו‬may be a solution, and one of the courtiers mentions that the prophet Elisha is present. Following in the footsteps of his teacher Elijah, Elisha is suitably grumpy in reaction to the approach by the three kings, and Jehoram of Israel repeats his expression of despair at the situation. This appears to soften Elisha’s stance who notices that Jehoshaphat of Judah is also present and since Elisha respects him, he is willing to assent to the request and requests that a musician be brought (‫)ועתה קחו־לי מנגן‬, so that the hand of Yhwh would come upon him. Then Elisha gives the three kings an oracle of divine support: Yhwh will support the joint task force by providing water—and Moab will be delivered into their hands. Whatever we make historically of 2 Kgs 3 and its sister text, the Mesha stele, it is clear that at the end of the campaign Moab was independent of Israelite control and remained so until the westward

10  For discussions of the available evidence, see André Lemaire, “Les textes prophétique de Mari dans leur relations avec l’Ouest,” in Jean-Marie Durand (ed.), Amurru 1: Mari, Ébla et les Hourrites: Dix ans de travaux, Actes du colloque international (Paris, Mai 1993) (Paris: ERC, 1996), 431; Martti Nissinen, “Prophetic Madness: Prophecy and Ecstasy in the Ancient Near East and in Greece,” in K. L. Noll and Brooks Schramm (eds.) Raising Up a Faithful Exegete: Essays in Honor of Richard D. Nelson (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 3–29; Nele Ziegler, Florilegium marianum IX: Les Musiciens et la musique d’après les archives de Mari (Mémoires de N.A.B.U. 10, Supplément à NABU 2007 no. 3; Paris: SEPOA, 2007), 61; Stökl, Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, 211–215. 11  Famously, the Mesha stele provides the Moabite view on this episode. Unsurprisingly, Mesha—or Maušaʕ, the likely Moabite vocalisation of his name—represents his fight as a righteous struggle for freedom from foreign occupation.

expansion of the Mesopotamian superpowers.12 Irrespective of what may or may not have happened in the eight century b.c.e. in Transjordan, t he t ext ual El isha is interacting with the three kings and the musician before receiving his oracle. The textual tradition preserves two different readings. The Masoretic text reads ‫ והיה‬and the Septuagint has καὶ ἐγένετο which likely goes back to Hebrew ‫ויהי‬. According to GK §112 (r, mm), ‫ והיה‬in the Masoretic text suggests either a future sense as following an imperative or as introducing the consequence (apodosis) of a primary clause. Cogan and Tadmor understand ‫ והיה‬differently with habitual (or as GK § 112 e-f, dd puts it slightly differently: frequentive) force.13 This reading leaves open the possibility that Elisha is claiming that prophets generally went into prophetic trance when music played. The absence of references to this occurring in further narratives about prophets, however, does not support such a reading. The ‫ ויהי‬of the Septuagint’s Vorlage would suggest a once off action, which would suggest that what worked for Elisha in this instance was not a regularly repeatable action. For our purposes here, this observation raises two interesting questions. The first relates to this text only: is Elisha saying that this is a regular occurrence or is it the narrator letting us know the outcome of the musicians playing in this instance only? The second question applies more widely: what is the difference between a once off triggered behaviour, and ritualised activity either carried out regularly or one time only. There are a myriad of definitions of ritual and ritualized behaviour, and many of them count regularity or repetition of performance as one of the possible criteria. Bell and Grimes argue that this is not, in fact, the case, and that ritual behaviour should be understood as ritualizing when the actor(s) understand it as such.14 This is a good case where we see that some aspects of more recent approaches in ritual theory are difficult to translate directly to the study of ritual texts and ritualised activity in antiquity. Lack of access to the actual performed ritual means that we are talking about texts about ritual, rather than about rituals themselves. As the text stands there is clearly a link between the music and the ‘hand 12  In other words, for our purposes here it does not matter much that Elisha’s oracle is clearly incorrect—or that Mesha’s child sacrifice is portrayed as efficacious even against a word of Yhwh. Neither possibility is theologically easy or appealing. 13  Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 11; Garden City, NJ: Doubleday, 1988), 45. Cogan and Tadmor refer also to the commentaries of Albert Šanda, Die Bücher der Könige (EHAT; Münster: Aschendorffscher Verlag, 1911); James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1951), 361; John Skinner, Kings (Century Bible; Edinburgh: T. C. & E. C. Jack, 1904). 14  Catherine Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 197–223; Grimes, Craft of Ritual, 192–202.

of Yhwh’ coming onto Elisha. Is this ritualistic or not? Following the Masoretic text, there is at least the indication of regularity implying ritual action. The text of the LXX, however simply gives us no clear-cut information to decide. The text is simply not interested in the question. The second text in which music is potentially used as a trigger for prophetic activity is 1 Sam 10, and most commentaries to 2 Kgs 3 in fact reference that text. 1 Sam 10:5 refers to the bands of prophets “prophesying” (‫)מתנבאים‬. Traditionally, the tD-stem (Hithpael) of the root ‫א‬.‫ב‬.‫ נ‬has been understood to carry negative connotations.15 The standard linguistic theories do not allow for two words to have exactly the same meaning at the same time and place. Either a dialectal difference (over time, region, class, gender, etc) or a semantic difference is demanded. It follows that there must—or, phrased more carefully—ought to be some such difference between the N-stem (Niphal) and the tD-stem. However, our data does not suffice to indicate what that difference is with any certainty in this case.16 The text of the pericope itself suggests that the activity described by the root ‫א‬.‫ב‬.‫ נ‬is linked to dancing and making music. If by prophecy we refer to a form of intuitive divination as understood above, it appears that in this pericope,

15  See recently Klaus-Peter Adam, “‘And He Behaved Like a Prophet Among Them’ (1Sam 10:11b): The Depreciative use of ‫ נבא‬Hitpael and the Comparative Evidence of Ecstatic Prophecy,” WO 39 (2009): 3–57. 16  See Stökl, Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, 159. Walter Dietrich, Samuel (1 Sam 1–12) (BKAT 8/1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2010), 429–433, points to the following texts as expressing ecstasy by the writing prophets: Isa 8:11, Isa 21:3–4, Jer 6:22–23, 29:26, Ezek 21:11–12, and Hos 9:7. However, of these texts Jer 6:22–23 does not refer to possible ecstasy. It is possible that Dietrich refers to vv. 24–25, but like Isa 21:3–4 and Ezek 21:11–12, I read these descriptions of physical discomfort as reactions to the message / part of the message itself, not as descriptions of the prophet’s state while receiving the message in the first place. Similarly also Parker, “Possession Trance,” 282, who mentions further texts. Jer 29:26 shows that people considered individuals described as ‫ מׁשוגע‬were under the authority of the priests in the temple. Hos 9:7 uses the same term to describe the state of mind of the ‫ איש רוח‬as part of a dystopian future, the days of punishment (‫)ימי הפקדה‬. Only Isa 8:11 contains the prophet announcing that ‘this is what Yhwh said to me when he took my by the hand’ (‫)כה אמר יהוה כחזקת היד‬. In none of these texts is a separate trigger or ritual mentioned that introduces prophetic activity. It is, in my view, uncertain whether our term ‘prophecy’ (and derivatives thereof) are really identical to the semantic range of the Hebrew root ‫א‬.‫ב‬.‫נ‬, or whether that included concepts that may lie outside of what is usually understood as ‘prophecy’ in the scholarly discourse. For the question of ecstasy and prophecy see, of course, also John R. Levison, “Prophecy in Ancient Israel: The Case of the Ecstatic Elders,” CBQ 65 (2003): 503–521; John William Wevers, “Ecstatic vs Literary Prophets in Ancient Israël,” BCSMS 23 (1992): 9–13; Nissinen, “Prophetic Madness”; Parker, “Possession Trance”; Robert R. Wilson, “Prophecy and Ecstasy: A Reexamination,” JBL 98 (1979): 321–337. It is possible that the ‘estimative-declarative reflexive’ sense suggested by Bruce K. Waltke and Michael Patrick O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 26.2–3, may be viable solution.

the root ‫א‬.‫ב‬.‫ נ‬does not refer to specifically prophetic behaviour17—unless one were to understand the tD-stem of ‫א‬.‫ב‬.‫ נ‬to refer to “to speak prophetically” here, as the NJPS translation; but the evidence in favour of such an understanding appears very weak. 1 Sam 10, therefore, is perhaps best understood as a narrative that reflects on the nature of music in the religion in Saulide Israel, but not on the nexus between prophecy and ritual. Most interpreters of the Mari ritual texts also point to a connection between prophecy and music. Evidence for such a connection can be found in the two great Eštar rituals texts from Mari, FM 3 2 and FM 3 3.18 The lines in question read as follows:

1.1  FM 3 2 ii:21’–27’ 21’šumma

ina rēš war[ḫim] 22’m[u]ḫḫûm ištaqqa[lma] 23’an[a] maḫḫê[m] ūl i[reddû] mà-e ú-re-m[én šēram] 25’iktašdū waklū n[ārī] 26’uwaššarūma im[maḫḫima] 27’mà-e ú-re-m[én izammurū] 24’ištu

21’If

at the end of the mon[th] 22’the e[c]static is in equilibrium 23’(and) does not p[roceed] int[o] tranc[e] 24’when the time for [the chant] mae urem[en] 25’has come, the supervisors 26’send 25’the m[usicians] 26’away; if he r[aves] 27’[they sing] the mae urem[en].

1.2  FM 3 3 col iii: 4’–13’ 4’inūma

ana me[ḫetīša] 5’mārū īter[bū] 6’muḫḫātum ū[l …] 7’u mārē nā[rī …] muḫḫātum] 9’ista[qqalū] 10’2 m[ā]r[ē nārī …] 11’ana [… irrubūma] 12’pāni [iltim ana Enlil?] 13’eršemakk[am izammurū] 8’enūm[a

4’When 5’the

(young?) musicians have ente[red] 4’bef[ore her (Eštar)] 6’(and when?) the female ecstatics do no[t …] 7’and the mus[icians …]. 8’Whe[n the female

17  P. Kyle McCarter, I Samuel: A New Translation (AB 8; Garden City, NJ: Doubleday, 1980), 182, seems to be on the right track when suggesting that the root here marks Saul’s experience as legitimately inspired. 18  For an edition of the texts, see Jean-Marie Durand, and Michaël Guichard, “Les rituels de Mari,” in Dominique Charpin and Jean-Marie Durand (eds.), Florilegium marianum III: Recueil d’études à la mémoire de Marie-Thérèse Barrelet (Mémoires de N.A.B.U. 4, Supplément à N.A.B.U. 1997 no. 2; Paris: SEPOA, 1997), 19–78. An English translation is easily available in Martti Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East: With Contributions by C.L. Seow and Robert K. Ritner (ed. Peter Machinist; SWAW 12; Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 80–83 (texts 51–52). Nissinen, “Prophetic Madness,” 9–11, comes to a different conclusion in that he sees the music prior to our episode as the potential trigger. See Nissinen’s article also for comparative Greek material. A new edition of WAW 12 will soon be published.

ecstatics] 9’remain in equi[librium], 10’two m[u]s[icians] 11’[enter] (in)to […]; 12’before [the goddess] 13’[they sing an Eršemakk[um]-lament 12’[for Enlil?].

There can be little doubt that a link is being established here between the cultic and ritual activities of the muḫḫû and music. But unlike in the previous examples, music does not appear to be used in order to trigger prophetic activity—unless we are to understand the phrase that if the muḫḫûm does not go into trance, the singers are to perform the lament, that in response to the lament the muḫḫûm will then act prophetically. As I have argued elsewhere, I am not convinced that the main role of the muḫḫûm was prophetic speech. They occur in ritual texts which link them to ritualised laments and it appears at least possible that they are ecstatic lament functionaries.19 1 Sam 10 may provide us with a parallel inasmuch as figures who elsewhere speak prophetically, there act as ecstatic cult functionaries. In the Hebrew Bible there are two texts which are commonly understood to show how music, prophecy, and female prophets in particular are linked, namely Exod 15 and Judg 5. One could add to these texts the description of levitic music making in the temple according to 1–2 Chronicles. However, in these texts music is not used as the trigger of prophetic activity but as the expression of prophetic activity. Summarizing the above, we can say that in the Hebrew Bible music is only rarely used as a trigger for prophetic speech. The only example that can confidently be interpreted in such a way is the story of the joint attack by Judah, Israel, and Edom on Moab as narrated in 2 Kgs 3.

2. Sacrificial Slaughter as Trigger While 2 Kgs 3 is explicit in its relationship between music and the spirit of Yhwh coming upon Elisha, other texts in the Hebrew Bible show how other forms of ritualised action are used to trigger prophecy. The longest of these texts is the narrative of Balaam ben Beor in Num 22–24, which contains a number of interactions between God and Balaam.20 In Num 23, God manifests himself to Balaam 19 Stökl, Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, 211–215. On the wider cult of dead ancestors, see now Antoine Jacquet, “Funerary Rituals and Cult of the Ancestors during the Amorite Period: The Evidence of the Royal Archives of Mari,” in Peter Pfälzner et al. (eds.), (Re)Constructing Funerary Rituals in the Ancient Near East (Qaṭna Studien Supplementa 1; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012), 123–136. On the characterisation of the muḫḫû as a cult ecstatic more widely, see Stökl, Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, 51–57, 118–121; Wilson, Prophecy and Society, 103–106. 20  Many analyses of these chapters exist already, among them the two large commentaries by Baruch A. Levine, Numbers 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary

after his client, King Balak of Moab, had sacrificed a bull and a ram on seven altars, with the express purpose of causing God to manifest himself.21 As Balaam’s words to Balak show, the sacrifice is not a certain way to cause God to manifest himself (v. 3): “perhaps (‫ )אולי‬Yhwh will manifest himself.” There is clearly some wordplay happening using the two parallel roots ‫ קרה‬and ‫ קרא‬in the verse.22 The verb ‫( יִ ָּק ֵרה‬N-stem of ‫ )קרה‬and the essentially lexicalised infinitive construct ‫לק־‬ ‫“( ראתי‬to/before me”) heighten the sense of possibility without certainty.23 The text continues with God manifesting himself to Balaam and giving him a blessing on the Israelites to be announced in the presence of Balak and his dignitaries. A few verses on (vv. 13–15), Balak takes Balaam to another location, again with seven altars, and again sacrifices a bull and a ram on each altar. Again, Yhwh responds to the ritual summoning, and again gives Balaam a blessing on Israel to announce to Balak.24 Balak, none too happy about the return on his investment, tries the technique a third time (vv. 27–30). This time they go to the top of Mt Peor, Balaam requests seven altars and the fourteen corresponding sacrificial animals, which Balak goes on to sacrifice. Balaam has already understood that Yhwh wants to bless the Israelites so he is said not to “seek out omens” (‫הלך לקראת‬ ‫)נחשים‬.25 He goes on to announce the famous third blessing on Israel “How beautiful are your tents, O Jacob” (Num 24:3–9). From Balak’s point of view Balaam’s actions represent outstandingly bad customer service and he withholds payment. The phrase used for Balaam’s speech is the same as in the previous two cases (‫)ויׂשא משׁלו‬, and as his oracles continue to be introduced in the same manner (AB 4B; New York: Doubleday, 2000), and Horst Seebass, Numeri (22,2–36,13) (BKAT 4/3; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2007). See there for further literature and for diachronic analyses. In addition to the biblical tradition, there is also the text from Deir Alla, which contains a visionary text mentioning Balaam. As the text was found in fragments on wall plaster a number of different reconstructions exist, and it is only the first combination that is generally agreed upon. No further notice need to be taken of that text here, however, as it does not mention the triggering of prophetic action. 21  The motif of seven bulls and seven rams is also used in 2 Chron 29, where the animals serve as part burnt offering for Hezekiah’s rededication of the temple, and Job 42:8 where God directly instructs Eliphaz to sacrifice the animals as a burnt offering. 22  Both Hebrew roots are reflexions of Westsemitic qry, see Jacob Hoftijzer and Karel Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions, 2 vols. (HOD 21; Leiden: Brill, 1995). I welcome the anonymous reviewer’s suggestion that the assonance-based word play extends to the consonants of ‫ אולי‬which, together with ‫ יקרה‬contains most of the consonants of ‫לקראתי‬. It is, in any case, evident that this passage is very carefully phrased. 23  Peculiarly, and without further comment, H. F. Wilhelm Gesenius, Udo Rüterswörden, Rudolf Meyer, and Herbert Donner, Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament (18th ed.; Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2013), 1190, suggests that the form in MT is the result of an error in the vocalization. 24  Unlike Death in Terry Pratchett’s ritual of AshkEnte, God does not appear to be annoyed by the ritual summoning either. 25  In Biblical Hebrew ‫ נַ ַחׁש‬occurs only here and in Num 23:23.

also in Num 24. How he receives his omens, however, is not clear from the text. Levine, following a classical line of interpretation, thinks that Num 24:1–2 shows Balaam abandoning (technical) “divination” in favour of prophecy (intuitive divination).26 While much seems to be made in the pericope about Balaam not looking for omens and still receiving oracles, it seems less clear to me that this necessarily means that Balaam has changed the way he accesses the divine, at least not within this narrative. While Levine’s reading cannot be excluded, it seems to start with a number of assumptions that come from outside the text. Apart from the use of ‫ נחׁש‬in Num 23:23 and 24:1, there is little to indicate how Balaam received Yhwh’s word. Indeed, if Balaam’s actions were so bad here—why would Yhwh use him as a conduit for his word and his blessing on the Israelites.27 Further, if Balaam’s actions are not good, it would follow that the blessing itself was not good, and this goes against the flow of the text.28 The Balaam pericope differs from most other biblical texts in its positive depiction not only of a non-Israelite diviner, but also its positive description of the use ritual activity to encourage divinatory communication with Yhwh.29 The text portrays Balaam and Yhwh as old acquaintances suggesting that the text envisages that the actions described in the three chapters are common occurrences— at least within the world created by the text. The competition between Elijah and the prophets of Ba‘al in 1 Kgs 18 is sometimes referred to as a parallel in commentaries on Num 22–24, and it is true that both Ba‘al and Yhwh are encouraged to respond to ritual action in a Gottesbeweis. However, the narrative is exactly that, a Gottesbeweis, not an interaction between gods and humans in which the gods send the humans a divine message—other than which deity is stronger, or even really God. What may have started out its life as a heroic story of the single prophet against the masses has in the final form of the text turned into a reflected theological construction in which Yhwh can outplay his direct competitor Ba‘al by letting it rain whereas the Ba‘al cannot even

26 Levine, Numbers 21–36, 187–191. 27  Some biblical texts clearly have a negative (e.g. Num 31:8, Josh 24:6), while others have a rather positive (e.g., Mic 6:5) view. On this, see, e.g., Michael S. Moore, The Balaam Traditions: Their Character and Development (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1990). On Balaam in early reception of the Hebrew Bible texts, see the essays in Geurt H. van Kooten and Jacques T.A.G.M. van Ruiten (eds.), The Prestige of the Pagan Prophet Balaam in Judaism, Early Christianity and Islam (TBN 11; Leiden: Brill, 2008). 28  Whether or not Num 22–24 already knows of Deut 18, as suggested, e.g., by Stefan Timm, Moab zwischen den Mächten: Studien zu historischen Denkmälern und Texten (ÄAT 17; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1989), 143–154, seems unclear. But if it does, then Timm seems correct that Balaam is acting as a prophet like Moses here. 29 Seebass, Numeri 22–36, 33, comments that “in *1–5 gilt bekanntlich 4b […] als schwierig, da bei der Gottesbegegnung Gott die Initiative haben sollte.” As it stands, however, the text itself does not appear to share our concerns.

start the sacrificial fire. This, in turn, transmits the message that Yhwh is a powerful god who can make fire and rain come down whereas Ba‘al is not.30 As has been commented on, the action of the prophets of Ba‘al appear to coincide with techniques that might otherwise trigger ecstatic trances. The authors present Elijah’s interaction with Yhwh which entreats and prays, but does not perform actions designed to attract the divine almost automatically as superior to those of the prophets of Baal—and to those of Balaam.31 As has been pointed out, many of the practices described in 1 Kgs 18 are explicitly banned elsewhere (e.g., Deut 14:1, Lev 19:28, 21:5), there perhaps to avoid overly expressive rituals of the dead. The author of 1 Kgs 18 ridicules his (imaginary?) opponents’ religious practices. In this context an Akkadian text from Ugarit, RS 25.460, is often cited to illustrate that the behaviour described was part of ‘Canaanite’ religious life. Line 11 of that text reads: “My brothers bathe in their [b]lood like ecstatics.”32 It seems likely that ecstatics may have used such techniques to trigger trances, which on occasion may also have produced prophetic oracles—the two roles of ecstatic and prophet appear to have shared much overlap in function and ­behaviour.

3. Other (Ritual) Triggers 3.1  Potentially Ritual Contexts Num 11 has often been read in conjunction with 1 Sam 10 and 19. In that text seventy elders “prophesy” (‫ )התנבא‬when the spirit of Yhwh is on them. Prior to the spirit of Yhwh being placed on them, and their subsequent prophesying, Moses positions the 70 elders around the Tent of Meeting (Num 11:24), suggesting a ritual set up.33 As in 1 Sam 10, it is not entirely clear what the tD-stem of the 30  See, e.g., Mordechai Cogan, I Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 10; New York: Doubleday, 2001), 434–448; Winfried Thiel, Könige (1 Ki 17,1–1 Ki 22,38) (BKAT 9/2; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000), 81–214, on this narrative. 31  On the difficulty to distinguish between magic and religion, see, e.g., Jonathan Z. Smith, Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown (CSHJ; Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1982) and many others afterwards. It is clear that not all forms of magic understand themselves as religious acts, but also that in many societies the distinction is not helpful. 32  The Akkadian text goes aḫūa kīma maḫḫû [d]amišunu râmkū. For an edition, see Jean Nougayrol et al., Ugaritica V (Mission de Ras Shamra 16; Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1968), 266–273, 435. 33  I agree with Levison, “Prophecy in Ancient Israel,” and many others that the links between Num 11 and Exod 24 are strong. However, for our purposes here the links are less pronounced unless we deem the action of ascending the mountain as causing the vision. The text does not in and of itself imply that. The ritual meal is described as following the vision, not preceding it. The fact that the Nuer prophet Ngundeng used an artificial hill to prove his supe-

root ‫א‬.‫ב‬.‫ נ‬means in this pericope, whether it means “to be in ecstasy” or “to speak prophetically.”34 Again, my view on the matter is that the text does not give us any indication that the elders, or Eldad and Medad (vv. 26–29) are prophesying, and ecstasy seems to, therefore, be the more natural translation. The positioning of the elders in a specific way suggests intentional marking of the situation as special—at least within the world of the text—which supports the view that the elders’ activity is to be regarded as the consequence of ritual action. John Hilber, who is also contributing to this volume, has published extensively on the connection between Psalms, ritual activity, and prophecy.35 It is clear that like other cultic poetry, several psalms use language and settings that are reminiscent of prophetic activity. I do not share Hilber’s confidence in drawing the conclusion that the Psalms represent cultic prophecy in historical ancient Israel. In my view we simply do not possess sufficient data to claim this. Poetic texts tend to reflect reality in complex and creative ways. An extra-biblical account of prophetic activity that may provide further evidence for rituals in connection to prophetic activity is the Egyptian Wen-Amun narrative.36 In the story, Wen-Amun is an envoy of Pharaoh to the Near East in order to procure wood. On the way, Wen-Amun experiences a number of (mis-) adventures including being thrown into prison. This narrative written from the point of view of Egypt in the role of a late colonial power that is slowly seeing its grip on its empire fall away, but which still longs for the exoticism of the Levant. We should be cautious about taking Wen-Amun’s story as directly reflecting the historical situation in the late Bronze Age / early Iron Age Levant. Instead it reflects what an Egyptian audience might find credible at the time. Lines 1,38–1,47 contain the episode in which Wen-Amun finds himself in Byblos, and during a riority does not provide us with a good parallel as it is not used for the same kind of prophetic activity as here, but for showing his superior powers. On Ngundeng, see, e.g., Douglas Hamilton Johnson, Nuer Prophets: A History of Prophecy From the Upper Nile in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries (Oxford Studies in Social and Cultural Anthropology; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994). 34  For the latter possibility, see, e.g., Antonius H. J. Gunneweg, “Das Gesetz und die Propheten: Eine Auslegung von Ex 33,7–11; Num 11,4–12,8; Dtn 31,14f.; 34,10,” ZAW 102 (1990): 169–180 (176). See also Horst Seebass, Numeri (10,11–22,1) (BKAT 4/2; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2002); Levison, “Prophecy in Ancient Israel.” 35  See John W. Hilber, Cultic Prophecy in the Psalms (BZAW 352; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005); idem, “Cultic Prophecy in Assyria and in the Psalms,” JAOS 127 (2007): 29–40; idem, “Cultic Prophecy in the Psalms in the Light of Assyrian Prophetic Sources,” TynBul 56 (2005): 141–145; idem, “Royal Cultic Prophecy in Assyria, Judah, and Egypt,” in Robert P. Gordon and Hans M. Barstad (eds.), ‘Thus Speaks Ishtar of Arbela’: Prophecy in Israel, Assyria and Egypt in the NeoAssyrian Period (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 161–186. 36  See Benjamin Sass, “Wenamun and his Levant—1075 bc or 925 bc?” Ä&L 12 (2002): 247–255; Bernd U. Schipper, Die Erzählung des Wenamun: Ein Literaturwerk im Spannungsfeld von Politik, Geschichte und Religion (OBO 209; Fribourg: Academic Press, 2005); Manfred Görg, “Der Ekstatiker von Byblos,” Göttinger Miszellen 23 (1977): 31–33.

sacrifice, the deity made a young man rave and announce a prophetic message in favour of Wen-Amun and his mission.37 It is unclear from the context whether the young man had a formal role in the Byblian temple or whether this was an ad hoc occurrence—even if this is only in the literary world created by the author of the text. SAA 10 352, a letter to Esarhaddon, contains a report about the death of Damqî and his wife as substitute king and queen instead of the king himself.38 This ritual represented theology in action, as in case of certain omens which spelled doom for the king another person would be crowned king and then be killed in order to fulfil the omen—but without harming the real king, thus proving the divine oracle true without having actually to suffer the consequences. In order for the substitute king ritual to work, the substitute king had to be crowned king, and it appears that during that ritual, so the author of the letter, the prophet, a raggintu, had prophesied that Damqî would become king—probably mirroring divine oracles that would have taken place during a regular crowning ceremony as well. Whether or not the raggintu’s prophetic oracle was scripted—as seems likely for a coronation—in the world of the participants of the coronation, it represented a divine reaction to the rituals events, and should, in my view, therefore be understood as an example of ritually-triggered prophetic activity. Martti Nissinen argues that there is a strong association between temple and prophecy in Mesopotamian texts and in the Hebrew Bible.39 Many of the reported cases of prophetic oracles, particularly in the Old Babylonian corpus, take place in temples. Nissinen’s conclusion about the link to the location seems, therefore, warranted. Whether or not this allows us to classify prophetic activity as necessarily “cultic” depends on one’s understanding of the term “cultic.” If everything that takes place in a sanctuary—wherever and whenever in the temple that may be—is cultic, it follows logically that much prophecy in our texts is cultic. If, 37  As has been pointed out by Hans M. Barstad, “The Prophet Oded and the Zakkur Inscription: A Case of Obscuriore Obscurum?” in J. Cheryl Exum and H. G. M. Williamson (eds.), Reading From Right to Left: Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honour of David J.A. Clines (JSOTS 373; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 25–37, the equation of Wen-Amun’s ʕdd ʕȝ with the ʕdd in the Zakkur inscription (see, e.g., Jürgen H. Ebach and Udo Rüterswörden, “Der byblitische Ekstatiker im Bericht des Wn-Imn und die Seher in der Inschrift des ZKR von Hamath,” Göttinger Miszellen 20 [1976]: 17–22) is probably valid but does not help in understanding either, as neither case provides context for the activities of the person delivering the oracle. 38  Simo Parpola, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars (SAA 10; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1993), 288–289. 39  See now Martti Nissinen, Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017). See also Karel van der Toorn, “From the Oral to the Written: The Case of Old Babylonian Prophecy,” in Ehud Ben Zvi and Michael H. Floyd (eds.), Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy (SBLSymS 10; Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 219–234; Karel van der Toorn, “Old Babylonian Prophecy between the Oral and the Written,” JNSL 24 (1998): 55–70.

however, we use a more restricted understanding of “cultic” to ritual activity in the temple, then we may want to understand the location as helpful to prophetic activity, but not necessarily as resulting from cultic or ritual activity.

3.2 Sleep “Significant” dreams and prophetic visions are sometimes hard to distinguish.40 Annette Zgoll has suggested formal criteria based on the use of language in reports of dreams and visions—visions do not mention the word “dream” in their introductory formulae.41 Whether this distinction holds is entirely reliable is, of course, difficult to see, but it appears to correspond to the evidence as we have it. For our purposes here, two texts in particular are interesting for a cultic and possibly ritual setting of dreaming and prophecy, Num 22 and 1 Sam 3. In Num 22:8, again in the Balaam pericope, Balaam encourages the emissaries of Balak to stay with him over night. In the subsequent verse, God comes to Balaam and the two have a conversation during the night, possibly as a result of incubation.42 In verses 18–20 the same sequence of events is repeated but with a higher-level delegation of Moabite dignitaries. Balaam appears to be reasonably certain that he is capable of establishing contact with Yhwh during the night— and the text agrees that this is what happened. In Num 22–24, Balaam is largely 40  The idea that there are different kind of dreams rests largely on cuneiform material for which see A. Leo Oppenheim, The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East: With a Translation of an Assyrian Dream-Book (TAPS 46.3; Philadelphia, PA: American Philosophical Society, 1956); Annette Zgoll, Traum und Welterleben im antiken Mesopotamien: Traumtheorie und Traumpraxis im 3.–1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. als Horizont einer Kulturgeschichte des Träumens (AOAT 333; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2006); Annette Zgoll, “Die Welt im Schlaf sehen— Inkubation von Träumen im antiken Mesopotamien,” WO 32 (2002): 74–101; S. A. L. Butler, Mesopotamian Conceptions of Dreams and Dream Rituals (AOAT 258; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1998). On dreams in the Hebrew Bible, see, e.g., Scott B. Noegel, Nocturnal Ciphers: The Allusive Language of Dreams in the Ancient Near East (AOS 89; New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 2007), and volumes on specific biblical books containing dreams and / or visions such as, e.g., Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, Zechariah and His Visions: An Exegetical Study of Zechariah’s Vision Report (LHBOTS 605; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015). See also Esther J. Hamori, and Jonathan Stökl, eds. Perchance to Dream: Essays on Dream Divination in Biblical and Other Ancient Near Eastern and Early Jewish Sources (ANEM 21; Atlanta, GA, 2018). As the reviewer helpfully pointed out, the noun ‫ חלום‬is never used for a vision in the classical sense, which corresponds very well with the cuneiform record. 41 Zgoll, Traum und Welterleben, 164. See also the very helpful discussion of scholarship on the issue with regard to ARM 26 236 in Tiemeyer, Zechariah and His Visions, 26–28 (Tiemeyer uses the older text number ARM 10 10 in her discussion). 42  Incubation rituals are also known from elsewhere in the ancient Near East, see, e.g., Koowon Kim, Incubation as a Type-Scene in the ‘Aqhatu, Kirta, and Hanna Stories: A FormCritical and Narratological Study of KTU 1.14 I–1.15 III, 1.17 I–II, and 1 Samuel 1:1–2:11 (VTS 145; Leiden: Brill, 2011); Zgoll, “Welt im Schlaf.”

portrayed positively, which in turn allows us to say that the authors and/or editors of the pericope generally approve of Balaam’s behaviour. Sadly, however, they do not contain any details about the specific techniques or activities used by Balaam in those nights. It is likely that some form of an incubation ritual had taken place, but the text also makes sense without this. There is no indication that Samuel performed any specific ritual before his famous night sleeping at the temple of Shiloh in 1 Sam 3.43 Indeed, Samuel does not recognise that Yhwh is calling him. Instead, he thinks that the ailing Eli had called him. The text puts this down to inexperience (v. 7). After Samuel mistakenly runs to Eli to enquire what he wanted twice, Eli understands that Yhwh was trying to call Samuel, and instructs the young hero and future prophet how to respond (“Speak, Yhwh, for your servant is listening”). The next time Yhwh calls Samuel he utters the words prescribed by Eli—more or less—arguably performing a ritual action (v. 10). Yhwh responds with his oracle of doom against the Elides. The next morning Eli coaxes the oracle out of Samuel.44 The correct behaviour—here an indication to God that Samuel was ready and listening—has as its consequence a divine oracle. This is not to say that the behaviour itself causes the encounter—God’s initial calling of Samuel suggests otherwise—but the correct response enables the encounter.

3.3  Intoxicating Liquids? I am not aware of the use of any liquids being used in the Biblical corpus in order to elicit a divine oracle. However, in ARM 26 207, a letter from Mari written by Queen Šibtu to her husband, King Zimri-Lim this is what appears to be happening. In the letter, Šibtu relates to the King an episode in which she was talking to “a man and a woman.” Most scholars interpret ARM 26 207:3–13 as indicating the use of intoxicating liquids of some sort to elicit an oracle:

43  On 1 Sam 3, see Stephen C. Russell, “Samuel’s Theophany and the Politics of Religious Dreams,” in Esther J. Hamori and Jonathan Stökl (eds.), Perchance to Dream: Essays on Dream Divination in Biblical and Other Ancient Near Eastern and Early Jewish Sources (ANEM 21; Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2018), 109–132. I do not have the impression that the text plays with the reader’s expectations of ritual preparation before sleeping in a holy place. What the text does appear to do is to ascribe significant power to the place itself and to divine action as not depending on any active ritual preparation as such in addition to being present in the ritually significant space. 44  Eli’s reaction appears to be different from the king of Nineveh in Jonah. In spite of an unconditional oracle of doom, the king of Nineveh repented and thereby turned Yhwh’s will so that Nineveh was not destroyed. Samuel’s prediction, however, elicits only the response: “He is Yhwh, he will do what seems right to him.” Verse 19 hammers the point home yet further, by affirming that Yhwh made all of Samuel’s oracles come true.

3aššum

ṭēm gerrim 4ša bēlī illakū ittātim 5zikāram u sinništam 6ašqi aštālma igerrûm bēliya mādiš damiq 8ana Išme-Dagan qātamma 9zikāram u s[i]ništam 10aštalma igerrûšu 11ul damiq 12u ṭēmšu 12šapal šēp bēliya 13šakin 7ana

3Regarding

the plan for a war 4on which my lord will be going, 6I gave (something) to drink a male and a female so that I may question (them) 4about signs. The 7 oracle for my lord is extremely good. 8Likewise, 10I questioned 9the male and the female 8with regard to Išme-Dagan: 10the oracle regarding him 11is not good. The message about him: “13He is placed 12under the foot45 of my lord!” 5to

This translation follows Wilcke’s reading of this text as reflecting the questioning of members of the wider populace regarding omens that had been observed previously and plying them with drink in order to obtain relatively honest answers.46 Jack Sasson has translated the sentence in question (ittātim zikaram u sinnistam ašqi) as a double accusative: ‘I gave [a] male and [a] female the signs to drink,’ He thinks that the drink itself—whatever it actually contained—was referred to as ‘sign(s)’, presumably a metonymic use of a drink used specifically for the purpose of eliciting omens.47 The actual messages of the man and woman are summarised in the lines quoted above and given more fully as the text progresses. At the end she even insists that the people whom she asked came out of their own free will and that she did not make them talk. While I am no longer absolute certain regarding the nature of the episode, I still think Wilcke’s reading of the text is the more plausible of the interpretations. If Sasson is correct, then this episode would be an example in which people would be given an intoxicating liquid in order to elicit oracles. It is likely, although not attested in the letter, that this would have been in a ritual context of a kind.

45  Manfried Dietrich, “Prophetenbriefe aus Mari,” in Manfried Dietrich et al. (eds.), Religiöse Texte: Deutungen der Zukunft in Briefen, Orakeln und Omina (TUAT 2/1; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1986), 83–93, 84; Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy, 40, interprets šēp as dual or plural. 46  See Claus Wilcke, “ittātim ašqi aštāl: Medien in Mari?” RA 77 (1983): 93; Stökl, Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, 49–50. For an argument in favour of reading the use of liquids as a way to induce some form of an oracle, see, e.g., Jean-Marie Durand, “In Vino Veritas,” RA 76 (1982): 43–50. 47  Jack M. Sasson, “The Posting of Letters with Divine Messages,” in Dominique Charpin and Jean-Marie Durand (eds.), Florilegium marianum II: Recueil d’études à la mémoire de Maurice Birot (Mémoires de N.A.B.U. 3, Supplément à N.A.B.U. 1994 no. 2; Paris: SEPOA, 1994), 299–316; Jack M. Sasson From the Mari Archives: An Anthology of Old Babylonian Letters (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 283.

3.4  Controlled Inquiry The last three texts I want to mention are 1 Kgs 22 (the story of Micaiah ben Imla) and 2 Kgs 22 (the story of Huldah). Both of these prophets appear to be able to supply divine responses to inquiries on demand, which may imply a ritual context for their inquiries. This might leave open the possibility that both Micaiah ben Imla and Huldah were originally associated with means of divination which at a later date would not have been understood as “intuitive divination” but as “technical divination.” The phrasing of 1 Kgs 22:7 is almost identical to 2 Kgs 3:11: 1 Kgs 22:7 2 Kgs 3:11

‫ האין פה נביא ליהוה‬ ‫ האין פה נביא ליהוה‬

‫ עוד‬

‫ ונדרשׁה‬ ‫ ונדרשׁה‬

‫ את־יהוה‬

‫מאותו‬ ‫מאותו‬

This similarity suggests a stock phrase, but these are the only two—or, if we admit the parallel account to 1 Kgs 22:7 in 2 Chron 18:6, three—cases where the phrase occurs. While this does not rule out the possibility that this is an idiom that has found its place in these two (three) verses, it diminish the strength of this suggestion. If we accept 2 Kgs 3 as ritually induced prophecy, the similarity of the phrase as well as the setting—both in times of war—may strengthen the possibility that 1 Kgs 22 also describes ritually induced prophecy, but it has to be acknowledged that this pericope is not as explicit about it as 2 Kgs 3. The case of 2 Kgs 22 is different. After the scroll has been found during the renovation work in the temple, Josiah demands that his high officials and the High Priest enquire of a prophet: Huldah. Unlike in the previous story, there is no direct interaction between king and prophet. Huldah gives the oracle indication that the scroll meets with divine approval. The fact that she can request a divine answer when she needs it, suggests that she has a way of interacting with the deity—and that suggests a ritual setting of some kind. A negative example, in the sense that the deity does not respond, can be found in 1 Sam 28. Saul tries to enquire of Yhwh but he does not respond through either dreams, Urim (and Tummim), or dreams.48 This can be read in two possibly overlapping ways: ritual action was not considered to force a deity’s hand, and also the deity could chose not to respond to individuals it did not want to respond to. What these three texts suggest is that enquiring of a deity likely included action to help bring about a divine response. It seems likely that, with Bell’s and Grimes’ view on ritualising activity in mind, that this activity should itself be understood 48  Interestingly, similar phrases appear elsewhere in the ancient Eastern Mediterranean, see, e.g., Christopher Metcalf, “Old Babylonian Religious Poetry in Anatolia: From Solar Hymn to Plague Prayer,” ZA 105 (2015): 42–53.

as ritualised—even though the texts themselves leave open the precise process by which diviners including prophets went about to help trigger their communication with their deity.

4. Conclusion The idea that intuitive divination, including prophecy, could be triggered would have been regarded as problematic not so long ago.49 Not all biblical texts agree with the idea that God should have the initiative in permissible forms of divination. I. M. Lewis’s work gives an overview over various forms of ecstatic religion and some of the triggers used across the world.50 Triggers are widely used to bring prophets and other diviners into the right frame of mind to receive divine messages. Balaam’s apparent use of incubation is paralleled to some extent in the way that Huldah, Micaiah ben Imla, and Elisha react to royal requests for oracles. This gives a relatively clear indication that triggers were used at least by certain individuals and in certain contexts, be they historical or literary. It is quite possible that prophets such as Huldah had means of accessing divine information which we today might want to understand as belonging in the realm of technical divination. The same is true also for Nathan and possibly for Micaiah ben Imla. Balaam, Elisha, and Samuel, however, seem to be using techniques which allow them to prepare themselves for interaction with God, without guaranteeing it—even though in the case of the Balaam pericope, Yhwh obediently appears every time. Whether or not some religious specialists in ancient Israel and Judah used techniques such as self-mutilation and rhythmic dance must remain open. After all, the only attestation of such behaviour is in polemic texts against the adherents of Ba‘al. But it is also quite possible that such religious practice did exist, as the Akkadian text from Ugarit suggests. Balaam and his colleagues use techniques to make them receptive to interaction with the divine, as the authors of the respective pericopes indicate with approval.

49  Indeed, see Seebass, Numeri 22–36, 33, quoted above. 50 Lewis, Ecstatic Religion.

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer The Seer and the Priest The Case of the So-called Linen Ephod

Introduction The Hebrew Bible describes a surprisingly large number of characters as both prophets and priests: Aaron, Moses, Samuel, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel to name but a few.1 Looking more specifically at the Deuteronomistic History (DtrH), select cultic personnel around King David are presented as being both priests and prophets. In 2 Sam 15:27, for example, the king is reported asking the priest Zadok whether he is not a “seer” (2 Sam 15:27aα, ‫)הרואה אתה‬.2 These portrayals in the DtrH and beyond reject any sharp dichotomy and conflict between priests and prophets.3 Rather, they depict a situation where one and the same person had multiple cultic roles. These descriptions may constitute historical memories of a past where priests and prophets held less well-defined cultic positions, united by their shared ability of uttering future predictions and, like their Mesopotamian counterparts (the diviners / bārû), their shared task of inquiring of the deities and of seeking to bridge the gap between the divine and the human realms.4 The distinction between inductive (i.e. priestly) and 1  I would like to thank Alan Lenzi for his useful feedback on an earlier draft of this article. I have benefited from his thoughtful critique. All the extant mistakes etc. are, however, my own responsibility. 2  For different interpretations of the expression ‫ הרואה אתה‬in 2 Sam 15:27aα, see, e.g., Rolf August Carlson, David the Chosen King: A Traditio-historical Approach to the Second Book of Samuel (transl. Eric J. Sharpe and Stanley Rudman; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1964), 173, 175. For emendation of the text, see Jacob Hoftijzer, “A Peculiar Question: A Note on 2 Sam. XV 27,” VT 21 (1971): 606–609 (607, fn. 1). More recently, see also Steven T. Mann, “‘You are Fired’: An Application of Speech Act Theory to 2 Samuel 15.23–16.14,” JSOT 33 (2009): 315– 334 (318–320). 3  Cf. the discussion of the convergence between the ideological image of faithful prophets and priests by Ehud Ben Zvi, “Observations on Prophetic Characters, Prophetic Texts, Priests of Old, Persian Period Priests and Literati,” in Lester L. Grabbe and Alice Ogden Bellis (eds.), The Priests in the Prophets: The Portrayal of Priests, Prophets and Other Religious Specialists in the Latter Prophets (JSOTS 408; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 19–30 (20–24). Ben Zvi’s focus is different from mine, however, in that he emphasizes the need in post-monarchic Yehud for continuity between the prophets of old and the present priesthood. 4  Cf. Lester L. Grabbe, “Introduction and Overview,” in Lester L. Grabbe and Alice Ogden Bellis (eds.), The Priests in the Prophets: The Portrayal of Priests, Prophets and Other Religious Specialists in the Latter Prophets (JSOTS 408; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 1–18 (14–15). See

spontaneous (i.e. prophetic) divination is thus not as clear-cut as what is often being envisaged. Even so, rather than talking about “cult prophets,” it is preferable to maintain that priests and prophets were understood to have carried out a variety of different modes of divination and mediation.5 These portrayals further forge a link forward to the fusion of prophecy and cultic concerns in the Chronicles account. The notion of Levitical prophets is a case in point, where the Chronicler identifies the Levites as the recipients and mediators of divine revelations.6 Moreover, prophetic addresses are put into the mouth of characters who nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible are known as prophets or seers.7 Jahaziel, the son of Zechariah who prophesied to King Jehoshaphat, for instance, was a Levite and a descendant of Asaph (2 Chron 20:14),8 and Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada the priest, prophesied (2 Chron 24:20). Other prophets gave messages that dealt with the priests. In particular, the prophet Azariah, son of Oded, prophesied to King Asa and his message focused on the lack of priestly teaching and the lack of law in Israel (2 Chron 15:3, 8).9 Against this background, the present essay looks in general at the presentation of the priests’ intertwined cultic and prophetic roles and highlights their mediating function, as presented in the DtrH. More specifically, it explores in general the term ‫( אפוד‬ephod) in this set of texts with focus on its meaning and use and discusses more specifically the expression ‫אפוד בד‬. To anticipate my conclusion, I shall propose a new translation of the peculiar expression ‫אפוד בד‬, attested only in three places: 1 Sam 2:18 (Samuel); 1 Sam 22:18 (the priests of Nob); and 2 Sam 6:14 (David). It is my contention—informed by the divinatory aspects of the ephod— that the term ‫בד‬, normally translated as “linen” in this phrase, does not, in fact, denote the fabric of the ephod but instead refers to its divinatory function. In view of this line of reasoning, I shall suggest that the term ‫ בד‬is best understood as a reference to “omens” and that the whole expression is best translated as “the diviner’s ephod.” This interpretation is, in a somewhat roundabout manner,

also idem, Priests, Prophets, Diviners, Sages: A Socio-Historical Study of Religious Specialists in Ancient Israel (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995), 131–133. 5  Cf. Rannfrid Thelle, “Reflections of Ancient Israelite Divination in the Former Prophets,” in Mignon R. Jacobs and Raymond F. Person Jr. (eds.), Israelite Prophecy and the Deuteronomistic History: Portrait, Reality, and the Formation of a History (AIL 14; Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2013), 7–33 (24). 6  See further David L. Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy (SBLMS 23; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977), 55–87. 7  Pancratius Beentjes, “Prophets in the Book of Chronicles,” in Johannes C. de Moor (ed.), The Elusive Prophet: The Prophet as a Historical Person, Literary Character and Anonymous Artist (OtSt 45; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 45–53 (46, 53). 8 Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy, 73–77. 9  Cf. Alex P. Jassen, Mediating the Divine: Prophecy and Revelation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism (STDJ 68; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 208–209.

supported by the Testament of Levi 8:2 that speaks of the “ephod of prophecy” (τὸ ἐφοὺδ τῆς προφητεία).10

1. The Uses of an/the Ephod In the Hebrew Bible, the people who wielded an/the ephod were the priests. They used it as the cultic means through which they enquired of the deities. In 1 Sam 23, for example, Abiathar is reported as having the ephod in his hand and that he was able—through his use of this instrument—to provide David with information concerning the situation in Keilah. This information, in turn, helped to determine the latter’s military strategy. As such, an/the ephod was a divinatory instrument,11 i.e. a tool characteristic of the priests by which they were able to convey intelligence pertaining to (a possible) future and to adjust their present plans accordingly.12 The link between ephod, priesthood, prophecy, and divination is further attested in 1 Sam 2:27–28. In this passage, “a man of God” (‫איש‬ ‫ )אלהים‬appears before Eli and states that Eli had been chosen by God to be his priest and to carry/wear (paal ‫ )נשא‬ephod before God (v. 28aβ, ‫)לשאת אפוד לפני‬. The evidence from the book of Judges points in the same direction, suggesting that the ephod was used for enquiring of God. Gideon appears to have used the ephod (or a copy thereof) as the means of obtaining divine oracles (Judg 8:27), as did Micah (18:14, 17, 18, 20).13

2. The Outer Appearance of an/the Ephod To set the stage for our discussion, we will first take a look beyond the DtrH and explore the references to an/the ephod in Exodus. This brings us to the issue, only hinted at so far, as to whether we should speak about “an ephod” or “the ephod.” Can we determine whether this tool was perceived to be a single, unique item and that every use of the term ‫ אפוד‬should be understood as referring to that single item (cf. “the Ark of the Covenant”)? Alternatively, does the ‫ אפוד‬denote a kind of tool of which more than one existed (cf. “a priestly robe”)? Yet again, is it possible that some texts refer to the ephod (cf. the Temple) and other texts refer 10  See further Alex P. Jassen’s essay in this volume. 11  Contra Karel van der Toorn and Cees Houtman, “David and the Ark,” JBL 113/2 (1994): 209–231 (215). 12  For the strategic uses of divination, see Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, “Prophecy as a Way of Cancelling Prophecy—The Strategic Uses of Foreknowledge,” ZAW 117 (2005): 329–350. 13  Cornelis van Dam, The Urim and Thummim: A Means of Revelation in Ancient Israel (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 146–149.

to an ephod (cf. a temple)? This question has methodological consequences in that it is not clear whether one biblical reference can be employed to shed light upon another. In addition, it is not clear that the term ‫ אפוד‬refers to the same single item throughout the Hebrew Bible.14 For now, I shall employ the (more neutral) indefinite term “an ephod,” yet remain open to the possibility that we are talking about a unique object.

2.1  The Priestly Clothes in Exodus 28:4; 29:5; 39:2–3 The material in Exodus appears to associate an ephod with a kind of robe that the priests wore.15 Exod 28:31 speaks about a ‫מעיל האפוד‬, best translated as “the robe of the ephod” (‫)ועשית את מעיל האפוד כליל תכלת‬. It is, however, far from evident that the robe itself is the ephod. Rather, the construct chain may imply that this was the robe upon which one attached the ephod. This understanding is supported by Exod 28:4 where the robe seems to be detached from the ephod. This verse describes the two items as two different types of garments: ‫ואלה הבגדים אשר‬ ‫“( יעשו חשן ואפוד ומעיל וכתנת תשבץ מצנפת ואבנט‬and these are the garments that they will make: a breast piece and ephod and a robe and a checkered tunic and a turban and a girdle). The ephod is thus not identical with the robe. Exod 29:5 paints a similar picture (v. 5a, ‫ולקחת את הבגדים והלבשת את אהרן את הכתנת ואת‬ ‫)מעיל האפד ואת האפד ואת החשן‬. There is the “tunic,” “the robe of the ephod,” and the “ephod.” Exod 39:2–3 offers yet another piece of the puzzle. According to this verse, the ephod was made of thinly hammered gold, woven together with violet, purple, scarlet, and twisted linen (‫)שש משזר‬. In the present context, it is important to note that the word for “linen” here is ‫שש‬, not ‫( בד‬see further below). To sum up, these passages in Exodus suggest that the ephod was something that one wore yet not necessarily a whole garment. Instead, it may have been something

14  One of the main critiques of van Dam’s book is its harmonizing tendencies. While van Dam’s discussions are detailed and informative, his tacit assumption that the Hebrew Bible is a homogeneous document and thus that all extant descriptions of the ephod can be harmonized is problematic. See further Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, “True Light on the Urim and Thummim,” JQR 88 (1998): 263–274 (268). 15  For a detailed discussion of the biblical ephod, see van Dam, Urim and Thummim, 140–153. Van Dam further discusses the comparative Ugarit material where the term iʾpd occurs (pp. 64–79). He argues that there are no oracular connotations to this word in KTU 1.5 I:4–5. He concludes tentatively that it was some kind of robe, a view informed in part by the cognate Akkadian epattu which has been defined as “a costly garment.” Turning to the comparative Egyptian material, van Dam discusses the theory, favoured especially by Ingolf Friedrich, Ephod und Choschen im Lichte des alten Orients (Wiener Beiträge zur Theologie 20; Vienna: Herder, 1968), 31–34, of a link between the Egyptian term eʾfd which denotes some form of square cloth and the Hebrew term ephod. Van Dam emphasizes that although the two garments may have looked the same, they did not share a similar purpose (pp. 76–80, 140).

that one might wear with the other garments or even something attached to a particular garment.

2.2  The Ephod as a Type of Image In parallel, other passages imply that the ephod was a free-standing item rather than a piece of clothing.16 Beginning with Judg 8:26–27, this text describes how Gideon made “an ephod” out of a huge amount of gold and put it in his town (‫ )ויעש אותו גדעון ְלאפוד ויצג אותו בעירו בעפרה‬where it became an item of worship. Along similar lines, Judg 17:5 states that Micah made “an ephod” (alongside teraphim) (v. 5bα, ‫ )ויעש אפוד ותרפים‬and consecrated one of his own sons as his priest. These two passages may be comparable with Hos 3:4 where the prophet, in his speech to Gomer, laments how the people will lack, among other things, sacrifices and sacred pillars, ephod and teraphim (‫)אין אפוד ותרפים‬. These three texts together imply that an ephod was a rather big item and thus not easily pinned to a piece of clothing. Furthermore, the use of the indefinite form may indicate that “an ephod” was not a single, one-of-a-kind item but instead some kind of tool of which there were several specimens. Turning to the material in 1 Samuel, the episode in 1 Sam 21:10 [Eng. v. 9] also suggests that an ephod was an item rather than a garment, as it is stated that “the ephod” was kept in the sanctuary by the priests of Nob, behind where the sword that killed Goliath was stashed (‫)הנה היא לוטה בשמלה אחרי האפוד‬. Likewise, 1 Sam 23 narrates how Abiathar had an/the ephod in his hand (vv. 6 [‫]אפוד ירד בידו‬, 9, [‫)]הגישה האפוד‬. It is more difficult to determine the size of the ephod based on these two passages. What is clear, nonetheless, is that the ephod is unlikely to have been a garment or something that could be easily pinned to a garment. A number of scholars have challenged the reading “ephod” in these passages. Although they differ on the details, they have all argued that the expression ‫אפוד‬ replaces an older, less theologically correct, reality. For instance, Moore, followed by Sellin, argues that the expression ‫ אפוד‬replaces the original term ‫אלהים‬, i.e. “god (statue).”17 Following the same line of reasoning, Budde suggests that ‫אפוד‬ here serves as a substitute for ‫“( אביר‬bull”) due to the perceived orthographic similarity between the two words,18 while Arnold, in line with the LXX of 1 Sam

16  Contra van Dam, Urim and Thummim, 143–145, who argues that the ephod in 1 Samuel is to be identified with the one in Exodus. 17  George F. Moore, “Ephod,” in T.K. Cheyne and J. Sutherland Black (eds.), Encyclopaedia Biblica, Vol. 2 (E-K) (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1903), 1306–1309 (1308–1309); Ernst Sellin, “Efod und Terafim,” Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 14 (1934): 185–193 (189–191), and idem, “Zu Efod und Terafim,”ZAW 55 (1937): 296–298. 18  Karl Budde, “Ephod und Lade,” ZAW 39 (1921): 1–42 (36–39).

14:18 (cf. also further below), maintains that ‫ אפוד‬stands for ‫“ =( ארון‬Ark”).19 These theories, although not immediately relevant in the present context, are nonetheless interesting insofar as most of them emphasize (1) the link between an ephod and divination and (2) an ephod and the cult.

2.3  The So-called Linen Ephod The Hebrew Bible mentions an additional (sub-)category of ephods, namely the so-called “linen ephod.” Three passages, 1 Sam 2:18 (Samuel), 1 Sam 22:18 (the priests of Nob), and 2 Sam 6:14 (David), attest to the term ‫אפוד בד‬. This expression is grammatically distinct from the above-mentioned expression ‫מעיל האפוד‬ in that the term ‫ אפוד‬is the nomen regens and ‫ בד‬is the nomen rectum. The term ‫ בד‬here is generally understood to mean “white linen” and to denote the fabric of the ephod. Thus, according to this understanding, these men wore a specific garment, made of linen (‫)בד‬, called ephod.20 The translation “linen ephod” is not ideal, however, in view of the aforementioned Exod 39:2–3 that tells us that the ephod was made of, among other things, “twisted linen” (‫)שש משזר‬. This difference in vocabulary can be explained in two ways: • The passages in DtrH are not talking about the same item as the one referred to in Exodus. • All the passages talk about the same thing but use two different terms to denote the fabric.

When evaluating these two options, it should be acknowledged that two different texts may use two different technical terms to denote the same matter. Furthermore, there is some support for the traditional view that the aforementioned men wore an ephod made of linen fabric. First, in addition to these passages, the term ‫ בד‬is used to refer to the priestly attire in Exod 28:42 (linen undergarments, ‫מכנסי‬ ‫ ;)בד‬Lev 6:3 [Eng v. 10](linen garment and linen undergarments, ‫ולבש הכהן מדו‬ ‫ ;)בד ומכנסי בד‬and 16:4 (linen tunic, ‫)כתנת בד‬.21 In all these examples, ‫ בד‬is the nomen rectum that denotes the fabric of the clothing. To support the traditional translation further, there is what seems to be the plural form of ‫בד‬, namely ‫בדים‬. 19  William R. Arnold, Ephod and Ark: A Study in the Records and Religion of the Ancient Hebrews (HTS 3; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1917), 16–17. His reasoning is potentially circular, as he rules out the reading ‘ephod’ because (1) the ephod was a garment and a garment does not fit in the context of 1 Sam 14:18, and (2) the ephod, being a ceremonial garment, had no relation to divination (pp. 22–23). 20  See, e.g., van Dam, Urim and Thummim, 141, 145, who suggests that the linen ephod was a simple linen garment, possibly a pinafore that covered the loins, that was distinct from the high-priestly ephod. 21  In addition, Exod 30:34 employs the term ‫ בד‬to mean “equal parts” (v. 34b, ‫)בד בבד יהיה‬.

This word appears in several different contexts. It refers to clothing in two texts. In Ezek 9:2, an (angelic) man with a writing kit at his side appears clothed in ‫בדים‬. He accompanied six other men to the bronze altar (v. 2aβ, ‫ואיש אחד בתוכם לבש‬ ‫)בדים וקסת הספר במתניו‬. In Dan 10:5, a text that is likely to have been inspired by the imagery of the aforementioned passage in Ezekiel, another (angelic) man dressed in linen (v. 5aβ, ‫ )והנה איש אחד לבוש בדים‬appears. In both cases, the accompanying verb is ‫לבש‬, i.e. “to wear,” emphasizes that ‫ בדים‬is something that is being worn as part of one’s dress. It is thus entirely plausible that the expression ‫ אפוד בד‬means “linen ephod” and that the term ‫ בד‬refers to the fabric of the garment. Even so, I would like to explore the alternative option that the ‫ אפוד בד‬is not a type of garment made of linen (as in Exodus) but, in line with the aforementioned other passages in DtrH, is an item that may or may not be attached to a garment. In other words, “the ephod” mentioned in Exodus should not necessarily be conflated with “an ephod” in the narrative passages in Judges and 1–2 Samuel. In the coming pages, I hope to show that there exists a more satisfactory reading that fits the context of the three passages in 1–2 Samuel better.

3. The Evidence from the Prophetic Literature In view of the abovementioned passages that speak of the ephod as an item, together with (1) the fact that according to the passages in Exodus the ephod was not identical to the robe but instead appeared as a separate item, and (2) the word used for “linen” in Exod 39:2–3 is ‫ שש‬rather than ‫בד‬, I contend that it is fruitful to look for a new understanding of the expression ‫אפוד בד‬. In my view, this solution can be found in Isa 44:25; Jer 50:36; and Hos 11:6. As we shall see, scholars have long argued that the term ‫ בדים‬in these verses has another meaning, namely that it should be understood as a simple scribal error and thus emended to the orthographically very similar ‫ ברים‬that would be the Hebrew equivalence of the Akkadian bārû, i.e. “diviners.”22 The evidence from the LXX of 1 Sam 2:18 where the Hebrew expression ‫ אפוד בד‬is transliterates as εφουδ βαρ is a point in case (see further below). It is my contention that this meaning is applicable also in the phrase ‫אפוד בד‬.

3.1  Isaiah 44:25 The emendation of ‫ בדים‬to ‫( ברים‬cf. Akk. bārû) and to understand it as a plural form of “diviner” makes much sense in Isa 44:25 (‫מפר אתות בדים וקסמים יהולל‬

22  CAD, B, 121–125, AHw, 1, 109–110. See also Hayim ben Yosef Tawil, Akkadian Lexical Companion for Biblical Hebrew (Jersey City, NJ: Ktav Pub. House, 2009), 56.

‫)משיב חכמים אחור ודעתם ישכל‬.23 In this verse, ‫ אתות בדים‬is parallel with ‫קס־‬ ‫( מים‬pl. “divinations”). According to this reading, both expressions refer to two different types of divinations, i.e. practices that the Isaianic author considered to be unorthodox religious practices. Verse 25aα would thus speak of “signs of the diviners and divinations.”24 This reading is furthermore in line with the LXX (διασκεδάσει σημεῖα ἐγγαστριμύθων) where the term ἐγγαστριμύθος (“ventrilo�quist”) refers to those who communicate with spirits,25 and with the Vulgate (irrita faciens signa divinorum).

3.2  Jeremiah 50:36 The same plural form ‫ בדים‬is attested also in Jer 50:36, again in the context of an accusation of false prophecy and in connection with Babylon: ‫אל־הבדים ונאלו‬ ַ ‫חרב‬ ‫ חרב אל־גבוריה וחתו‬in the oracle “against those who live in Babylon and against her officials and her wise men” (Jer 50:35b). It is clear from the context that the text refers to a group of people prevalent in Babylon. Again, the Vulgate supports the emendation of ‫ בדים‬to ‫ ברים‬by rendering Jer 50:36a as gladius ad divinos, as does the Peshitta (‫)ܩܣܙܡܝܘ‬, i.e. as “diviners.” TJ seems to adhere to this translation as well as it employs the word ‫ קסמהא‬/ ‫“ = קסמיא‬diviner.”26 In contrast, the LXX speak about “her warriors” (μαχητὰς αὐτῆς), a translation that probably is inspired by the preceding reference to “a sword.” In any case, the biblical text is unlikely to speak about a particular type of fabric! Instead, a reference to the bārû makes much more sense.27

23  BDB, 890b, Koehler-Baumgartner, Vol. 1, 153, cf. 109, Clines, Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, 1:94. 24  See, among others, Peter Machinist, “Mesopotamian Imperialism and Israelite Religion: A Case Study from the Second Isaiah,” in William G. Dever and Seymour Gitin (eds.), Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age Through Roman Palaestina (W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, American Schools of Oriental Research; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 237–264 (253, including fn. 29). 25  Note that the LXX uses the same word to denote “medium” in, among other places, 1 Sam 28:3 (‫)האבות‬. 26  M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerusalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, 1397a. 27  See, e.g., Leslie C. Allen, Jeremiah: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 506 (translation), William McKane, Jeremiah 26–52 (ICC; London: T&T Clark, 1996), 1288, and Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52 (AB 21C; New York, NY: Doubleday, 2004), 417, 419–420.

3.3  Hosea 11:6 The same emendation of ‫ בדים‬to ‫ ברים‬is also preferable in the case of the prophecy against Ephraim in Hos 11:6 (‫)וחלה חרב בעריו וכלתה בדיו ואכלה ממעצותיהם‬.28 The ‫ בדים‬belong to Ephraim (just as the city does). Deviating from the Masoretic accents that place an ethnachta after the verb ‫ואכלה‬, the sentence reads that “a sword shall whirl in [Ephraim’s] cities, and it shall finish its bārû, and devour their plans.” The possessive pronoun on the word ‫“( ממעצותיהם‬their plans”) is best understood as referring back to the bārû and the notion of “plans” is fully in line with the interpretation of ‫ בדים‬/ ‫ ברים‬as a group of professional advisers.

3.4  Alternative Derivations of ‫ = בדים‬baddu At this point, it should be acknowledged that several recent scholars have opted to derive the Hebrew term ‫ בדים‬in the above-mentioned prophetic texts from the Amorite word baddu that is attested in texts from Mari.29 Von Soden, for example, renders this word as “functionary.”30 In light of this cognate word, the expression ‫ אתות בדים‬in Isa 44:25, as well as in the other cited passages, might not need to be emended to ‫( ברים‬with a resh) but can stay as ‫( בדים‬with a daleth). The benefit of deriving the term ‫ בדים‬from the Amorite word baddu is twofold. First and foremost, we are dealing with the letter daleth and thus there is no need to emend the extant daleth to a resh. Second, baddu is understood to be derived from the geminate root beth, daleth, daleth. A presumed singular form of ‫ בדים‬would thus be ‫( בד‬cf. ‫גן‬, ‫גנים‬, from the geminate root gimmel, nun, nun), whereas a singular form derived from the verb bārû would in all likelihood have been ‫בדה‬. Having said this, it is possible that ‫ בד‬here may behave like a rare two-consonant roots such as ‫“( אב‬father”), ‫( דם‬blood”) ‫“( שד‬female breast”) etc.31 Another possible example is the word ‫( או‬kethib) from the root alpeh, waw, he (“desire”) in Prov 31:4.32

28  See, e.g., James Luther Mays, Hosea: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1969), 150 (translation), 155–156, contra Andrew A. Macintosh, Hosea (ICC; London: T&T Clark, 2014), 453, who instead chooses the alternative derivation “branches” (cf. BDB, 94b) which he understands figuratively as “villages.” This reading is, in my view, rather far-fetched and therefore not convincing. 29  Koehler-Baumgartner, Vol. 1, 109, yet cf. 153. 30  AHw, 1, 95. See also McKane, Jeremiah 26–52, 1288, and Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, 420. 31  See further Paul S. T. Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Part 2: Morphology (Subsidia Biblica 14/I; Rome: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1993), 239–240. 32  BDB, 16. Cf. Richard J. Clifford, Proverbs (OTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 270 n. e, who reads it ‘awwō as the Piel infinitive of the root aleph, waw, he. R. B. Y. Scott, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes (AB 18; Garden City, NJ: Doubleday, 1974), 183 (n. e), amends it to ‫אוה‬ (= “desire”).

At the same time, the derivation of ‫ בדים‬from baddu is far from ideal, insofar as we are dealing with a very small number of attested examples of this verb. Notably, CAD suggests understanding the baddu as an officer of military rank.33 Although divination clearly has military aspects, it is in my view unlikely that the biblical evidence under discussion is referring to an official concerned with military affairs. In addition, the time gap of about 1000 years between the biblical evidence and the textual evidence from Mari makes this type of comparison fraud with difficulty. I therefore ultimately reject a connection between the Hebrew ‫ בדים‬and the Amorite baddu.

3.5  Alternative Derivations of ‫“ = בדים‬Idle Talk” Both BDB and Koehler-Baumgartner list another meaning for ‫בדים‬, namely “idle talk” or “idle talkers,” and derives it from an assumed root ‫( בדד‬only attested in its plural construct form).34 This root, according to both lexica, is attested in Isa 16:6; Jer 48:30; Job 11:3, and 41:4 [Eng. v. 12] (only K-B). Holladay, for example, tentatively translates ‫ בדים‬as “idle talk” not only in Jer 50:36 but also in Jer 48:30.35 It is difficult to evaluate this translation. To anticipate my conclusion, I think that it is more likely that all the attested examples of ‫ בדים‬in Isa 16:6; Jer 48:30; Job 11:3, and 41:4 are actually additional examples of the same confusion between ‫ בדים‬and ‫ ברים‬that we have observed in Isa 44:25; Jer 50:36; and Hos 11:6, only taken one step further. I tentatively suggest a four-step process:36 • The Akkadian word bārû entered the Hebrew language. Its meaning was, as in Akkadian, “diviner.” • Early on, this word was misread, due to the orthographical similarity between a resh and a daleth, and came to be written ‫( בד‬sg.) and ‫( בדים‬pl.). • Due to its negative connotations—as perceived by the biblical authors—it came to be used to denote “idle talkers” or “liars” in some contexts, or even “idle talk” as a noun.

33  CAD, B, 27. 34  BDB, 95a, and Koehler-Baumgartner, 109. 35  William Lee Holladay, Jeremiah, Vol. 2 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1989), 394, note 36a, 420. Cf. also John Goldingay and David Payne, Isaiah 40–55. Vol. 2 (ICC; London: T&T Clark, 2006), 10, and Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55 (AB 19A; New York, NY: Doubleday, 2000), 244 note b. in the context of Isa 44:25 (see below). 36 For a popular discussion of how (modern) new words are born, see https://www. theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2016/feb/04/english-neologisms-new-words. Of particular interest in the present context is the notion of “back formation,” i.e. how a noun can generate a verb, and the notion of “error,” i.e. how misunderstandings and misspellings can lead to new forms.

• This understanding generated the Syriac verb ‫ ܒܕܘܝܐ‬from the root ‫ ܒܕܐ‬meaning “to devise, pretend, speaks falsely.”37

Let us explore whether it is possible to read Isa 16:6; Jer 48:30; Job 11:3, and 41:4 as a reference to “diviners” (bārû) and its extended meaning “diviners’ idle talk.” Common to all of these occurrences is that the word ‫ בדים‬appears in the construct state with a possessive suffix attached. Beginning with the passages in the prophetic literature, Isa 16:6 refers repeatedly to Moab’s pride by using a variety of forms of the word ‫ גאון‬and the context is strongly negative. The verse ends with a statement that ‫לא כן בדיו‬. It would not be out of place to translate the last word as “its diviners.” In support of this reading, the LXX concludes the verse with the phrase ἡ μαντεία σου (= “your divination”).38 Jer 48:30 also refers to Moab, this time to its fury (‫)עברתו‬. The verse ends with words similar to those of Isa 16:6: ‫ולא כן בדיו לא כן עשו‬. Again, a reference to “his diviners” would fit into the context. The LXX here attests to a different reading / has misread the Hebrew text, as it renders MT’s ‫“( עברתו‬its fury”) as “its work” (ἔργα αὐτου), clearly reading the resh as a daleth (i.e. ‫)עבדתו‬. It is not possible to reconstruct the Hebrew Vorlage of the latter half of the verse. Turning to the book of Job, the situation becomes more complex. The text of Job 11:3 is very difficult to interpret. The term ‫ בדיך‬is clearly negative and in some way parallel with mocking (root ‫ )לעג‬and humiliation (‫)כלם‬. Although nothing in the context speaks of diviners, a reference to diviner’s talk would not be out of place.39 The text of Job 41:4 [Eng. v. 12] is likewise extremely complicated. A case has been made that ‫ בדיו‬here (and also in some of the abovementioned instances) should be translated as “strength.”40 In my view, the fact that the following clause speaks of ‫ דבר גבורות‬tentatively suggests that we are dealing with a form of speaking. I thus follow Habel’s translation of the verse: “Did I not silence his boasting, His mighty word and his persuasive case?”41 In sum, there is only little support for postulating a separate word ‫“ = בדים‬idle talk” that is distinct from those instances of the orthographically identical ‫בדים‬ mentioned earlier in this essay. Rather, I suggest that it is preferable to understand the extant ‫ בדיו‬/ ‫ בדיך‬as ‫ בריו‬/ ‫בריך‬, i.e. as ‘its/your diviners” in all these texts. The LXX of Isa 16:6 supports this emendation in a roundabout way, as its reading 37  J. Payne Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903), 35a. 38  It should be noted that the Vulgate renders the phrase in Isa 16:6 as fortitude (“strength”). For a defense of this derivation, see Chaim Rabin, “Hebrew Baddim ‘Power’,” JSS 18 (1973): 57–58. 39  Cf. Marvin H. Pope, Job (AB 15; New York, NY: Doubleday, 1965), 83–84, renders it “your babbling.” 40  Rabin, “Hebrew baddim,” followed by Clines, Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, 1:94. 41  Norman C. Habel, The Book of Job (OTL; Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1985), 551 (translation), 555 (commentary).

of ἔργα αὐτου in Jer 48:30 for the Hebrew ‫ עברתו‬demonstrates the easy mix-up of a daleth and a resh.

4. A New Understanding of ‫אפוד בד‬ Returning to the issue of ‫אפוד בד‬, we shall now explore whether the meaning of the term ‫ בדים‬in Isa 44:25; Jer 50:36, and Hos 11:6 can shed light upon the meaning of the expression ‫ אפוד בד‬in the three above-mentioned passages in the DtrH. This article answers in the affirmative: yes, much favours understanding the singular term ‫ בד‬in the expression ‫ אפוד בד‬along the same lines as the plural form ‫ בדים‬attested in the prophetic literature. To anticipate my conclusion, I suggest that the expression ‫ אפוד בד‬is a construct chain that is best translated as “the diviner’s ephod.” This suggested translation takes seriously the practical use of the ephod, namely as an instrument of divining, whether understood as something attached to a garment or something carried in the hand. The ephod was employed to determine Yhwh’s will, in the same way as the Mesopotamian bārû sought to discern the deities’ will through (liver) omen readings. They were part of the royal court and they participated in military campaigns in order to determine the strategy of war.42 Let us now investigate whether this suggestion fits in with the three passages that feature the expression ‫אפוד בד‬. We shall begin our discussion with the most general text, namely 1 Sam 22:18, and then proceed to 2 Sam 6:14 and end with 1 Sam 2:18.

4.1  1 Samuel 22:18 In 1 Sam 22:18, we read about the killing of the eighty-five priests of Nob. These men are described in v. 18bβ of the MT as ‫נשא אפוד בד‬, normally translated as “wearing/carrying a/the linen ephod.”

4.1.1  Parallel Versions

The LXX lacks the equivalence to the word ‫( בד‬τριακοσίους καὶ πέντε ἄνδρας πάντας αἴροντας εφουδ = “three hundred and five men all carrying an ephod”). As a result, many scholars emend the text or treat the word ‫ בד‬in the MT as a gloss. Rooke, for example, argues that while ‫ בד‬is likely to be a gloss, the verb ‫נשא‬ should be understood as “to carry” rather than “to bear.” The emphasis is thus on their role to carry the ephod. The ephod here is thus an item that one carries, on 42  See, among other works, Krzysztof Ulanowski, “A Comparison of the Role of bārû and Mantis in Ancient Warfare,” in Krzysztof Ulanowski (ed.), The Religious Aspects of War in the Ancient Near East, Greece, and Rome. Vol. 1 (CHANE 84; Leiden: Brill, 2016), 69–70.

par with the ephod stored near the sword in 1 Sam 20:9, rather than a garment that one wears.43 In my view, however, it is doubtful that ‫ בד‬is a gloss (as it does not explain anything unclear). It is instead likelier that the word is original and that the LXX left it out because the translators were not sure what to do with it.

4.1.2 Exegesis

Is it feasible that the priests at Nob were characterized as those who wore / carried the “diviner’s ephod” as suggested above? I would answer “yes” here. In support of my suggestion, the above-mentioned narrative in 1 Sam 23:6–12 is significant. Notably, Abiathar, the sole survivor of the massacre of these same priests, is later reported as having brought and also used an ephod for divining purposes in connection with David’s planned and aborted attack on Keilah. In view of narrative continuity, an ephod seems to have been an item—rather than a specific linen garment—that he took with him. It is furthermore reasonable to assume that 1 Sam 22 speaks about a different type of ephod than the one mentioned in Exod 28:4; 29:5; 39:2–3. While the Exodus material refers to a single outfit for Aaron, the High Priest, and thus presumably to a single ephod, 2 Sam 22:18 mentions eighty-five priests who presumably wore / carried one ephod each (‫)שמנים וחמשה איש נשא אפוד בד‬. This latter interpretation is supported by the LXX translation: as indicated by the use of the term πάντας (“all, every”) in the phrase πάντας αἴροντας εφουδ, the translators evidently understood each man to carry an ephod.

4.2  2 Samuel 6:14 Turning to 2 Sam 6:14, we read that David was girded (‫ )חגור‬with an ‫אפוד בד‬ when he danced in front of the Ark of the Covenant.

4.2.1  Parallel Versions

The LXX of 2 Sam 6:14 states that “David wore a fine robe” (Δαυιδ ἐνδεδυκὼς στολὴν ἔξαλλον). Thus, in contrast to the MT, the LXX does not refer to the term ephod at all. Rather, it assumes that the ‫ אפוד‬is the robe itself, presumably in light of the textual evidence from Exodus. The parallel passage in 1 Chron 15:27b opts for another line of interpretation. It begins by describing David as wearing “a robe of fine linen” (v. 27aα, ‫)ודויד מכרבל במעיל בוץ‬. The end of the same verse states briefly that “on David was the ‫( אפוד בד‬v. 27b).” This passage thus understands the ephod not as the 43  Deborah W. Rooke, “Kingship as Priesthood: The Relationship between the High Priesthood and the Monarchy,” in John Day (ed.), King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (LHBOTS 270; Sheffield, UK: Sheffield University Press, 1998), 187–208 (189–190).

garment itself but presumably an item to be pinned on the garment (in line with the aforementioned material in Exodus). Notably, the word denoting the fabric of the robe is ‫ בוץ‬rather than ‫בד‬, i.e. another word for “linen.”44 The LXX of 1 Chron 15:27 appears to conflate the MT of 1 Chron 15:27 with the LXX translation of 2 Sam 6:14, as it states that “David was girt with a fine linen robe (v. 27aα, Δαυιδ περιεζωσμένος ἐν στολῇ βυσσίνῃ) and “upon David was a fine linen robe (v. 27b, ἐπὶ Δαυιδ στολὴ βυσσίνη). Thus, there is no reference to an ephod; the focus is entirely on the term ‫ בד‬understood simply to denote the fabric of the robe. Taken together, it is clear that later interpreters, the Greek translators and the Chronicler alike, understand that David wore a special robe made of linen. While the Chronicler preserves the mention of the ephod as an item that was presumably pinned on this robe, the LXX never refers to it.

4.2.2 Exegesis

Does 2 Sam 6:14 support the translation “diviner’s ephod”? In my view, it does. The occasion described in this passage is cultic and David is presumably participating in a ritual in a priestly function. On such an occasion, David would presumably have worn clothes and carried items that commonly would have been associated with that priestly function. In other words, David wearing cultic attire would be fully in line with his active and leading participation in this ritual. The argument made here is thus not that David performed anything akin to divination in 2 Sam 6; rather I am claiming that David wearing “the diviners’ ephod” would have been in line with his cultic duties on the occasion. First, it is likely that the monarch in ancient Israel had a priestly function. This can be deduced from, among other passages, 2 Sam 8:15–18 that states that David’s sons were priests (v. 18b, ‫)ובני דוד כהנים היו‬.45 Armerding, for example, argues that David was the chief sacrificial and priestly intermediary during his reign and that his sons had cultic responsibilities. Furthermore, he maintains that several orders of priesthood operated in early Israel.46 Following suit, Davies likewise suggests that we should “not draw too sharp a contrast between secular 44  The word ‫ בוץ‬is elsewhere attested in 2 Chron 5:12 where it denotes the Levites’ clothing, in Esth 1:6 where it defines the hangings in Ahasuerus’s garden, and in Esth 8:15 where it is used for the fabric in Mordecai’s robe. 45  The parallel text in 1 Chron 18:15–17 offers a variant, where David’s sons instead are described as “chiefs alongside the king” (v. 17b, ‫)ובני דויד הראשנים ליד המלך‬. The difference between the two versions cannot be explained as any form of scribal error; rather one version must be a re-interpretation of the other. In view of this, it is reasonable to assume that the Chronicler was offended by the fact that David’s non-Levitical sons officiated as priests and thus emended the text. See Rooke, “Kingship as Priesthood,” 187–208. For a contrary opinion, see, for example, Gordon J. Wenham, “Were David’s Sons Priests?” ZAW 87 (1975): 79–82. 46  Carl Edward Armerding, “Were David’s Sons Really Priests?” in Gerald F. Hawthorne (ed.), Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Merrill C. Tenney Presented by his Former Students (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975), 75–86.

and cultic functions in an ancient context, and between the responsibilities of the royal court and the priesthood.” David, like Micah before him (Judg 17:5), felt it to be within his power to appoint one of his sons as his priest.47 Arguing in support of the existence of non-Levitical priests, Rooke refers to David’s sons (2 Sam 8:18), Ira the Jairite (2 Sam 20:26), as well as the priests that Jeroboam appointed to serve at “the houses on high places” (1 Kings 12:31 // 2 Chron 13:9) and at the royal shrine of Bethel (1 Kings 12:32).48 Second, the same verb ‫ חגר‬is used in Lev 8:7 when the priest wore the ephod (v. 7aβ–bβ, ‫)ויתן עליו את האפד ויחגר אתו בחשב האפד ויאפד לו בו‬, as well as in 1 Sam 2:18 (v. 18b, ‫נער חגור אפוד בד‬, see below). The fact that David is described in 2 Sam 6:14 as girded (‫ )חגור‬with an ‫ אפוד בד‬suggests that David carried out a cultic function when dancing in front of the Ark of the Covenant. Third, the Ark of the Covenant itself may have had a divinatory function, as suggested by 1 Sam 14:18–19.49 In this passage, Saul’s priest Ahijah, the son of Ahitub (and thus presumably the brother of Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar [David’s priest], see 1 Sam 22:20–23) seems to have had some form of divinatory role. In 1 Sam 14:3, he is described as wearing the ephod, and in the following verse 18, he is asked to bring the Ark of the Covenant (v. 18aβ–b, ‫הגישה ארון‬ ‫)האלהים כי היה ארון האלהים ביום ההוא ובני ירשאל‬.50 In contrast, in the LXX of 1 Sam 14:18 Saul asks Ahijah to bring the ephod (προσάγαγε τὸ εφουδ) that he wore (ὅτι αὐτὸς ἦρεν τὸ εφουδ) in those days. It is likely that the LXX of 1 Sam 14:18 is a later reinterpretation of the difficult MT, influenced by the earlier reference to the ephod in 1 Sam 14:3.51 The fact that it was specifically in front of the Ark of the Covenant that David wore the ‫ אפוד בד‬may further emphasize the connection between David’s cultic role and presence of “the diviners’ ephod.” Fourth, the whole ceremony of bringing the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem was a cultic ceremony.52 Seow, for example, argues that 2 Sam 6 reports a celebration of the ascension to supremacy of Yhwh, understood as the divine warrior and symbolized by the Ark of the Covenant, and his triumphant entry into his new abode (i.e. Jerusalem). Through this ritual, David further displays publically his royal and political authority.53 Whether or not this ritual was associated with Canaanite fertility rites is in the present context beside the point; 47  John Davies, A Royal Priesthood: Literary and Intertextual Perspectives on an Image of Israel in Exodus 19.6 (LHBOTS 306; London: Continuum, 2004), 89–90. 48  Rooke, “Kingship as Priesthood,” 190. 49  Van der Toorn and Houtman, “David and the Ark,” 216–217. 50  Cf. Thelle, “Reflections of Ancient Israelite Divination,” 19 n. 32. 51  See further van der Toorn and Houtman, “David and the Ark,” 210–211. 52  See further the extended discussion in Daniel Bodi, The Michal Affair: From Zimri-Lim to the Rabbis (HBM 3; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2005), 40–53. 53  C. L. Seow, Myth, Drama, and the Politics of David’s Dance (HSM 44; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989), 140–144 (summary).

what matters is the fact that it would have been entirely appropriate for David to wear or carry cultic apparel during this ritual. A few scholars have sought to interpret the ‫ אפוד בד‬in this passage differently. Notably, Phillips argues that the ‫ אפוד בד‬worn by David in 2 Sam 6:14 was a minimal loin cloth, suitable for a child (cf. Samuel in 1 Sam 2:18, see further below) but not for an adult. In his view, it was thus no wonder that Michal objected to it! Moreover, it was a secular garment not to be associated with the priesthood.54 This argument, however, does not agree with the evidence of 1 Sam 2:18 or 1 Sam 22:18 that clearly suggests that the ‫ אפוד בד‬was worn by priests.55 Samuel was in the sanctuary when wearing the garment and it is entirely likely that he was involved in a ritual activity. Needless to say, the priests of Nob were ritually involved in the cult. Furthermore, the notion that the ‫ אפוד בד‬was a child’s garment depends on a very specific understanding of 1 Sam 2:18 (‫ושמואל משרת את פני‬ ‫ )ה' נער חגור אפוד בד‬where the term ‫ נער‬is connected with the following phrase rather than defining Samuel’s age.

4.3  1 Samuel 2:18 Finally, in 1 Sam 2:18, Samuel, like David, is girded with an ‫אפוד בד‬. Again, does this passage fit with the suggested translation “diviner’s ephod”? Again, I would answer “yes.” Samuel was “ministering before Yhwh” (v. 18a, ‫ושמואל משרת את פני‬ '‫)ה‬, the verb ‫ שרת‬being a verb used almost exclusively for priestly duties. There is thus little doubt that Samuel was involved in a cultic act.56

4.3.1  Parallel Versions

In addition, the LXX offers intriguing support for my suggested emendation and ensuing translation of ‫ אפוד בד‬as “diviner’s ephod” as it renders verse 18a as παιδάριον περιεζωσμένον εφουδ βαρ (“a young boy girded with an ephod bar). As we can see, it does not translate the Hebrew expression ‫ אפוד בד‬but transliterates it into εφουδ βαρ.57 Furthermore, and possibly the strongest argument so far, the last word βαρ supports the claim that the original text read ‫בר‬. As we have seen so far, the LXX translators of 1–2 Samuel had great difficulties with the expression ‫אפוד בד‬. The LXX of 1 Sam 22:18 ignores the word ‫בד‬, as does the LXX of 2 Sam 6:14. Here in 1 Sam 2:18, the LXX seems to be equally confused but instead of disregarding the word ‫ בד‬/ ‫בר‬, it transliterates it. 54  Anthony Phillips, “David’s Linen Ephod,” VT 19 (1969): 485–486. 55  Cf. N. L. Tidwall, “The Linen Ephod,” VT 24 (1974): 505–507. 56  Cf. J. Gordon McConville, “Priesthood in Joshua to Kings,” VT 49 (1999): 73–87 (79). 57  For an alternative suggestion, see A. Graeme Auld, I and II Samuel (OTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2011), 45 n. c, who suggests that the LXX translator read the word as ‫“ = בר‬pure” (derived from the root ‫)ברר‬.

5. Conclusion In this essay, I have proposed a new translation of the expression ‫ אפוד בד‬that is attested three times in the DtrH. It originally read as ‫ אפוד בר‬and was a tool for divination, i.e. the tool of the bārû. Along similar lines, the plural term ‫ בדים‬in the prophetic literature originally read ‫ ברים‬and denoted “diviners.” What I have not done so far, however, is to explain the reason for the change from the presumed original ‫ בר‬to the now extant reading ‫בד‬. I wish to put forward two tentative possibilities. First, it is possible that the scribes sought to exclude the inherent divinatory aspects of the expression, in line with the critique voiced in Isa 44:25 and thus changed the presumed original ‫ בר‬to ‫בד‬. Alternatively, the scribes may have come across the (presumed) original expression ‫אפוד‬ ‫ בר‬and misread it as ‫אפוד בד‬, because (1) they did not recognize the word ‫ בר‬but (2) they were familiar with the term ‫ בד‬that elsewhere referred to clothing. If it in other passages refers to the fabric of a garment, they might have reasoned, it may do so also in 1 Sam 2:18; 1 Sam 22:18, and 2 Sam 6:14. At a subsequent point, this emendation / misreading had become so ingrained in people’s vocabulary that the term ‫ בד‬acquired a secondary meaning, namely “idle talk” which ultimately had its origin in the biblical authors’ disdain for the practices of divination.

Bibliography Adam, Klaus-Peter. “‘And he Behaved Like a Prophet Among Them’ (1 Sam 10:11b): The Depreciative use of ‫ נבא‬Hitpael and the Comparative Evidence of Ecstatic Prophecy.” WO 39 (2009): 3–57. Addey, Crystal. “Divine Possession and Divination in the Graeco-Roman World: The Evidence from Iamblichus’s On the Mysteries.” Pages 171–185 in Spirit Possession and Trance: New Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Edited by Bettina E. Schmidt and Lucy Huskinson. Continuum Advances in Religious Studies. London: Continuum, 2010. –. Divination and Theurgy in Neoplatonism: Oracles of the Gods. Ashgate Studies in Philosophy and Theology in Late Antiquity. Farnham: Ashgate, 2014. Allen, James P. Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Allen, Leslie C. Jeremiah: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2008. Anor, Netanel. “Mesopotamian Divinatory Inquiry: A Private or a State Matter.” Pages 71–78 in Private and State in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 58th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Leiden 16–20 July 2012. Edited by R. de Boer and J. G. Dercksen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2017. Armerding, Carl Edward. “Were David’s Sons Really Priests?” Pages 75–86 in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Merrill C. Tenney Presented by his Former Students. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975. Arnold, William R. Ephod and Ark: A Study in the Records and Religion of the Ancient Hebrews. HTS 3. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1917. Auld, A. Graeme. I and II Samuel. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2011. Aune, David E. Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983. –. “The Use of ΠΡΟΦΗΤΗΣ in Josephus.” JBL 101 (1982): 419–421. Baethgen, Friedrich. Die Psalmen: Übersetzt und erklärt. HAT II. 3rd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1904. Baines, John. “Kingship, Definition of Culture, and Legitimation.” Pages 3–47 in Ancient Egyptian Kingship. Edited by David B. O’Connor and David P. Silverman. PAE 9. Leiden: Brill, 1995. –. “Ancient Egyptian Kingship: Official Forms, Rhetoric, Context.” Pages 16–53 in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Edited by John Day. JSOTS 270. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. Balentine, Samuel E. “The Prophet as Intercessor: A Reassessment.” JBL 103 (1984): 161–173. Barclay, John. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, Volume 10, Against Apion. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Bar-Kochva, Bezalel. Pseudo Hecataeus, “On the Jews”: Legitimizing the Jewish Diaspora. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1996. Barstad, Hans M. “Lachish Ostracon III and Ancient Israelite Prophecy.” EI 24 (1993): 8*–12*.

Bibliography –. “The Prophet Oded and the Zakkur Inscription: A Case of Obscuriore Obscurum?” Pages 25–37 in Reading From Right to Left: Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honour of David J. A. Clines. Edited by J. Cheryl Exum and H. G. M. Williamson. JSOTS 373. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003. Bashir, Shahzad. Sufi Bodies: Religion and Society in Medieval Islam. New York, NY: Columbia University, 2013. Batsch, Christophe. La guerre et les rites de guerre dans le judaïsme du deuxième Temple. JSJS 93. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Beaulieu, Paul-Alain. The Pantheon of Uruk during the Neo-Babylonian Period. CM 23. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Becking, Bob. “‘Touch for Health …’: Magic in 11 Reg 4,31–37 with a Remark on the History of Yahwism.” ZAW 108 (1996): 34–54. Beentjes, Pancratius. “Prophets in the Book of Chronicles.” Pages 45–53 in The Elusive Prophet: The Prophet as a Historical Person, Literary Character and Anonymous Artist. Edited by Johannes C. de Moor. OtSt 45. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Bell, Catherine M. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. Oxford / New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1992. –. Ritual Perspective and Dimensions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. –. “Ritual.” Pages 397–411 in The Blackwell Companion to the Study of Religion. Edited by Robert A. Segal. Blackwell Companions to Religion. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2006. Bellinger, William H. Jr. Psalmody and Prophecy. JSOTS 27. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984. Ben Zvi, Ehud. “Observations on Prophetic Characters, Prophetic Texts, Priests of Old, Persian Period Priests and Literati.” Pages 19–30 in The Priests in the Prophets: The Portrayal of Priests, Prophets and Other Religious Specialists in the Latter Prophets. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe and Alice Ogden Bellis. JSOTS 408. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Blank, Sheldon. “The Death of Zechariah in Rabbinic Literature.” HUCA 12/13 (1937–1938): 327–346. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. “Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus.” JJS 25 (1974): 239–262. –. Isaiah 40–55. AB 19A. New York, NY: Doubleday, 2000. Bodi, Daniel. The Michal Affair: From Zimri-Lim to the Rabbis. HBM 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2005. Bonnet, Hans. “Prophezeiung.” Pages 608–609 in Reallexikon der Ägyptischen Religionsgeschichte. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000. Booij, Thijs. “The Background of the Oracle in Psalm 81.” Bib 65 (1984): 465–475. Boorer, Suzanne. The Promise of the Land as Oath: A Key to the Formation of the Pentateuch. BZAW 205. New York, NY: de Gruyter, 1992. Bourguignon, Erika, ed. Religion, Altered States of Consciousness and Social Change. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, 1973. –. Possession. San Francisco, CA: Chandler & Sharp Publishers, 1976. Bowden, Hugh. Classical Athens and the Delphic Oracle: Divination and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Bibliography Braulik, Georg. “Gottes Ruhe—das Land oder der Tempel? Zu Psalm 95,11.” Pages 33–44 in Freude an der Weisung des Herrn: Beiträge zur Theologie der Psalmen. Edited by Ernst Haag and Frank-Lothar Hossfeld. FS H. Groß. SBB 13. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1987. Breasted, James Henry. Ancient Records of Egypt II. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1906. –. Ancient Records of Egypt III. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1906. Briggs, Charles A., and Emilie G. Briggs. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms. London: T&T Clark, 1907. Brin, Gershon. “Issues Concerning Prophets (Studies in 4Q375).” Pages 128–163 in Studies in Biblical Law. JSOTS 176. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Budde, Karl. “Ephod und Lade.” ZAW 39 (1921): 1–42. Butler, S. A. L. Mesopotamian Conceptions of Dreams and Dream Rituals. AOAT 258. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1998. Carlson, Rolf August. David the Chosen King: A Traditio-historical Approach to the Second Book of Samuel. Translated by Eric J. Sharpe and Stanley Rudman. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1964. Catagnoti, Amalia. “Ritual Circumambulations in the Syro-Mesopotamian Cuneiform Texts.” Pages 134–141 in Defining the Sacred: Approaches to the Archaeology of Religion in the Near East. Edited by Nicola Laneri. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2015. Charles, R. H. The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1908. Clarke, Emma C., John M. Dillon, and Jackson P. Hershbell. Iamblichus: De Mysteriis. Translated with Introduction and Notes. SBLWGRW 4. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. Clifford, Richard J. Proverbs. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1999. Clines, David J. A. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 9 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 1993–2011. Cogan, Mordechai, and Hayim Tadmor. II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 11. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday, 1988. Cogan, Mordechai. I Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 10. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Cole, Steven W. Nippur IV: The Early Neo-Babylonian Governor’s Archive from Nippur. OIP 114. Chicago, IL: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1996. Colson, F. H. On the Special Laws, Book 4. On the Virtues. On Rewards and Punishments. LCL 341. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1939. Cook, L. Stephen. On the Question of the “Cessation of Prophecy” in Ancient Judaism. TSAJ 145. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Cumming, Barbara, and Benedict G. Davies. Egyptian Historical Records of the Later Eighteenth Dynasty. Vol. 6. Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1982. Curcija-Prodanovic, Nada, ed. Yugoslav Folk-Tales. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957.

Bibliography Czachesz, István. “Magic and Mind: Toward a Cognitive Theory of Magic, with Special Attention to the Canonical and Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles.” Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi 24 (2007): 295–321. Czachesz, István, and Risto Uro, eds. Mind, Morality, and Magic: Cognitive Science Approaches in Biblical Studies. Durham: Acumen, 2013. Dahood, Michael L. Psalms II: 51–100. AB 17. Garden City, NJ / New York, NY: Doubleday, 1968. Dam, Cornelis van. The Urim and Thummim: A Means of Revelation in Ancient Israel. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997. Davies, Gwynne H. “Psalm 95.” ZAW 85 (1973): 183–195. Davies, John. A Royal Priesthood: Literary and Intertextual Perspectives on an Image of Israel in Exodus 19.6. LHBOTS 306. London: Continuum, 2004. Davies, W. D. “A Note on Josephus, Antiquities, 15:136.” HTR 47 (1954): 135–140. Davis, Ryan C. “Relating with Gods: Investigating Human-Divine Relationships in the Prayers of Israel and Mesopotamia Using a Performance Approach to Ritual.” Ph.D. diss., University of Texas at Austin, TX, 2016. Diamond, Frances H. “Hecataeus of Abdera: A New Historical Approach.” Ph.D. diss., University of California at Los Angeles, CA, 1970. Dietrich, Manfried. “Prophetenbriefe aus Mari.” Pages 83–93 in Religiöse Texte: Deutungen der Zukunft in Briefen, Orakeln und Omina. Edited by Manfried Dietrich, Karl Hecker, Jacob Hoftijzer, Frank Kammerzell, Oswald Loretz, Walter W. Müller, Willem H. Ph. Römer, and Heike Sternberg. TUAT 2/1. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1986. Dietrich, Walter. Samuel (1 Sam 1–12). BKAT 8/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2010. Dimant, Devorah. “The ‘Apocryphon of Joshua’—4Q522 9 ii: A Reappraisal.” Pages 335–352 in History, Ideology and Bible Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Collected Studies. FAT 90. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Doan, William, and Terry Giles. Prophets, Performance, and Power: Performance Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. New York, NY: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2005. Dodd, C. H. “The Prophecy of Caiaphas.” Pages 134–143 in Neotestamentica et Patristica: eine Freundesgabe, Herrn Professor Dr. Oscar Cullmann zu seinem 60. Geburtstag überreicht. Edited by Bo Reicke and Willy Rordorf. SNT 6. Leiden: Brill, 1962. Doeker, Andrea. Die Funktion der Gottesrede in den Psalmen: Eine poetologische Untersuchung. BBB 135. Berlin/Wien: Philo, 2002. Douglas, Mary. Leviticus as Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Dozeman, Thomas B., Craig A. Evans, and Joel N. Lohr, eds. The Book of Exodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation. VTS 164. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2014. Drawnel, Henryk. Aramaic Wisdom Text from Qumran: A New Interpretation of the Levi Document. JSJS 86. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Durand, Jean-Marie. “In Vino Veritas.” RA 76 (1982): 43–50. Durand, Jean-Marie, and Michaël Guichard. “Les rituels de Mari.” Pages 19–78 in Florilegium Marianum 3: Recueil d’études à la mémoire de Marie-Thèrése Barrelet. Edited by Dominique

Bibliography Charpin and Jean-Marie Durand. Mémoires de NABU 4. Supplément à NABU. Paris: SEPOA, 1997. Dykes, Dona. “Diversity and Unity in Habakkuk.” Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University, TN, 1976. Ebach, Jürgen H., and Udo Rüterswörden. “Der byblitische Ekstatiker im Bericht des Wn-Imn und die Seher in der Inschrift des ZKR von Hamath.” Göttinger Miszellen 20 (1976): 17–22. Eidevall, Göran. “A Farewell to the Anticultic Prophet: Attitudes towards the Cult in the Book of Amos.” Pages 99–114 in Priests and Cults in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer. ANEM 14. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2016. Eliade, Mircea. Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy. Princeton, CT: Princeton University Press, 1964. Eyre, Christopher J. “Is Egyptian Historical Literature ‘Historical’ or ‘Literary’?” Pages 415–433 in Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms. Edited by Antonio Loprieno. PAE 10. Leiden: Brill, 1996. –. “The Practice of Literature: The Relationship Between Content, Form, Audience, and Performance.” Pages 101–142 in Ancient Egyptian Literature: Theory and Practice. Edited by Roland Enmarch and Verena M. Lepper. Proceedings of the British Academy 188. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Fabry, Heinz-Josef, and Nele van Meteeren. “‫שררות‬.” TDOT 15 (2006): 482–488. Faraone, Christopher. “The Agonistic Context of Early Greek Binding Spells.” Pages 3–32 in Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion. Edited by Christopher A. Faraone and Dirk Obbink. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1991. Feldman, Ariel, and Liora Goldman. Scripture and Interpretation: Qumran Texts that Rework the Bible. BZAW 449. Berlin; de Gruyter, 2014. Feldman, Louis H., and Meyer Reinhold, eds. Jewish Life and Thought among Greeks and Romans: Primary Readings. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1996. Feldman, Louis H. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, Volume 3: Judean Antiquities, Books 1–4. Leiden: Brill, 1999. –. Philo’s Portrayal of Moses in the Context of Ancient Judaism. CJAS 15. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007. –. “Prophets and Prophecy in Josephus.” Pages 209–239 in Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism. Edited by Michael H. Floyd and Robert D. Haak. LHBOTS 427. New York: T & T Clark, 2006. –. Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible. JSJS 58. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Ferrary, Jean-Louis. Les Mémoriaux de délegations du sanctuaire oraculaire de Claros, d’après la documentation conservée dans le Fonds Louis Robert (Académie des Inscriptions et BellesLettres). Vols. 1–2. Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 49. Paris: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 2014. Ferrary, Jean-Louis. “La distribution topographique des mémoriaux de délégations dans le sanctuaire de Claros.” Pages 189–200 in Le sanctuaire de Claros et son oracle: Actes du colloque international de Lyon, 13–14 janvier 2012. Edited by Jean-Charles Moretti. Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditeerranée 65. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditeer�ranée, 2014.

Bibliography Flower, Michael Attyah. The Seer in Ancient Greece. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2008. Fontenrose, Joseph. Didyma: Apollo’s Oracle, Cult, and Companions. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1988. Frankfurter, David. “Narrating Power: The Theory and Practice of the Magical Historiola in Ritual Spells.” Pages 457–476 in Ancient Magic and Ritual Power. Edited by Marvin W. Meyer and Paul A. Mirecki. RGRW 129. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Fried, Lisbeth. “Did Second Temple Priests Possess the Urim and Thummim?” JHS 7 (2007): 1–25. Friedrich, Ingolf. Ephod und Choschen im Lichte des alten Orients. Wiener Beiträge zur Theologie 20. Vienna: Herder, 1968. Gager, John G. Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1972. Gesenius, H. F. Wilhelm, Udo Rüterswörden, Rudolf Meyer, and Herbert Donner. Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament. 18th ed. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2013. Gnuse, Robert K. Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writings of Josephus: A Traditio-Critical Analysis. AGAJU 36. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Goldingay, John, and David Payne. Isaiah 40–55. Vol. 2. ICC. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Görg, Manfred. “Der Ekstatiker von Byblos.” Göttinger Miszellen. Beiträge zur ägyptologischen Diskussion 23 (1977): 31–33. Grabbe, Lester L. “Prophets, Priests, Diviners and Sages in Ancient Israel.” Pages 43–62 in Of Prophets’ Visions and the Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honour of R. Norman Whybray on his Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Heather A. McKay and David J. A. Clines. JSOTS 162. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. –. Priests, Prophets, Diviners, Sages: A Socio-Historical Study of Religious Specialists in Ancient Israel. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995. –. “Prophecy and Apocalyptic: Time for New Definitions—and New Thinking.” Pages 107–133 in Knowing the End from the Beginning: The Prophetic, the Apocalyptic and Their Relationships. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe and Robert D. Haak. JSPS 46. London: T & T Clark, 2003. –. “Review of M. Douglas, Leviticus as Literature.” Journal of Ritual Studies 18 (2004): 157–161. –. “Introduction and Overview.” Pages 1–18 in The Priests in the Prophets: The Portrayal of Priests, Prophets and Other Religious Specialists in the Latter Prophets. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe and Alice Ogden Bellis. JSOTS 408. London: T&T Clark, 2004. –. “Thus Spake the Prophet Josephus…: The Jewish Historian on Prophets and Prophecy.” Pages 240–247 in Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism. Edited by Michael H. Floyd and Robert D. Haak. LHBOTS 427. New York: T & T Clark, 2006. –. “Prophecy and Priesthood.” Pages 23–36 in The Oxford Handbook of the Prophets. Edited by Carolyn Sharp. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Graf, Fritz. “Prayer in Magical and Religious Ritual.” Pages 188–213 in Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion. Edited by Christopher A. Faraone and Dirk Obbink. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Bibliography Gray, Rebecca. Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Period Palestine: The Evidence of Josephus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. Greenberg, Moshe. Biblical Prose Prayer as a Window to the Religion of Ancient Israel. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1983. Greenfield, Jonas C., Michael E. Stone, and Esther Eshel. Aramaic Levi Document: Edition, Translation, Commentary. SVTP 19. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Grey, Matthew. “Priestly Divination and Illuminating Stones in Second Temple Judaism.” Pages 21–57 in The Prophetic Voice at Qumran: The Leonardo Museum Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 11–12 April 2014. Edited by Donald W. Parry, Stephen D. Ricks, and Andrew C. Skinner. STDJ 120. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Grimes, Ronald L. The Craft of Ritual Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. –. Deeply into the Bone: Re-Inventing Rites of Passage. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2000. Groneberg, Brigitte. Lob der Ištar: Gebet und Ritual an die altbabylonische Venusgöttin. CM 8. Groningen: Styx, 1997. –. “Ein Ritual an Ištar.” MARI 8 (1997): 291–303. Guinan, Ann K. “A Severed Head Laughed: Stories of Divinatory Interpretation.” Pages 7–40 in Magic and Divination in the Ancient World. Edited by Leda Ciraolo and Jonathan Seidel. AMD 2. Leiden: Brill / Groningen: Styx, 2002. Gunkel, Hermann, and Joachim Begrich. Einleitung in die Psalmen: Die Gattungen der religiösen Lyrik Israels. HAT II. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1933. –. Die Psalmen: Übersetzt und erklärt (previously HK II/2). 6th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986 (1926). Gunneweg, Antonius H. J. “Das Gesetz und die Propheten: Eine Auslegung von Ex 33,7–11; Num 11,4–12,8; Dtn 31,14f.; 34,10.” ZAW 102 (1990): 169–180. Habel, Norman C. The Book of Job. OTL. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1985. Hamori, Esther J. Women’s Divination in Biblical Literature: Prophecy, Necromancy and Other Arts of Knowledge. Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2015. Hamori, Esther J., and Jonathan Stökl, eds. Perchance to Dream: Essays on Dream Divination in Biblical and Other Ancient Near Eastern and Early Jewish Sources. ANEM 21. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2018. Harris, James G. III. “Prophetic Oracles in the Psalter.” Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, KY, 1970. Hayward, Robert. “Pseudo-Philo and the Priestly Oracle.” JJS 46 (1995): 43–54. Herrmann, Siegfried. “Prophetie in Israel und Ägypten Recht und Grenze eines Vergleichs.” Pages 47–65 in Congress Volume Bonn, 1962. VTS 9. Leiden: Brill, 1963. Hesse, Franz. Die Fürbitte Im Alten Testament. Erlangen: Freidrich Alexander Universität, 1951. Hilber, John W. Cultic Prophecy in the Psalms. BZAW 352. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005. –. “Cultic Prophecy in the Psalms in the Light of Assyrian Prophetic Sources.” TynBul 56 (2005): 141–145. –. “Cultic Prophecy in Assyria and in the Psalms.” JAOS 127 (2007): 29–40.

Bibliography –. “Prophetic Speech in the Egyptian Royal Cult.” Pages 39–53 in On Stone and Scroll: Essays in Honour of Graham Ivor Davies. Edited by James K. Aitken, Katharine J. Dell, and Brian A. Mastin. BZAW 420. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. –. “The Culture of Prophecy and Writing in the Ancient Near East.” Pages 219–241 in Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith. Edited by James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis Magary. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012. –. “Royal Cultic Prophecy in Assyria, Judah, and Egypt.” Pages 161–186 in “Thus Speaks Ishtar of Arbela”: Prophecy in Israel, Assyria and Egypt in the Neo-Assyrian Period. Edited by Robert P. Gordon and Hans M. Barstad. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013. Hill, Andrew E. Malachi: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 25D. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998. Himmelfarb, Martha. Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. Hoftijzer, Jacob. “A Peculiar Question: A Note on 2 Sam. XV 27.” VT 21 (1971): 606–609. Hoftijzer, Jacob, and Karel Jongeling. Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions. 2 Vols. HOD 21. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Holladay, William Lee. Jeremiah. Vol. 2. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1989. Hollander Harm W., and Marinus de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary. SVTP 8. Leiden: Brill, 1985. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar. “Psalm 95: Gattungsgeschichtliche, kompositionskritische und bibeltheologische Anfragen.” Pages 29–44 in Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung. FS W. Beyerlin. Edited by K. Seybold and E. Zenger. HBS 1. Freiburg: Herder, 1994. –. “Das Prophetische in den Psalmen—zur Gottesrede der Asafpsalmen im Vergleich mit der des ersten und zweiten Davidpsalters.” Pages 223–243 in Ich bewirke das Heil und erschaffe das Unheil (Jes 45,7): Studien zur Botschaft der Propheten. FS L. Ruppert. Edited by Friedrich Diedrich and Bernd Willmes. FzB 88. Würzburg: Echter, 1998. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, and Erich Zenger. Psalmen 51–100. HThK.AT. Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder, 2000. Huffmon, Herbert B. “The Oracular Process: Delphi and the Near East.” VT 57 (2007): 449–460. Hunziker-Rodewald, Regine. Hirt und Herde: Ein Beitrag zum alttestamentlichen Gottesverständnis. BWANT 155. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001. Hurowitz, Victor Avigdor. “True Light on the Urim and Thummim.” JQR 88 (1998): 263–274 Israeli, Shlomit. Ceremonial Speech Patterns in the Medinet Habu War Inscriptions. ÄAT 79. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2015. Jacquet, Antoine. “Funerary Rituals and Cult of the Ancestors during the Amorite Period: The Evidence of the Royal Archives of Mari.” Pages 123–136 in (Re)Constructing Funerary Rituals in the Ancient Near East. Edited by Peter Pfälzner, Herbert Niehr, Ernst Pernicka, and Anne Wissing. Qaṭna Studien Supplementa 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012. Jameson, Michael H. “Sacrifice before Battle.” Pages 197–228 in Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience. Edited by Victor D. Hanson. London: Routledge, 1991. Jassen, Alex P. Mediating the Divine: Prophecy and Revelation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism. STDJ 68. Leiden: Brill, 2007.

Bibliography –. “The Presentation of the Ancient Prophets as Lawgivers at Qumran.” JBL 127 (2008): 307–337. –. “Prophecy, Power, and Politics in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism.” Pages 171–198 in Divination, Politics, and Ancient Near Eastern Empires. Edited by Alan Lenzi and Jonathan Stökl. ANEM 7. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014. –. Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2014. –. “Scribes, Visionaries, and Prophets: On the Place of Apocalyptic in the History of Prophecy.” HeBAI 5 (2016): 51–72. Jeremias, Jörg. Kultprophetie und Gerichtsverkündigung in der späten Königszeit Israels. WMANT 35. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1970. Johnson, Aubrey R. The Cult Prophet in Israel. 2nd ed. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1962. –. The Cultic Prophet and Israel’s Psalmody. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1979. Johnson, Bo. “‫אבה‬.” TDOT 1 (1974): 24–26. Johnson, Douglas Hamilton. Nuer Prophets: A History of Prophecy From the Upper Nile in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Oxford Studies in Social and Cultural Anthropology. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Jong, Matthijs J. de. Isaiah among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets: A Comparative Study of the Earliest Stages of the Isaiah Tradition and the Neo-Assyrian Prophecies. VTS 117. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Jonge, Marinus de. “Levi in Aramaic Levi and in the Testament of Levi.” Pages 71–89 in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 January, 1997. Edited by Esther G. Chazon and Michael Stone with the collaboration of Avital Pinnick. STDJ 31. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Joüon, Paul S. T., and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Part 2: Morphology. Subsidia Biblica 14/I. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1993. Kampen, John. “A Reconsideration of the Name ‘Essene’ in Greco-Jewish Literature in Light of Recent Perceptions of the Qumran Sect.” HUCA 57 (1986): 61–81. Keel, Othmar. Wirkmächtige Siegeszeichen im Alten Testament. OBO 5. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974. –. “Powerful Symbols of Victory: The Parts Stay the Same, the Actors Change.” JNSL 21/2 (1999): 205–240. Kim, Koowon. Incubation as a Type-Scene in the ‘Aqhatu, Kirta, and Hanna Stories: A FormCritical and Narratological Study of KTU 1.14 I–1.15 III, 1.17 I–II, and 1 Samuel 1:1–2:11. VTS 145. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Kitchen, Kenneth A. “Exodus, The.” ABD 2 (1992): 700–708. –. Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations. Vol. 2. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996. –. Poetry of Ancient Egypt. Documenta Mundi: Aegyptiaca 1. Jonsered: Paul Åströms, 1999. –. Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments. Vol. 2. Oxford: Blackwell, 1999. Kitz, Anne Marie. “Prophecy as Divination.” CBQ 65 (2003): 22–42. Klein, Anja. Geschichte und Gebet: Die Rezeption der biblischen Geschichte in den Psalmen des Alten Testaments. FAT 94. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014.

Bibliography Klingbeil, Gerald A. Bridging the Gap: Rituals and Ritual Texts in the Bible. BBRS 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Koch, Ulla Susanne. “Three Strikes and You’re Out: A View on Cognitive Theory and the FirstMillennium Extispicy Ritual.” Pages 43–57 in Divination and Interpretation of Signs in the Ancient World. Edited by Amar Annus. OIS 6. Chicago, IL: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2010. –. Mesopotamian Divination Texts: Conversing with Gods. Sources from the First Millennium bce. GMTR 7. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2015. Koenen, Klaus. Gottesworte in den Psalmen: Eine formgeschichtliche Untersuchung. BThS 30. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1996. Kooten, Geurt H. van, and Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten, eds. The Prestige of the Pagan Prophet Balaam in Judaism, Early Christianity and Islam. TBN 11. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalmen: 2. Teilband: Psalmen 60–150. BK XV/2. 7th ed. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 2003 (1961/1978). Kugler, Robert. From Patriarch to Priest: The Levi-Priestly Tradition from Aramaic Levi to Testament of Levi. SBLEJ 9. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1996. –. Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Lampinen, Antti. “Θεῷ μεμελημένε Φοίβῳ: Oracular Functionaries at Claros and Didyma in the Imperial Period.” Pages 49–88 in Studies in Ancient Oracle and Divination. Edited by Mika Kajava. AIRF 40. Rome: Institutum Romanum Finlandiae, 2013. Lederman, Richard. “Nehushtan, the Copper Serpent: Its Origins and Fate.” TheTorah.com. http://thetorah.com/nehushtan-the-copper-serpent-its-origins-and-fate/. Legare, Christine H., and André L. Souza. “Evaluating Ritual Efficacy: Evidence from the Supernatural.” Cognition 124 (2012): 1–15. Leichty, Erle. The Omen Series Šumma Izbu. TCS 4. Locust Valley, NY: Augustin, 1970. Lemaire, André. “Les textes prophétique de Mari dans leur relations avec l’Ouest.” Pages 427– 438 in Amurru 1: Mari, Ébla et les Hourrites: Dix ans de travaux, Actes du colloque international (Paris, mai 1993). Edited by Jean-Marie Durand. Paris: ERC, 1996. Levine, Baruch A. Numbers 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 4B. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Levison, John R. “Prophecy in Ancient Israel: The Case of the Ecstatic Elders.” CBQ 65 (2003): 503–521. –. “Philo’s Personal Experience and the Persistence of Prophecy.” Pages 194–209 in Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism. Edited by Michael H. Floyd and Robert D. Haak. LHBOTS 427. New York: T & T Clark, 2006. Lewis, I. M. Ecstatic Religion: A Study of Shamanism and Spirit Possession. 3rd ed. London: Routledge, 2003. Lindblom, Johannes. Prophecy in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Blackwell, 1962. Lohfink, Norbert. “Noch einmal ḥ ōq ûmišpāṭ (zu Ps 81.5f).” Bib 73 (1992): 253–254. Long, Burke O. “Two Question and Answer Schemata.” JBL 90 (1971): 129–139. –. “The Effect of Divination upon Israelite Literature.” JBL 92 (1973): 489–497.

Bibliography –. “Reports of Visions among the Prophets.” JBL 95 (1976): 353–365. –. “2 Kings III and Genres of Prophetic Narrative.” Pages 72–83 in Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible: Selected Studies from Vetus Testamentum. Edited by David Orton. Brill’s Readers in Biblical Studies 5. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 37–52. AB 21C. New York, NY: Doubleday, 2004. McCarter, P. Kyle. I Samuel: A New Translation. AB 8. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday, 1980. McCauley, Robert N., and E. Thomas Lawson. Bringing Ritual to Mind: Psychological Foundations of Cultural Forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. McConville, J. Gordon. “Priesthood in Joshua to Kings.” VT 49 (1999): 73–87. Machinist, Peter. “Mesopotamian Imperialism and Israelite Religion: A Case Study from the Second Isaiah.” Pages 237–264 in Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age Through Roman Palaestina. Edited by William G. Dever and Seymour Gitin. W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, American Schools of Oriental Research. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003. Macintosh, Andrew A. Hosea. ICC. London: T&T Clark, 2014. McKane, William. Jeremiah 26–52. ICC. London: T&T Clark, 1996. Mann, Steven T. “‘You are Fired’: An Application of Speech Act Theory to 2 Samuel 15.23– 16.14.” JSOT 33 (2009): 315–334. Marcus, Ralph. Jewish Antiquities, Volume V, Books 12–13. LCL 365. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1943. Maul, Stefan M. Zukunftsbewältigung: Eine Untersuchung Altorientalischen Denkens Anhand Der Babylonisch-Assyrischen Löserituale (Namburbi). BaF 18. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern, 1994. –. “How the Babylonians Protected Themselves against Calamities Announced by Omens.” Pages 123–129 in Mesopotamian Magic: Textual, Historical, and Interpretative Perspectives. Edited by Tzvi Abusch and Karel van der Toorn. AMD 1. Groningen: Styx, 1999. –. Die Wahrsagekunst im Alten Orient: Zeichen des Himmels und der Erde. München: Beck, 2013. Mays, James Luther. Hosea: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1969. Mendels, Doron. “Hecataeus of Abdera and a Jewish ‘patrios politeia’ of the Persian Period (Diodorus Siculus XL, 3).” ZAW 95 (1983): 96–110. Metcalf, Christopher. “Old Babylonian Religious Poetry in Anatolia: From Solar Hymn to Plague Prayer.” ZA 105 (2015): 42–53. Meyer, Rudolph. “Prophecy and Prophets in the Judaism of the Hellenistic-Roman Period.” TDNT 6 (1968): 812–828. Milgrom, Jacob. Numbers: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1990. Milik, Jósef T. “1Q21. Testament de Lévi.” Pages 87–91 in Qumrân Cave 1. Edited by Dominique Barthélemy and Jósef T. Milik. DJD 1. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955. Montgomery, James A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings. Edited by Henry Snyder Gehman. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1951.

Bibliography Moore, George F. “Ephod.” Pages 1306–1309 in Encyclopaedia Biblica, Vol. 2 (E-K). Edited by T. K. Cheyne and J. Sutherland Black. New York, NY: Macmillan, 1903. Moore, Michael S. The Balaam Traditions: Their Character and Development. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1990. Moretti, Jean-Charles, Nicolas Bresch, Isabel Bonora, Didier Laroche, and Olivier Riss. “Le temple d’Apollon et le fonctionnement de l’oracle.” Pages 33–49 in Le sanctuaire de Claros et son oracle. Edited by Jean-Charles Moretti. Travaux de la Maison del’Orient et de la Méditerranée 65. Lyon: Maison del’Orient et de la Méditerranée, 2014. Mowinckel, Sigmund. Psalmenstudien: III. Kultprophetie und prophetische Psalmen. Skrifter utgit av Videnskapsselskapets i Kristiania I: Hist.-Filos. Klasse. Oslo: Dybwad, 1922. Muffs, Yochanan. “Who Will Stand in the Breach? A Study of Prophetic Intercession.” Pages 9–48 in Love & Joy: Law, Language and Religion in Ancient Israel. New York, NY: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992. Muhlestein, Kerry. Violence in the Service of Order: The Religious Framework for Sanctioned Killing in Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2011. –. “Sacred Violence: When Ancient Egyptian Punishment Was Dressed in Ritual Trappings.” NEA 78 (2015): 244–251. Müller, Hans Wolfgang. Der Waffenfund von Balata-Sichem und die Sichelschwerter. München: Der Bayerischen Akadamie der Wissenschaft, 1987. Murnane, William J., and Edmund S. Meltzer. Texts From the Amarna Period in Egypt. WAW 5. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1995. Naiden, F. S. Ancient Supplication. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Nasuti, Harry P. Tradition History and the Psalms of Asaph. SBLDS 88. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1988. Nielsen, Kjeld. Incense in Ancient Israel. VTS 38. Leiden: Brill, 1986. Nissinen, Martti. References to Prophecy in Neo-Assyrian Sources. SAAS 7. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 1998. –. “Preface.” Pages vii–viii in Prophecy in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context: Mesopotamian, Biblical and Arabian Perspectives. Edited by Martti Nissinen. SBLSymS 13. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. –. “Spoken, Written, Quoted and Invented: Orality and Writtenness in Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy.” Pages 235–271 in Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and Michael H. Floyd. SBLSymS 10. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. –. (with contributions by C.L. Seow and Robert K. Ritner, edited by Peter Machinist), Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East. WAW 12. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. –. “What is Prophecy? An Ancient Near Eastern Perspective.” Pages 17–37 in Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honour of Herbert B. Huffmon. Edited by John Kaltner and Louis Stulman. JSOTS 378. London: T&T Clark International, 2004.

Bibliography –. “Prophecy and Omen Divination: Two Sides of the Same Coin.” Pages 341–351 in Divination and Interpretation of Signs in the Ancient World. Edited by Amar Annus. OIS 6. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2010. –. “Prophetic Madness: Prophecy and Ecstasy in the Ancient Near East and in Greece.” Pages 3–29 in Raising Up a Faithful Exegete: Essays in Honor of Richard D. Nelson. Edited by K. L. Noll and Brooks Schramm. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010. –. Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. –. “Ritual in Ancient Eastern Mediterranean Divination.” Forthcoming in The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Ritual. Edited by Risto Uro, Juliette Day, Richard E. DeMaris, and Rikard Roitto. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. Noegel, Scott B. Nocturnal Ciphers: The Allusive Language of Dreams in the Ancient Near East. AOS 89. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 2007. Noth, Martin. Numbers: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1968. Nougayrol, Jean, Claude F. A. Schaeffer, Emmanuel Laroche, and Charles Virolleaud. Ugaritica V. Mission de Ras Shamra 16. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1968. Oppenheim, A. Leo. The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East: With a Translation of an Assyrian Dream-Book. TAPS 46, 3. Philadelphia, PA: American Philosophical Society, 1956. Otto, Eckart. “Die Ursprünge der Bundestheologie im Alten Testament und im Alten Orient.” ZAR 4 (1998): 1–84. Overholt, Thomas W. “Prophecy: The Problem of Cross-Cultural Comparison.” Semeia 21 (1981): 55–78. –. Prophecy in Cross-Cultural Perspective: A Sourcebook for Biblical Researchers. Sources for Biblical Study 17. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1986. Parke, Herbert W. The Oracles of Apollo in Asia Minor. London: Croom Helm, 1985. Parker, Robert. “Sacrifice and Battle.” Pages 299–314 in War and Violence in Ancient Greece. Edited by Hans van Wees. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2009. Parker, Simon B. “Possession Trance and Prophecy in Pre-Exilic Israel.” VT 28 (1978): 271–285. Parpola, Simo. Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars. SAA 10. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1993. –. Assyrian Prophecies. SAA 9. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1997. Parry, Donald W., Stephen D. Ricks, and Andrew C. Skinner, eds. The Prophetic Voice at Qumran: The Leonardo Museum Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 11–12 April 2014. STDJ 120. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Pearce, Sarah K. The Words of Moses: Studies in the Reception of Deuteronomy in the Second Temple Period. TSAJ 152. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Petersen, David L. Late Israelite Prophecy. SBLMS 23. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977. –. “Rethinking the End of Prophecy.” Pages 65–71 in Wünschent Jerusalem Frieden: Collected Communications to the XIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Jerusalem 1986. Edited by Matthias Augustin and Klaus-Dietrich Schunck. BEATAJ 13. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1988.

Bibliography Phillips, Anthony. “David’s Linen Ephod.” VT 19 (1969): 485–486. Pongratz-Leisten, Beate. Herrschaftswissen in Mesopotamien: Formen der Kommunikation zwischen Gott und König im 2. und 1. Jahrtausend v.Chr. SAAS 10. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1999. Pope, Marvin H. Job. AB 15. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1965. Pratchett, Terry. A Light Fantastic. London: Corgi, 1986. Prinsloo, Willem S. “Psalm 95: If Only you Will Listen to His Voice!” Pages 393–410 in The Bible in Human Society: Essays in Honour of John Rogerson. Edited by M. Daniel Carroll R., David J. A. Clines, and Philip R. Davies. JSOTS 200. Sheffield: Academic Press, 1995. Qimron, Elisha. The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings, Vol. 2. Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi, 2013. Rabin, Chaim. “Hebrew Baddim ‘Power’.” JSS 18 (1973): 57–58. Rad, Gerhard von. “The Royal Ritual in Judah.” Pages 222–242 in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. Translated by E. W. Trueman Dicken. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1966. Rappaport, Roy A. Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity. Cambridge Studies in Social and Cultural Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Redford, Donald B. “Scribe and Speaker.” Pages 145–218 in Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and Michael H. Floyd. SBLSymS 10. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. Reiling, Jannes. “The Use of ΨΕΥΔΟΠΡΟΦΗΤΗΣ in the Septuagint, Philo and Josephus.” NovTest 13 (1971): 147–156. Reventlow, Henning. Das Amt des Propheten bei Amos. FRLANT 80. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962. –, Liturgie und prophetisches Ich bei Jeremia. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1963. Rochberg, Francesca. The Heavenly Writing: Divination, Horoscopy, and Astronomy in Mesopotamian Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Rooke, Deborah W. “Kingship as Priesthood: The Relationship between the High Priesthood and the Monarchy.” Pages 187–208 in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Edited by John Day. LHBOTS 270. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1998. –, Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel. OTM. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Rowe, Christopher J. Plato: Phaedrus. With Translation and Commentary. 2nd corr. ed. Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1988. Russell, Stephen C. “Samuel’s Theophany and the Politics of Religious Dreams.” Pages 109–132 in Perchance to Dream: Essays on Dream Divination in Biblical and Other Ancient Near Eastern and Early Jewish Sources. Edited by Esther J. Hamori and Jonathan Stökl. ANEM 21. Atlanta. GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2018. Šanda, Albert. Die Bücher der Könige. EHAT. Münster: Aschendorffscher Verlag, 1911–1912. Sass, Benjamin. “Wenamun and his Levant—1075 bc or 925 bc?” Ä&L 12 (2002): 247–255. Sasson, Jack M. “The Posting of Letters with Divine Messages.” Pages 299–316 in Florilegium marianum II: Recueil d’études à la mémoire de Maurice Birot. Edited by Dominique Charpin

Bibliography and Jean-Marie Durand. Mémoires de NABU 3. Supplément à NABU 1994 no. 2. Paris: SEPOA, 1994. –. From the Mari Archives: An Anthology of Old Babylonian Letters. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Satran, David. Biblical Prophets in Byzantine Palestine: Reassessing the Lives of the Prophets. SVTP 11. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Schiffman, Lawrence H. “Laws of War in the Temple Scroll.” Pages 505–517 in The Courtyards of the House of the Lord: Studies on the Temple Scroll. Edited by Florentino García Martínez. STDJ 75. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Schipper, Bernd Ulrich. “‘Apocalyptik’, ‘Messianismus’, ‘Prophetie’—Eine Begriffsbestimmung.” Pages 21–40 in Apokalyptik und Ägypten: Eine Kritische Analyse der Relevanten Texte aus dem Griechish-Römischen Ägypten. Edited by Andreas Blasius and Bernd Ulrich Schipper. OLA 107. Leuven: Peeters, 2002. –. Die Erzählung des Wenamun: Ein Literaturwerk im Spannungsfeld von Politik, Geschichte und Religion. OBO 209. Fribourg: Academic Press, 2005. Schlichting, Robert. “Prophetie.” Pages 1122–1125 in Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Vol. 4. Edited by Wolfgang Helck und Eberhard Otto. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1982. Schmoldt, H. “‫קוט‬.” TDOT 12 (2003): 573–575. Schulman, Alan R. “Take for Yourself the Sword.” Pages 265–295 in Essays in Egyptology in Honor of Hans Goedicke. Edited by Betsy M. Bryan and David Lorton. San Antonio, TX: Van Siclen, 1994. Schwemer, Anna M. Studien zu den frühjüdischen Prophetenlegenden Vitae Prophetarum. 2 vols. TSAJ 90. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995–1996. Scott, R. B. Y. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes. AB 18. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday, 1974. Scurlock, JoAnn. “Prophecy as a Form of Divination: Divination as a Form of Prophecy.” Pages 277–316 in Divination and Interpretation of Signs in the Ancient World. Edited by Amar Annus. OIS 6. Chicago, IL: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2010. Searle, John R. Speech Acts: An Essay on the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Seebass, Horst. Numeri (10,11–22,1). BKAT 4/2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2002. –. Numeri (22,2–36,13). BKAT 4/3. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2007. Sellin, Ernst. “Efod und Terafim.” JPOS 14 (1934): 185–193. –. “Zu Efod und Terafim.” ZAW 55 (1937): 296–298. Seow, C. L. Myth, Drama, and the Politics of David’s Dance. HSM 44. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989. Seybold, Klaus. Die Psalmen. HAT I/15. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Shupak, Nili. “Egyptian ‘Prophecy’ and Biblical Prophecy: Did the Phenomenon of Prophecy, in the Biblical Sense, Exist in Ancient Egypt?” JEOL 31 (1989): 5–40. –. “The Egyptian ‘Prophecy’—A Reconsideration.” Pages 133–144 in Von reichlich aegyptischem Verstande: Festschrift für Waltraud Guglielmi zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by HansWerner Fischer-Elfert and Karol Zibelius-Chen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2006.

Bibliography Sider Hamilton, Catherine. The Death of Jesus in Matthew: Innocent Blood and the End of Exile. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Ska, Jean Louis. Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Skinner, John. Kings. Century Bible. Edinburgh: T. C. & E. C. Jack, 1904. Smith, J. Payne. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903. Smith, Jonathan Z. “The Bare Facts of Ritual.” HR 20 (1980): 112–127. –. Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown. CSHJ. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1982. Snoek, Jan A. M. “Defining ‘Rituals’.” Pages 3–14 in Theorizing Rituals: Issues, Topics, Approaches, Concepts. Edited by Jens Kreinath, Jan A. M. Snoek, and Michael Stausberg. Studies in the History of Religions 114. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Sørensen, Jesper. A Cognitive Theory of Magic. Cognitive Science of Religion Series. Lanham, MD: Altamira, 2007. Spieckermann, Hermann. “Rede Gottes und Wort Gottes: Die Entdeckung der Antwort Gottes im Gebet.” Pages 217–231 in Lebenskunst und Gotteslob in Israel: Anregungen aus Psalter und Weisheit für die Theologie. FAT 91. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014 (1994 revised). Starr, Ivan. The Rituals of the Diviner. Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 12. Malibu, CA: Undena Publications, 1983. Steinkeller, Piotr. “Of Stars and Men: The Conceptual and Mythological Setup of Babylonian Extispicy.” Pages 11–47 in Biblical and Oriental Essays in Memory of William L. Moran. Edited by Agustinus Gianto. BibOr 48. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2005. Stökl, Jonathan. Prophecy in the Ancient Near East: A Philological and Sociological Comparison. CHANE 56. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Stone, Michael E. “Aramaic Levi Document and Greek Testament of Levi.” Pages 265–274 in Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and Armenian Studies: Collected Papers. Vol. 1. OLA 144. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. Strugnell, John. “Moses-Pseudepigrapha at Qumran: 4Q375, 4Q376, and Similar Works.” Pages 221–256 in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman. JSPS 8. JSOT/ASOR Monographs 2. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. –. “375. 4QApocrypon of Mosesa, 376. 4QApocrypon of Mosesb.” Pages 111–136 in Qumran Cave 4.XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2. Edited by Magen Broshi et al. DJD XIX. Oxford: ­Clarendon, 1995. Sweeney, Marvin A. “Prophets and Priests in the Deuteronomistic History: Elijah and Elisha.” Pages 35–49 in Israelite Prophecy and the Deuteronomistic History: Portrait, Reality, and the Formation of a History. Edited by Mignon R. Jacobs and Raymond F. Person Jr. AIL 14. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2013. Tambiah, Stanley J. “A Performative Approach to Ritual.” Pages 123–166 in Culture, Thought, and Social Action: An Anthropological Perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985. Tate, Marvin E. Psalms 51–100. WBC 20. Dallas: Word Books, 1990.

Bibliography Tawil, Hayim ben Yosef. Akkadian Lexical Companion for Biblical Hebrew. Jersey City, NJ: Ktav Pub. House, 2009. Thackeray, H. St. J. Josephus, The Jewish War, Volume II: Books 3–4. LCL 487. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927. Thelle, Rannfrid I. “The Prophetic Act of Consulting Yhwh in Jeremiah 21,2 and 37,7.” SJOT 12 (1998): 249–256. –. Ask God: Divine Consultation in the Literature of the Hebrew Bible. BBET 30. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2002. –. “Reflections of Ancient Israelite Divination in the Former Prophets.” Pages 7–33 in Israelite Prophecy and the Deuteronomistic History: Portrait, Reality, and the Formation of a History. Edited by Mignon R. Jacobs and Raymond F. Person Jr. AIL 14. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2013. Thiel, Winfried. Könige (1 Ki 17,1–1 Ki 22,38). BKAT 9/2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2000. Tidwall, N. L. “The Linen Ephod.” VT 24 (1974): 505–507. Tiemeyer, Lena-Sofia. “Prophecy as a Way of Cancelling Prophecy—The Strategic Uses of Foreknowledge.” ZAW 117 (2005): 329–350. –. Priestly Rites and Prophetic Rage. FAT II/19. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. –. “Were the Neo-Assyrian Prophets Intercessors? A Comparative Study of Neo-Assyrian and Hebrew Texts.” Pages 253–272 in “Thus Speaks Ishtar of Arbela”: Prophecy in Israel, Assyria, and Egypt in the Neo-Assyrian Period. Edited by Robert P. Gordon and Hans M. Barstad. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013. –. Zechariah and His Visions: An Exegetical Study of Zechariah’s Vision Report. LHBOTS 605. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. Timm, Stefan. Moab zwischen den Mächten: Studien zu historischen Denkmälern und Texten. ÄAT 17. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1989. Toorn, Karel van der, and Cees Houtman. “David and the Ark.” JBL 113/2 (1994): 209–231. Toorn, Karel van der. “L’oracle de victoire comme expression prophétique au Proche-Orient ancient.” RB 94 (1987): 79–85. –. “Old Babylonian Prophecy between the Oral and the Written.” JNSL 24 (1998): 55–70. –. “From the Oral to the Written: The Case of Old Babylonian Prophecy.” Pages 219–234 in Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and Michael H. Floyd. SBLSymS 10. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. Tournay, Raymond J. Seeing and Hearing God with the Psalms: The Prophetic Liturgy of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. JSOTS 118. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Tov, Emanuel, ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Library: Non-Biblical Texts. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Troyer, Kristin de, Armin Lange, and Lucas L. Schulte, eds. Prophecy after the Prophets? The Contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Understanding of Biblical and Extra-Biblical Prophecy. CBET 52. Leuven: Peeters, 2009. Turner, Victor Witter. The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1970.

Bibliography Ulanowski, Krzysztof. “A Comparison of the Role of bārû and Mantis in Ancient Warfare.” Pages 69–70 in The Religious Aspects of War in the Ancient Near East, Greece, and Rome. Vol. 1. Edited by Krzysztof Ulanowski. CHANE 84. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Uro, Risto. Ritual and Christian Beginnings: A Socio-Cognitive Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Veldhuis, Niek. “The Poetry of Magic.” Pages 35–48 in Mesopotamian Magic: Textual, Historical, and Interpretative Perspectives. Edited by I. Tzvi Abusch and Karel van der Toorn. AMD 1. Groningen: Styx, 1999. Vermes, Geza. “The Etymology of ‘Essenes’.” Pages 8–29 in Post-Biblical Jewish Studies. SJLA 8. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Vernus, Pascal. “‘Ritual’ Sḏm.n.f and Some Values of the ‘Accompli’ in the Bible and in the Koran.” Pages 307–316 in Pharaonic Egypt: The Bible and Christianity. Edited by Sarah IsraelitGroll. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1985. Versnel, Henk S. “The Poetics of the Magical Charm: An Essay on the Power of Words.” Pages 105–158 in Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World. Edited by Paul A. Mirecki and Marvin Meyer. RGRW 141. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Volk, Konrad. Die Balaĝ-Komposition úru àm-ma-ir-ra-bi: Rekonstruktion und Bearbeitung der Tafeln 18 (19’ff.), 19, 20 und 21 der späten, kanonischen Version. FAOS 18. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1989. Walton, Francis R. Diodorus Siculus: Library of History, Volume XII: Fragments of Books 33–40. LCL 423. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967. –. “The Messenger of God in Hecataeus of Abdera.” HTR 48 (1955): 255–257. Wasserman, Nathan. Style and Form in Old-Babylonian Literary Texts. CM 27. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Watts, James W. “The Torah as the Rhetoric of Priesthood.” Pages 319–332 in The Reception of the Torah in the Second Temple Period. Edited by Gary Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Weippert, Manfred. “Aspekte israelitischer Prophetie im Lichte verwandter Erscheinungen des Alten Orients.” Pages 287–319 in Ad Bene et Fideliter Seminandum: Festgabe für Karlheinz Deller zum 21. Februar 1987. Edited by Gerlinde Mauer and Ursula Magen. AOAT 220. Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker, 1988. –. “Prophetie im Alten Orient.” Neues Bibel-Lexikon. Vol. III. Zürich: Benziger, 1997. cols. 196–200. –. Götterwort in Menschenmund: Studien zur Prophetie in Assyrien, Israel und Juda. FRLANT 252. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014. Weiser, Artur. The Psalms. Translated by Herbert Hartwell. OTL. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1998. Wenham, Gordon J. “Were David’s Sons Priests?” ZAW 87 (1975): 79–82. Wevers, John William. “Ecstatic vs Literary Prophets in Ancient Israël.” BCSMS 23 (1992): 9–13. Wilcke, Claus. “ittātim ašqi aštāl: Medien in Mari?” RA 77 (1983): 93. Wilson, Robert R. “Prophecy and Ecstasy: A Reexamination.” JBL 98 (1979): 321–337. –. Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1980.

Bibliography Wolfson, Harry Austryn. Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1947. Wolinski, Arelene. “Egyptian Masks: The Priest and His Role.” Arch 40/1 (1987): 22–29. Wreszinski, Walter. Atlas zur altaegyptischen Kulturgeschicht. Teil 2. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichssche Buchhandlung, 1935. Würthwein, Ernst. “Amos-Studien.” ZAW 62 (1950): 10–52. Yadin, Yigael. The Temple Scroll. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Shrine of the Book, 1983. Zgoll, Annette. “Die Welt im Schlaf sehen—Inkubation von Träumen im antiken Mesopotamien.” WO 32 (2002): 74–101. –. Traum und Welterleben im antiken Mesopotamien: Traumtheorie und Traumpraxis im 3. –1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. als Horizont einer Kulturgeschichte des Träumens. AOAT 333. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2006. Ziegler, Nele. Florilegium Marianum 9: Les musiciens et la musique d’après les archives de Mari. Mémoires de NABU 10. Supplément à NABU no. 3. Paris: SEPOA, 2007.

Author Index

Adam, K.-P., 121 Addey, C., 103 Allen, J. P., 55 Allen, L. C., 142 Anor, N., 116 Armerding, C. E., 148 Arnold, W. R., 140 Auld, A. G., 150 Aune, D. E., 64, 77, 78, 80, 85 Baethgen, F., 93, 96 Baines, J., 59 Balentine, S. E., 18 Bar-Kochva, B., 66, 67 Barclay, J., 80 Barstad, H., 43, 128 Bashir, S., 118 Batsch, C., 69, 75 Beaulieu, P.-A., 108, 114 Becking, B., 27 Beentjes, P., 136 Begrich, J., 89, 90 Bell, C. M., 17, 22, 25, 26, 30, 59, 60, 118 Bellinger, W. H., Jr, 89 Ben Zvi, E., 135 Blank, S., 77 Blenkinsopp, J., 71, 79–81, 83, 85, 144 Bodi, D., 149 Bonnet, H., 51 Bonora, I., 103 Booij, T., 90, 94 Boorer, S., 30 Borger, R., 114 Bourguignon, E., 117 Bowden, H., 103 Braulik, G., 96 Breasted, J. H., 54, 55 Bresch, N., 103

Briggs, C. A., 90 Briggs, E. G., 90 Brin, G., 71–74 Broida, M., 19, 22 Budde, K., 139 Butler, S. A. L., 129 Carlson, R. A., 135 Carr, D. M., 99 Catagnoti, A., 108 Charles, R. H., 71 Civil, M., 114 Clarke, E. C., 102 Clifford, R. J., 143 Clines, D. J. A., 142 Cogan, M., 61, 120, 126 Cole, S. W., 109, 114 Colson, F. H., 78 Cook, S. L., 63, 79–82 Cumming, B., 54 Curcija-Prodanovic, N., 118 Czachesz, I., 113 Dahood, M. L., 90–93, 95 Dam, C. van, 68, 137–40 Davies, B. G., 54 Davies, G. H., 97 Davies, J., 149 Davies, W. D., 66 Davis, R. C., 21, 36 Diamond, F. H., 66, 67 Dietrich, M., 131 Dietrich, W., 121 Dillon, J. M., 102 Dimant, D., 75 Doan, W., 20 Dodd, C. H., 77 Doeker, A., 89, 90, 92, 94–97, 99

174

Author Index

Donner, H., 114, 124 Douglas, M., 46 Dozeman, T. B., 98 Drawnel, H., 70 Durand, J.-M., 105, 106, 122, 131 Dykes, D., 29 Ebach, J. H., 128 Eidevall, G., 42 Eliade, M., 117 Eshel, E., 70 Evans, C. A., 98 Eyre, C. J., 52, 53, 55 Fabry, H.-J., 92, 93 Faraone, C., 25 Feldman, A., 71 Feldman, L. H., 66, 79, 81–83, 86 Ferrary, J.-L., 103, 104 Flower, M. A., 102 Fontenrose, J., 102 Frankfurter, D., 30, 35 Freydank, H., 114 Fried, L., 67–70, 75, 83 Friedrich, I., 138

Guichard, M., 105, 106, 122 Guinan, A. K., 51, 111 Gunkel, H., 89–91, 93, 95, 97 Gunneweg, A. H. J., 127 Habel, N. C., 145 Hamori, E. J., 116, 129 Harris, J. G. III, 89 Hayward, R., 69, 74, 75 Herrmann, S., 51, 135 Hershbell, J. P., 102 Hesse, F., 18, 34 Hilber, J. W., 39, 46, 47, 51–53, 55, 60, 61, 89, 90, 95, 97, 98, 127 Hill, A. E., 66 Himmelfarb, M., 70 Hoftijzer, J., 124, 135 Holladay, W. L., 144 Hollander, H. W., 68, 71 Hossfeld, F.-L., 89–97, 99 Houtman, C., 137, 149 Huffmon, H. B., 103 Hunziker-Rodewald, R., 95 Hurowitz, V. A., 138 Israeli, S., 56–59

Gager, J. G., 66 Gesenius, H. F. W., 124 Giles, T., 20 Gnuse, R. K., 85 Goldingay, J., 144 Goldman, L., 72–74, 76 Görg, M., 127 Grabbe, L. L., 42, 46, 47, 60, 64, 79–81, 85, 116, 135, 136 Gray, R., 79–81, 84–86 Greenberg, M., 36 Greenfield, J. C., 70 Grelot, P., 70, 71 Grey, M., 69, 74, 83 Grimes, R. L., 17, 22, 118, 120 Groneberg, B., 106

Jacquet, A., 123 Jameson, M. H., 102 Jassen, A. P., 63, 67, 72, 79, 81, 84, 86, 136 Jastrow, M., 142 Jeremias, J., 48, 89 Johnson, A. R., 39, 64, 89 Johnson, B., 92 Johnson, D. H., 127 Jong, M. J. de, 20, 107, 108 Jonge, M. de, 68, 71 Jongeling, K., 69, 70, 124 Joüon, P. S. T., 95, 143 Kampen, J., 69 Kataja, L., 114

Author Index Keel, O., 55 Kim, K., 129 Kitchen, K. A., 55, 58, 98 Kitz, A. M., 116 Klein, A., 91, 92, 96 Klingbeil, G. A., 118 Koch, U. S., 102, 111, 113 Koenen, K., 89 Kooten, G. H. van, 125 Kratz, R. G., 99 Kraus, H.-J., 90, 92, 93, 95 Kugler, R., 70, 71 Lampinen, A., 102, 103 Langdon, S., 114 Lange, A., 63 Laroche, D., 103 Laroche, E., 126 Lawson, E. T., 112 Lederman, R., 28 Leichty, E., 31, 114 Lemaire, A., 119 Levine, B. A., 123–25 Levison, J. R., 78, 121, 126 Lewis, I. M., 117, 133 Lindblom, J., 39 Lohfink, N., 90, 91 Lohr, J. N., 98 Long, B. O., 33, 34 Lundbom, J. R., 142, 143 Machinist, P., 114, 142 Macintosh, A. A., 143 Mann, S. T., 135 Marcus, R., 84 Maul, S. M., 20, 27, 102, 110 Mays, J. L., 143 McCarter, P. K., 122 McCauley, R. N., 112 McConville, J. G., 150 McKane, W., 142, 143 Meeteren, N. van, 92, 93

175

Meltzer, E. S., 54 Mendels, D., 66 Metcalf, C., 132 Meyer, R., 71, 124 Milgrom, J., 35 Milik, J. T., 70 Montgomery, J. A., 120 Moore, G. F., 139 Moore, M. S., 125 Moretti, J.-C., 103 Mowinckel, S., 39, 89 Muffs, Y., 19, 32, 34 Muhlestein, K., 56 Müller, H. W., 55, 56, 59 Muraoka, T., 95, 143 Murnane, W. J., 54 Naiden, F. S., 32 Nasuti, H. P., 94 Nielsen, K., 26, 28 Nissinen, M., 39, 47, 48, 51, 63, 98, 101, 107, 110, 116, 119, 121, 122, 128, 131 Noegel, S. B., 129 Noth, M., 30 Nougayrol, J., 126 O’Connor, P., 121 Oppenheim, A. L., 129 Otto, E., 107 Overholt, T. W., 117 Parke, H. W., 103 Parker, R., 102 Parker, S. B., 117, 121 Parpola, S., 98, 106, 107, 114, 128 Parry, D. W., 63 Payne, D., 144 Pearce, S. K., 78, 79 Petersen, D. L., 80, 136 Phillips, A., 150 Pongratz-Leisten, B., 48, 107 Pope, M. H., 145

176 Pratchett, T., 115 Prinsloo, W. S., 95, 97 Qimron, E., 74 Rabin, C., 145 Rad, G. von, 61 Rappaport, R. A., 22, 25 Redford, D. B., 52 Reiling, J., 80 Reinhold, M., 66 Reventlow, H., 49 Ricks, S. D., 63 Riss, O., 103 Rochberg, F., 19 Röllig, W., 114 Rooke, D. W., 66, 147–49 Rowe, C. J., 116 Ruiten, J. T. A. G. M. van, 125 Rüterswörden, U., 124, 128 Russell, S. C., 130 Šanda, A., 120 Sass, B., 127 Sasson, J. M., 131 Satran, D., 76, 77 Schaeffer, C. F. A., 126 Schiffman, L. H., 76 Schipper, B. U., 52, 127 Schlichting, R., 51 Schmoldt, H., 96 Schulman, A. R., 56 Schulte, L. L., 63 Schwemer, A. M., 76 Scott, R. B. Y., 143 Scurlock, J., 116 Searle, J. R., 21 Seebass, H., 124, 125, 127, 133 Sellin, E., 139 Seow, C. L., 149 Seybold, K., 90, 91, 93, 95 Shupak, N., 52

Author Index Sider Hamilton, C., 77, 127 Ska, J. L., 30 Skinner, A. C., 63 Skinner, J., 120 Smith, J. P., 145 Smith, J. Z., 126 Snoek, J. A. M., 22, 25 Sørensen, J., 25, 111–13 Soden, W. von, 114 Spieckermann, H., 89, 99 Starr, I., 102 Steinkeller, P., 101 Stökl, J., 18, 107, 116, 117, 119, 121, 123, 129, 131 Stone, M. E., 70 Strugnell, J., 71–74 Sweeney, M. A., 26 Tadmor, H., 61, 120 Tate, M. E., 90–93, 97 Tawil, H. ben Y., 141 Thackeray, H. St. J., 86 Thelle, R. I., 18, 19, 32, 33, 36, 136, 149 Thiel, W., 126 Tidwall, N. L., 150 Tiemeyer, L.-S., 18, 28, 34, 60, 129, 137 Timm, S., 125 Toorn, K. van der, 47, 61, 128, 137, 149 Tournay, R. J., 89, 90, 92, 93 Troyer, K. de, 63 Turner, V. W., 21 Ulanowski, K., 146 Uro, R., 112, 113 Veldhuis, N., 25 Vermes, G., 69 Vernus, P., 57 Versnel, H. S., 25 Viaggio, S., 114 Virolleaud, C., 126 Volk, K., 106

Author Index Waltke, B. K., 121 Walton, F. R., 65, 66 Wasserman, N., 25 Watts, J. W., 20 Weippert, M., 51, 107 Weiser, A., 61 Wenham, G. J., 148 Wether, E. von, 114 Wevers, J. W., 121 Whiting, R. M., 114 Wilcke, C., 131

Wilson, R. R., 117, 121 Wolfson, H. A., 78, 79 Wolinski, A., 53 Wreszinski, W., 54 Würthwein, E., 42 Yadin, Y., 75 Zenger, E., 90–97 Zgoll, A., 129 Ziegler, N., 105, 119

177

Reference Index

HEBREW BIBLE/OLD TESTAMENT Genesis 49:15 91 Exodus 1:11 91 2:11 91 5:4 91 5:5 91 5:22–23 24, 25 6:6 91 6:7 91 7:16 24 8:5–8 24 8:8 24 8:26 24 9:29 18 9:33 18, 24 10:18 24 15 123 15:22–25 24 15:25 35 16:4 96 17:1–7 24, 25 17:6 94 20:5–6 30 24 126 24:3–4 66 24:4–8 60 28 68 28:4 138, 147 28:15 68 28:29 68 28:30 68 28:31 138 28:42 140 29:5 138, 147

30:34 140 32:10 30 32:11–13 18, 29, 30, 36 32:31–32 29, 36 33:5 29 33:11 23 33:12–16 29 34:6–7 30, 36 34:8–9 29 34:8 30, 32 39:2–3 138, 140, 141, 147 Leviticus 1–16 20 4–5 18, 20 4:21–23 73 4:27–31 17 6:3 140 6:10 ET 140 8:7–8 68 8:7 149 8:8 68 13–14 46 16 73 16:4 140 19:28 126 21:5 126 26:46 66 27:34 66 Numbers 11 126 11:2 24 11:24 126 12:6–8 23 12:13 19, 24, 25 14:13–19 18, 29, 36 14:13–16 30

180

Reference Index

Numbers (cont.) 14:17–18 30 14:20–23 96 14:28–30 96 16:20–22 26 16:22 29–32, 36 17:9–10 26 17:10 30 17:11–15 35 17:11–13 23–25 17:12 25, 28 20:6–11 24 20:6 24 20:12 96 21:7–9 18, 24, 25 21:9 28 22–24 26, 123, 125, 129 22 129 22:8 129 22:18–20 129 22:36–24:25 46 23 123 23:3 124 23:13–15 124 23:23 124, 125 23:27–30 124 24 125 24:1–2 125 24:1 125 24:3–9 124 27:18–21 68 27:21 75, 76 31:8 125 Deuteronomy 1:3 66 4:40 95 5:3 95 5:5 66 5:9–10 30 6:4 91 6:6 95

7:11 95 8:2 96 9:3 95 9:14 30 9:18 30, 31 9:25–29 18, 29, 30 9:25 30 11:2 95 13 72 13:4 96 14:1 126 17:8–13 78, 79 18 125 20:2–4 75 28:69 66 29:18 92 31:9 86 32:4 94 32:12 92 32:13–14 93 32:13 93 32:18 94 32:30 94 32:31 94 32:37 94 32:44 LXX 66 32:51 96 34:10 60 Joshua 10:24 61 24:6 125 Judges 2:22 96 3:4 96 5 123 8:26–27 139 8:27 137 17:5 139, 149 19–20 75

Reference Index 1 Samuel 2:18 136, 140, 141, 146, 149–51 2:27–28 137 2:28 137 3 129, 130 3:7 97, 130 3:10 130 3:20 60 5–6 37 6:8 18 7:3–6 26 7:6 24, 26 7:9 24, 26, 36, 60 9 37 9:9 26 10 122, 126 10:5 40 10:10–11 40 10:10 40, 47 10:26–29 127 12:17–18 23 12:19–25 26 12:23 18 14:3 149 14:18–19 149 14:18 140, 149 15:11 29, 30 19 126 19:18–24 40 19:20 40 20:9 147 21:9 ET 139 21:10 139 22 147 22:18 136, 140, 146, 150, 151 22:20–23 149 23 137, 139 23:6–12 147 23:6 139 23:9 139

28 132 28:6 75 2 Samuel 6 148, 149 6:14 136, 140, 146–51 6:27 148 7:1–17 41 8:15–18 148 8:18 149 12:1–14 41 15:27 135 20:26 149 22:18 147 24 41 24:11 41 24:21–25 26 1 Kings 1:7–45 41 1:8 41 1:26 41 1:32 41 1:34 41 1:38 41 1:44–45 41 3:11 132 7:15–22 61 11:1–13 41 12:31 149 12:32 149 13 28 13:2 28 13:4–6 24, 27 13:8–10 27 17–22 41 17:17–24 24 17:19–24 24, 26 17:20 27 17:21 27 18–19 44 18 125, 126

181

182 1 Kings (cont.) 18:4 41 18:30–39 41 22 40, 132 22:5–28 42 22:6 40 22:7 132 22:13–23 34 2 Kings 2:3–18 40 2:3 40 2:21 35 3 119, 121, 123 3:9–20 33 3:13–19 24 3:13–14 34 3:15 34, 36 4:1 40 4:13 18 4:18–37 24 4:24 27 4:29 27 4:32–37 24, 26 4:38–41 40 6:1–7 27, 40 6:6 35 8 32 8:10 32 8:11 32, 34 8:13 32 9:1–3 40 11:14 61 11:15 61 18–20 42 18:4 28 19:1–7 32, 33 19:1–4 19 19:14–19 29 20:1–6 29 20:7 29 22 117

Reference Index 22:12–20 42 23:1–3 42 23:2 44, 49 23:3 61 1 Chronicles 6:18 45 9:22 44 15:19 45 15:27 147, 148 18:15–17 148 18:17 148 21 41 21:9 41 21:18–27 26 24:20–22 77 25 46 25:1–6 44 25:1–3 44 2 Chronicles 5:12 45, 148 13:9 149 15:3 136 15:8 136 20 45, 47 20:1 45 20:3–13 45 20:10 45 20:14–19 45 20:14–17 45 20:14 136 20:20–28 45 20:22–23 45 23:13 61 24:20 136 25:5 45 29 124 29:25 45, 67 32:20 29 34 118 34:30 45

Reference Index Ezra 2 45 2:2–35 45 2:36–39 45 2:40 45 2:41 45 2:42 45 2:43–54 45 2:55–57 45 2:61–63 83 2:65 45 9:10–11 67 Nehemiah 7 45 7:7–38 45 7:39–42 45 7:43 45 7:44 45 7:45 45 7:46–56 45 7:57–59 45 7:63–65 83 7:67 45 8:1–8 67 8:6 67 9:17 30 Esther 1:6 148 8:15 148 Job 11:3 144, 145 12:24 96 41:4 144, 145 41:12 ET 144, 145 42:8 26, 124 Psalms 2 60, 61 2:9 61

183

21–22 61 23 95 44:21 92 50 46 60 45 73–83 46, 94 73:26 94 74:9 63 75 45 78:15 94 78:18 95 78:20 94 78:35 94 78:41 95 78:56 95 81 90–92, 94, 97–99 81:1–6 91 81:2–5 90 81:2–4 90 81:4 90 81:5 90 81:6–17 90 81:6–11 90 81:6 90, 91, 94, 97, 100 81:7–17 91 81:7–8 91 81:7 91 81:8 91 81:9–17 94 81:9–15 94 81:9–11 91 81:9 91, 94, 98 81:10–11 98 81:10 92 81:11 92, 98 81:12–13 92 81:12 94 81:13 92 81:14–17 93 81:14 91, 93, 94 81:15–16 93 81:17 91, 93, 95

184

Reference Index

Psalms (cont.) 82 45, 95 89 60 89:20 61 95 90, 91, 94, 96–100 95:1–7 95, 96 95:1 95 95:2 95 95:3–4 95 95:6–7 95 95:6 95 95:7–11 90 95:7 95, 97, 100 95:8–11 95 95:8 95, 96 95:9 91, 95, 98 95:10–11 96 95:10 96 95:11 96, 100 103:8 30 105:41 94 106:14 95 106:32 96 110 45, 60, 61 110:6 61 132 60 132:17–18 61 145:8 30 Proverbs 7:25 96 31:4 143 Isaiah 1:19 92 6–11 42 6 23, 42 6:11 34 7:3–9 42 8:11 121 9:3 91 9:14 44

10:27 91 13 46 14:25 91 15–25 46 16:6 144, 145 21:3–4 121 21:4 96 28:7 44 28:12 92 29:10–11 44 30:9 92 30:15 92 36–39 42 37 23 37:1–7 33 37:1–4 29 38:1–6 29 38:21 29 39:5 91 44:1 91 44:25 141–44, 146, 151 48:2 91 53:6 96 63:17 96 Jeremiah 1:1 60 1:4 MT 46 1:9 43 1:10 MT 46 2:26 43 2:30 43 3:17 92 5:13 44 5:31 44 6:13 43 6:22–23 121 6:24–25 121 7:1–2 43 7:16 19 7:24 92 8:1 43

Reference Index Jeremiah (cont.) 8:10 43 9:13 92 11:8 92 11:14 19 13:10 92 13:13 43 14:11 19 14:13–16 44 14:13–14 44 14:16–17 44 14:18–20 44 14:18 43 14:28–29 44 15:1 19 16:12 92 18:12 92 19:14–15 43 20:1–3 43 20:2–6 43 21:1–2 43 22:2 91 23 95 23:17 92 23:18 34 25:1–13 LXX 46 25:15–38 LXX 46 26 44, 49 26:2–19 43 26:7 43, 44 26:8 43, 44 26:11 43, 44 26:16 43, 44 27:9–10 44 27:14–18 44 27:18 29 28 43 28:1 43 28:5 43 28:7 91 28:8 MT 46 28:15 43, 91

185

28:25 MT 46 29:1 43 29:8–9 44 29:26 121 29:29–32 43 32:18–19 30 32:32 43 34:4 91 35:2–4 43 35:4 46 36:5–20 43 36:9–19 43 36:25 43 37:3–10 33 37:3 33, 43 37:7 33 37:19 44 38:14 43 38:20 91 42:1–22 33 42:4 33 46–51 MT 46 46:1–51:58 LXX 46 48:30 144–46 50:35 142 50:36 141, 142, 144, 146 Lamentations 2:9 43 2:14 44 2:20 43 4:13 43 Ezekiel 1:3 60 2:8 91 3:7 92 3:10 91 9 31 9:2 141 9:8 31, 36 9:9–10 31

186

Reference Index

Ezekiel (cont.) 11 31 11:13 31, 36 11:14–21 31 13 44 13:1–16 44 13:17–23 44 14:1–11 34 20:8 92 21:3 91 21:11–12 121 22:28 44 25–32 46 31 95 40:4 91 44:5 91 Daniel 9:4 30 9:10 67 10:5 141 Hosea 3:4 139 4:5 44 9:7 121 11:6 141, 143, 144, 146 Joel 2:13 30 2:17 29 Amos 1–3 46 7 31 7:1–3 31 7:1–2 19, 31 7:2 20, 31, 36 7:3 31 7:4–6 31 7:4–5 31 7:5 20, 31, 36

7:6 31 7:10–17 42 7:10–11 42 7:16 91 Jonah 4:2 30 Micah 3:5–7 44 3:11 43 6:5 125 18:14 137 18:17 137 18:18 137 18:20 137 Nahum 1:3 30 Habakkuk 1–2 29 Zephaniah 3:4 43 Haggai 1:13 66 Zechariah 3:8 91 7:3 44 13:2–5 44 Malachi 2:7 66

NEW TESTAMENT John 11:49–51 77

Reference Index APOCRYPHA Ecclesiasticus 45:10 68 50:17 67 1 Maccabees 3:46–54 75 4:46 63 9:27 63 14:41 63

PSEUDEPIGRAPHA Letter of Aristeas 97 68 Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 25 74 46:1 75, 83 47:2 83 Testament of Levi 8 70 8:1–17 67 8:1–10 70 8:2–17 70 8:2 68 8:11–15 70 8:11–14 70 8:15 71

DEAD SEA SCROLLS 11QTa 58:15–21 75 1Q21 1:1–2 70

4Q375 1 i 1 74 4Q375 frg. 1 col. i ll. 4–5 72 frg. 1 col. i ll.1–9 72 1 ii 1–3 74 frg. 1 col. ii ll. 3–9 72 1 ii 4–6 74 4Q376 frg. 1 col. i ll. 1–3 73 i i 3 74 i 2–3 74 frg. 1 col. ii ll. 1–3 73 1 ii 1 76 1 ii 3 74 frg. 1 col. iii ll. 1–3 73 4Q522 9 ii 75 9 ii 9–11 75

PHILO On Rewards and Punishments 53 79 On the Special Laws 1.88 68 4.151–192 78 4.188 78 4.191 78 4.192 78 On the Life of Moses 2.3 79 2.74–76 79 2.112–113 68 2.187 79

187

188 On the Life of Moses (cont.) 2.263–65 79 2.275 79

Reference Index BABYLONIAN TALMUD b. Sot. 33a 84

JOSEPHUS TOSEFTA TALMUD Jewish Antiquities 3.163 69 3.190–192 81 3.214–218 74, 83 3.217 69 4.303–304 86 5.120 82 6.115 82 6.254 82 6.257 82 6.271 82 7.73 82 7.76 82 8.93 69 11.327–328 84 13.282–283 84 13.299–300 84 13.322 84 20.167 81 Against Apion 1.37–40 79 Jewish War 1.68–69 84 1.78–80 80 2.259 81 2.261 81 3.400 86 6.285 81

MISHNAH m.Sot. 9:13 63

t.Sot. 13.2–3 63

CLASSICAL AND ANCIENT CHRISTIAN LITERATURE Diodorus Siculus Historical Library 40.3.1–8 65 Euripides Ion 93, 419 103 Phoenissae 224 103 Iamblichus On the Mysteries 3.11 102 Plutarch Moralia 3.397a 103 3.435b 103

INSCRIPTIONS Aramaic Levi Document 4.6 70 4.7 70 4.9 70

Reference Index 4.11 70 5.2–8 70 ARM 10 10 129 26 207 130 26 207:3–13 130 26 236 129 26 237 117 FM 3 2 48, 122 3 2 ii:21’–27’ 122 3 3 48, 122 3 3 col iii: 4’–13’ 122 KTU 1.5 1:4–5 138 LKA 112 line 40 27 LKU 51 109 Lachish Letter 3 43 3.20 43 RS 25.460 126 25.460 l. 11 126 SAA 9.3 98 9 3 107 9 3.2 i 27 98 9 3.2 i 28 61 9 3.5 iii 18–24 98 10 352 128

Wen–Amun ll. 1,38–1,47 127 SBLWAW SBLWAW 135l 104 SBLWAW 12 6 (ARM 26 196), lines 8–10 104 SBLWAW 12 5 (ARM 26 195) 104 SBLWAW 12 23 (ARM 26 213) 105 SBLWAW 12 24 (ARM 26 214) 105 SBLWAW 12 25 (ARM 26 215) 105 SBLWAW 12 29 (ARM 26 219) 105 SBLWAW 12 42 (ARM 26 237) 105 SBLWAW 135c (CM 33 1) 104 SBLWAW 12 51 and 52 (FM 3 2) 106 SBLWAW 12 51 (FM 3 2), lines s. ii 1–3 106 SBLWAW 12 51 (FM 3 2), lines ii 17–27 106 SBLWAW 12 51 and 52 (FM 3 3) 106 SBLWAW 12 52 (FM 3 3), lines iii 2–13 106 SBLWAW 135h (IM 50.852) 104

189

190 SBLWAW (cont.) SBLWAW 12 137 (KAI 202), lines A 10ff. (line A 12) 104 SBLWAW 12 135o (LKU 51) 108 SBLWAW 135m (LTBA 2 1) 104 SBLWAW 124 (MSL 12 4.121) 104 SBLWAW 125 (MSL 12 4.222) 104 SBLWAW 12 120 (MSL 12 5.22) 104 SBLWAW 126 (MSL 12 6.2) 104 SBLWAW 12 97 (Nin. A), lines i 59–62 104 SBLWAW 12 130 (OECT 1 20–21) 104 SBLWAW 12 67a (OECT 13 263) 104 SBLWAW 12 135n (OIP 114 122) 104, 109

Reference Index SBLWAW 12 101 (RINAP 5 3), lines v 25–76 104 SBLWAW 12 74 (SAA 9 1.7) 105 SBLWAW 12 75 (SAA 9 1.8) 104, 105 SBLWAW 12 89 (SAA 9 4) 105 SBLWAW 12 109 (SAA 10 352), lines 22–r. 4 105 SBLWAW 12 110 (SAA 12 69) 104 SBLWAW 12 111 (SAA 13 37) 105 SBLWAW 12 113 (SAA 13 144) 105 SBLWAW 12 135q (SpTU 3 116) 104 SBLWAW 12 119 (TCS 1 369) 104 SBLWAW 12 123 (VS 19 1) 104 SBLWAW 118c (ZTT 25) 104

List of Contributors Marian Broida is Interfaith Program Coordinator at Gustavus Adolphus College, Minnesota, USA. Lester L. Grabbe is Professor Emeritus of Hebrew Bible and Early Judaism at the University of Hull, England, United Kingdom. John W. Hilber is Professor of Old Testament at Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, Michigan, USA. Alex P. Jassen is Ethel and Irvin Edelman Professor of Hebrew and Judaic Studies at New York University, USA. Anja Klein is Senior Lecturer in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom. Martti Nissinen is Professor of Old Testament Studies at the University of Helsinki, Finland. Jonathan Stökl is Senior Lecturer in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament at King’s College London, England, United Kingdom. Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer is Reader in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom.