Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume: Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Qumran, and Post-Biblical Judaism 9781575065410

Citation preview

Sefer Moshe

The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume

hçwm rpsb ˆybtç hkyla wnbtk “We have written to you so that you may study (carefully) the book of Moshe” (DJD X 58:10)

Moshe Weinfeld

Sefer Moshe #

$

The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Qumran, and Post-Biblical Judaism

Edited by

Chaim Cohen, Avi Hurvitz, and Shalom M. Paul

Winona Lake, Indiana Eisenbrauns 2004

The editors gratefully acknowledge the following institutions for their generous contributions, which made this volume possible: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem The Jewish Theological Seminary of America (Professor Ismar Schorsch, Chancellor)

ç Copyright 2004 by Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.

Cataloging in Publication Data Sefer Moshe : the Moshe Weinfeld jubilee volume : studies in the Bible and the ancient Near East, Qumran, and post-Biblical Judaism / edited by Chaim Cohen, Avi Hurvitz, and Shalom M. Paul. p. cm. ISBN 1-57506-074-4 1. Bible. O.T.—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Middle Eastern literature—History and criticism. 3. Judaism. I. Weinfeld, Moshe. II. Cohen, Chaim, 1947– III. Hurvitz, Avi. IV. Paul, Shalom M. BS1171.3.S44 2003 296—dc21 2002156030

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

Contents

Contents #

$

Prof. Moshe Weinfeld: A Professional Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Chaim Cohen, Avi Hurvitz, and Shalom Paul Prof. Moshe Weinfeld’s Contribution to Biblical Scholarship: An Appreciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii Zeev Weisman Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix Bibliography of the Publications of Moshe Weinfeld (1961–2001) Noam Mizrahi and Udi Mizrachi English Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxv Hebrew Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxiv Subject Index to the Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xlvi

Part 1 Exegetical and Literary Studies on the Bible A Slip of the Pen? On Josiah’s Actions in Samaria (2 Kings 23:15–20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mordechai Cogan A Problem in Proverbs 3:35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J. A. Emerton On the Common Literary Expressions of the Ancient Semites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Israel Ephºal Min hassamayim dibbartî: ‘I Spoke from Heaven’ (Exodus 20:22) . . Michael Fishbane Who Redacted the Primary History? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . David Noel Freedman and Brian Kelly Paradise Regained: Proverbs 3:13–20 Reconsidered . . . . . . . . . . . Victor Avigdor Hurowitz v

3 9

25 33 39 49



vi

Contents

,

Cain: The Forefather of Humanity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Israel Knohl The Punishment of Succoth and Penuel by Gideon in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Treaties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 A. Malamat Myth, History, and Utopia in the Prophecy of the Shoot (Isaiah 10:33–11:9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Lea Mazor Covenants: The Sinaitic and Patriarchal Covenants in the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17–27) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Jacob Milgrom “Yet I Have Been to Them f[m çdqml in the Countries Where They Have Gone” (Ezekiel 11:16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 B. Oded Daniel 12:9: A Technical Mesopotamian Scribal Term . . . . . . . . . 115 Shalom M. Paul The Covenant at Mount Sinai in the Light of Texts from Mari . . . 119 Frank H. Polak ‘No Ephod or Teraphim’— oude hierateias oude delon: Hosea 3:4 in the LXX and in the Paraphrases of Chronicles and the Damascus Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Alexander Rofé Reexamining the Fate of the “Canaanites” in the Torah Traditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Baruch J. Schwartz The Law of the Sorceress (Exodus 22:17[18]) in the Light of Biblical and Mesopotamian Parallels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Yitschak Sefati and Jacob Klein “And You Will Be like God and Know What Is Good and What Is Bad”: Genesis 2–3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 J. A. Soggin The Presence of God and the Coherence of Exodus 20:22–26 . . . 195 Jeffrey H. Tigay Psalm 82 and Biblical Exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 Yair Zakovitch



+

Contents

vii

Part 2 Studies on Biblical Hebrew, History, and Geography The Enclitic-mem in Biblical Hebrew: Its Existence and Initial Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chaim Cohen The Boundary of the Tribe of Dan ( Joshua 19:41–46) . . . . . . . . Aaron Demsky Again the Abecedaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . William W. Hallo ‘Maison de David’, ‘maison de Mopsos’, et les Hivvites . . . . . . . . . André Lemaire Sources and Composition in the Biblical History of Edom . . . . . . Nadav Naªaman On the Onomastics and Topography of the Fertile Crescent . . . . . Ran Zadok

231 261 285 303 313 321

Part 3 Ancient Near Eastern and Amarna Studies Rationality in Ancient Near Eastern International Relations in the “Extended Age of the Amarna Archive,” ca. 1460–1200 b.c.e.: The Force of †emu ‘Mind’ . . . . . . . . . . . Pinhas Artzi Another Case of Hiphil in Amarna Age Canaanite . . . . . . . . . . . . Edward L. Greenstein Amarna Letter No. 84: Damu, Adonis, and “The Living God” at Byblos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tryggve N. D. Mettinger The Originality of the Teachings of Zarathustra in the Light of Yasna 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Simo Parpola Sennacherib, King of Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hayim Tadmor

339 351

361

373 385



viii

Contents

,

Part 4 Studies on Qumran, Postbiblical Judaism, and the Jewish Medieval Commentaries Some “Qumranic” Observations on the Aramaic Levi Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joseph M. Baumgarten The Tension between Rabbinic Legal Midrash and the ‘Plain Meaning’ (Peshat) of the Biblical Text—An Unresolved Problem?: In the Wake of Rashbam’s Commentary on the Pentateuch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sara Japhet La croyance à la résurrection des justes dans un texte qumranien de sagesse: 4Q418 69 ii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Émile Puech The Writing of Ancient Biblical Texts, with Special Attention to the Judean Desert Scrolls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Emanuel Tov The Deuteronomistic Roots of Judaism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Timo Veijola

393

403

427

445 459

Indexes Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indexes of Words (prepared by Gershom Kravitz) . . . . . . . . . . . . Hebrew Words and Phrases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aramaic Words and Phrases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akkadian Words and Phrases (including all EA) . . . . . . . . . . . . Ugaritic and Other West Semitic Words and Phrases . . . . . . . . .

479 488 503 503 510 511 514

Prof. Moshe Weinfeld: A Professional Profile Chaim Cohen, Avi Hurvitz, and Shalom Paul #

$

Prof. Weinfeld was born in Poland in 1925, immigrated to Israel in 1947, and pursued all of his academic studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: B.A. (1955), M.A. (1959), and Ph.D. (1965). Among his eminent teachers during those years, one can mention B. Mazar, M. D. Cassuto, Y. Kaufmann, and I. L. Seeligmann. He also advanced along the professorial track at The Hebrew University, beginning as an instructor in 1961 and progressing to his appointment as a full professor in 1978. After his retirement in 1993 at the age of 68, he continued to give an annual graduate course in the Bible Department. In addition to his teaching in Jerusalem, he served as a visiting professor at the Jewish Theological Seminary (1966–69), Brandeis University (1967–68), University of California at San Diego (1981), and University of California at Berkeley (1989). Prof. Weinfeld is without a doubt one of the leading scholars of comparative biblical and ancient Near Eastern studies in our generation. He is thoroughly at home in the ancient cultures and their languages, and his publications embrace all the lands in that region: Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia, Ugarit, Phoenicia, Aram, Greece, and Rome. Indeed, his sweeping command of the diverse totality of texts and languages that these ancient cultures have bequeathed to us is what gives validity and authority to the scholarly synthesis of his work. (See, for example, his instructive article on the concept of the covenant, “Covenantal Terminology in the Ancient Near East and Its Influence on the West,” JAOS 93 [1973] 190–99, in which he elucidated the technical terminology of this subject as it is preserved in the written evidence known to us.) ix

x

Chaim Cohen, Avi Hurvitz, and Shalom Paul

,

The biblical book to whose scholarly advancement Prof. Weinfeld has contributed most decisively is without doubt Deuteronomy. In 1972, he published his monograph Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford University Press), and it immediately became one of the standard tools, not only for the study of Deuteronomy, but for all of biblical scholarship. (This is the reason, of course, that Eisenbrauns decided in 1992 to reprint this book in its original form.) The skill by which he succeeded in combining philological-historical analysis of the biblical text with the extrabiblical data from the field of ancient Near Eastern covenants and treaties is revealed here at its best. His Anchor Bible commentary on Deuteronomy is a continuation of his work on this biblical book (the first volume published in 1991 covers chaps. 1–11). It is not for naught that the editors of this series noted: “Prof. Moshe Weinfeld is the foremost expositor of the Deuteronomist and the Deuteronomistic School.” Another Hebrew commentary written by Weinfeld in 1975 is dedicated to Genesis and was published in the framework of the new edition of S. L. Gordon’s biblical commentary series. Weinfeld has also written four more books on other topics pertaining to the study of the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. In Justice and Righteousness in Israel and the Nations (1985; Hebrew), Weinfeld addressed equality and freedom in ancient Israel in the light of concepts of social justice in the ancient Near East. Among many of his contributions, one finds in this study one of the most important comparative analyses of the biblical term rwrd in light of the parallel Mesopotamian social institution, andurarum/durarum. This book appeared in an expanded and updated English edition in 1995 (Magnes/Fortress). In 1986, Weinfeld published his important study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, The Organizational Pattern and the Penal Code of the Qumran Sect, in which he studied the social structure of the sect in depth. In 1992, his book From Joshua to Josiah appeared, presenting a literary-historical inquiry into the decisive events in Israelite history from the days of Joshua until Josiah’s time and the literary-ideological marks that these events imprinted upon the Bible in general, and upon historiographical literature in particular. He was awarded the Ben-Zvi Prize in 1993 for this work. In 1993, his book The Promise of the Land: Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites was published. In this study, Weinfeld investigated the subject of the Land of Israel in all of its implications, including the question of the borders of the land according to earlier and later sources. Finally, in his latest monograph, The Ten Commandments and Qeriªat Shema: The Evolution of Faith

+

Prof. Moshe Weinfeld: A Professional Profile

xi

Declarations (2001; Hebrew), he discusses the special character and nature of these two literary units that are at the heart of Jewish faith and culture, and traces their development in biblical and postbiblical literature. Prof. Weinfeld is the founder of the annual journal Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and the Ancient Near Eastern Studies (which first appeared in 1975) and served as its editor until 1997 (11 volumes in total appeared in this series during his editorship). He has also served for many years on the editorial board of the prestigious journal Vetus Testamentum, published by the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, and he is one of the few non-American professors who has been elected as an honorary member of the distinguished organization, The Society of Biblical Literature. In 1994, Prof. Weinfeld was awarded the Israel Prize, the highest academic honor one can receive in Israel, as a token of esteem for his manifold contributions to the field of biblical scholarship.

Prof. Moshe Weinfeld’s Contribution to Biblical Scholarship: An Appreciation Zeev Weisman #

$

The time has not yet come to summarize and assess Prof. Weinfeld’s scholarly accomplishments, even though he has already been awarded the Israel Prize for his contribution to biblical scholarship (a prize that is generally awarded to scholars for their life achievements), and despite the fact that he has subsequently retired and stepped down as editor of Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and the Ancient Near Eastern Studies. 1 This is because his scholarly activity has not yet ceased, and we still look forward to the release of his most recent works, as well as the ongoing consideration that will be a consequence of the influential nature of the full body of his work. A summarizing assessment demands a continuous and broad study in its own right. Although I have known this man and his studies for decades, I do not presume to do this in the confines of this space. If I succeed in sketching for you, even in the most general of terms, the main outline of his scholarly creativity, this will be my modest contribution to this Festschrift in his honor and an expression of the great appreciation that I hold for this scholar and for his contribution to both the study and the teaching of the Bible. The dozens of articles that he has published in Israeli and foreign journals on numerous and varied topics throughout almost a jubilee of years; his books in Hebrew and English on the Deuteronomist and the Deuteronomistic school: Deuter1. This essay was originally presented as a lecture at a symposium in honor of Prof. Moshe Weinfeld, University of Haifa, June 12, 1999 (third day of Hanukkah; 27 Kislev 5760).

xii

+

Moshe Weinfeld’s Contribution to Biblical Scholarship

xiii

onomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford, 1972); larçyb hqdxw fpçm µym[bw ( Jerusalem, 1985); whyçay d[ [çwhym ( Jerusalem, 1992); his commentaries on Genesis and Deuteronomy; his role as founder and editor of Shnaton—all have placed him at the center of scholarly activity in Israel and, to a great extent, in the world at large. Weinfeld has succeeded in combining in his scholarly work the relatively nascent field of Israeli biblical studies with the heritage of classical biblical scholarship and its international audience. This was done neither by imitation nor through assimilation, nor as an opposition or alternative to it, but rather as an equal, and he is recognized as a discussant within this larger field. In many of the areas that I have addressed in my research and teaching, I have found that his studies support my suggestions, and when I have disagreed on a certain topic, I have always found him to be a fair disputant. The wide range of his studies—on the entire biblical canon, on its different books and its main processes of composition, of which the backbone is the study of the Deuteronomic historiography—makes his studies canonical. Inquiry into the Deuteronomist is, on the one hand, the key for understanding the process of canonization of the entire Bible and, on the other hand, the main tool for understanding the primary historical, sociological, ideological, and theological processes described in it. In Weinfeld’s introduction to his Anchor Bible commentary on Deuteronomy 1–11 (1991), as well as in his introduction to Deuteronomy in the Olam haTanakh series (1994), he has noted that D serves as an Archimedean point for biblical criticism. It allows scholars to date the other Pentateuchal sources ( J, E, P), as well as the literary framework of Joshua–Kings, the so-called Deuteronomistic History. And indeed, Weinfeld embarked from this starting point on his subsequent scholarly journey on the historiographical enterprise of the Deuteronomic school, as he sketched a detailed typological-literary map of its different coordinates, which allows us to trace the watershed of biblical historiography in general and its offshoots in other sections of the Bible. Weinfeld has invested his main efforts in the identification and historicophilological analysis of the biblical sources themselves, in order to arrive at a crystallized synthesis of the Deuteronomist’s enterprise, including its historical traditions and its ideological tendencies in the description of the Israelite history from Joshua to Josiah. The synthesis that he proposed related not only to the diachronic aspect of the Deuteronomic creation—its date, the stages of its development and composition, and its relationship to the

xiv

Zeev Weisman

,

other literary sources of the Pentateuch—but also, and primarily, to its ideological, political, and social aspects, and to the legal and religious concepts that characterize it as the genesis of historiography. Prof. Weinfeld was not the first scholar to recognize Deuteronomy as the key for the dating of the Pentateuchal sources. Since the critical thesis of de Wette in 1805, who identified D with the Torah scroll discovered in the days of Josiah, this episode has become the chronological starting point for the formation of the Pentateuch, which is accepted by the various schools of biblical scholarship, both by those who accept the Documentary Hypothesis and by those who reject it. However, Weinfeld expanded the historical and ideological basis of this assumption, which primarily relied on the observation that the principle of centralization of the cult sets D apart from the Covenant Code and that there is a clear correlation between this principle and the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah in the seventh century b.c.e. He achieved this from two directions: (1) by a typological-formalistic comparison of the treaty framework in D with the vassal treaty contract of Esarhaddon from 672 b.c.e. (a document that was only discovered in 1956, 150 years after de Wette proposed his thesis); (2) by means of stylistic, thematic, and theological comparisons with prophetic literature that preceded the canonical crystallization of D, particularly the book of Hosea. The primary typological similarity between D and the vassal treaty of Esarhaddon is that both present a model of a covenant between a ruler and his subjects, and not a covenant between two equal partners: in the vassal treaty of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, between him and his vassals; and in D, between Yhwh—in whose name the covenant was made in the plains of Moab—and Israel—who obligated themselves to the requirements of the covenant and swore to fulfill it. Weinfeld showed that the demands of loyalty of both the Deuteronomic covenant and Esarhaddon’s vassal treaty were formulated using similar language: “to love” the sovereign “with all their hearts and all their might” (see Deut 6:5); “to fear, to walk after . . . to hearken to the voice of. . . .” There are also parallels in content between the Assyrian oaths and those in D. One finds parallels to Esarhaddon’s vassal treaty in the series of curses that concludes D’s covenant (Deut 28:23–35), and there is even an identical order to the curses. Thus, Israel’s relationship with Yhwh is described using the model of an imperial ruler and his subjects. According to Weinfeld, it is not by chance that the Assyrian treaty form, which is based on the demand of exclusive loyalty of vassals to their sovereign,

+

Moshe Weinfeld’s Contribution to Biblical Scholarship

xv

was adopted in full by D, for it corresponds to the spirit of the book in which the conception of the unity of God reached the apex of its expression. This conclusion regarding the historical and theological background of D also matches his finds in the second approach mentioned above. Weinfeld analyzed a series of ideological and stylistic parallels between D and Hosea, primarily the struggle to purify Israelite religion from pagan elements, which he thought created a comfortable environment for an abstract conception of divine worship. D understood even the sole Temple in Jerusalem not as an actual house for God, but a house in which the name of God was called upon (D: “to place his name there”). The leading motif in the prophecies of Hosea, the return to the Lord that is the guarantee for the return of the nation from the exiles perpetrated by the Assyrian kings, is common to both Hosea and D and continues afterward in the prophecies of Jeremiah. The religiospiritual transition that transpired, according to Weinfeld, already during the twilight of the Northern Kingdom, took root in Judah during the reign of Hezekiah, approximately two decades after the exile of the Northern tribes and the destruction of the kingdom of Samaria. The acute historical circumstances, the Assyrian threat to the Judean kingdom and to Jerusalem, the chosen city (Sennacherib’s campaign of 701 b.c.e.), contributed to this development. These circumstances led to the religiocultic reform that began already, according to Weinfeld, during Hezekiah’s reign and was renewed more resolutely by Josiah, after it had ceased and had been rejected by the introduction of the Assyrian cult during Menasseh’s long reign. The political basis for Josiah’s reform suggested by the young scholar S. Smirin, 2 that Josiah’s cultic reform was an expression of a nationalistic renascence in the struggle against Assyrian rule, was developed and expanded by Weinfeld, who perceived a political-military ideology in D (and in Joshua) that represented this national renascence. This is reflected in the laws of ˙erem (proscription) against non-Israelite residents of the land, in the description of the extent of the promised land that includes even Transjordan, and finds expression in the military addresses (a widespread genre in the chapters that frame D: 1:29–33; 2:24–25, 31; 3:21–22; 7:17–24;

2. Smirin died in the Israeli War of Independence, in the battle for Degania in 1948. His work Josiah and His Age was first published in 1952.

xvi

Zeev Weisman

,

9:1–6; 11:22–25; 31:1–6) and in the priest’s address to the nation before they set out for war (chap. 20). Against this historical-political backdrop, accompanied by the national renascence that he described, and on the basis of his distinctions regarding the ideological changes that came with it, Weinfeld took one further step in building his synthesis of the Deuteronomist’s enterprise, this time from a sociological perspective, in which he attempted to identify the “workshop” that produced D. Although he accepted the opinion of his predecessors (von Rad) concerning the Northern origin of most of the traditions in D, it was clear to him (and he even proved it!) that the work itself was composed in Judah during the period that we have described. In his opinion, the composition was not the work of an individual but the product of a circle of professional authors, a “Jerusalem school.” In the search for the identity of this group, he arrived at the conclusion that it was a circle of “scribes” who worked in the court of Judean kings at the time of the reform. One can learn about their status and influence in the royal court from the descriptions in Kings and Jeremiah. Weinfeld based his conclusion on the observation that D is the only law code among the Pentateuchal legal collections that reflects a monarchic society, particularly in regard to the Law of the King (Deut 17:18–19). In fact, the Deuteronomic code is essentially a manual for the people and their king. The judicial system, the laws of conscription for war, and the law of the priest and the cultic regulations were all written from a monarchic perspective. The “scribal circles,” whose professional identity differed from priestly circles, produced the so-called “Deuteronomist,” while the priestly circle composed the so-called “Priestly” source. They both worked in parallel, contra the claim of Wellhausen’s school that one preceded the other. The activity of this scribal circle continued for approximately 150 years, until the time of Ezra, the scribe. Its beginnings are found in D, “the primary nucleus of the biblical canon, which initiated the process of canonization of the Bible, and was the prime cause for the crystallization of the Scriptures, and which made the religion of Israel into the religion of the Book” (Weinfeld, From Joshua to Josiah, 179). On His Method Weinfeld did not develop his own new method of biblical criticism but, rather, investigated and refined the soundness of previous critical, historical, and literary approaches (the sources, traditions, and redac-

+

Moshe Weinfeld’s Contribution to Biblical Scholarship

xvii

tion). In his studies, he combined both a philological approach to the biblical text and a comparative analysis in light of ancient Near Eastern literature. He showed that there is a strong connection between biblical historiography and history, and that the Deuteronomistic historiography is based upon earlier historical and literary traditions. He vigorously opposed the nihilistic trends that questioned the basic assumption of classical biblical scholarship that the Pentateuchal stories were gathered and redacted in the monarchic period and that argued instead that the stories originated after the destruction of the kingdom (“Old Testament: The Discipline and Its Goals” [VTSup 32; Leiden: Brill, 1981] 423–34). Weinfeld did not doubt that the history of Israel as a nation started even before the rise of the monarchy and that the monarchy was preceded by the settlement of Israelite tribes in Canaan. In his opinion, we are able to trace the processes, beliefs, and institutions and their literary crystallization by analyzing the sources or documents that were already edited in the monarchic period and upon which the Deuteronomistic layer was built, and by a comparison of concepts, motifs, and patterns with typological and literary parallels from ancient Near Eastern sources. He followed this method in his discussion of the tradition of the promised land in light of settlement establishment traditions in the Middle East, and also regarding the settlement pattern in Greece and Israel. As a scholar of historiography, Weinfeld is aware of the gap between historiography and history. The former is essentially reflective, a report after the event from the viewpoint of the historiographer, who introduces and links his present experience with the past. The latter is, so to speak, a description of the events themselves as they occurred in the past and according to their actual sequence. There are enough indications in the Bible itself from which one can deduce that historical events and processes did not transpire as reported by the historian who described them many years later. There is enough contradictory evidence about the foundational processes at the beginning of Israelite history to allow us to distinguish between history and folklore. However, the discrediting of the foundations of biblical historiography, as has been recently done by some of our archaeologists, merely on account of the lack of contemporaneous, authentic documents to support it and because no remnants or epigraphic evidence were discovered where excavators expected to find them, throws the baby out with the bath water. In other words, we are left without a history. According to them, there was no Exodus and no Conquest; the united Davidic

xviii

Zeev Weisman

,

kingdom and its capital, Jerusalem, did not exist in the time of David, and so on and so forth. Weinfeld, who was well acquainted with the sparse archaeological and epigraphic finds from Israel and the many discovered elsewhere, and who used them extensively in his studies, also understood well that biblical historiography with all its limitations is the primary and most important source for an understanding of our national history, and possibly even that of our neighbors: Edom, Ammon, Moab (Z. W.). It preserved the history of the nation and the important experiences that shaped Israel as a unique nation, a history that became a national and universal heritage, better than any archaeological find. Personal Epilogue It is apparent that biblical historiography is what distinguished us from larger, more ancient nations, who left behind an abundance of archaeological remnants, various steles, and clay tablets. It also preserved our history as a nation and our national, cultural, and linguistic continuity, and enabled us to bridge between the dawn of the nation and our present experience. The same cannot be said of the great ancient superpowers, Sumer, Assyria, Babylonia, the Hittites, or even Egypt, which left behind a profusion of archaeological finds and chronicles of great historical value but no continuous, consistent historical account describing their history as a nation. Their national accounts are reconstructed by modern scholars and historians, whose distance from past events far exceeds that of the biblical historiographer and the events and processes that he described.

Abbreviations

Abbreviations #

$

General A. ad. Akk. Am. AO Arab. Aram. Ass. asv BH BM c. DSS EA Epig. Heb. fem. frg. Heb. I.M. JAram. K. LB LH LXX MAL masc. MB Midr. ms(s) MT NA NB njpsv nrsv n.s. OB obv. pl. pron.

Louvre Museum signature addition Akkadian Amarna tablets in the collections of the Musée du Louvre Arabic Aramaic Assyrian American Standard Version Biblical Hebrew tablets in the collections of the British Museum common Dead Sea Scrolls El Amarna tablets Epigraphic Hebrew feminine fragment Hebrew tablets in the collections of the Iraq Museum, Baghdad Judean Aramaic tablets in the Kouyunjik collection of the British Museum Late Babylonian period Laws of Hammurapi Septuagint Middle Assyrian Laws masculine Middle Babylonian Midrash manuscript(s) Masoretic Text Neo-Assyrian Neo-Babylonian New Jewish Publication Society Version New Revised Standard Version Nouvelle série / new series Old Babylonian obverse plural pronoun

xix

xx rev. Sab. sing. T Tg. Ug. VAT Vulg. WSem YBC

Abbreviations

,

reverse Sabean singular tablets in the collections of the Staatliche Museen, Berlin Targum Ugaritic Vorderasiatische Abteilung Thontafel. Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin Vulgate West Semitic tablets in the Babylonian Collection, Yale University Library

Reference Works AAAS AASF AAT AB ABD ABL AbrNSup AEM AfO AfO Beiheft AHw AJSL ALASP AMT AnBib ANET AnOr AnSt AOAT AoF ARM ArOr AS ASOR Diss. ATD AuOr BA BaghM BAR BARead BASOR BASORSup

Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae Ägypten und Altes Testament Anchor Bible The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1992 Assyrian and Babylonian Letters Belonging to the Kouyunjik Collections of the British Museum. Edited by R. F. Harper. 14 vols. Chicago, 1892–1914 Abr-Nahrain Supplements Archives Épistolaires de Mari Archiv für Orientforschung Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. W. von Soden. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1965–81 American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syren-Palästinas und Mesopotamiens Assyrian Medical Texts. R. C. Thompson. Reprinted, Osnabrück: Zeller, 1983 Analecta Biblica Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by J. B. Pritchard. 3d ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969 Analecta Orientalia Anatolian Studies Alter Orient und Altes Testament Altorientalische Forschungen Archives royales de Mari Archiv Orientální Assyriological Studies American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series Das Alte Testament Deutsch Aula orientalis Biblical Archaeologist Baghdader Mitteilungen Biblical Archaeology Review Biblical Archaeologist Reader Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research: Supplement Series

+

Abbreviations

xxi

Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907 BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium BEvT Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie BH Biblia Hebraica. Edited by R. Kittel. Stuttgart, 1905–6 BHH Biblisch-historisches Handwörterbuch: Landeskunde, Geschichte, Religion, Kultur. Edited by B. Reicke and L. Rost. 4 vols. Göttingen, 1962–66 BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. Stuttgart, 1983 BHT Beiträge zur historischen Theologie Bib Biblica BibOr Biblica et orientalia Biggs, Saziga Sà.zi.ga: Ancient Mesopotamian Potency Incantations. R. D. Biggs. Texts from Cuneiform Sources 2. Locust Valley, N.Y.: Augustin, 1967 BJS Brown Judaic Studies BKAT Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament. Edited by M. Noth and H. W. Wolff BN Biblische Notizen BO Bibliotheca Orientalis BR Bible Review BRM Babylonian Records in the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan. New York, 1912 BWANT Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament BWL Babylonian Wisdom Literature. W. G. Lambert. Oxford, 1960. Reprinted, Winona Lake, Indiana: 1998 BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft CA Convivium assisiense CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Edited by A. L. Oppenheim et al. Chicago, 1956– CAT Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places. Edited by M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín. Münster: UgaritVerlag, 1995 CB Century Bible CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series CNI Carsten Niebuhr Institute ConBOT Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testament CRAIBL Comptes rendus de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres CTA Corpus des tablettes en cunéiformes alphabétiques découvertes à Ras Shamra– Ugarit de 1929 à 1939. Edited by A. Herdner. 2 vols. Mission de Ras Shamra 10. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1963 DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert EBib Études bibliques EncBib Encyclopedia Biblica (= Encyclopedia Miqraªit) EncJud Encyclopaedia Judaica. Edited by Cecil Roth. 16 vols. Jerusalem: Keter, 1972 ErIsr Eretz-Israel EstBib Estudios bíblicos FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament FOTL Forms of the Old Testament Literature FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments BDB

xxii GKC HALAT HALOT HAT HO HR HSAO HSM HSS HTR HUB HUCA ICC IDB IEJ IOS JANES JAOS JBL JCS JEOL JESHO JJS JNES JPSTC JQR JRAS JSOT JSOTSup JSS JTS KAI KAR KAT KBo KHAT KTU

Laessøe, Bit Rimki

Abbreviations

,

Genenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch. Translated by A. E. Cowley. 2d ed. Oxford, 1910 Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament. Edited by L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner et al. Leiden: Brill, 1967–95 The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm. Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 5 vols. Leiden, 1994–2000 Handbuch zum Alten Testament Handbuch der Orientalistik History of Religions Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Semitic Studies Harvard Theological Review Hebrew University Bible Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by G. A. Buttrick. 4 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962 Israel Exploration Journal Israel Oriental Studies Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Cuneiform Studies Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap: Ex Oriente Lux Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. H. Donner and W. Röllig. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1966–69 Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts. Edited by E. Ebeling. Leipzig, 1919–23 Kommentar zum Alten Testament Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi. Leipzig, 1916– Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. Edited by M. Dietrich, O. Lorentz, and J. Sanmartín. AOAT 24/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1976. 2d enlarged ed. of KTU: The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani, and Other Places. Edited by M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín. Münster, 1995 (= CAT) Laessøe, J. Studies on the Assyrian Ritual bît rimki. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1955

+ Les MARI MDP MGWJ MSL NABU NCBC NICOT NJPSC NTOA OBO ÖBS OIP OLA OLZ Or OTL OTS PAAJR PJB PRU RA RB REA REG REJ RevQ RIM RlA SAA SAAB SB SBAB SBLDS SBLMS SBLWAW SBS SBT SCS SEL SHANE SJOT ST STDJ STT TCL TCS

Abbreviations

xxiii

Lesonénu Mari: Annales de recherches interdisciplinaires Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums Materialien zum sumerischen Lexikon. Edited by B. Landsberger et al. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1937– Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires New Century Bible Commentaries New International Commentary on the Old Testament New Jewish Publication Society Commentaries Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus Orbis biblicus et orientalis Österreichische biblische Studien Oriental Institute Publications Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta Orientalische Literaturzeitung Orientalia Old Testament Library Oudtestamentische Studiën Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research Palästinajahrbuch Le Palais royal d’Ugarit Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale Revue biblique Revue des études anciennes Revue des études grecques Revue des études juives Revue de Qumran Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Reallexikon der Assyriologie. Edited by E. Ebeling et al. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1928– State Archives of Assyria State Archives of Assyria Bulletin Sources bibliques Stuttgarter biblische Aufsatzbände Society of Biblical Literature Disssertation Series SBL Monograph Series Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Studies in Biblical Theology Septuagint and Cognate Studies Studi epigrafici e linguistici Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East Scandanavian Journal of the Old Testament Studia theologica Studies on the Texts from the Desert of Judah The Sultantepe Tablets. O. R. Gurney, J. J. Finkelstein, and P. Hulin. 2 vols. London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1957–64 Textes cunéiformes du Louvre. Paris: Geuthner, 1910– Texts from Cuneiform Sources

xxiv TDOT THAT ThT TLZ TSSI TUAT TWAT TZ UBL UET UF USQR UT VT VTSup WBC WC WD WMANT WO YOS ZA ZABR ZAW ZDMG ZDPV ZPE ZTK

Abbreviations

,

Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E. Green. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1974– Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by E. Jenni and C. Westermann. 2 vols. Munich: Kaiser / Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1971–76 Theologisch tijdschrift Theologische Literaturzeitung Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. J. C. L. Gibson. Oxford, 1971 Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments. Edited by Otto Kaiser. Gütersloh, 1984– Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1973–2000 Theologische Zeitschrift Ugaritisch-biblische Literatur Ur Excavations, Texts Ugarit-Forschungen Union Seminary Quarterly Review Ugaritic Textbook. C. H. Gordon. AnOr 38. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965 Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Westminster Commentaries Wort und Dienst Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Die Welt des Orients Yale Oriental Series Zeitschrift für Assyriologie Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlandischen Gesellschaft Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

Bibliography of the Publications of Moshe Weinfeld (1961–2003) Prepared by

Noam Mizrahi and Udi Mizrachi #

$

English Publications Booklets and Books *1. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972. Reprinted, Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992. xvii + 467 pp. [cf. §3] *2. “Justice and Righteousness” in Ancient Israel against the Background of Social Reforms in the Ancient Near East. Report No. 4/79. Jerusalem: Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, 1979. 25 + 12 pp. [cf. §*7]

*3. Getting at the Roots of Wellhausen’s Understanding of the Law of Israel: On the 100th Anniversary of the “Prolegomena.” Report No. 14/79. Jerusalem: Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, 1980. 47 pp. [cf. §57, §59, §*9] *4. The Organizational Pattern and the Penal Code of the Qumran Sect: A Comparison with Guilds and Religious Associations of the Hellenistic-Roman Period. NTOA 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. 100 pp. [cf. §43]

*5. Deuteronomy 1–11. AB 5. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1991. xiv + 458 pp. *6. The Promise of the Land: The Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. xxi + 327 pp. *7. Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East. Minneapolis: Fortress / Jerusalem: Magnes, 1995. 300 pp. [cf. §10] *8. Normative and Sectarian Judaism in the Second Temple Period. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, forthcoming. Compilers’ note: In the cross-references to other versions of a publication in this bibliography, an asterisked reference (e.g., §*1) refers to an item in the English list, while an unmarked reference (e.g., §1) refers to an item in the Hebrew list.

xxv

Noam Mizrahi and Udi Mizrachi

xxvi

,

*9. The Law and Its Place in Ancient Israel: A Revision of Wellhausen’s Prolegomena. VTSup. Leiden: Brill, forthcoming. [cf. §57, §59, §*3]

Edited Books *10. [with Hayim Tadmor] History, Historiography and Interpretation: Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1983. *11. [with Gershon Gallil] Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography: Presented to Zecharia Kallai. VTSup 81. Leiden: Brill, 2000.

Articles *12. The Origin of the Humanism in Deuteronomy. JBL 80/3 (1961) 241– 47. *13. Cult Centralization in Israel in the Light of a Neo-Babylonian Analogy. JNES 23/3 (1964) 202–12. *14. Traces of Assyrian Treaty Formulae in Deuteronomy. Bib 46/4 (1965) 417–27. *15. Deuteronomy: The Present State of Inquiry. JBL 86/3 (1967) 249–62. *16. The Period of the Conquest and of the Judges as Seen by the Earlier and Later Sources. VT 17/1 (1967) 93–113. [cf. §29] *17. Theological Currents in Pentateuchal Literature. PAAJR 37 (1969) 117–39. [cf. §30] *18. The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East. JAOS 90/2 (1970) 184–203; “Addenda.” JAOS 92 (1972) 468– 69. *19. The Worship of Molech and of the Queen of Heaven and Its Background. UF 4 (1972) 133–54. [see §*96; cf. §32] *20. Covenant Terminology in the Ancient Near East and Its Influence on the West. JAOS 93/2 (1973) 190–99. [cf. §33] *21. The Origin of the Apodictic Law: An Overlooked Source. VT 23/1 (1973) 63–75. [cf. §34] *22. “Rider of the Clouds” and “Gatherer of the Clouds.” JANES 5 (1973) 421–26. [cf. §56] *23. La literatura bíblica y el antiguo oriente. Pp. liii–lxx in Sagrade Biblia: Versión crítica sobre los textos Hebreo, Arameo y Griego, ed. F. Cantera Burgos and N. Iglesias Gonzalez. Madrid: Autores Christianos, 1975. *24. Jeremiah and the Spiritual Metamorphosis of Israel. ZAW 88/1 (1976) 17–56. [cf. §36] *25. The Loyalty Oath in the Ancient Near East. UF 8 (1976) 379–414. [cf. §39]

*26. Ancient Near Eastern Patterns in Prophetic Literature. VT 27/2 (1977) 178–95.

+

Bibliography of the English Publications of Moshe Weinfeld

xxvii

*27. Judge and Officer in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East. IOS 7 (1977) 65–88. [cf. §49] *28. Gen. 7:11, 8:1–2 against the Background of Ancient Near Eastern Tradition. WO 9/2 (1978) 242–48. *29. Pentecost as Festival of the Giving of the Law. Immanuel 8 (1978) 7–18. *30. Literary Creativity. Pp. 27–70, 286–92, 331 in The Age of the Monarchies: Culture and Society, ed. A. Malamat. The World History of the Jewish People. Jerusalem: Massada, 1979. [cf. §67] *31. The Royal Guard according to the Temple Scroll. RB 87/3 (1980) 394–96. *32. Old Testament: The Discipline and Its Goals. Pp. 423–34 in Congress Volume: Vienna 1980, ed. J. A. Emerton. VTSup 32. Leiden: Brill, 1981. *33. Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the Lord. Pp. 501–12 in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honeur de M. Henri Cazelles, ed. M. Delcor and A. Caquot. AOAT 212. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981. [cf. §47] *34. The Transition from Tribal Rule to Monarchy and Its Impact on the History of Israel. Pp. 151–66 in Kingship and Consent: The Jewish Political Tradition and Its Contemporary Uses, ed. D. J. Elazer. Ramat Gan: Turtledove, 1981. *35. A Comparison of a Passage from the Samas Hymn (Lines 65-78) with Psalm 107. Pp. 275–79 in 28 Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale in Wien: 6–10 Juli 1981, ed. E. Weidner, H. Hunger, and H. Hirsch. AfO Beiheft 19. Horn: Berger & Söhne, 1982. *36. The Counsel of the “Elders” to Rehoboam and Its Implications. Maarav 3/1 (1982) 27–53. Reprinted, pp. 516–39 in Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History, ed. G. N. Knoppers and J. G. McConville. Sources for Biblical and Theological Studies 8. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2000. [cf. §35] *37. Instructions for Temple Visitors in the Bible and in Ancient Egypt. Pp. 224–50 in Egyptological Studies, ed. S. Israelit-Groll. Scripta Hierosolymitana 28. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1982. [cf. §97] *38. “Justice and Righteousness” in Ancient Israel against the Background of “Social Reforms” in the Ancient Near East. Pp. 491–519 in vol. 2 of Mesopotamien und Seine Nachbarn: Politische und kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen in alten Vorderasien von 4. bis 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr., ed. H. J. Nissen and J. Renger. Berlin: Reimer, 1982. *39. The King as the Servant of the People: The Source of the Idea. JJS 33/1–2 (1982) 189–94. [cf. §58] *40. Divine Intervention in War in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East. Pp. 121–47 in History, Historiography and Interpretation: Studies in

Noam Mizrahi and Udi Mizrachi

xxviii

*41.

*42.

*43.

*44.

*45. *46.

*47.

*48.

*49.

*50.

,

Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures, ed. H. Tadmor and M. Weinfeld. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1983. [cf. §51, §52] The Extent of the Promised Land: The Status of Transjordan. Pp. 59– 75 in Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit: Jerusalem Symposium 1981 der Hebräischen Universität und der Georg-August-Universität, ed. G. Strecker. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. The Heavenly Praise in Unison. Pp. 427–37 in Meqor Hajjim: Festschrift für Georg Mollin zu seinem 75. Geburtstag, ed. I. Seybold. Graz: Akademische druck-u. Verlagsanstalt, 1983. Social and Cultic Institutions in the Priestly Source against Their Ancient Near Eastern Background. Pp. 95–129 in Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies—Panel Sessions: Bible Studies and Hebrew Language. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1983. Zion and Jerusalem as Religious and Political Capital: Ideology and Utopia. Pp. 75–115 inThe Poet and the Historian: Essays in Literary and Historical Biblical Criticism, ed. R. E. Friedman. HSS 26. Chico, Calif.: Scholar’s Press, 1983. Kuntillet ºAjrud Inscriptions and Their Significance. Studi epigrafici e linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico 1 (1984) 121–30. [cf. §118] The Emergence of the Deuteronomic Movement: The Historical Antecedents. Pp. 76–98 in Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft, ed. N. Lohfink. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1985. Freedom Proclamations in Egypt and in the Ancient Near East. Pp. 317–27 in Pharaonic Egypt: The Bible and Christianity, ed. S. IsraelitGroll. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1985. Sarah and Abimelech (Genesis 20) against the Background of an Assyrian Law and the Genesis Apocryphon. Pp. 431–36 in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l'honneur de M. Mathias Delcor, ed. A. Caquot et al. AOAT 215. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985. [cf. §73] “The Day of the Lord”: Aspirations for the Kingdom of God in the Bible and Jewish Liturgy. Pp. 341–72 in Studies in Bible, ed. S. Japhet. Scripta Hierosolymitana 31. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986. [cf. §75] The Protest against Imperialism in Ancient Israelite Prophecy. Pp. 169–82, 510–11 in The Origins and Diversity of Axial Age Civilizations, ed. S. N. Eisenstadt. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1986. [cf. §100, §*52]

*51. Bible Criticism. Pp. 35-40 in Contemporary Jewish Religious Thought, ed. A. A. Cohen and P. Mendes-Flohr. New York: Scribners, 1987. *52. Der Protest gegen den Imperialismus in der altisraelitischen Prophetie. Pp. 240–57 in vol. 1 of Kulturen der Aschenzeit, ed. S. N. Eisenstadt. Frankfurt: Surkamp, 1987. [cf. §100, §*50]

+

Bibliography of the English Publications of Moshe Weinfeld

xxix

*53. The Tribal League at Sinai. Pp. 303–14 in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honour of F. M. Cross, ed. P. D. Miller Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. [cf. §80] *54. Historical Facts behind the Israelite Settlement Pattern. VT 38/3 (1988) 324–32. *55. Initiation of Political Friendship in Ebla and Its Later Developments. Pp. 345–48 in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft von Ebla, ed. H. Hauptmann and H. Waetzoldt. HSAO 2. Heidelberg: Orientverlag, 1988. *56. Job and Its Mesopotamian Parallels: A Typological Analysis. Pp. 217–26 in Text and Context: Old Testament and Semitic Studies for F. C. Fensham, ed. W. Classen. JSOTSup 48. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988. *57. The Morning Prayers (Birkhoth Hashachar) in Qumran and in the Conventional Jewish Liturgy. RevQ 13/1–4 (1988) 481–94. [cf. §87] *58. The Pattern of the Israelite Settlement in Canaan. Pp. 270–83 in Congress Volume: Jerusalem 1986, ed. J. A. Emerton. VTSup 40. Leiden: Brill, 1988. [cf. §81] *59. The Promise to the Patriarchs and Its Realization: An Analysis of Foundation Stories. Pp. 353–69 in Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranaean c. 1500–1000 b.c., ed. M. Heltzer and E. Lipinski. OLA 23. Leuven: Peeters, 1988. *60. The Common Heritage of Covenantal Traditions in the Ancient World. Pp. 175–91 in I trattati nel mondo antico forma ideologia funzione, ed. L. Canfora et al. Rome: “L’erma” di Bretschneider, 1989. *61. The Charge of Hypocrisy in Matthew 23 and in Jewish Sources. Immanuel 24–25 (1990) 52–58. *62. The Decalogue: Its Significance, Uniqueness, and Place in Israel’s Tradition. Pp. 3-47 in Religion and Law: Biblical-Judaic and Islamic Perspectives, ed. E. B. Firmage, B. G. Weiss, and J. W. Welch. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990. [cf. §42] *63. Sabbatical Year and Jubilee in the Pentateuchal Laws and Their Ancient Near Eastern Background. Pp. 39–62 in The Law in the Bible and Its Environment, ed. T. Veijola. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990. *64. The Uniqueness of the Decalogue and Its Place in Jewish Tradition. Pp. 1–44 in The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition, ed. B. Z. Segal and G. Levi. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1990. [cf. §78] *65. The Census in Mari, in Ancient Israel and in Ancient Rome. Pp. 293– 98 in Storia e tradizioni di Israele: Scritti in onore di J. Alberto Soggin, ed. D. Garrone and F. Israel. Brescia: Paideia Editrice Brescia, 1991. [cf. §89]

Noam Mizrahi and Udi Mizrachi

xxx

,

*66. God versus Moses in the Temple Scroll: “I Do Not Speak on My Own but on God’s Authority” (Sifrei Deut. Sec. 5; John 12,48f.). RevQ 15/1– 2 (1991) 175–80. [cf. §88] *67. Semiramis: Her Name and Her Origin. Pp. 99–103 in Ah Assyria . . . : Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor, ed. M. Cogan and I. Ephºal. Scripta Hierosolymitana 33. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1991. *68. What Makes the Ten Commandments Different? BR 7/2 (1991) 35-41. *69. Grace after Meals in Qumran. JBL 111/3 (1992) 427–40. [cf. §92] *70. ‘Justice and Righteousness’—hqdxw fpçm: The Expression and Its Meaning. Pp. 228–46 in Justice and Righteousness: Biblical Themes and Their Influence, ed. H. G. Reventlow and Y. Hoffman. JSOTSup 137. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. *71. The Phases of Human Life in Mesopotamian and Jewish Sources. Pp. 182–89 in Priests, Prophets and Scribes: Essays on the Formation and Heritage of Second Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp, ed. E. Ulrich et al. JSOTSup 149. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. [cf. §61]

*72. Prayer and Liturgical Practice in the Qumran Sect. Pp. 241–58 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research, ed. D. Dimant and U. Rappaport. Leiden: Brill / Jerusaelm: Magnes and Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1992. [cf. §93]

*73. The Ban on the Canaanites in the Biblical Codes and Its Historical Development. Pp. 142–60 in History and Traditions of Early Israel: Studies Presented to Eduard Nielsen, ed. A. Lemaire and B. Otzen. VTSup 50. Leiden: Brill, 1993. [cf. §84] *74. Covenant Making in Anatolia and Mesopotamia. JANES 22 (1993) 135–39. *75. Judges 1.1–2.5: The Conquest under the Leadership of the House of Judah. Pp. 388–400 in Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honour of George Wishart Anderson, ed. A. G. Auld. JSOTSup 152. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. *76. Traces of Hittite Cult in Shiloh, Bethel and in Jerusalem. Pp. 455–72 in Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen Zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrien und dem Alten Testament: Internationales Symposion, Hamburg, 17–21 Marz 1990, ed. B. Janowski et al. OBO 129. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. [cf. §79, §105] *77. The Angelic Song over the Luminaries in the Qumran Texts. Pp. 131– 57 in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by Fellows of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem 1989–1990, ed. D. Dimant and L. H. Schiffman. STDJ 16. Leiden: Brill, 1995.

Bibliography of the English Publications of Moshe Weinfeld

+

xxxi

*78. Deuteronomy’s Theological Revolution. BR 12/1 (1996) 38–41, 44– 45. [cf. §19] *79. Feminine Features in the Imagery of God in Israel: The Sacred Marriage and the Sacred Tree. VT 46/4 (1996) 515–29. [cf. §101] *80. Introduction. Pp. xvii–xxii in Royal Cities of the Biblical World, ed. J. Goodnick-Westenholz. Jerusalem: Bible Lands Museum, 1996. *81. The Use of Oil in the Cult of Ancient Israel. Pp. 125–28 in Olive Oil in Antiquity: Israel and Neighbouring Countries from the Neolithic to the Early Arab Period, ed. D. Eitan and M. Heltzer. Padua: Sargon, 1996. *82. Hillel and the Misunderstanding of Judaism in Modern Scholarship. Pp. 56–70 in Hillel and Jesus: Comparative Studies of Two Major Religious Leaders, ed. J. H. Charlesworth and L. L. Johns. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997. *83. Expectations of the Divine Kingdom in Biblical and Postbiblical Literature. Pp. 218–32 in Eschatology in the Bible and in Jewish and Christian Tradition, ed. H. G. Reventlow. JSOTSup 243. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. *84. The Jewish Roots of Matthew’s Vitriol. BR 13/5 (October 1997) 31. *85. “Partition, Partition; Wall, Wall, Listen”: “Leaking” the Divine Secret to Someone behind the Curtain. AfO 44-45 (1997–98) 222–25. [cf. §86]

*86. Jerusalem: A Political and Spiritual Capital. Pp. 15-40 in Capital Cities: Urban Planning and Spiritual Dimensions, ed. J. Goodnick-Westenholz. Jerusalem: Bible Lands Museum, 1998. *87. [with D. R. Seely] 434–438. 4QBarkhi Nafshia–e. Pp. 255–334 in Qumran Cave 4—XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2, ed. E. Chazon et al. DJD 29. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999. *87a. [with D. R. Seely] 439. 4QLament by a Leader. Pp. 335–41 in Qumran Cave 4—XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2, ed. E. Chazon et al. DJD 29. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999. *88. Pelekh in Nehemiah 3. Pp. 249–50 in Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography: Presented to Zecharia Kallai, ed. G. Gallil and M. Weinfeld. VTSup 81. Leiden: Brill, 2000. *89. The Roots of the Messianic Idea. Pp. 279–87 in Mythology and Mythologies: Methodological Approaches to Intercultural Influences, ed. R. M. Whiting. Melammu 2. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2001. *90. The Litany “Our God in Heaven” and Its Precedents in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Pp. 263–69 in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. E. G. Chazon. STDJ 48. Leiden: Brill, 2003. [cf. §107]

xxxii

Noam Mizrahi and Udi Mizrachi

,

Reviews and Replies *91. Review of lç tyrwfsyhh hyprgwaygb rqjm :larçy yfbç twljn ,yalq òz (zòòkçt) qylayb dswm :µylçwry ,larçy ≈ra in JBL 89/3 (1970) 350–51. *92. Review of F. Langlamet, Gilgal et les récits de la traversée du Jourdain ( Jos. iii–iv). Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 11. Paris: Gabalda, 1969, in IEJ 20/1–2 (1970) 127–28. *93. Review of J. Milgrom, Studies in Levitical Terminology, vol. 1. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970, in IEJ 23/1 (1973) 60–62. *94. “On ‘Demythologization and Secularization’ in Deuteronomy.” Reply to J. Milgrom, “The Alleged ‘Demythologization and Secularization’ in Deuteronomy.” IEJ 23/3 (1973) 156–61, in IEJ 23/4 (1973) 230–33. *95. “Berît: Covenant vs. Obligation.” Review of E. Kutsch, Verheissung und Gesetz: Untersuchungen zum sogenannten ‘Bund’ im Alten Testament. BZAW 131. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1973, in Bib 56/1 (1975) 120–28. *96. Review of J. Blenkinsopp, Gibeon and Israel: The Role of Gibeon and the Gibeonites in the Political and Religious History of Early Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972, in IEJ 26/1 (1976) 60–64. *97. “Burning Babies in Ancient Israel: A Rejoinder to Morton Smith’s Article.” Reply to M. Smith, “A Note on Burning Babies.” JAOS 95/3 (1975) 477–79, in UF 10 (1978) 411–13. [see §*19] *98. Review of F. Crüsemann, Der Widerstand gegen das Königtum: Die antiköniglichen Texte des Alten Testamentes und der Kampf am den frühen israelitischen Staat. WMANT 49. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978, in VT 31/1 (1981) 99–108. [cf. §117] *99. Review of B. P. Kittel, The Hymns of Qumran. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981, in BO 41 (1984) 712–13. *100. Review of O. Kaiser (ed.), Staatsverträge. TUAT 1/2: 131–89. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1983, in JAOS 107/2 (1987) 335–36. *101. Review of G. Langer, Von Gott erwählt: Jerusalem—Die Rezeption von Dtn 12 im frühen Judentum. ÖBS 8. Klosterneuburg: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989, in Bib 72/1 (1991) 111–12. *102. Review of E. W. Nicholson, God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1986, in RB 98/3 (1991) 431–36. [cf. §124] *103. Review of W. W. Hallo, The Book of the People. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991, in JSS 40/1 (1995) 105–8. *104. Review of S. C. Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer: New Perspectives on Jewish Liturgical History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, in VT 48/2 (1998) 282–83.

+

Bibliography of the English Publications of Moshe Weinfeld

xxxiii

Encyclopedia Articles Articles in Encyclopedia Judaica. Jerusalem: Keter, 1971. *105. Chieftain. 5.420–21. *106. Congregation (Assembly). 5.893–96. *107. Covenant. 5.1012–22. *108. Deuteronomy. 5.1573–82. *109. Elder. 6.578–80. *110. Josiah. 10.288–93. *111. Moloch, Cult of. 12.230–33. *112. Ordeal of Jealousy. 12.1449–50. *113. Pentateuch. 13.231–61. [cf. §142] *114. Presence, Divine. 13.1015–20. *115. Ruth, Book of. 14.518–22. [cf. §141] *116. Tithe. 15.1156–62. Article in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976. *117. Covenant, Davidic. Pp. 188–92. Articles in Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament, ed. G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970– (= Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1974–). *118. tyrb. 1.781–808 (= 2.253–79). *119. dwbk. 4.23–40 (= 7.22–38). *120. hjnm. 5: Theologie. 4.998–1000 (= 8.417–20). Article in The Encyclopedia of Religion. New York: Macmillan, 1987. *121. Israelite Religion. 7.481–97.

(aòòsçt-aòòkçt) µyyrb[ µymwsrp tmyçr µyrpsw twrbwj .a µyrwm twmltçhl hwbgh rpsh tyb :byba lt ,wykrw[w µyrbd rps .1 òm[ 3 + 91 (aòòkçt) (dòòkçt) tyrb[h hfysrbynwah .µylçwry ,tyfsymwnwrfbdh twrpsb µynwy[ .2 òm[ 95 ,b-a ,(rwfqwd tdwb[) tyfsymwnwrfbdh hlwksahw µyrbd rps axwm .3 òm[ 233 + 14 + 115 ,(1964) tyrb[h hfysrbynwah :µylçwry *1 wwçh

,(wòòkçt) ˆwmdqa :µylçwry ,htkyr[bw µynwçar µyaybn twrpsb µynwy[ .4 òm[ 100 òm[ 94 + 79 ,(wòòlçt-bòòlçt) ˆwmdqa :µylçwry ,b-a ,arqml awbm yqrp .5 ˆwmdqa :µylçwry ,twr[hw µwgrt :µyyjrzmh µylaswh µ[ ˆwdjrsa hzwj .6 òm[ 48 ,(gòòlçt) òm[ 69 ,(gòòlçt) ˆwmdqa :µylçwry ,çyla hmwna :tylbbh hayrbh tlyl[ .7 lt ,twnwmtw twpm ,twr[h ,twawbm tywlb çdj çwrp µ[ :tyçarb rps .8 òm[ 319 ,(hòòlçt) ˆwdrwg lòòç :byba :µylçwry ,whymry twawbn l[ twaxrh ˚wtm :wtrwtw wtwyçya ,aybnh whymry .9 òm[ 38 ,(fòòlçt) ˆwmdqa [qr l[ hqyt[h larçyb twrjw ˆwywç :µym[bw larçyb hqdxw fpçm .10 òm[ 182 ,(hòòmçt) sngam :µylçwry ,µwdqh jrzmb ytrbj qdx ygçwm *7 wwçh

ˆbrwj d[w twljnthhm larçy twdlwtb hnpm twpwqt :whyçay d[ [çwhym .11 òm[ 299 ,(bòònçt) sngam :µylçwry ,ˆwçar tyb :byba-lt ,hnwma twrhxh lç ˆhylwglg :[mç tayrqw twrbydh trç[ .12 òm[ 185 ,(aòòsçt) djwamh ≈wbyqh (hnkhb) sngam :µylçwry ,hmwdqh tydwhyh hygrwfylh .a12

hkyr[ .b (aòòlçt) ˆwmdqa :µylçwry ,ˆ[nk çwbykw wrybjh tyy[b ,rwfsa òm .13 ‘dlpnyyw òm ròòd yòò[ twnkdw[m twr[hw µwgrt’

ˆm fyrpl hnpm (*1 ˆwgk) tbkwkm hynph ,µymwsrph lç µyrja µyjswnl twynphb .wz hmyçrb fyrpl hnpm (1 ˆwgk) hlygr hynph dw[b ,tyz[wlh

xxxiv

*

+

Bibliography of the Hebrew Publications of Moshe Weinfeld

xxxv

(zòònçt-wòòlçt) ay-a ,µwdqh jrzmh rqjlw arqml ˆwtnç .14 (fòòlçt) sngam :µylçwry ,(a ,≈ybrt yfwqyl) arqmh rqjb harqym .15 yt[ ˆwzdwd :byba lt ,µybybr :ˆg tmrw µylçwry ,˚òònth µlw[ hydpwlqyxna .16 (bòòmçt) tyçarb (gòòmçt) arqyw (wòòmçt) rbdmb (1994) µyrbd (1996) ylçm

µyrmam .g hmkjl µyrbd rps lç wtqyz .17 arqmb µyrqjm :ˆmpywq laqzjyl lbwyh rps ,(˚rw[) ˆrh òm :˚wtb sngam :µylçwry ,hbyçl w[yghb wl µyçgwm tylarçyh hnwmah twdlwtbw jq-fp (aòòkçt) µyrbd rpsb lwmgh ˆwy[r lç wrwqm .18 15–8 (aòòkçt) a/l ,≈ybrt µyrbd rpsb ˆjlwphw twhlah tsyptb hnpmh .19 17–1 (bòòkçt) a/al ,≈ybrt ,(a ,≈ybrt yfwqyl) arqmh rqjb harqym ,(˚rw[) dlpnyyw òm :˚wtb twmlçh 41 (fòòlçt) sngam :µylçwry *78 wwçh

ˆwyx tbyç tpwqtb tynldbh hmgmhw tyfsylsrbynwah hmgmh .20 242–228 (gòòkçt) g/gl ,≈ybrt ,(a ,≈ybrt yfwqyl) arqmh rqjb harqym ,(˚rw[) dlpnyyw òm :˚wtb twmlçh 57 (fòòlçt) sngam :µylçwry

wl hxwjmw larçyb qwjh tsyptl .21 63–58 (gòòkçt) [zy] b-a/j ,arqm tyb nòòhs ynpl ty[ybçh hamb larçyb tymwalh h[dwth twrrw[th .22 ˆwyrwg ˆb dwdl çgwm ˚òòntb µyrqjm ≈bwq :dwdl z[ ,(˚rw[) ˆmpywq òy :˚wtb 396–420 (dòòkçt) rps tyrq :µylçwry ,µynç [bçw µy[bç wl talmb ynydm dw[y tmw[l ynjwr dw[y :‘lwdg ywg’w ‘çwdq µ[’ .23 665–662 (dòòkçt) 186/ak ,dlwm hrwbyj [qrw htylkt — twr tlygm .24 15–10 (wòòkçt) a/a ,ˆwrçy yrwf tyfsymwnwrfbdh hlwksahw µyrbd rps axwm .25 51–42 (wòòkçt) [wk-hk] b-a/ay ,arqm tyb arqmb twnwç hyyar twdwqn ytç — hybçwt tmrjhw ˆ[nk ≈ra çwbyk .26 127–121 (zòòkçt) [l] b/by ,arqm tyb

xxxvi

Noam Mizrahi and Udi Mizrachi

,

ynçh why[çy tawbnbw a tyçarbb arwbh lah .27 132–105 (jòòkçt) b/zl ,≈ybrt ,(a ,≈ybrt yfwqyl) arqmh rqjb harqym ,(˚rw[) dlpnyyw òm :˚wtb twmlçh 146–145 (fòòlçt) sngam :µylçwry

µykrd tçrp l[ arqmh rqj .28 254–245 (fòòkçt) [j/b :jòòs] 218/hk ,dlwm hmwdqh tylarçyh hyprgwyrwfsyhb µyfpwçh tpwqtw çwbykh tpwqt .29 trjwamhw µyrqjm :ˆybyy lawmç rps ,(µykrw[) µyrjaw yqsmrba òç :˚wtb arqmh rqjl hrbjh :µylçwry ,larçy twdlwtw ˆwçl ,hygwlwaykra 205–187 (lòòçt) rps tyrqw larçyb *16 wwçh

hrwth twrpsb µyygwlwayt µymrz .30 22–10 (aòòlçt) [dm] a/zf ,arqm tyb *17 wwçh

wtrwtw wtwyçya ,whymry .31 tybb ˚òòntb ˆwy[h gwj yrbd :whymry rpsb µynwy[ ,(˚rw[) ayrwl xòòb :˚wtb tymlw[h tydwhyh hrbjhw ˆwjfybh drçm :µylçwry ,a ,hnydmh ayçn 78–48 (aòòlçt) ˚òòntl h[qrw larçyb ˚lwmh tdwb[ .32 dwgyah :µylçwry ,a ,twdhyh y[dml yçymjh ymlw[h ydwhyh srgnwqh yrbd 152 ,61–37 (fòòkçt) twdhyh y[dml ymlw[h *9 wwçh

qyt[h µlw[bw larçyb µtwjtpth ylwglgw µyjnwmh — ‘dsjhw tyrbh’ .33 105–85 (bòòlçt) g-b/wl ,wnnwçl 113 war ;*20 wwçh

µynwnqt lç jwsynh tyy[b :arqmh qwjb yfqydwpah µgdh lç wrwqml .34 ynçh tybh ymy tlyjtbw ˆwçarh tybh ymyb µybyyjm µyyrwbyx 360–349 (bòòlçt) d/am ,≈ybrt *21 wwçh

(z ,bòòy aòòlm) µ[bjrl µynqzh tx[ .35 13–3 (bòòlçt) a/wl ,wnnwçl *36 wwçh

larçy lç tynjwrh hzwprwmafmhw whymry .36 ,≈rah t[ydyb ,arqmb µyrqjm ≈bwq :twrwbgl rz ,(˚rw[) ayrwl xòòb :˚wtb :µylçwry ,gòòph wtdlwh µwyb rzç ˆmlz òrl çgwm ,tydwmlt twrpsbw ˆwçlb 278–244 (gòòlçt) rps tyrq *24 wwçh

+

Bibliography of the Hebrew Publications of Moshe Weinfeld

xxxvii

ynjlwphw ytklmmh w[qr — arqmb rç[mh .37 131–122 (gòòlçt) a ,[bç rab [rmrq nòòç µ[ πwtyçb] .38 ytawçh rqjml awbm — µylyht rpsw tyrmwçh twrpsh 24–8 (dòòlçt) [wn] a/fy ,arqm tyb ,a qlj 160–136 (dòòlçt) [zn] b/fy ,arqm tyb ,b qlj µwdqh jrzmh µlw[b hytwlybqmw hyypwa — ˆwdjrsal µynwma t[wbç .39 88–51 (wòòlçt) a ,ˆwtnç *25 wwçh

twr[hw µwgrt :rwça ˚lm ˆwdjrsa lç µylaswwh t[bçh .40 122–89 (wòòlçt) a ,ˆwtnç arys ˆb rpsbw ˆarmwq twlygmb hrmzd yqwspw rxwy tçwdq lç twbq[ .41 26–15 (wòòlçt) a/hm ,≈ybrt larçy trwsmb µlwglgw µtw[mçm :twrbydh trç[ .42 121–109 (1976) b ,arqmb twgh *62 wwçh

djyh ˚rs tlygmb µyçnw[ twnqtw µyynwgra µyswpd .43 81–60 (zòòlçt) b ,ˆwtnç *4 wwçh

µyrja µym[ tdm[l hawwçhb larçy trwsm lç htdm[ — rbw[ ttmh .44 142–129 (zòòlçt) g/bm ,ˆwyx hyprgwag ;ˆyawçyn yghnm ;rxj twkylhw ynydm lhnym :µymwsrp ˆmwy .45 twbwtkb µykrdb ˆwjfb ;tydkaw tyrmwçb hryjb yywfyb ;tyrwfsyh twytwklm 255–249 (zòòlçt) b ,ˆwtnç (29.3.1977 µwyb snkb haxrh) hnylpyxsydh tyy[b — wmlw[w arqmh .46 278–275 (zòòlçt) b ,ˆwtnç g,b-a,a tyçarb lç rxwyh tyb tyy[bl :òh tklmhw çdqmw tbç .47 193–188 (zòòlçt) [fs] b/bk ,arqm tyb *33 wwçh

wydyqptw w[mçm ,‘rfwç’h .48 420–417 (zòòlçt) [a[] d/bk ,arqm tyb µwdqh jrzmbw arqmb fpwçw rç .49 ymlw[h dwgyah :µylçwry ,a ,twdhyh y[dml yçyçh ymlw[h srgnwqh yrbd 89–73 (zòòlçt) twdhyh *27 wwçh

çmçl hlht .50 248–239 (zòòlçt) b ,ˆwtnç

xxxviii

Noam Mizrahi and Udi Mizrachi

,

ˆwmdqh jrzmbw larçyb lah lç wtmjlm .51 µyçgwm :ˆwmdqh jrzmbw arqmb µyrqjm ,(µykrw[) walb òyw rwçyba òy :˚wtb ˆyfçnybwr òa :µylçwry ,hnç µy[bç wl talmb µfçnwyl òa lawmçl 181–171 (jòòlçt) *40 wwçh

larçyb bywah µ[ brqb µyymymç µypwg twbr[th :‘wmjln µymçh ˆm’ .52 ˆwmdqh jrzmbw 30–23 (jòòlçt) dy ,larçy ≈ra *40 wwçh

,twçqbh lç ˆyypwa :hrç[ hnwmç tlyptb hjylsw hbwçt ,t[dl twçqbh .53 arqmb ˆhyçrçw ˆarmwqb ˆhytwlybqm 200–186 (fòòlçt) g/jm ,≈ybrt 121 war

‘˚lml hrwt’ wa ‘çdqm tlygm’ .54 237–214 (fòòlçt) g ,ˆwtnç twymfwpwsm tyrja twawbn .55 276–263 (fòòlçt) g ,ˆwtnç µwdqh µlw[bw larçyb wl µybwrqh µyywmydhw ‘µymç bkwr’ .56 arqmb µyrqjm :ayrwl ˆwyx-ˆb rps ,(µykrw[) µyrjaw lsrq òg :˚wtb rqjl hrbjh :µylçwry ,hnç µy[bç wl talmb wl µyçgwm larçy twdlwtbw 245–235 (fòòlçt) rps tyrqw larçyb arqmh *21 wwçh

ˆzwahlw swylwy lç wtnçm yçrçl .57 141–126 (µòòçt) g ,arqmb twgh *9 ,*3 wwçh

ˆwy[rh lç wrwqml — µ[h db[k ˚lmh .58 25–19 (µòòçt) b ,[bç rab lça *39 wwçh

wrwbyj t[pwhl hnç ham talmb hçdj hkr[h :ˆzwahlw swylwy lç wtnçm .59 ‘larçy ymy yrbdl twmdqa’ 93–62 (µòòçt) d ,ˆwtnç *9 ,*3 wwçh

htqyzb sòòhnpl yçylçh πlahm tymafwpwsmh trwsmb hmkjw hygwlwayt .60 arqml 287–285 (µòòçt) d ,ˆwtnç tymafwpwsym hlybqm :hrwbgl µynwmç ˆb ,hbyçl µy[bç ˆb .61 arqmb µyrqjm :hdwhy ˆb ˚wrb ròòd rps ,(˚rw[) ayrwl xòòb :˚wtb (aòòmçt) larçyb arqmh rqjl hrbjh :byba lt ,larçy tbçjmbw 317–312 *71 wwçh

page is 9 points long

+

Bibliography of the Hebrew Publications of Moshe Weinfeld

xxxix

wlç rxwyh tyb ty[bw hawbnb òh µwy gçwmh .62 ˚òòntb ˆwy[h gwj yrbd :rç[ yrt rpsb µynwy[ ,(˚rw[) ayrwl xòòb :˚wtb rps tyrqw larçyb arqmh rqjl hrbjh :µylçwry ,hnydmh ayçn tybb 76–55 (aòòmçt) µynyd .b ;ˆwmdqh jrzmh twawbnb yrswmh famyrph .a :µymwsrp ˆmwy .63 dwròg[ tbwtkl twpswn .g ;ytyrgwahw yrwjh ,ytjh µlw[b hklh twnwrq[w 239–233 (bòòmçt-aòòmçt) w-h ,ˆwtnç (twkws) al[ rydm tbwtkb µ[lb tawbn .64 147–141 (bòòmçt-aòòmçt) w-h ,ˆwtnç ˚rs tlygm) ‘la djyb µnwhw µjwk µt[d lwk wayby wtmal µybdnh lkw’ .65 (12 hrwç ,1 πd djyh ≈nyrg ryam [çwhyl ˆwrkz rps :arqmb µynwy[ ,(˚rw[) rmyyhnpwa òb :˚wtb 41–37 (bòòmçt) djwamh ≈wbyqh :byba lt ,(b ,hdw[t) hçdj tyrb l[ whymry ˆwzjl hawwçhb hçdj jwrw çdj bl l[ laqzjy ˆwzj .66 tybb ˚òòntb ˆwy[h gwj yrbd :laqzjy rpsb µynwy[ ,(˚rw[) rwçyba òy :˚wtb (bòòmçt) rps tyrqw larçyb arqmh rqjl hrbjh :µylçwry ,hnydmh ayçn 308–285 tytwrpsh hryxyh .67 µ[ lç hyrwfsyhh) hrbjw twbrt — hkwlmh ymy ,(˚rw[) fmlm òa :˚wtb 249 ,215–210 ,53–22 (bòòmçt) dbw[ µ[ :byba lt ,(h ,larçy *30 wwçh

µyhla yny[b bwf lkçw ˆj axmw’ :µym[bw larçyb hlaçm lç hylwglgl .68 (4 òg ylçm) ‘µdaw 99–93 (bòòmçt) zf ,larçy ≈ra ydg ˆy[ tlyhq lç dwsh .69 129–125 (bòòmçt) a/an ,≈ybrt lgr smrmw hçybk ,lwlyj .70 µyyj ˆb bazl µyçgwm :ˆwçl yrqjm ,(µykrw[) µyrjaw rça rb òm :˚wtb 200–195 (gòòmçt) sngam :µylçwry ,hbyçl w[yghb ˆwyx tbyçw lbb twlg ymy lç tytwrpsh hryxyh .71 µ[ lç hyrwfsyhh) srp ˆwflç ymy — ˆwyx tbyç ,(˚rw[) rwmdt òj :˚wtb 175–165 (gòòmçt) dbw[ µ[ :byba lt ,(w ,larçy [rwdyrm òr µ[ πwtyçb] .72 rwfsymwlwp lç wçnw[w whyqdx lç wçnw[ arqmb µyrmam :ˆmgylz hyra qjxy rps ,(µykrw[) apwr òaw ≈ybwqz òy :˚wtb 233–229 (gòòmçt) ˆyyfçnybwr òa :µylçwry ,a ,qyt[h µlw[bw tyçarbl tynwxyjh hlygmhw yrwça qwj [qr l[ (k òrb) ˚lmyba tybb hrç .73 642–639 (gòòmçt) d/bn ,≈ybrt *48 wwçh

xl

Noam Mizrahi and Udi Mizrachi

,

ymyw ˆwçar tyb ymym twrwqmb hjfbhh tsypt :hbwjw twkz — ≈rah tçwry .74 ynç tyb 137–115 (dòòmçt) b/fm ,ˆwyx wtwhml :tydwhyh hygrwfylb htwpqtçhw arqmb µyhla twklml hyypyxh .75 ‘òh µwy’ ˆwy[r lç zkrm :µylçwry ,µyrmam ≈bwq :hygwlwfksaw twyjyçm ,(˚rw[) srb òx :˚wtb 96–73 (dòòmçt) rzç ˆmlz *49 wwçh

arqml wsjyw ˆjlwpw rswm l[ µyrxmm (yfwmd btkb) ymrah fsqfh .76 189–179 (hòòmçt) f ,ˆwtnç lç hylwglgl :8–2 òk µylht lç (yfwmd btkb tymra) ynagaph fsqfh .77 µwdqh ˆwkyth jrzmbw larçyb tyrwmzm hryxy 140–130 (hòòmçt) jy ,larçy ≈ra larçy trwsmb µmwqmw µdwjyy — twrbydh trç[ .78 sngam :µylçwry ,twrwdh yarb twrbydh trç[ ,(˚rw[) lgs xòòb :˚wtb 34–1 (wòòmçt) *64 wwçh

hqyt[h larçyb yskf-ynjlwp ghwnb ytj ywwh twbq[ .79 114–107 (fòòmçt-wòòmçt) y ,ˆwtnç 105, *76 wwçh

µyhlah rhb wrtyw hçm l[ twrwsmh .80 460–449 (zòòmçt) d/wn ,≈ybrt *53 wwçh

wypwaw µgdh :ˆ[nkb larçy yfbç lç twljnthh trwsm .81 20–3 (zòòmçt) 44 ,hrdtq *58 wwçh

larçyb hyyjth rwdb arqmh twnçrp .82 lbwyb ˆwy[h ymy twaxrh :dwmltbw arqmb µyrqjm ,(tkrw[) tpy òç :˚wtb twdhyh y[dml ˆwkmh :µylçwry ,twdhyh y[dml ˆwkmh lç µyççh 15–9 (zòòmçt) tyrb[h hfysrbynwab htwjtpthw h[mçm — hjnm tlpt .83 arqmh rqjl hrbjhw µyrçym :µylçwry ,jmrh twrwbg ,(˚rw[) qlp òz :˚wtb 82–77 (zòòmçt) larçyb arqmh yqwjb tylarçy µdqh hyyswlkwah lç hmrjhw hçrwh ,çwryg .84 147–135 (jòòmçt) b/gn ,ˆwyx *73 wwçh

twnwç twsypt ytç — tjfbwmh ≈rah πqyh .85 16–3 (hòòmçt) 47 ,hrdtq 125 war

+

Bibliography of the Hebrew Publications of Moshe Weinfeld

xli

dwgrph yrwjam la lah dws ‘tpldh’ — ‘yn[mç ryq ,ryq ;hxyjm ,hxyjm’ .86 68–63 (jòòmçt) g ,[bç rab *85 wwçh

tlbwqmh tydwhyh hlyptbw ˆarmwq twlygmb rjçh twkrb .87 bp b[ (ˆòòçt ˆwçj yrçt) hq/gn ,ynys *57 wwçh

µyrbd yrps) ‘µkl rmwa yna çdqh ypm ala µkl rmwa yna ymx[m al’ .88 (òh hqsyp arqmb µyrqjm :whyrbg yòòmj òpwrp rps ,(˚rw[) ayrwl xòòb :˚wtb (aòònçt) larçyb arqmh rqjl hrbjh :µylçwry ,b ,larçy tbçjmbw 64–63 *66 wwçh

hqyt[h amwrbw larçyb ,yramb ‘dqpym’h .89 237–233 (aòònçt) g/wn ,ˆwyx *65 wwçh

twklml hd[m .90 ,twrwqm :ˆwçar tyb ymyb µylçwry ,(µykrw[) ˆnwg òrw tym[ òd :˚wtb ybx ˆb qjxy dy :µylçwry ,(15 ,ˆdy[) rz[ rmwjw twrjbn twyçrp ,µymwkys 39–23 (aòònçt) ‘µlw[b ˚mç ta çdqn’ .91 w[-fs (aòònçt ryya-ˆsyn) jq/dn ,ynys ˆarmwqb ˆwzmh tkrb .92 23–15 (bòònçt) a/as ,≈ybrt *69 wwçh

ˆarmwqb hygrwfylh .93 twnç µy[bra :hdwhy rbdm twlygm ,(µykrw[) µyrjaw yçwrb òm :˚wtb hytwqyt[w larçy ≈ra tryqjl hrbjhw qylayb dswm :µylçwry ,rqjm 175–160 (bòònçt) *72 wwçh

ylbbh fpçmh rqjb rwç hçm lç wl[pm .94 29–25 (bòònçt) 32 ,twdhyh y[dm twrpsh yarb arqmh .95 ,arqmb µyrqjm :ˆwmlf yr[ç ,(µykrw[) ˆyybçyp òmw bwf ò[ :˚wtb :hnaydnya ,qyyl hnwnyw ,ˆwmlf whyrmçl µyçgwm ˆwmdqh jrzmbw ˆarmwqb 30–25 (1992) snwarbnzyya hçm l[ twrwsmh — tyfsyatwnwmh tdh tdlwh lç twyrwfsyhh twbysnh .96 ≈wj twywd[ rwal wrtyw 28–19 (bòònçt) ˆwmdqa :µylçwry ,µfçnwyl .a .ç òpwrp lç wrkzl :˚wtb

xlii

Noam Mizrahi and Udi Mizrachi

,

hmwdqh µyrxmbw arqmb çdqmh yrqbml twarwh .97 15–5 (gòònçt) a/bs ,≈ybrt *37 wwçh

ty[dm hjnhl tynçrp atkmsa .98 ,ˆymq hrçl ˆwrkyz rps :wyçrpm yarb arqmh ,(tkrw[) tpy òç :˚wtb 462–460 (dòònçt) sngam :µylçwry twbal hjfbhh twmçgth — tynydm tytklmm hlwdg .99 92–87 (dòònçt) dk ,larçy ≈ra hqyt[h tylarçyh hawbnb µzylayrpmyah dgn hajmh .100 19–7 (dòònçt) 7 ,qrph l[ *52 ,*50 wwçh

çdwqmh ≈[hw çwdqh gwwyzh :tylarçyh twhlah yrwaytb µyybqn twdwsy .101 358–348 (hòònçt) [gmq] d/m ,arqm tyb *79 wwçh

d[wmw tbçb hdym[h tlypt lç yarqmh hrwqm .102 563–547 (wòònçt) d/hs ,≈ybrt arqmh tpwqtb µymkjh µyrpwsh .103 17–7 (wòònçt) 10 ,µynmkm yfnms jwtyn — ‘qwyd’w ‘ˆwy[’ ‘,lkç’ .104 µyrqjm :hçml hlht ,(µykrw[) ˆgwk òmw yagyf jòòy ,rlkyya dòòa :˚wtb :hnaydnya ,qyyl hnwnyw ,grbnyrg hçml µyçgwm twdhyh y[dmbw arqmb 105–101 (zòònçt) snwarbnzyya larçy tdb ytj ˆjlwp twbq[ .105 65–49 (jòònçt) 15 ,qrph l[ 79, *76 wwçh

ˆhyl[ ˆybyçm µlw[h twmwa/[rh rxy/ˆfçhç µyrbd .106 tydwmlth twrpsb µyrqjm :µyyjl hrf[ ,(µykrw[) µyrjaw ˆyraywb òd :˚wtb (sòòçt) sngam :µylçwry ,yqsbwrfymyd ˆmlz µyyj rwspwrp dwbkl tynbrhw 111–105 ˆarmwq twlygmb hytwbq[w ‘µymçb wnyhwla’ hynfylh .107 242–239 (sòòçt) b/fs ,≈ybrt µwdqh jrzmbw larçyb tyfylwp “twdydy tyrb” lç h[mçm .108 µyrqjm :lawmçl hrwçt ,(µykrw[) ˆwys òdw hnwy òç ,ryçlf òx :˚wtb 183–178 (aòòsçt) qylayb dswm :µylçwry ,arqmh µlw[b

twrwqyb .d O. Bächli, Israel und die Völker Eine Studie zum l[ trwqyb] .109 [Deuteronomium, Zürich: Zwingli (1962) 330–329 (gòòkçt) g/jl ,rps tyrq

+

Bibliography of the Hebrew Publications of Moshe Weinfeld

xliii

ˆmpywq laqzjy lç tyarqmh wtnçm .110 437–432 (dòòkçt) 181/ak ,dlwm ‘tynwymd tyrwfsyh hyprgwayg’ ˆyyn[l .111 [hm] b/zf ,arqm tyb ‘,tynwymd tyrwfsyh hyprgwayg’ ,≈nyrg mòòyl hbwgt] [138–136 (aòòlçt) 115 (bòòlçt) [jm] a/zy ,arqm tyb trwqybh ykrdb .112 M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the l[ trwqyb] ,apwr òal hbwgt] a/jm ,rps tyrq,[Deuteronomic School, Oxford: Clarendon (1972) [89–83 (gòòlçt) 296–290 (dòòlçt) [zn] b/fy ,arqm tyb tymwrbw tynwwyb tyrb yjnwm ˆyyn[l .113 ,wnnwçl ,‘πtwçmh µaxwmw “µylybqm” µyjnwm l[’ ,≈yçpyl òbl hbwgt] [228–226 (gòòlçt) g-b/zl 237–231 (dòòlçt) g/jl ,wnnwçl 33 war

µyrmaml twbwgt .114 [lòònh ˚rkb wmsrptnç µyrmamh bwr l[ trwqyb] 259–253 (wòòlçt) a ,ˆwtnç µyypargwpwf µyrqjm :larçy ≈rab twlylgw µyr[ ,rzm òb l[ trwqyb] .115 hytwqyt[w larçy ≈ra tryqjl hrbjhw qylayb dswm :µylçwry ,µyyrwfsyh 258–256 (zòòlçt) b ,ˆwtnç [(wòòlçt) awbm .a115 (fòòlçt) ˆmwyn .m :byba-lt ,wyaçwn ypl µykwr[ :ylçm ,slp ryam :˚wtb [b]-[a] rbd tyrja .116 :byba-lt ,arqmh ˆwçl lç µyml[n rybjt yllk ,grbnfwr ryam :˚wtb 188–185 (fòòlçt) µypçr F. Crüsemann, Der Widerstand gegen das Königtum, l[ trwqyb] .117 [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag (1978) 573–567 (µòòçt) g/dn ,rps tyrq *98 wwçh

lwbgb hkwlmh tpwqtm çdwqm rta :dwròg[ tlytnwk ,lçm òz l[ trwqyb] .118 [(jòòlçt) larçy ˆwayzwm :µylçwry ,(175 òsm gwlfq) ,ynys 284–280 (µòòçt) d ˆwtnç *45 wwçh

tydwhyh hygrwfylhw tsnkh ytb twbwtk .119 ytbm twyrb[hw twymrah twbwtkh :ˆbaw spysp l[ ,hwn òy l[ trwqyb] hytwqyt[w larçy ≈ra tryqjl hrbjh :µylçwry ,µyqyt[h tsnkh

xliv

Noam Mizrahi and Udi Mizrachi

,

[(jòòlçt) 295–288 (µòòçt) d ,ˆwtnç O. Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient l[ trwqyb] .120 Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms, New York: [Seabury (1978) 254–251 (bòòmçt-aòòmçt) w-h ,ˆwtnç ˆarmwq twlygmb rjçh twkrb tlaçl .121 (bòòmçt) g/an ,≈ybrt ,‘?ˆarmwqb rjçh twkrb’ ,ydwrb òrl hbwgt] [494–493 496–495 (bòòmçt) g/an ,≈ybrt 53 war

P. Garnet, Salvation and Atonement in the Qumran Scrolls, l[ trwqyb] .122 [Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck (1977) 277 (dòòmçt-gòòmçt) j-z ,ˆwtnç H. D. Hoffman, Reform und Reformen, Zürich: l[ trwqyb] .123 Theologischer (1980); H. Spieckermann, Juda unter Assur in [der Sargonidenzeit, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht (1982) 238–236 (hòòmçt) f ,ˆwtnç arqmb tyrbh l[ .124 E. W. Nicholson, God and His People: Covenant and l[ trwqyb] [Theology in the Old Testament, Oxford: Clarendon (1986) 576–573 (zòòmçt-wòòmçt) g/as ,rps tyrq *102 wwçh

‘trp rhn lwdgh rhnh d[ µyrxm rhnm’ hjswnh ˆyyn[l .125 (aòònçt) 59 hrdtq ,‘tjfbwmh ≈rah twlwbg l[’ ,rbn[ òml hbwgt] [189–188 190–189 (aòònçt) 59 ,hrdtq 85 war

P. R. Davies, In Search of “Ancient Israel” ( JSOTSup 148), l[ trwqyb] .126 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press (1992) 356 (zòònçt) ay ,ˆwtnç D. Pardee, ‘Troisième reassemblage de RS 1.109,’ Syria 65 l[ hbwgt] .127 [(1988) 191–173 355 (zòònçt) ay ,ˆwtnç J. J. Stamm et al. (eds.), Hebäisches und Aramäisches l[ trwqyb] .128 Lexicon zum Alten Testament von Ludwig Koehler und Walter Baumgartner, [IV, Leiden: Brill (1990) 354–351 (zòònçt) ay ,ˆwtnç

+

Bibliography of the Hebrew Publications of Moshe Weinfeld

xlv

tyçarw ˆwçar tyb ymym :twyrb[ twbwtk tpwsa ,bwfyja òç l[ trwqyb] .129 qylayb dswm :µylçwry ,(z ,tyarqmh hydpwlqyxnah tyyrps) ynç tyb ymy [(gòònçt) hytwqyt[w larçy ≈ra tryqjl hrbjhw 351–349 (zòònçt) ay ,ˆwtnç tybb µyyjw twrps :arz[ tsnk ,(µykrw[) µyrjaw rwxyla òç l[ trwqyb] .130 ybx ˆb ˆwkm :µylçwry ,rçyylp arz[l tçgwm µyrqjm tpwsa ,tsnkh [(hòònçt) 360–356 (zòònçt) ay ,ˆwtnç µyyj ˆb baz t[xhl hr[h :(k ,jy ,b tyçarb) “wdgnk rz[” .131 168–167 (aòòsçt-sòòçt) b-a/gs ,wnnwçl

µyydpwlqyxna µykr[ .h ,w-a ,twmwabw larçy µ[b ˚wnyjh l[ tw[ydy rxwa :tykwnyj hydpwlqyxna (dòòlçt-aòòkçt) qylayb dswmw twbrthw ˚wnyjh drçm :µylçwry

66–53 ,d

[ˆwmlf òç µ[ πwtyçb] .132 arqmh tpwqt (g) :hqyt[h hpwqth [7]-[2] ,(sòòhpl tyçymjh hamh d[)

dswm :µylçwry ,f-a ,wtpwqtw arqmh l[ tw[ydyh rxwa :tyarqm hydpwlqyxna (fòòmçt-yòòçt) qylayb 582–581 ,h 867–866 ,h 1100–1099 ,h 362–361 ,w 733–732 ,w 735–733 ,w 192–185 ,z 267–265 ,z 343–338 ,z

hrwt hnçm hyrkn ,yrkn ,rkn hrwth rps br br[ ,br[ txIyx µyhla µlx ,µlx hllq hayrqh yçrwç (a) :hrwth tayrq arqmh tpwqtb hrwtb twr tlygm ,twr

.133 .134 .135 .136 .137 .138 .139 .140 .141

*115 wwçh

507–492 ,j

hçdjh t[b hrwth rqjm ,hrwt .142 *113 wwçh

µyrwxyqh tmyçr .w µylçwry ,hytwqyt[w ≈rah t[ydyb µyrqjm

larçy ≈ra

[bç rab ,hytwrwdl tydwhyh hbçjmb µyqrp

[bç rab lça

µylçwry ,larçyb arqmh rqjl hrbjh lç t[ btk

arqm tyb

µwdqh jrzmh ydwmyllw arqml hqljmh lç t[ btk [bç rab ,bgnb ˆwyrwg ˆb tfysrbynwab

[bç rab

xlvi

Noam Mizrahi and Udi Mizrachi

,

byba-lt ,yçy ˆwr rkzl ˚òòntl gwjh ynwy[ ˚wtm rjbm

arqmb twgh

µylçwry ,‘ˆwrçy’ twrdtsh taxwhb ˆwjry

ˆwrçy yrwf

,hl µykwmsh µymwjthw tyrb[h ˆwçlh rqjl t[ btk µylçwry

wnnwçl

µylçwry ,twdhy y[dml ymlw[h dwgyah tmb

twdhyh y[dm

byba lt ,ytwrpsw ynydm ˆwjry

dlwm

hpyj ,fkh tyd[w ˆbwar ˆwayzwm lç t[ btk

µynmkm

hçdj hrds

jòòs

µylçwry ,twdhyh y[dmlw hrwtl ˆwjry

ynys

µylçwry ,µyyllkh rpsh ytbb ˚òòntl µyrwml ˆwl[

qrph l[

µylçwry ,larçy twdlwt rqjl ˆw[br

ˆwyx

ymwalh µyrpsh tyb lç hyprgwylbybl ˆw[br µylçwry ,yafysrbynwahw

rps tyrq

µylçwry ,hbwçyyw larçy ≈ra twdlwtl

hrdtq

µylçwry ,µwdqh jrzmh rqjlw arqml

ˆwtnç

µylçwry ,twdhyh y[dml ˆw[br

≈ybrt

Subject Index to the Bibliography Ancient Near Eastern documents: 6, 7, 39–40, 45, 50–52, 55–56, 60–61, 63–64, 73, 76–77, 79, 86, 89, 94, 96–97, 105, 120, 127, 129; *13–*14, *22, *25–*26, *28, *35, *37, *40, *47–*48, *56, *65, *67, *71, *74, *76, *85 Biblical historiography: 4, 24, 29, 72, 96, 103, 123, 141; *16, *34, *53–*54, *75, *98, *110, *115 Biblical theology: 23, 30, 51–52, 58, 75, 88, 101, 106, 138; *39–*40, *49, *79, *82–*83, *89, *106, *114, *199, *121 Covenant: 6, 33–35, 39–40, 69, 108, 113, 124; *4, *14, *18, *20, *25, *36, *55, *60, *74, *95, *100, *102, *106–*107, *117–*118 Cult and liturgy: 12a, 32, 37, 41, 53, 75, 79, 83, 87, 91–93, 97, 102, 105, 107, 118–119, 121, 130; *8, *13, *19, *29, *37, *45, *49, *57, *69, *72, *76–*77, *81, *90, *96–*97, *104, *111, *116, *119–*120 Deuteronomy: 1–3, 17–19, 22, 25, 109, 112, 133; *1, *5, *12–*15, *46, *78, *94, *101, *108 Genesis: 8, 27, 47, 73, 99, 131; *28, *33, *48, *59 Idioms and expressions: 33, 35, 48, 56, 68, 70, 104, 106, 108, 113, 116, 119, 128–129, 131, 134, 136–139; *22, *36, *67, *70, *88, *117–*118 Introduction to the Bible and history of interpretation: 5, 28, 46, 57, 59, 67, 71, 82, 95, 98, 110, 126, 132, 142; *3, *9, *23, *30, *32, *51, *82, *121 Israel, land of: 11, 26, 29, 74, 81, 84–85, 99, 111, 115, 125; *6, *16, *41, *58–*59, *73, *75, *91 Jerusalem as a political and religious capital: 90; *44, *80, *86, *101 Justice, law, and legal institutions: 10, 21, 34, 44, 48–49, 94; *2, *7, *21, *27, *38, *47, *63, *70, *105, *109, *112 New Testament: *29, *61, *84 Pentateuch and its law codes: 30, 47, 57, 59, 80, 135, 140, 142; *3, *9, *17, *33, *43, *92–*93, *100, *103, *113 Prophetic literature: 9, 20, 27, 31, 36, 55, 62, 66, 100; *24, *26, *50, *52 Psalmodic literature: 38, 50, 76, 77, 120; *35 Qumran scrolls: 41, 43, 53–54, 65, 73, 87–88, 92–93, 107, 121–122; *4, *8, *31, *42, *48, *57, *66, *69, *72, *77, *87–*87a, *90, *99 Ten Commandments and recitation of the Shemaº: 12, 42, 78; *62,*64, *68

xlvi

Noam Mizrahi and Udi Mizrachi

,

byba-lt ,yçy ˆwr rkzl ˚òòntl gwjh ynwy[ ˚wtm rjbm

arqmb twgh

µylçwry ,‘ˆwrçy’ twrdtsh taxwhb ˆwjry

ˆwrçy yrwf

,hl µykwmsh µymwjthw tyrb[h ˆwçlh rqjl t[ btk µylçwry

wnnwçl

µylçwry ,twdhy y[dml ymlw[h dwgyah tmb

twdhyh y[dm

byba lt ,ytwrpsw ynydm ˆwjry

dlwm

hpyj ,fkh tyd[w ˆbwar ˆwayzwm lç t[ btk

µynmkm

hçdj hrds

jòòs

µylçwry ,twdhyh y[dmlw hrwtl ˆwjry

ynys

µylçwry ,µyyllkh rpsh ytbb ˚òòntl µyrwml ˆwl[

qrph l[

µylçwry ,larçy twdlwt rqjl ˆw[br

ˆwyx

ymwalh µyrpsh tyb lç hyprgwylbybl ˆw[br µylçwry ,yafysrbynwahw

rps tyrq

µylçwry ,hbwçyyw larçy ≈ra twdlwtl

hrdtq

µylçwry ,µwdqh jrzmh rqjlw arqml

ˆwtnç

µylçwry ,twdhyh y[dml ˆw[br

≈ybrt

Subject Index to the Bibliography Ancient Near Eastern documents: 6, 7, 39–40, 45, 50–52, 55–56, 60–61, 63–64, 73, 76–77, 79, 86, 89, 94, 96–97, 105, 120, 127, 129; *13–*14, *22, *25–*26, *28, *35, *37, *40, *47–*48, *56, *65, *67, *71, *74, *76, *85 Biblical historiography: 4, 24, 29, 72, 96, 103, 123, 141; *16, *34, *53–*54, *75, *98, *110, *115 Biblical theology: 23, 30, 51–52, 58, 75, 88, 101, 106, 138; *39–*40, *49, *79, *82–*83, *89, *106, *114, *199, *121 Covenant: 6, 33–35, 39–40, 69, 108, 113, 124; *4, *14, *18, *20, *25, *36, *55, *60, *74, *95, *100, *102, *106–*107, *117–*118 Cult and liturgy: 12a, 32, 37, 41, 53, 75, 79, 83, 87, 91–93, 97, 102, 105, 107, 118–119, 121, 130; *8, *13, *19, *29, *37, *45, *49, *57, *69, *72, *76–*77, *81, *90, *96–*97, *104, *111, *116, *119–*120 Deuteronomy: 1–3, 17–19, 22, 25, 109, 112, 133; *1, *5, *12–*15, *46, *78, *94, *101, *108 Genesis: 8, 27, 47, 73, 99, 131; *28, *33, *48, *59 Idioms and expressions: 33, 35, 48, 56, 68, 70, 104, 106, 108, 113, 116, 119, 128–129, 131, 134, 136–139; *22, *36, *67, *70, *88, *117–*118 Introduction to the Bible and history of interpretation: 5, 28, 46, 57, 59, 67, 71, 82, 95, 98, 110, 126, 132, 142; *3, *9, *23, *30, *32, *51, *82, *121 Israel, land of: 11, 26, 29, 74, 81, 84–85, 99, 111, 115, 125; *6, *16, *41, *58–*59, *73, *75, *91 Jerusalem as a political and religious capital: 90; *44, *80, *86, *101 Justice, law, and legal institutions: 10, 21, 34, 44, 48–49, 94; *2, *7, *21, *27, *38, *47, *63, *70, *105, *109, *112 New Testament: *29, *61, *84 Pentateuch and its law codes: 30, 47, 57, 59, 80, 135, 140, 142; *3, *9, *17, *33, *43, *92–*93, *100, *103, *113 Prophetic literature: 9, 20, 27, 31, 36, 55, 62, 66, 100; *24, *26, *50, *52 Psalmodic literature: 38, 50, 76, 77, 120; *35 Qumran scrolls: 41, 43, 53–54, 65, 73, 87–88, 92–93, 107, 121–122; *4, *8, *31, *42, *48, *57, *66, *69, *72, *77, *87–*87a, *90, *99 Ten Commandments and recitation of the Shemaº: 12, 42, 78; *62,*64, *68

A Slip of the Pen? On Josiah’s Actions in Samaria (2 Kings 23:15–20) Mordechai Cogan Hebrew University of Jerusalem

#

$

According to the account in 2 Kings 23, the purge of foreign cults undertaken by Josiah extended beyond the kingdom of Judah into Samaria: the bamâ of Bethel and its altar were summarily eradicated (v. 15), and similar action was taken against the bamôt-shrines throughout Northern Israel (vv. 19–20). In general, modern historians have made much of these verses; they have found in them evidence for the extension of Josiah’s rule over the former Assyrian province of Samerina, arguing that this was made possible by the imperial withdrawal from the west. 1 Literary critics, on the other hand, have focused on the unmistakable connection between 2 Kgs 23:16–20 and 1 Kgs 13:2, 32, noting that by his acts Josiah fulfilled the ancient prophecy concerning the destruction of the Bethel altar; this is perhaps the boldest example of the thematic pattern favored in the book of Kings of prophetic prediction and realization. 2 Attention, however, should be drawn to the 1. The extent of Josiah’s newly won authority is variously conceived. See, e.g., M. Noth, The History of Israel (New York: Harper, 1960) 274; J. Bright, A History of Israel (3d ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981) 317; G. Ahlström, The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic Period to Alexander’s Conquest ( JSOTSup 146; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993) 764–65. For a considerably more sober approach to this question, which doubts that Josiah annexed territories on the coast and in the far north, see N. Naªaman, “The Lists of Cities of Judah and Benjamin and the Kingdom of Judah during the Days of Josiah,” Zion 54 (1988) 53–63. See, too, F. M. Cross, From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998) 175–79. 2. Josiah is made out to have acted unwittingly in destroying the altar. See the extensive explication by U. Simon, “1 Kings 13: A Prophetic Sign—Denial and Persistence,” HUCA 47 (1976) 81–117, especially 85–86.

3

4

Mordechai Cogan

,

discord between the report of Josiah in Samaria and the earlier one concerning the foreigners who were resettled in Samaria (cf. 2 Kgs 17:24–33). The following remarks probe the relationship between these two reports, and they are presented to Moshe Weinfeld, in appreciation of his many insightful contributions toward the understanding of Deuteronomistic historical writing. According to the Deuteronomistic indictment of 2 Kgs 17:7–23, YHWH’s punishment of the Israelites was just; they had wantonly abandoned his commandments, and “so Israel was exiled from its land to Assyria, until this day” (v. 23). The ancient historian then reports that settlers from a variety of conquered territories were brought to occupy the cities of Samaria, now emptied of their former residents. Early on, these newcomers were struck by a divine visitation—a rash of attacks by lions—whereupon they adopted the cult of YHWH pursuant to the instruction of a priest of YHWH who had been returned to Bethel from his place of exile. 3 But, though these new Samarians “revered YHWH, (at the same time) they served their own gods” (v. 33), creating a cultic admixture that the writer reviled. As for the Israelites, they are viewed as incorrigible; even in exile they continued in their stubborn ways, rejecting the covenant given to the sons of Jacob (vv. 34–40). 4 This picture of the state of affairs in the former kingdom of Israel remains in the shadows when the matter of Josiah’s actions in Samaria is taken up. The king ordered the cleansing of the Temple of idolatries and the eradication of cult sites throughout Judah and the environs of Jerusalem that were devoted to foreign gods, as well as shrines to YHWH, Israel’s own God (2 Kgs 23:4–14). In Samaria the highlight of the king’s actions was the destruction of the bamâ in Bethel and the defilement of its altar (v. 15). 5 But more was at stake in Samaria than just 3. On lions as an instrument of divine punishment, especially associated with the city of Bethel and its divine patron, see M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, 2 Kings (AB 10; Garden City: Doubleday, 1988) ad 2 Kgs 17:25. 4. I argued the separateness of this unit from the report concerning the Samarians: “Israel in Exile: The View of a Josianic Historian,” JBL 97 (1978) 40–44. This view was adopted by H. Eshel, The Samaritans in the Persian and Hellenistic Periods: The Origins of Samaritanism (Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University, 1994) 57–61 [Hebrew]; see, too, M. Z. Brettler, The Creation of History in Ancient Israel (London and New York: Routledge, 1995) 128–31. 5. Verse 15 is a separate statement on the Bethel operation in which the altar is destroyed; vv. 16–20 complement and conclude the 1 Kings 13 pericope, in effect explicating v. 15.

+

A Slip of the Pen? On Josiah’s Actions in Samaria

5

cultic reform. Josiah is presented as having starred in the final act of an extended drama that had begun three centuries earlier on the day of the inauguration of the cult site at Bethel. Tradition told that, just as Jeroboam son of Nebat, Israel’s first king, ascended the altar, he was confronted by a man of God from Judah who prophesied the destruction of the altar by a later descendent of David, Josiah by name (1 Kgs 13:1– 2). From this it follows that the actions of Josiah—burning the bamâ and making dust of it, burning the Asherah, and burning bones on the altar—closed the circle: Jeroboam and all the kings of Israel who had followed his aberrant way were finally punished, proof positive of the infallibility of the word of YHWH (2 Kgs 23:16). 6 Yet the narrative leaves other circles open. The impression of 2 Kgs 23:15 is that vengeance is being meted out upon Israelites, bearers of a tradition that the bamâ at Bethel had been erected by Jeroboam, even though according to the Deuteronomist’s own statement in 17:23 there were ostensively no Israelites left in the land. 7 At the same time, it would indeed be odd if the new Samarians whom the historian considered idolators and their mixed cult were the object of Josiah’s reform; after the initial condemnation (17:24–33), he does not relate to them again. 8 The unsparing slaughter of the priests who served at the bamôt of Samaria by Josiah (23:20) also points to native Israelites as targets of the reform; these priests were treated as being subject to the law of the “subverted city” that specified the death penalty for the Israelite perpetrators of idolatry (cf. Deut 13:13–19). 9 6. G. von Rad’s presentation of this theme of Deuteronomistic writing has become standard; see G. von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy (SBT 9; London: SCM, 1953) 74–91. Simon (“1 Kings 13,” 110) points out that, in the case of Josiah, the word of YHWH “did come about in due time, even without the factor of a conscious decision on the part of the king who fulfilled it.” 7. That this was the writer’s viewpoint is clear from v. 18: “YHWH was very angry with Israel, and he removed them from his sight; only the tribe of Judah was left.” 8. My view put forward in “Israel in Exile” concerning the identity of persons affected by the reform is hereby revised. F. Dexinger holds that it is inferable from 2 Kgs 23:19 that the proto-Samaritans had a cult place of their own on Mt. Gerizim, in Jewish and Christian Self-Definition (ed. E. P. Sanders, A. J. Baumgarten, and A. Mendelson; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981) 2.92. For E. Würthwein, vv. 15–20 are a very late polemic against the cult site at Bethel, which had remained active into the sixth century B.C.E. (Die Bücher der Könige [ATD 11/2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984] 460). 9. More than a few commentators have been uncomfortable with the reported slaughter of the priests and have sought to appease their own conceptions of the behavior

6

Mordechai Cogan

,

On the basis of this analysis, it would seem that the Deuteronomistic historian has contradicted himself both from a literary and from a historical perspective: having first claimed that all Israel was exiled, he goes on to tell of Israelites who were in the land at the time of Josiah’s reform. It does not help to suggest that this discordant note was introduced by a second hand—that is, a late, post-Deuteronomistic editor was responsible for entering one of the depictions (presumably 2 Kgs 17:24–33) into Kings. This suggestion just sidesteps the problem by placing the inconsistency in the depiction of the state of affairs in Samaria in the lap of a late glossator. Moreover, when the entire book of Kings is considered, the present case turns out to be just one of a number of instances of seemingly inconsistent and/or self-contradictory presentations, which when taken together suggest that they are all the product of a literary-editorial style employed by the Deuteronomistic historian and not slips of the pen. Consider the following examples. (1) In 2 Kgs 18:5, Hezekiah is lauded for his loyalty to Y HWH in superlative terms: “In YHWH God of Israel he put his trust; there was no one like him among the kings of Judah following him, or among those before him.” A short while later, Josiah is presented as the ultimate virtuous king: “There was no king like him before, who turned back to YHWH with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his might, in accord with the entire Teaching of Moses; and after him, no one arose like him” (23:25). 10 (2) In speaking of Israel’s first king, the arch-sinner Jeroboam, son of Nebat, the prophet Ahijah is said to have declared: “You have acted worse than all who preceded you. You have gone and made for yourself expected of an otherwise righteous king: see, for example, “the verse is probably an exaggeration written under the influence of 1 Kgs. 13.2” (G. H. Jones, I and 2 Kings [NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984] 625); “The passage [vv. 16–20] is a late addition. . . . [Therefore,] [i]t is a relief to think that Josiah’s reformation may not have been really stained by such atrocities as are recorded in verse 20” ( J. Skinner, I & II Kings [CB; Edinburgh: T. C. & E. C. Jack, n.d.] 422); “We note that only in the late elaboration . . . is there any mention of the bloody elimination of the priests . . . , an enormity which would have reflected no credit to Josiah” ( J. Gray, I & II Kings [OTL; 2d ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970] 739). 10. Taken together, the two statements have caused the raising of eyebrows among some readers. See, for example, the evaluation that the end of 2 Kgs 18:5 is a “clumsy addition” (so, J. A. Montgomery and H. S. Gehman, The Book of Kings [ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1953] 482).

spread is 15 points short

+

A Slip of the Pen? On Josiah’s Actions in Samaria

7

other gods, molten images to anger me, and me you cast off behind your back” (1 Kgs 14:9). But this is a remarkable statement, considering that Jeroboam was the first king of Israel. He acted de novo and did not imitate any of the earlier kings (the only ones who preceded him were David and Solomon!); and it was his aberrant behavior that became the measure for all following kings of Israel. (3) The seven-day reign of Zimri, who usurped the throne of Israel in Tirzah, was brought to an abrupt end when he saw that all was lost and burned the palace down over himself, a fit punishment as the historian explains: “because of the sins which he committed, by doing what was displeasing to YHWH, by following the way of Jeroboam, and the sin which he committed by causing Israel to sin” (1 Kgs 16:19). But could Zimri have sinned in the manner described during the one week of fighting? (4) Solomon’s reign is depicted by the Deuteronomist as one of peace in all quarters (cf. 1 Kgs 5:1, 4)—that is, until he sinned by straying after the cults of the foreign gods worshiped by his many foreign wives (cf. 11:1–6). The first part of the king’s punishment for this abandonment of YHWH, his God, came through a series of uprisings against him by sundry adversaries (11:14–28). Close reading of the chronological notes in these verses, however, discloses that the uprisings occurred early in Solomon’s reign (cf. vv. 21, 25) and thus refutes the idyllic picture of 1 Kgs 5:1, 4. (5) The account concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, together with the severe punishment of the remainder of Judah’s elite by Nebuchadnezzar (cf. 2 Kgs 25:8–21a), concludes with the summary statement: “Thus Judah was exiled from its land” (v. 21b). The very next verse opens by undercutting this claim: Now as for the people left in the land of Judah . . .” (v. 22), and continues with a capsule history of the short governorship of Gedaliah son of Ahikam (vv. 22–26; cf. Jer 40:7–41:18). In each of the passages above, one finds a general statement that appears to be contradicted by a comment or scene that either precedes it or comes afterward. All of these general statements affirm historiographical positions associated with Deuteronomistic writing—loyalty to YHWH, the sin of apostasy and its punishment, total exile; and given the hyperbolic nature of these ideological pronouncements, it would be ill considered to expect them to reflect “objective” historical reality;

8

Mordechai Cogan

,

the “facts of the matter” are often better learned from the associated comments. 11 With this observation in mind, we return to the case investigated at the outset, 2 Kgs 17:23 and 23:15–20. That Israel’s exile to Assyria is presented in a general, all-encompassing statement—“so Israel was exiled from its land to Assyria, until this day”—in no way deterred the writer from describing Josiah’s reform activity in Samaria as being directed against native Israelites who were never exiled and continued to live in the North throughout the period of Assyrian domination. In this regard, then, the Deuteronomistic historian seems to have held a view (though admittedly not stated explicitly) similar to that of the Chronicler, who claimed that a remnant of Israel had “escaped from the hands of the Assyrian kings” (cf., e.g., 2 Chr 30:6, 10–11). This agreement, however, on the part of the two ancient historians does not help us ascertain the number of native Israelites who stayed in the land and what percentage of the population of the Assyrian provinces they represented. 12 The few extrabiblical references to Samaria in Assyrian texts, mostly from the reign of Sargon, do not move us any closer to an answer; 13 and the archaeological evidence is, at best circumstantial. 14 But, whatever their number may have been, the attitudes of the writers toward these Israelites differed widely: the Deuteronomist took them for apostates against whom Josiah took punitive action; the Chronicler considered them eligible to participate in the cultic celebrations in Jerusalem. 15 11. Prof. Moshe Greenberg pointed out to me the Amoraitic legal principle ˆya twllkh ˆm ˆydml “One cannot argue from generalizations” (cf. b. ºErub. 27a); on which, see M. Elon, Hamishpat Haºivri ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1973) 2.339 [Hebrew]. This principle can be usefully applied to historical issues when one confronts the literary phenomenon in Kings studied here. 12. B. Oded takes 2 Kgs 17:23 to be “a reasonably accurate portrayal of demographic realities” (see Oded, ”II Kings 17: Between History and Polemic,” Jewish History 2 [1987] 37–50), but in this evaluation he is somewhat alone; see H. Eshel, The Samaritans, 9–12. 13. The texts are conveniently collected and discussed by B. Becking, The Fall of Samaria: An Historical and Archaeological Study (SHANE 2; Leiden: Brill, 1992) 21–45. 14. On the basis of the archaeological record, Naªaman doubts that Samaria was seriously damaged (N. Naªaman, “The Historical Background to the Conquest of Samaria [720 BC],” Bib 71 [1991] 209, 220). 15. On these divergent viewpoints, see my remarks: “ ‘For We, Like You, Worship Your God’: Three Biblical Portrayals of Samaritan Origins,” VT 38 (1988) 286–92.

A Problem in Proverbs 3:35 J. A. Emerton Cambridge University

#

$

ˆ/lq; µyrimE µylIysIk}W Wlj:n]yi µymIk:j“ d/bK:

The first clause of this verse makes good sense: ‘The wise will gain possession of honor’. As far as I am aware, only two changes to the text have been proposed. First, Ehrlich suggests that the verb should be emended to the singular and pointed as the Hiphil, and that the Lord, who is mentioned in v. 33 and is the subject of the verbs in v. 34, is also the subject here: ‘Den Weisen gibt er Ehre’. 1 There is, however, no justification for emending a clause that yields good sense without change; and there is no reason to link v. 35 with the preceding verses rather than treating it as a verse complete in itself. Second, G. R. Driver suggests that the verb should be emended to Wlj”n,, the Niphal of *hlj = Arabic ˙ala(y) ‘adorned with fine clothes, jewels’, from the root underlying Hebrew ylIj“ ‘ornament’, which appears in Prov 25:12 and Cant 7:2; he also changes the pointing of the first word in Prov 14:18 to read Wlj”n, and translates the first part of that verse ‘the simple are adorned with folly’. 2 This theory underlies the New English Bible’s rendering of Prov 3:35a: ‘Wise men are adorned with honour’. 3 Driver argues that “The devotees of wisdom may indeed Author’s note: I am happy to dedicate this note on a verse in Proverbs to my friend Moshe Weinfeld, who has contributed much to the study of the place of the wisdom literature in the life of ancient Israel. 1. A. B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel (7 vols.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1908– 14) 6.22. 2. G. R. Driver, “Problems in the Hebrew Text of Proverbs,” Bib 32 (1951) 173– 97, especially pp. 177, 181. 3. See L. H. Brockington, The Hebrew Text of the Old Testament: The Readings Adopted by the Translators of the New English Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press / Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973) 157.

9

10

J. A. Emerton

,

be said to acquire honour from the Lord, but the statement that they inherit it, presumably from their parents, is open to doubt.” His argument wrongly assumes that ljn means only ‘to inherit’ in the sense of acquiring property left to children when their parents die. In fact, however, the verb denotes taking possession in a broader sense in a number of passages, as any Hebrew dictionary recognizes. In addition, Driver seeks to justify his explanation of the first clause in the verse by his claim that it fits his attempt to solve a problem in the second clause. That attempt will be examined later in the present essay. Otherwise, there seems no reason to depart from the text of the first part of the verse, which is intelligible as it stands in the MT. The problem in the second clause of the verse, which is the subject of the present essay, arises from µyrm, which appears to be the masculine singular Hiphil participle of µwr ‘to be high’. This clause contains a singular noun, ˆwlq, which can be construed as the subject of the participle: ‘but dishonor lifts up fools’. This raises two questions. First, what precisely is the meaning of ‘lifts up’ in this context? Second, since the wise are the subject of the first clause, should not the fools be the subject, rather than the object, of the second? If, on the other hand, fools are the subject of the second clause, why is the participle in the singular? Further, the precise meaning of ‘lifts up’ in this context still needs to be determined. The Ancient Versions and Medieval Jewish Interpretations The LXX, Peshi†ta, and Targum (which is dependent on the Peshi†ta 4) all understand ˆwlq to be the object of the second clause in Prov 3:35 and the fools to be the subject. According to the LXX, ‘the ungodly exalted (hypsosan) dishonor (atimian)’, and according to the Peshi†ta, followed by the Targum, ‘fools will receive (nqblwn) shame’. Some have supposed that the translators read, not the singular participle µyrm, but the plural µymyrm. This is possible, but it is also possible that they were simply trying to make sense of a Hebrew text identical with that of the Masoretes. The Vulgate is different: stultorum exaltatio ignominia. The use of exaltatio suggests that Jerome read a noun where the MT has µyrm, and it is 4. See M. P. Weitzman, The Syriac Version of the Old Testament (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 56; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) 109–10.

+

A Problem in Proverbs 3:35

11

possible that the text used by him read µwrm, or was at least thought by him to have the same meaning. It is, of course, well known that the Hebrew letters yod and waw can easily be confused in some manuscripts (e.g., the longer Isaiah Scroll from Qumran): indeed, they are sometimes indistinguishable. It would be a task beyond the limits of the present essay to try to offer a survey of the ways in which Prov 3:35 was understood by medieval Jewish scholars, and I shall mention only three. Saadia’s translation into Judaeo-Arabic reads as follows: ªal-juhhal ya˛umu huwanuhum ‘as for the ignorant, their shame is great’. 5 He understands ˆwlq to be the subject, and ‘is great’ corresponds to µyrm in the Hebrew. The Hiphil appears to be understood as an internal Hiphil, that is, a Hiphil that is “inwardly transitive,” one of the Hiphil “stems which express the obtaining or receiving of a concrete or abstract quality.” 6 The meaning ‘to be’ or ‘become high’ or ‘great’ is not found in the Hebrew Bible, but Saadia may have postulated it in Prov 3:35. Rashi offers the following explanation of the last two words of the verse: wqljl ˆwlq çyrpm wmx[l ‘sets aside dishonor to himself as his portion’. Here ˆwlq is regarded as the object of the participle, which is interpreted in the singular, doubtless on the assumption that it is a distributive singular: ‘fools, each one of them sets aside’. 7 The participle çyrpm seems to have been chosen on the basis of the use in the Hebrew Bible of the Hiphil of µwr in association with the noun hmwrt, which denotes a kind of offering or contribution. Exod 25:2, for example, says that the Israelites shall take (wjqyw) such an offering for the Lord, and that it is what people’s hearts impel them to offer; it is thus a voluntary offering. Verses 3–7 list the materials that will constitute the offering (gold, silver, bronze, etc.). Targum Onqelos says in v. 2 that the Israelites shall set aside (ˆwçrpyw) atwçrpa, the Aramaic cognate noun, meaning literally ‘separation’ or ‘separated thing’. Sometimes, the Hiphil of µwr is used with hmwrt as its object (e.g., Exod 35:24; Num 15:20). The verb is understood to denote lifting or taking something off something else, and thus setting it aside. 5. J. Derenbourg and M. Lambert, Version arabe des Proverbes . . . de R. Saadia ben Iosef Al-Fayyoûmi (Oeuvres complètes de R. Saadia . . . 6; Paris: Leroux, 1894) 35. 6. A. E. Cowley (ed.), Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar as Edited and Enlarged by the Late E. Kautzsch (2d ed. [= the 28th German ed.]; Oxford: Clarendon, 1910) §53d. This work is cited below as GKC. 7. GKC §145l.

12

J. A. Emerton

,

Ibn Ezra, who understands the dwbk of the first clause to refer to money and wealth (rçw[hw ˆwmmh), offers two interpretations of the second part of the verse. The first is: l[ òòˆwlq µyrmòò :µda ynb µwlqyç wbbsyç µ[fhw µhyl[ ˆwlqh 8wmyry µylyskh :jfby rypkk µyqydxw wmk rbdy dja lk the fools will lift dishonor upon themselves, and the meaning is that they will cause people to treat them with contempt; “lifts shame”: the verse refers to each individual, as in “and the righteous [plural] will be bold [singular] like a lion” [Prov 28:1].

The second interpretation is: rsj ˆwdz ab wmk ˆwlq çya dbkmw µyrm lysk çya ‘a fool exalts and honors a man of dishonor, as in “When [a man of ] pride comes” [Prov 11:2], with “man” not expressed’. The first interpretation treats the participle of the MT as a distributive singular. Rabbinic comment on Prov 3:35 has, of course, influenced the exegesis of the verse in later centuries, not least in the explanation of the singular participle as an example of a distributive singular. The existence of distributive singulars continues to be generally recognized among scholars. It has not, however, been free from challenge. Meyer Lambert offered a different explanation of the alleged examples in 1892, but his theory is open to objection and has not won acceptance. 9 He advanced the hypothesis that in, for example, ˚wrb ˚ykrbm (Gen 27:29) the first participle was originally singular in number. Since, however, the pronunciation mébarekéka would have been très dur, the vocalization was changed to mébarékeka for euphonic reasons, and the word came to be written mbrkyk “parce qu’on ne comprenait plus la forme pausale avec un accent conjonctif.” Lambert’s theory fails to account for all the alleged examples of the distributive singular, among them Prov 3:35, where the word ‘fools’ is clearly plural. A much more plausible explanation of such disagreements between singular and plural was offered by G. R. Driver in 1948. 10 He draws attention to a number of passages in the Hebrew Bible in which there is a 8. This is the reading demanded by the context, and it is found in the Bomberg edition of the Miqraªot Gedolot (Venice, 1525). The edition that I used has, however, the erroneous reading wmwry. 9. M. Lambert, “Sur le pluriel des noms en hébreu,” REJ 24 (1892) 99–111, especially 110–11. 10. G. R. Driver, “Hebrew Studies,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1948) 164– 76, especially 167–76.

+

A Problem in Proverbs 3:35

13

lack of congruence in gender between the subject and predicate. He argues, giving examples, that the “agreement in gender between subject and predicate may be disregarded if anything intervenes between them” (p. 167). He then argues (pp. 171–72) that disagreement in number between subject and predicate can be explained in the same way and that “a common explanation must be sought for both constructions” (p. 172). According to Driver, the intervening element may be quite small, such as the relative particle, the copula, or even a pronominal suffix (pp. 167–69). In all the other twelve alleged examples of the distributive singular listed in GKC §145l, there is such an intervening element. In Prov 3:35, however, not even a small element intervenes between the plural noun and the singular participle. Driver’s explanation of the phenomenon has not won general acceptance, and there are doubtless scholars who would question it and hold to the theory of the distributive singular. I shall not pursue the matter here; but it may be claimed that the theory is at least open to question and that Driver’s alternative account of the relevant passages must be taken seriously. This reinforces the question whether a suitable meaning can be found for the participle and helps to justify the investigation of other attempts to explain Prov 3:35. Theories Holding That Either µyrm or an Emendation Replacing It Is a Participle or at Least Some Form of a Verb Those who believe, like Saadia, that ‘dishonor’ is the subject of the second clause of Prov 3:35 have to suggest a suitable meaning for µyrm. The Hiphil of this verb is used in Isa 57:14 of removing a stumblingblock from a path, and in Ezek 21:31 of removing a crown from someone’s head. Therefore, Umbreit, Bertheau, and Zöckler 11 suggest that Prov 3:35 says that dishonor will ‘remove’ the foolish, will cause their downfall. However, probably the majority of exegetes have held that the fools are the subject of the participle because this interpretation provides a better parallel to the first clause of the proverb.

11. F. W. C. Umbreit, Philologisch-kritischer und philosophischer Commentar über die Sprüche Salomo’s (Heidelberg: Mohr, 1826) 43–44; E. Bertheau, Der Prediger Salomo’s (Leipzig: Weidmann, 1847) 19; O. Zöckler, Die Sprüche Salomonis theologisch-homiletisch bearbeitet (Bielefeld and Leipzig: Belhagen & Klasing, 1867) 47, 52.

J. A. Emerton

14

,

A different attempt to solve the problem was made by the translators of the New International Version, who offer the following rendering of the verse: The wise inherit honour, but fools he holds up to shame.

The pronoun ‘he’ refers back to the Lord, who is named in v. 33 and is the subject of the verbs in v. 34. Presumably, ‘dishonor’ is related to the participle as a kind of adverbial accusative, and the participle is thought to mean something like ‘sets forth as an example’. Such a meaning for the Hiphil of this verb is not found elsewhere. Further, the parallel suggests that the fools are the subject of the verb and thus tells against this understanding of the verse. This solution to the problem does not seem at all likely. Those who hold that fools are the subject of the participle and that the participle is the Hiphil of µwr have two ways of explaining the fact that it is in the singular. First, they may accept the theory that it is a distributive singular, although it was pointed out above that such an explanation has been challenged. Second, they may emend it to the plural µymyrm or ymyrm. The problem remains to find a suitable meaning for the verb. If fools are the subject of the participle, it is to be expected that the meaning will offer a contrast to the first clause of the verse. If the wise gain possession of honor, perhaps the second clause says that what fools gain is dishonor. Oort suggests the meaning iets erlangen, that is, ‘obtain something’. 12 He compares Prov 14:29, which states that the person who is slow to anger is great in understanding (hnwbtAbr), whereas the short-tempered person tlwa µyrm. The meaning ‘to obtain’ would certainly fit both this verse and 3:35, but it would still be desirable to explain how it can be derived from ‘to lift up’. The rabbinic interpretation of the participle in Prov 3:35 in terms of the use of the Hiphil of the verb with the noun hmwrt, which underlies Rashi’s comments on the verse, has influenced many exegetes, of whom Hitzig may serve as an example. 13 He understands the dishonor to be the hmwrt that the fool lifts up (erhebt) and thinks that Prov 3:35 says that a fool ‘picks’ or ‘gathers up contempt’ (liest Verachtung auf ). However, despite its venerable origin, this interpretation involves a dif12. H. Oort, “Spreuken 1–9,” ThT 19 (1885) 379–425, especially 387. 13. F. Hitzig, Die Sprüche Salomo’s (Zurich: Orell, Füssli, 1858) 28.

spread is 9 points long

+

A Problem in Proverbs 3:35

15

ficulty. Apart from three verses (2 Sam 1:21; Isa 40:20; Prov 29:4), where the sense is obscure, hmwrt “denotes properly what is lifted off a larger mass, or separated from it, for sacred purposes.” 14 It is questionable whether a cultic expression denoting lifting something off a larger mass in order to present it to the Lord or for his purposes is likely to have been used of fools taking dishonor to themselves. Further, if the reference is to lifting something off a larger mass, the question arises what the larger mass is from which the fools lift dishonor. The changes in context and meaning are such as to render this interpretation of Prov 3:35 difficult to accept. Hitzig seeks to strengthen his exegesis by comparing the use of the verb açwn in Ps 24:5, where it is used of receiving blessing from the Lord, but this is not the verb that appears in Prov 3:35, and it does not have the same connotations. D. Winton Thomas compares the participle in Prov 3:35 with the phrase tlwa µyrm in Prov 14:29. He notes that the latter phrase is parallel to hnwbtAbr, and he comments that the participle “should accordingly have a meaning similar to br ‘great’.” 15 He also notes that in 14:29 the Targum translates the participle by ygsm ‘increases’. He concludes that the meaning of the participle in 3:35 “must . . . be similar—wise men obtain honour from their fellow men, but fools go on increasing dishonour for themselves.” At first sight, Thomas’s solution to the problem is attractive. That a verb denoting ‘to raise’ or ‘heighten’ can have as an aspect of its meaning ‘to enhance, increase’ may seem a legitimate extension of its literal significance, and Thomas claims as support the Targum’s rendering of the same participle in Prov 14:29. Moreover, his theory offers a single solution to the difficulty of the same participle in both verses. Nevertheless, attractive though it is, Thomas’s theory is open to question. A semantic development from ‘lift up’ or ‘raise’ to ‘enhance, increase’ in English (cf. ‘heighten’) or to steigern in German may seem plausible to speakers of English or German, but I know of no other example of it for µwr in Hebrew. 16 The verb certainly has various meanings 14. S. R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (ICC; 3d ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902) 142. 15. D. W. Thomas, “Textual and Philological Notes on Some Passages in the Book of Proverbs,” Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East (ed. M. Noth and D. W. Thomas; Leiden: Brill, 1955) 280–92, especially 282–83. 16. Only after producing the first draft of the present essay did I come across M. V. Fox, Proverbs 1–9 (AB 18A; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 169, who says of Thomas’s theory: “but the verb does not mean that elsewhere.”

16

J. A. Emerton

,

other than the literal. For example, it can be used in the Polel of exalting or extolling God, that is to say, praising him. The Qal can be used of eyes (e.g., Prov 30:13; Ps 131:1) or the heart (e.g., Deut 8:14; Ezek 31:10) being lifted up, that is, being arrogant or proud. Similarly, the noun µwr can be used of high, haughty, or proud eyes (e.g., Isa 10:12; Prov 21:4), or, indeed, to denote haughtiness or pride (e.g., Isa 2:11, 17). The verb hbg ‘to be high, exalted’ and the cognate adjective can likewise be used in such senses, and the two roots µwr and hbg are sometimes used in the same contexts (e.g., Ezek 31:10; Ps 131:1). However, I know of no example elsewhere of the kind of meaning postulated by Thomas for Prov 3:25 and 14:29. If the writer had wished to say that fools increase folly (in 14:29), a natural way to do so would have been to use the Hiphil of hbr (compare, for example, Gen 3:16, where the reference is to increasing pain, or Gen 16:10, where it is to multiplying descendants). Little weight should be attached to the Targum’s use of ygsm to render µyrm in Prov 14:29 (though not in 3:35, where a different verb is used; see p. 10 above). The Targum of Proverbs is dependent on the Peshi†ta, which has nqblwn ߺrª for ˆwlq µyrm in Prov 3:35, but †b sklª for tlwa µyrm in 14:29. The rendering of the Hebrew participle in 3:35 would not have suited the context in 14:29. The Targum’s rendering in the latter verse has perhaps been influenced by the fact that ygsm is a participle from the same root as the adjective in the parallel line: aygs hynwyb ‘his understanding is great’ (where the Peshi†ta has sgy ˙kym ‘is very wise’). It may be doubted whether the Targum attests knowledge of the meaning of µyrm that Thomas postulates. It is thus difficult to find a suitable meaning for µyrm from the root µwr. Of course, our knowledge of ancient Hebrew is limited, and allowance must be made for the possibility that meanings may have existed that do not happen to be attested elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible or in inscriptions from the biblical period. Perhaps the Hiphil of µwr could be used in the sense of taking something for oneself as well as of lifting something out of a larger mass to offer it to God, or in the sense of heightening or increasing, as Thomas suggests. Nevertheless, the fact remains that none of these meanings seems to find adequate support in the sources available to us. It is necessary to inquire whether some solution to the problem can be found other than a resort to hypothetical meanings. Reider makes no change to the consonantal text of µyrm but explains it as the masculine-plural participle Qal of a root rwm. He postulates the

spread is 9 points long

+

A Problem in Proverbs 3:35

17

existence of a Hebrew root cognate with Arabic mara ‘to procure’ and translates the second half of Prov 3:35 ‘but fools procure shame’. 17 The proposed meaning fits the context, but Reider’s suggestion is open to the criticism that it is precarious to use the enormous resources of the Arabic lexicon to postulate a hitherto unknown meaning for a Hebrew word in a single verse without further support (e.g., from the ancient versions or from other cognate languages or from other passages that can be explained by the same hypothesis). 18 There is, however, a well-attested Hebrew verb rwm, which is used in the Hiphil to mean ‘to change, alter’ in a transitive sense (and perhaps in an intransitive sense in Ps 46:3) or ‘exchange’; and the passive is expressed by the Niphal in Jer 48:11. The word µyrm in Prov 3:35 can be vocalized as a masculine-plural participle with the fools as its subject only if it is in the Qal, unless a change is made to the consonantal text. Although the Qal is not attested elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, Halper maintains that it is possible to infer what its significance would have been. He argues that, since the meaning ‘he exchanged’ is found in the Hiphil, “it is not unlikely that the Qal should mean he took in exchange, bought, acquired.” 19 He therefore suggests that the last part of Prov 3:35 should be translated ‘and fools acquire disgrace’. The causative meanings of the Hiphil corresponding to the meanings that he postulates for the Qal would be ‘he gave in exchange’ (which is presumably the way in which ‘he exchanged’ is understood by him), ‘caused to buy’ (i.e., sold), and ‘caused to acquire’, and it is the last of these that is the basis of his theory that the Qal could mean ‘acquire’. Whatever may be made of the textual problems in Ezek 48:14, it is clear that it forbids the Levites to part with any of the land that has been allocated to them, and it 17. J. Reider, “Etymological Studies in Biblical Hebrew,” VT 2 (1952) 113–30, especially 123–24. 18. R. P. Gordon draws my attention to the fact that the Arabic root cited by Reider is mentioned in F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1907) 558, in a list of possible cognates of Hebrew rwm ‘change’, where Syriac mar ‘buy or import food’ is also mentioned. He also compares the New English Bible’s rendering of Isa 61:6, which includes the words ‘you shall . . . be provided with their riches’. According to Brockington, Hebrew Text, 197, where the MT has WrM:y't}TI, the translators read WrY;m"t}TI (an emendation mentioned in BHS). They have postulated metathesis, and their emedation explains the word from the root to which Reider refers. Reider’s suggestion cannot, however, derive support from a conjectural emendation. 19. B. Halper, “The Notions of Buying and Selling in Semitic Languages,” ZAW 31 (1911) 261–66, esp. 266.

18

J. A. Emerton

,

says that it is not to be sold or exchanged. The implication is that it should not be acquired, and the reason given is that it is holy to the Lord. However, in several passages in which the Hiphil is used, the question of someone else’s acquiring what has been exchanged does not arise. The Israelites are said to have exchanged their (or God’s) glory for something shameful in Jer 2:11 (cf. Hos 4:7; Ps 106:20), but that does not mean that they sold God’s glory, or gave it away, to someone else. What they did was to substitute shame for God’s glory as an object of worship and service. The stress is on the shamefulness of the exchange, and there is no suggestion that others had taken over what the Israelites had abandoned. Although exchanges in human society normally involve someone acquiring something, it may be doubted whether the use of the Qal of rwm would have been a natural way of referring to the acquisition of something. Halper is not the only person to have attempted to solve the problem of Prov 3:35 by the hypothesis that the participle is a form of the root rwm, although others have found it necessary to emend the consonantal text and have found the key in Jer 2:11; Hos 4:7; and Ps 106:20, which were noted above. Dyserinck suggests that fools exchange (µyrymm) such honor as they have for dishonor and Wildeboer that it is exchanged (rm:Wm) for dishonor. 20 Wildeboer translates the second clause of the verse ‘aber die Ehre der Thoren . . . soll in Schande verwandelt werden’, and his translation implies that he has found it necessary to add ‘honor’ before µylysk. Further, if honor is to be changed into shame, then a preposition, the bet of price or exchange, needs to be prefixed to ˆwlq, as in Jer 2:11, and other verses. The resulting text departs too far from the Masoretic to be convincing. An attempt to retain the consonants of the MT without change is made by Beer, according to whom the participle should be vocalized µyrimø and translated ‘gesättigt’. 21 He compares ar,/y in Prov 11:25, 20. J. Dyserinck, “Kritische scholiën bij de vertaling van het Boek der Spreuken,” ThT 17 (1883) 577–87, especially 579; G. Wildeboer, Die Sprüche (Freiburg im Breisgau, Leipzig, and Tübingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1897) 11. O. Plöger, Sprüche Salomos (Proverbia) (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984) 41, understands the participle to be the Hiphil of rwm, but he does not mention any change to the text, and his translation, ‘aber die Toren tragen Schande davon’, appears to imply a different explanation of the participle. 21. G. Beer in a review of W. Frankenberg, Die Sprüche (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1898), in TLZ 24 (1899) 328–31.

A Problem in Proverbs 3:35

+

19

which is usually thought to be a form of hwr ‘to be sated’. The fools are then said to be ‘sated with dishonor’. The same vocalization, but with a different meaning, is implied by the rendering of the verse in the New Revised Standard Version: The wise will inherit honor, but stubborn fools, disgrace.

The participle is not regarded as the predicate of the clause but as being used adjectively to describe the fools. It is apparently understood to be the masculine-plural participle Qal of hrm ‘to be contentious, refractory, rebellious’. The participle is used in Deut 21:18 and 20 of a son who is stubborn and rebellious in his attitude to his parents, but the verb is elsewhere used of those who rebel against God, whether as individuals or, more often, as a nation (e.g., during the wilderness wanderings). The cognate noun yrm appears in Prov 17:11 as that which an evil person ([r) seeks—and the abstract noun is more likely to be the object of the verb than its subject. It is not made plain against whom the rebellion in this verse is directed, but predominant usage suggests that it is God. The root is not found elsewhere in Proverbs, and it is not one of the favorite words of the wisdom literature. The sages took a poor view of fools and doubtless believed that they were not regarded favorably by God. But nowhere else in Proverbs is it suggested that fools are rebels against God, and it may be doubted whether Prov 3:35 describes them, in passing, as rebellious. The first part of Prov 3:35 contains a form of the verb ljn, and this has suggested the possibility that the second half should contain a verb with a similar meaning, with the fools as the subject. The verb proposed is çry ‘to take possession of ’ or ‘inherit’. Toy suggests that the participle should be emended to çyrh, the third-person plural of the perfect Hiphil, written defectively without a final waw. 22 As an alternative, he suggests çry, apparently the third-person masculine plural of the imperfect Hiphil, also without a final waw. Such defectively written words are, however, unusual, quite apart from the fact that Toy has to substitute either the letter he or yod for the first mem of the MT. Ehrlich at least begins the participle with the same letter as the MT when he suggests çyrwm; and Steuernagel and Gemser suggest the plural µyçyrwm, 22. C. H. Toy, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Proverbs (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1899) 83.

20

J. A. Emerton

,

which differs from the MT only by postulating the omission of the letter sin and by the addition of matres lectionis. 23 A scribe may sometimes leave out a letter by accident, but one should not postulate such an omission unless one is unable to find a better solution to a problem. A more fundamental objection is that the Hiphil of the verb means ‘to cause to possess’ or ‘to dispossess’, not ‘to take possession of ’, except in Num 14:24, where the text is uncertain and where the Samaritan Pentateuch reads the Qal. Another theory that postulates the omission of a letter in the MT is the suggestion by Graetz that µybrm should be read in Prov 3:35 and hbrm in 14:29, with which he compares the Targum’s rendering agsm (a different spelling of the word that Thomas reads as ygsm; see p. 15 above). Fools then multiply dishonor. 24 In contrast, Scott substitutes one letter for another and reads µyrp, the masculine-plural participle Qal of hrp ‘to bear fruit’: ‘fools propagate shame’. 25 Other Solutions to the Problem A different kind of solution to the problem is to replace the participle µyrm with a noun. G. R. Driver first suggested that µyrm should be understood as a noun cognate with Arabic rama ‘to desire eagerly’ and that the end of Prov 3:35 should be translated ‘and the desire of fools is shame[ful]’. 26 In order to obtain a phrase meaning ‘the desire of fools’, Driver presumably transposed µyrm to a position before µylysk. Be that as it may, Driver later gave up this suggestion about Prov 3:35 and offered a different theory, which will be discussed on p. 21 below. A different interpretation of the verse is offered by van der Weiden, who compares the text with the Ugaritic phrase mrym ßpn (KTU

23. Ehrlich, Randglossen, 22; C. Steuernagel, “Die Sprüche,” in Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments (4th ed.; ed. A. Bertholet; Tübingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1923) 2.276–323, especially 283; B. Gemser, Sprüche Salomos (2d ed.; Tübingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1963) 30. 24. H. Graetz, “Exegetische Studien zu den Salomonischen Sprüchen,” Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums 33 (1884) 145–60, especially 149–50. 25. Melville Scott, Textual Discoveries in Proverbs, Psalms, and Isaiah (London: SPCK, 1927) 29–30. 26. Driver originally discussed the verse in a note appended to an article by D. W. Thomas in JTS 38 (1937) 103.

A Problem in Proverbs 3:35

+

21

1.4:IV.19; V.24, etc.) meaning ‘the heights of Zaphon’. 27 In Prov 3:35 he thinks that ‘the height of dishonor’ is what fools receive: Les sages hériteront de l’honneur Mais les méchants le comble du déshonneur.

He seeks to justify his interpretation by comparing Prov 11:16, where the LXX’s phrase thronos de atimias has been thought to be based on a Hebrew phrase ˆwlq ask, which is not attested in the MT. He fails to make clear how this ex hypothesi literal translation provides un appui solide for his figurative interpretation of 3:35. Further, he believes the postulated noun µyrm to be the equivalent of the attested form µwrm. There is, however, no evidence for the alternative form, and, given the fact that the letters waw and yod are easily confused (see p. 11 above), it would probably be better to suppose that the LXX’s Vorlage was read as µwrm. Indeed, Perles suggested in 1922 that µwrm should be read in Prov 3:35 and that ‘the height of shame’ (Schandhöhe) is contrasted with ‘honor’ in the first part of the verse. 28 Perles compares the words askw µljny dwbk in 1 Sam 2:8 with the phrase restored in Prov 11:16 on the basis of the LXX, and claims that it makes more plausible the reading ˆwlq µwrm as a contrast to dwbk at the beginning of Prov 3:35. Perles presents a more coherent argument than van der Weiden, but neither has provided evidence for a figurative interpretation of ‘height’ in the particular sense that they assume. Incidentally, neither mentions the Vulgate’s rendering exaltatio. Having abandoned his earlier theory, Driver advanced a new solution to the problem in 1951. 29 It was noted above (p. 9) that he emended the text in the first part of the verse to obtain the meaning ‘wise men are adorned with honour’. I questioned one of his reasons for making the change, and now is the time to look at his other reason, which arises from his treatment of the parallel in the second part of the verse. Where the MT has µyrm, Driver suggests the reading µdm ‘and (as for) fools, their garment is shame’. He compares the words wdmk hllq çblyw in Ps 109:18: ‘and he was clothed with cursing as (with) his garment’. Driver’s treatment of the verse yields good sense, but he has to emend a 27. W. A. van der Weiden, Le Livre des Proverbes (BibOr 23; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970) 40. 28. F. Perles, Analekten zur Textkritik des Alten Testaments: Neue Folge (Leipzig: Gustav Engel, 1922) 66. 29. G. R. Driver, “Problems,” 177.

22

J. A. Emerton

,

res to a dalet (a simple change) and to delete the letter yod. The question that arises is whether it is necessary to make even these small changes to the text of the second part of the verse, as well as the change in the first part, or whether it is possible to make sense of the verse while keeping closer to the MT. A solution that involves a smaller change to the consonantal text is offered by Kuhn, 30 who reads µWrmE—that is, the preposition ( ˆ)m and a noun meaning ‘height’ or ‘pride’. Like Driver, he supposes that the force of the verb in the first part of the verse—which he understands to mean ‘inherit’ (erben)—is carried over into the second half: ‘the wise inherit honor, but fools (inherit) shame after height’. He comments: “Nach anfänglicher Erhebung erfolgt ihr Sturz,” that is, ‘After elevation at the beginning follows their fall’. If ‘height’ is understood to mean ‘pride’, then the meaning of the verse is similar to that of Prov 16:18: ‘Pride goes before destruction’. Kuhn does not, however, compare the two verses, and it is not clear that he has pride in mind. Kuhn’s theory depends on the assumption that the preposition Am can mean ‘after’ in the context of this verse. It can certainly have such a meaning in some contexts. However, when it can be translated ‘after’, it is normally followed by a noun denoting a point or period of time such as days, months, or years, or d[wm in 2 Sam 20:5. The noun hxq or ≈q sometimes comes between the preposition and the word for a period of time. A possible exception is ≈yqIh:mE in Ps 73:20, which is often thought to mean ‘after waking’, though none of the principal ancient versions understood it in that way. They understood it to be the masculine singular of the Hiphil participle with retained he (although GKC §53q does not mention its retention in a participle). A possibility to be considered is that the preposition here is causal and speaks of the end of a dream because the dreamer wakes up. Another verse in which the preposition has been thought to mean ‘after’ in a context in which there is no word for a period of time is 2 Sam 23:4, which contains a word often translated ‘after rain’: Hg'NomI ≈ram açd rf:M:m.I The text of the verse is problematic. S. R. Driver comments: “A verb is imperatively required: and the two nouns with ˆm . . . are not an elegance.” 31 If hgnm is vocalized as a Hiphil participle, then 30. G. Kuhn, Beiträge zur Erklärung des Salomonischen Spruchbuches (BWANT 57; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1931) 11. 31. S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel (2d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1913) 359.

A Problem in Proverbs 3:35

+

23

the preposition before the next word may be causal: ‘causing grass from the earth to shine because of rain’. Alternatively, one may follow McCarter, who attaches hgnm to the preceding line (‘a morning too bright for clouds’) and understands the ˆm of rfmm in a causal sense: ‘when because of rain there is verdure from the earth’. 32 Although Kuhn’s solution to the problem of Prov 3:35 keeps very close to the consonants of the MT, there is reason to doubt whether his understanding of the preposition to mean ‘after’ in this context is likely. Conclusion, and a Fresh Suggestion The preceding discussion has considered a number of attempts to solve the problem of Prov 3:35, some of them more plausible than others. If an emendation is to be plausible, it should keep as close to the received text as possible, and the source of the error should be intelligible (such as confusion between Hebrew letters that are similar in appearance). This is not to say that all scribal errors arose so simply but, rather, that scholarly attempts to provide solutions become less plausible the greater the distance between the corrections and the MT. It is also possible that some of the suggestions about the meaning of, for example, the root µwr are correct, even though they are not attested in the Hebrew Bible or inscriptions. It is, however, a great advantage to a solution if it conforms to attested usage. A possible solution to the problem occurred to me independently some years ago when I was lecturing on the Hebrew text of Proverbs. As far as the Hebrew text is concerned, it agrees with Kuhn’s suggestion that µwrm should be read. As was noted above (p. 11) the letters waw and yod are easily confused, and the Vulgate’s rendering exaltatio may imply that Jerome read µwrm in his Hebrew text. My suggestion also agrees with that of Kuhn in understanding µwrm to be the preposition ˆm with the noun µWr. It differs from his theory, however, in the precise meaning that it attaches to the noun and in the way in which it understands the preposition. Kuhn believes that the noun means Höhe, but it is not clear whether he is thinking only of the height from which the fools are to fall or also of height in the sense of pride. My suggestion focuses on the attested meaning of ‘pride’ or ‘arrogance’. I have given reasons for questioning whether the preposition is likely to mean ‘after’ in the present context, in which there is no word 32. P. K. McCarter, II Samuel (AB 9; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1984) 477–78.

24

J. A. Emerton

,

denoting a period of time. I suggest, instead, the well-attested causal meaning: The wise will gain possession of honor, but the fools, because of pride, (will gain possesssion of ) dishonor.

The book of Proverbs contains a number of critical references to pride (e.g., 6:17; 8:13; 15:25; 16:5, 18, 19; 21:4; 30:13). Criticism of pride is thus a common concern of Proverbs as is, of course, criticism of folly, and it should cause no surprise to find them both mentioned in the same verse. It is, however, better not to use 14:3 in the argument: the foolish and the wise are contrasted in this verse, and pride is associated with the former; but the word for pride (hwag) is often thought to be a corruption of a reference to ‘his back’ (hwg). On the other hand, the words for ‘honor’ and ‘dishonor’ or ‘shame’ in 3:35 appear elsewhere in contexts concerned with pride. Thus, ‘honor’ is associated with humble people in contrast to the proud in 18:12 and 29:23. ‘Dishonor’ is associated with pride in 11:2, and the contrast is with wisdom; and wisdom is contrasted with the result of pride in 13:10. In the light of such evidence, it may reasonably be claimed that a reference to pride and an association of it with folly would not be out of place in Prov 3:35. 33 33. I am grateful to Katharine J. Dell, R. P. Gordon, and D. R. de Lacey for reading a draft of the present essay and for their criticisms and suggestions; to S. C. Reif for his comments on the discussion of the rabbinic evidence, and to Avihai Shivtiel for allowing me to consult him on Judaeo-Arabic.

On the Common Literary Expressions of the Ancient Semites Israel Ephºal Hebrew University of Jerusalem

#

$

Although the nature of its development and its cultural and historical significance still require investigation, the existence of a literary pool of common idioms, images, and motifs in the writing of the ancient Near East is self-evident and needs no proof. It indicates a common literary heritage of the peoples speaking Semitic languages and the use in various genres of idioms and images that were drawn from this common heritage for various purposes. In this paper, dedicated to Moshe Weinfeld, whose work emphasizes the similarity of ancient Near Eastern idioms particularly in the spheres of political treaties and of poetry, we shall content ourselves with one technical aspect, namely, the ways of borrowing expressions from this common literary reservoir. The cases presented here are from biblical and Neo-Assyrian historiographic literature. Direct Borrowing 1 Kgs 11:26–27: Jeroboam son of Nebat, an Ephraimite of Zeredah, whose widowed mother was named Zeruah, a servant of Solomon; he raised a hand against the king. The circumstances under which he raised a hand against the king were as follows. . . .

In view of life expectancy in the ancient Near East, and even today, the orphan status of an adult cannot be considered exceptional. Therefore, even if we accept the common view that the intent of the phraseology is to humiliate Jeroboam, son of Nebat—a view primarily based on the notion that the name of Jeroboam’s mother was Zeruah (Heb. ‘leper’)— one wonders whether and how the notice about her being a widow contributes to such an understanding. This question becomes acute in view 25

26

Israel Ephºal

,

of the reference in 1 Kgs 7:14 to another orphan, Hiram, the coppersmith who made all the metal work in Solomon’s temple, who is said to be “the son of a widow from the tribe of Naphtali, and his father had been a Tyrian. . . .” The LXX additional version to 1 Kgs 12:24b has: “There was a man from Mount Ephraim, a servant of Solomon, and his name was Jeroboam, and his mother’s name was Sarira, a harlot.” On the basis of this version, it has been suggested that the original form of 1 Kgs 11:26 differed from that of the MT. According to this view, the verse in the MT is a consequence of a process of editing and changes. To introduce Jeroboam in a more favorable way, the name of his father was added and that his mother was a widow was stated. 1 We would like to offer a different approach. The Mesopotamian omen literature is abundant with formulas designating favorable and unfavorable circumstances in political, economic, military, and social reality. 2 Among the formulas relating to the fall of dynasties, one comes across the formula “a widow’s son will seize the throne.” 3 The parallelism between the formula of the omen literature and 1 Kgs 11:26 is but one of many examples of common formulas used by the speakers of the ancient Semitic languages that came to be included in various genres of their literary activity. 4 Accordingly, the notion that Jeroboam was a widow’s son should not be taken as a biographical fact. Rather, the biblical writer employs the formulaic expression to present him as a usurper who had no right to the throne. In addition to the appellation, “a widow’s son,” the low status of usurpers is characterized in Mesopotamian literature by expressions 1. A. T. Olmstead, “Source Study and the Biblical Text,” AJSL 30 (1913) 20–21; M. Aberbach and L. Smolar, “Jeroboam’s Rise to Power,” JBL 88 (1969) 69–72. On the state of research of the verse under discussion, see Z. Talshir, The Alternative Story of the Division of the Kingdom ( Jerusalem: Simor, 1993) 196–97. 2. For an assemblage of some hundreds of such formulas and a discussion of the reality reflected in them, see A. L. Oppenheim, “Zur keilschriftlichen Omenliteratur,” Or 5 (1936) 199–228; for formulas relating specifically to usurpation, see pp. 208, 219, and 223. 3. E. Leichty, The Omen Series summa izbu (TCS 4; Locust Valley, N.Y.: Augustin, 1970) 77:49–50, 128:77u, 137:85u; cf. also J. Nougayrol, “Nouveaux textes sur le zihhu (II),” RA 65 (1971) 71:14u. 4. For two additional examples of this feature, the motifs of “people will eat the flesh of their children” and “mother will not open door for daughter,” see my Siege and Its Ancient Near Eastern Manifestations ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1996) 60–61, 116–18 [Hebrew].

+

On the Common Literary Expressions of the Ancient Semites

27

such as “son of a muskenu(m),” 5 “son of nobody,” 6 “a hupsu man who has no right (to reign),” 7 “unfitted for the palace” (i.e., not of royal birth), 8 and simply “one who has no right (to reign).” 9 In view of the aforementioned Akkadian parallels, it becomes obvious that the MT of 1 Kgs 11:26 is genuine and does not require any emendation. It is more plausible that the translators of the LXX additional version of 1 Kgs 12:24b were no longer aware of the negative connotation of the old Semitic expression “a widow’s son,” and therefore wrote (possibly under the influence of Judg 11:1 on Jephthah) that “his mother’s name was Sarira, a harlot.”

5. Nougayrol, “zihhu,” 71:9u; Leichty, summa izbu, 183:42. 6. A. K. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium bc I (1114–859 bc) (Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia 2; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991) 198 i 76, 199 i 81; idem, Assyrian Rulers of the First Millennium bc II (858–745 bc) (Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia 3; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996) 118 i 25–27; idem, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (TCS 5; Locust Valley, N.Y.: Augustin, 1975) Chron. 22 i 9–11. One should note that the designation “son of nobody” was not used exclusively for usurpers. It could also be applied to common people, of nonroyal origin, who reached the throne legitimately. See, for example, Nabopolassar’s statement about himself: “in my youth I was a son of nobody” (S. Langdon, Die neubabylonischen Königsinschriften [Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1912] 66 i 4); and Tiglath-pileser III about his policy in Asia Minor: “Uassurme of Tabal acted as if he was the equal of Assyria and did not appear before me. . . . Hulli, a son of nobody, I placed on his throne” (H. Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III King of Assyria [ Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994] 170 rev. 14u–15u, 190 rev. 27–28). 7. A. Fuchs, Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad (Göttingen: Cuvillier, 1994) 200:33. 8. H. W. F. Saggs, “Historical Texts and Fragments of Sargon II of Assyria,” Iraq 37 (1975) 14:17–18. 9. la bel kussî—Leichty, summa izbu, 107:54u; Fuchs, Die Inschriften Sargons II, 133:246, 219:95; sa la awassu—Leichty, summa izbu, 102:16; 107:58u, 161:29u. The last three expressions (as well as the term “the widow’s son” in ABL 342; see n. 10, below) appear in the inscriptions of Sargon, the only Assyrian king whose historical inscriptions do not include his father’s name. That Sargon was a son of Tiglath-pileser III was confirmed with the publication of the letter CT 54 109; see F. Thomas, “Sargon II., der Sohn Tiglat-pilesers III.,” Mesopotamica–Ugaritica–Biblica: Festschrift K. Bergerhof (ed. M. Dietrich and O. Loretz; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag / Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1993) 465–70. One wonders, nevertheless, whether it was because Tiglathpileser was a usurper that Sargon refrained from referring to his father in his inscriptions. The frequency of the designations for usurpers in Sargon’s inscriptions brings to mind the saying, “He who charges others’ (genealogical status) may be charging them with his own defects” (b. Qidd. 70:1).

28

Israel Ephºal

,

The negative connotation of the term “a widow’s son” can also be found in a letter of Adad-issiya, governor of Mazamua, to Sargon, king of Assyria: “All the time I have been encamped on the Mannean border, the son of the widow has been encamped opposite me on his side of the border” (ABL 342 rev. 6–10). 10 Needless to say, there is no literary or exegetical relation between the above discussion regarding Jeroboam’s being a son of a widow and the description in 1 Kgs 7:14 of Hiram of Tyre as a widow’s son. Adaptation Since Hillers’s pioneering work, the existence of a reservoir of common curses that appear in the Bible (particularly in the books of the Torah and the Prophets) as well as in Aramaic and Assyrian political treaties (along with the historiographical literature based on them) is well known. 11 A close examination of the curse formulas reveals that sometimes, when mechanical borrowing of expressions did not fit the specific ecological and military conditions of the groups being dealt with, the borrowed expressions had to be adapted. The following examples demonstrate how the scribes coped in such a situation. The Hungry Sucklings Motif In the description of the Arabs’ defeat by the Assyrian army and of the famine that spread among them as a consequence of this defeat, we 10. G. B. Lanfranchi and S. Parpola, The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part II: Letters from the Northern and Northeastern Provinces (State Archives of Assyria 5; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1990) no. 217. It seems that the letter does not deal with preparations for an Assyrian invasion of the land of Mannea but, rather, with a period of tension during which the Manneans deployed themselves against a raid on their land (cf. 1 Kgs 20:27, 29; 2 Kgs 3:21). In the time of Sargon’s reign, Aza son of Iranzu the Mannean, who had been faithful to Assyria, was killed. The throne was seized by Bagadattu, who joined an anti-Assyrian alliance led by Urartu; but after a short while, he was captured and executed by the Assyrians. Ullusunu, Aza’s brother, who became king after the removal of Bagadattu, initially had also maintained an anti-Assyrian policy but was forced to accept Sargon’s yoke after the conquest of his cities by the Assyrians in 716 b.c.e. See I. M. Diakonoff, “Media,” in Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 2: The Median and Achaemenian Periods (ed. I. Gershevitch; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985) 81–82. Does the author of the letter intentionally use the pejorative designation “a widow’s son”—which he undoubtedly knew that the addressee recognized—for Bagadattu? 11. D. R. Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964).

On the Common Literary Expressions of the Ancient Semites

+

29

read in Ashurbanipal’s “Letter to Assur,” as well as in a passage in the Rassam Cylinder based on this “Letter,” “camel foals, donkey foals, calves and lambs were suckling seven times on the mother animals, but they could not fill their stomachs with milk” (VAT 5600 ii 13–15; A ix 65–67). 12 The motif of the hungry sucklings and dry breasts occurs frequently among the curses of Aramaic inscriptions: Sfire Inscription I A 21–24: 13 May seven [nu]rses anoint [their breasts and] nurse a child, but may he not be sated, may seven mares suckle a colt, but may it not be sa[ted, may seven] cows suckle a calf, but may it not be sated, may seven ewes suckle a lamb, [but may it not be sa]ted. Tell Fekherye Bilingual Inscription (Aramaic version, lines 20–21; cf. the Assyrian version, lines 32–34): 14 May one hundred ewes suckle a lamb, but may it not be sated, may one hundred cows suckle a calf, but may it not be sated, may one hundred women suckle a child, but may he not be sated. Bukan Inscription, lines 5–6: 15 May seven cows suckle one calf, but may it not be sated.

It now becomes clear that, when the scribe of Ashurbanipal’s inscriptions was dealing with the Arabs (i.e., the nomads of the Syrian Desert), he adapted the curse of the hungry sucklings to include camel foals and donkey foals, which were typical of the Arab environment and are absent in parallel curses of other groups. Cannibalism Another motif of distress that occurs frequently in many genres of ancient Near Eastern literatures is that of parents’ eating the flesh of their 12. M. Streck, Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige bis zum Untergange Niniveh’s (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1916) 378, 76–78, respectively. 13. KAI 222; J. A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire (rev. ed.; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1995) 44–45, 80–81. 14. A. Abou-Assaf, P. Bordreuil, and A. R. Millard, La statue de Tell Fekherye et son inscription bilingue assyro-araméenne (Paris: Recherche sur les civilisations, 1982) 14, 23; J. C. Greenfield and A. Shaffer, “Notes on the Akkadian-Aramaic Bilingual Statue from Tell Fekherye,” Iraq 45 (1983) 112–13, 115. 15. A. Lemaire, “Une inscription araméenne du VIIIe S. av. J.-C. trouvée à Bukân (Azerbaïdjan iranien),” Studia Iranica 27 (1998) 16; M. Sokoloff, “The Old Aramaic Inscription from Bukan: A Revised Interpretation,” IEJ 49 (1999) 107, 111.

Israel Ephºal

30

,

children because of famine. Often this motif comes together with descriptions of siege. 16 During the war between Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, and his brother Shamash-shum-ukin, king of Babylonia, in the years 651–648 b.c.e., the city of Babylon came under a long and severe siege that ended with Ashurbanipal’s taking the city. In the course of this war, Arab warriors came from the Syrian Desert to support Shamashshum-ukin and found themselves in the besieged city of Babylon. Describing the woeful situation of Babylon, the author of the Rassam Cylinder made use of the motif of cannibalism. Regarding the inhabitants of Babylon, he wrote (following the common formula) that they ate the flesh of their sons and daughters (A iv 43–45). 17 However, regarding the Arabs who happened to be in the city during that siege, he wrote that they ate each other’s flesh (A viii 35–37). 18 The exceptional formulation becomes clear if we bear in mind that the Arabs had arrived in Babylon as warriors, evidently having left their families behind in the desert. Consequently, it would have been inappropriate to state that they were eating the flesh of their children. Borrowing Based on Literary Allusions Sometimes we come across a literary image whose attachment to the common reservoir is not discernible at first glance. This is the case with the prophetic story in 2 Kgs 6:24–7:20 about the severe famine suffered by Samaria during the Aramean siege of the city. The severity of the famine is emphasized by the description of the resultant tremendous rise in prices so that “a donkey’s head sold for eighty [shekels] of silver and a quarter of a qab of doves’ dung for five shekels” (6:25), and by the cannibalism evidenced in two mothers’ consenting to eat their children. In this horrible situation, Elisha said (7:1–2): Hear the word of the Lord. Thus said the Lord: “This time tomorrow, a seah of choice flour shall sell for a shekel at the gate of Samaria, and two seahs of barley for a shekel.” The aide on whose arm the king was leaning spoke up and said to the man of God, “Even if the Lord were to make floodgates [lit. ‘windows’] in the sky, could this come to pass?” And he retorted, “You shall see it with your own eyes, but you shall not eat of it.”

The prophet’s words were fulfilled. The Arameans were stricken with panic and escaped. 16. Ephºal, Siege, 60–61, with further bibliography. 17. Streck, Assurbanipal, 36. 18. Ibid., 68.

spread is 12 points long

On the Common Literary Expressions of the Ancient Semites

+

31

The people then went out and plundered the Aramean camp. So a seah of choice flour sold for a shekel, and two seahs of barley for a shekel, as the Lord had spoken. Now the king had put the aide on whose arm he leaned in charge of the gate; and he was trampled to death in the gate by the people, just as the man of God had spoken. . . . “This time tomorrow two seahs of barley, and a seah of choice flour for a shekel,” the aide answered the man of God and said, “Even if the Lord made floodgates in the sky, could this come to pass?” And he retorted, “You shall see it with your own eyes, but you shall not eat of it.” That is exactly what happened to him: The people trampled him to death in the gate. (7:16–20)

As we shall see, the phrases in the aide’s tease and in Elisha’s harsh response are based on a well-known literary pattern. The close connection between Elisha’s words and those of the aide, which is not clear enough in the biblical narrative, becomes discernible from the following two passages from Akkadian royal inscriptions: Ashurbanipal, Prism B, i 27–38: 19 Adad sent down his rains for me, Ea o[pened for me his fount]ains. The grain waxed five cubits tall [in its luxurious g]rowth, an ear grew to [five]sixths of a cubit in length. [The cult]ivated area consistently [produced] heavy harvests, luxuriant crops; the orchards yielded [fru]it [in abundance; the cattle brought forth their young successfully]. In my reign there was prosperity aplenty, [in my years there was full]ness [to overflowing]. Twelve homers of edible barley, two [homers of wine], [twelve qû of oil, (and) one talent] of wool went for [one shekel] throughout my country. Nabonidus, BBSt 37 rev. 1–12: 20 He (Sin) looked gladly upon my favorite deeds and granted me long life. At the command of Sin, king of the gods, Adad sent down his rain and Ea opened his fountains. He (Sin) provided wealth, abundance and prosperity in his land. 1 kor 54 qû (= 234 qû) of barley (went) for 1 shekel of silver, 1 kor 90 qû (= 270 qû) of dates for 1 shekel of silver, 30(?) qû of sesame(?) for 1 shekel of silver, 18 qû of fine oil for 1 shekel of silver, 5 minas of wool for 1 shekel of silver, 1 mina of . . . for 1 shekel of silver. Wine, beverage of the mountain which does not grow in my land, the price of 18(?) qû of wine was 1 shekel of silver in my land. He (Sin) provided richness and abundance in my land.

The presence of the same pattern in the inscriptions of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, and of Nabonidus, king of Babylonia, who reigned in 19. A. C. Piepkorn, Historical Prism Inscriptions of Ashurbanipal (AS 5; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1933) 28–30. 20. W. Röllig, “Erwägungen zu neuen Stelen König Nabonids,” ZA 22 (1964) 248.

Israel Ephºal

32

,

two different countries and about one hundred years apart, indicates that we have here a well-known pattern. We may assume that the ancient readers (or listeners) were familiar with the complete pattern. 21 This familiarity enabled the biblical narrator to content himself with allusions to the end of the literary pattern (“the low price of cereals”) placed in Elisha’s mouth and an expression from the beginning of the pattern (“the abundance resulting from copious rains”) placed in the mouth of the reacting aide. 22 We can see that the reservoir of common expressions and literary patterns of the ancient Semites was richer than it appears at first glance. In many cases, the talent of the ancient authors was not in creating patterns of expression but in drawing them from the common reservoir and adapting them intelligently for their particular needs.

21. For the familiarity of this pattern, see also Mal 3:10: “Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, and let there be food in My house, and thus put Me to the test, said the Lord of Hosts. I will surely open the floodgates [lit. ‘windows’] of the sky for you and pour down boundless blessing.” 22. Our familiarity with the ancient Near Eastern economy leads us to the conclusion that the prices stated in the above-mentioned passages were unreal. Those in the inscriptions of Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus were much too low, while those promised by Elisha were too high. Such prices are nothing but literary devices. They fit into the “abundance motif ” and the “stress motif,” which are well known from the ancient Near Eastern literary heritage. Because of this, the Assyrian scribes took no pains to copy accurately the figures in the original text referring to low prices in parallel versions of the “abundance motif ” in Ashurbanipal’s inscriptions. Lines A–C are from passages on the prosperity in Assyria during the reign of Ashurbanipal as claimed in his inscriptions. For the sake of comparison, we add here line D, from a hymn of Ashurbanipal, asking for a favorable future for the people of Assyria. Goods to be acquired for one shekel of silver in Ashurbanipal’s inscriptions: A. B. C. D.

Barley 12 homers 10 homers 30 kors

Wine 2 homers 1 homer 3 homers

Oil 12 qû 12 qû 2 seahs 3 seahs

Wool 1 talent 1 talent 1 talent 1 talent

A = Ashurbanipal, Prism B, i 36–38; Piepkorn, Ashurbanipal, 30. B = R. C. Thompson, “A Selection from the Cuneiform Historical Texts from Nineveh (1927– 32),” Iraq 7 (1940) 98. C = A. R. Millard, “Fragments of Historical Texts from Nineveh: Ashurbanipal,” Iraq 30 (1968) 110–11. D = A. Livingstone, Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea (State Archives of Assyria 3; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1989) 26.

spread is 6 points long

title drop one pica

Min hassamayim dibbartî: ‘I Spoke from Heaven’ (Exodus 20:22) Michael Fishbane The University of Chicago

#

$

In his significant study entitled “Min hassamayim nil˙amû ( Judg 5:20),” Moshe Weinfeld adduced a variety of literary figures used to depict divine warfare in the Hebrew Bible and placed them within their ancient Near Eastern context. 1 The result firmly reveals that these tropes were part and parcel of a common mythic vocabulary and style. 2 It is one of numerous studies in which Weinfeld has perceived the deeper resonance of biblical terms or idioms and traced them to older or contemporary Near Eastern examples as well as to similar cases in nascent or classical Judaism. It is a pleasure to honor Moshe Weinfeld with the following brief contribution in this vein and thereby to thank him for his instructive creativity and his gracious collegiality over many years. I wish to begin with the apparently straightforward passage in Exod 20:22. Yhwh first tells Moses to say to the Israelites that “You saw that I [God] spoke to you from heaven,” and then has him deliver the cultic injunction: “Do not make with [respect to] Me gods of silver and gold” (v. 23). 3 In context, the initial reference to the Lord’s speaking from heaven refers to the Sinai theophany, just concluded, which is depicted in the text in several forms. On the one hand, there is the account that God “will come” to Moses “in a thick cloud, so that the people may 1. The full title is “Min hassamayim nil˙amû; hitºarbût gupîm samaymiyyim biqérab haªôyeb biyi¶raªel ûbémizra˙ haqqadûm,” ErIsr 14 (1968) 23–30 (Hebrew pagination). 2. I shall expand on these examples within their full literary contexts in my forthcoming study, Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). 3. For common convenience, I follow the versification in BHS; rabbinic Bibles vary, even among themselves.

33

34

Michael Fishbane

,

hear when I speak with you and thus trust you ever after” (19:9)—a divine manifestation that is subsequently realized with stylistic variations, emphasizing “thunder (qôlot), and lightening, and a dense cloud” (v. 16; cf. vv. 18–19). Clearly, the thrust of this tradition is to convey an awesome theophany during which the people overhear the divine word to Moses, who is their intermediary from the beginning. To underscore this point, reference is made to Moses’ speech at the very end of this account, just before the revelation of the Decalogue (19:25). In stark juxtaposition, this very Decalogue opens with the statement, “And Elohim spoke all of these words” (Exod 20:1). Accordingly, the subsequent comment that “All the people saw the thunder (qôlot) and lightning, the sound of the horn and the mountain smoking” (v. 18) is no mere reprise of the first version (in 19:16) but, rather, provides the introduction to an account of the people’s fear of the overwhelming divine manifestation and their plea that Moses alone speak to them—“lest we die” (20:19). Clearly, the thrust of this second tradition is that the entire nation first hears the divine words and that only subsequently does Moses become their intermediary. It is in the context of this portrayal of a direct theophany to the entire people (Exod 20:15–18) that the comment “You saw that I spoke to you from heaven” (v. 22) must be understood. However, the connection between this remark and the ensuing injunction against making idols (v. 23) is less obvious, and it remained for a later preacher to elaborate. Building upon the terse link between Exod 20:22 and 23, the sermon in Deut 4:1–24 first focuses on the visual component of the Sinai event, along with the instruction received aurally (vv. 9–12). Especially notable are the reference to “the things that you saw with your eyes” (v. 9) and the statement that when the Lord spoke “out of the fire” the people “saw no shape—nothing but a voice (qôl )” (v. 12). On this basis the people are then exhorted not to make any manner of image or likeness or form for worship (v. 15). And to impress this point upon the nation, the creations in sequence in Genesis 1 are then adduced as concrete instances of this strict cultic prohibition (vv. 16–19). 4 Hence, according to the preacher, in addition to whatever the people saw in terms of the volcanic sights (and heard as divine instructions), they also apparently saw a “voice” from heaven. Hence, al4. See my discussion in Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985) 321–22.

spread is 6 points short

+

Min hassamayim dibbartî: ‘I Spoke from Heaven’

35

though the nature or form of this voice is not clarified here, one will grant that the earlier tradition of the thunder (qôlot) at Sinai has undergone a shift in this sermon, such that the singular form (qôl ) can no longer refer to any atmospheric phenomenon accompanying divine speech but, rather, refers to the divine “voice” itself. Accordingly, it appears that the older reference to the people’s seeing the thunder (Exod 20:15) during the theophany has been reinterpreted as their seeing the voice of God. But just what might this mean or imply, and just what bearing might it have on the passage that the people “saw” that God “spoke” to the people of Israel “from heaven” (v. 22)? Our puzzlement is prolonged by the use of Exod 20:22 as a prooftext for the old rabbinic teaching that the kétab samayim (‘heavenly script’) was one of three things that “returned” to their source. Just this is the brief form of the account in the tannaitic tradition found in the Mek. de Rabbî Simºôn bar Yô˙aªî, though other versions exist with other prooftexts. 5 The implicit reference here is to the old rabbinic tradition that, after the people’s apostasy with the golden calf, the letters inscribed upon the tablets flew back to heaven—a tradition made quite explicit in the Midr. Prov. 23 (though without our prooftext and with a more neutral reference to the script): “Rabbi Ishmael said . . . , The Torah was from heaven, as it is said, ‘He [God] caused His voice to be heard from heaven, etc.’ (Deut 4:36); but when [the people] sinned with the act of the calf, the tablets broke and the script (kétab) flew to its place, as is said, ‘You see it, then it is gone; it sprouts wings and flies off, like an eagle, to the heavens’ (Prov 23:5).” 6 Two points have left later interpreters in doubt. The first is the very meaning of the phrase kétab samayim (which has variously been displaced, 5. See Mékîltaª de Rabbî Simºôn bar Yô˙aªî (ed. J. N. Epstein and E. Z. Melamed; 2d ed.; Jerusalem: Hillel, 1969) 120, which uses this prooftext and also Prov 23:5; the parallel in Mékîltaª de Rabbî Yismaªel (ed. H. S. Horovitz and I. A. Rabin; Jerusalem: Bamberger & Wahrman, 1960) 178, only uses Prov 23:5. For a recent critical edition of the two texts, see Hammekîltôt leparasat ºåmaleq (ed. Menahem I. Kahana; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1999) 158–59. References to the kétab samayim that returns to its place in heaven is also found in the ªAbôt de Rabbî Nathan A 41 and B 41 (ed. S. Schechter; 3d ed.; New York: Feldheim, 1967) 133 and 130, respectively; but here the prooftext is from Prov 23:5 in both cases, whereas Exod 20:22 is only used in B 41 to support the statement that “The Torah was from heaven.” 6. See Midras Mislê (ed. B. Visotsky; New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1990) 157.

36

Michael Fishbane

,

reformulated, or simplified in later sources); 7 and the second is the use of the prooftext from Exod 20:22, “You saw that I spoke to you from heaven (samayim).” Ostensibly, the common link between the passages is the reference to heaven in both instances; but this observation only defers the question regarding what the rabbinic tradition refers to, and in what way the biblical verse provides support. Indeed, just what could the midrashic teaching have in mind here, when it refers to a heavenly script seen by the people, and on what basis does Exod 20:22 prove the point? 8 In order to answer these queries, two detours are necessary. The first detour takes us to Job 38:33, in which God pricks Job with the barbs of a double question: “Do you know the laws of heaven (˙uqqôt samayim), or impose its authority (mis†arô) on earth?” (njpsv). This construal of the word mis†arô continues a line of interpretation common among medieval Jewish exegetes (such as ibn Ezra, Ramban, and Ralbag) and is based (explicitly or implicitly) on Prov 6:7, where the noun sô†er appears parallel to mosel (‘rule’). One will readily concede a certain agreeable sense that results from this view, though it must be stressed that the use of mis†ar with the sense of ‘rule’ is otherwise unknown in the ancient sources and begins to appear only in the Middle Ages (as in Rashi’s comment on Isa 32:17). 9 This lacuna lends support to another line of interpretation, already found in late antiquity, and that is the targumic rendering of MT mis†arô as sé†ar gilguleh (‘the writing of its [heavenly] orbit’). There are several merits to this alternative. 7. For example, in the amoraic version found in b. Pesa˙. 87b, reference is made to the “kétab of the tablets (sic)” and to the “letters” that flew off; whereas Exod. Rab. 46.1 refers to the kétûbîm (‘writings’) that flew from the “tablets." Even more concisely, Tan˙ûmaª Kî Ti¶¶aª 26 refers to the “letter of the kétab”; whereas Midras Haggadol Sémôt (ad Exod 32:19) refers simply to the “kétab that flew off ” (see in the edition of M. Margulies [ Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1967] 789). 8. Note already the puzzlement expressed by Kahana, in Hammekîltôt, 224 n. 24. He correctly realizes that one must account for the apparently concrete midrashic use of the verb réªîtem (‘saw’) in Exod 20:22. One must similarly suppose that the original biblical sense was also concrete and be suspicious of attempts to give the verb here the softer cognitive connotation of ‘perceive’ (ibn Ezra ad loc.) or even ‘sense’ (U. Cassuto, Perûs ºal Seper Sémot [3d ed.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1959] 176). 9. It should be noted that the first printed edition of Gen. Rab. (Venice, 1545) cites Job 38:33 and glosses mis†arô: “lésôn sô†er”; but this comment is missing in all the other mss (which only cite and interpret Job 38:31–32) and must therefore be presumed to be a late medieval addition to the text based on Prov 6:7. For the textual evidence, see Midras Béresît Rabbâ (ed. J. Theodor and C. Albeck; Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1965) 79.

+

Min hassamayim dibbartî: ‘I Spoke from Heaven’

37

The first is its use of the common verbal stem s-†-r (‘to write’) with an astral sense, in a context that not only speaks about the laws of the heavens (v. 33a) but refers to various heavenly constellations (such as Pleiades, Orion, and the Bear; vv. 31–32). 10 A further consideration is that this late targumic rendition provides inner-Jewish astral terminology that echoes the more ancient Akkadian idiom si†ir samê (‘heavenly writing’)—an idiom preserved in texts nearly contemporary with the book of Job (and earlier)—and refers to the stars or planets as a cosmic script (to be deciphered or admired). 11 The import of this first detour is twofold. First of all, it lends strong support for interpreting the word mis†arô in Job 38:33 as ‘its writing’; 12 and, since the referent of the pronoun is clearly the heavens in the initial clause, it permits one to understand God’s query as asking Job whether he (a mortal) can comprehend the laws of the heavens and whether he can realize (or establish the meaning of ) its signs (viz., the heavenly script of the constellations) upon the earth. The second point is that the biblical idiom of a heavenly script has striking bearing on the very meaning of the midrashic idiom kétab samayim, which I would now suggest to be an old astral term (even a precise correlate of the Akkadian cognate si†ir samê) that has been applied to the divine speech at Sinai—first seen in the heavens by the people and then subsequently inscribed upon the tablets carried by Moses. Taking all this into account, it would thus appear that in the Mek. de Rabbî Simºôn bar Yô˙aªî Exod 20:22 (“You saw that I spoke to you from heaven”) is no mere errant prooftext, with little connection to the preceding teaching, but is, rather, the precious trace of a tradition in which the people envisaged God’s speech at Sinai as a heavenly writing— though the verse now marks only the return of the script to its cosmic 10. Note also that the Tg. Ket. to Job 38:32 renders mazarot as sé†ar mazalayaª (‘the writing of the planets’). 11. For examples, see simply CAD S/3 146. Overall, see Erica Reiner, Astral Magic in Babylonia (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1995), especially the introduction and chapter 4 (Divination). 12. Earlier uses of the Akkadian evidence to interpret this passage are more elliptical or extreme. Thus Friedrich Delitzsch, Das Buch Hiob (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1902) 170, cites the ancient idiom but renders the biblical word somewhat metaphorically, as sein Sternenzelt (‘its starry canopy’); on the other hand, N. H. Tur-Sinai (Torczyner), “Si†ir Samê: Die Himmelsschrift,” ArOr 17 (1949) 419–33, offers a wide-ranging but variously convoluted contention that heavenly secrets are meant in this and other biblical cases, putatively dealing with the script of heaven.

38

Michael Fishbane

,

origin, after the sin of the golden calf. But on what basis did such a tradition arise in the first place? The received midrashic accounts about the kétab samayim provide no clue, and thus a second detour is necessary. This time, the earlier phrase, “And all the nation saw the thunder (qôlot)” (Exod 20:18), points the way; for we find an old comment on this passage by Rabbi Akiba in which the qôlot envisaged by the people are deemed to be the very speech of God. Or, in the words of his exegesis: the people “saw and heard what was seen—they saw a word of fire emerge from the mouth of the Almighty and chiseled upon the tablets; as it is said, ‘The voice (qôl ) of Yhwh chiseled [the tablets with] flames of fire’ (Ps 29:8).” 13 Later tradition came to call these visible divine words a “heavenly script" and enhanced the point by using a term that suggested an astral or cosmic writing. Such a usage should not be lightly dismissed; but whether the choice of this term also hints at some lost rabbinic idea that the divine logos at Sinai is in a certain sense the manifestation of cosmic truths (also inscribed in the stars) can no longer be determined. However this may be, it is not idle to suppose that something more than mere semantic playfulness led Rabbi Akiba to his exegetical perception of Exod 20:18 or led others to view it as a kétab samayim. In any case, it is clear that some later rabbis understood v. 22 (“You saw that I spoke to you from heaven”) in the light of such a view—just as the biblical redactor did centuries earlier, though in an altogether different way and for altogether different reasons. 13. See in Mékîltaª de Rabbî Yismaªel (ed. H. S. Horovitz and I. A. Rabin; Jerusalem: Bamberger &Wahrman, 1960) 235.

Who Redacted the Primary History? David Noel Freedman and Brian Kelly University of California, San Diego

#

$

In previous publications, one of the authors has argued that the structural and thematic unity of the Primary History could very well point to compilation by a single individual 1 and that the work was compiled around 560 b.c.e. 2 A series of clues have now led us to conclude that this individual completed his work in Babylon under the influence of Ezekiel. Here an analogy may be helpful. Just as the Deuteronomic History (in its first, preexilic edition, DH1) had been a manifesto for the Josianic reform, the Primary History (PH) was a manifesto for the expected return to Judah from Babylonian exile. Both works were composed to promulgate a lawbook and, incidentally, to provide a validating historical background for the preachings of a prophet who espoused that lawbook. In the case of DH1, the lawbook was the core of what is now Deuteronomy, and the prophet was Jeremiah; in the case of the PH, we would argue, the lawbook was P, and the prophet was Ezekiel. The PH subsumed the DH (which by that time had been produced in a second, exilic edition, DH2) because the redactor of the PH (R PH) accepted the DH’s view of the centrality of the Horeb covenant. DH 2 ended with the destruction of Jerusalem and, some time thereafter, the flight of the remaining Judeans to Egypt. It confirmed Jeremiah’s prophecies about the ultimate consequences of covenant violation and continued to have didactic value. RPH did not feel, however, that DH2 could be allowed to stand as the final word on the history of the covenant people. 1. D. N. Freedman, The Unity of the Hebrew Bible (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993) 36. 2. Idem, “The Earliest Bible,” Divine Commitment and Human Obligation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997) 341–49.

39

40

David Noel Freedman and Brian Kelly

,

This was because the exile had moved another great prophet, Ezekiel, to attach greater importance to the idea of Yahweh’s presence. For Ezekiel, Yahweh was present among the people chiefly in the Temple cult, but this presence was conditional on the maintenance of standards of purity and holiness, two concerns that Ezekiel shared with P. Since the author of the DH (in both editions) was in all likelihood Baruch ben Neriah, Jeremiah’s scribe, the close relationship between the DH and Jeremiah’s preaching is no mystery. The identity of the compiler of the PH and the ways in which he was related to Ezekiel, however, are more elusive. Perhaps appropriately, the clue that starts us on our search for R PH comes at the end of his predecessor’s work, DH2. That work ends with an appendix dated “in the thirty-seventh year of the exile of King Jehoiachin” (561 b.c.e.) and thus postdates by approximately 20 years the events recorded immediately before it in the text. 3 It reports the release of King Jehoiachin from prison by the successor to Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach. The purpose of this notice is not clear. It does not fit into the DH’s interpretive pattern; in other words, the event is not connected in any way to Jehoiachin’s adherence (or failure to adhere) to the covenant. 4 Thus, from at least a programmatic point of view, it seems intrusive. Another thing to note about this passage is the style of its date. Whereas throughout Kings, dates are always in the era of the reigning king of either Judah or Israel, here the era is that of the first Babylonian exile (597 b.c.e.). The only other place in the Bible that this era is used is in Ezekiel, where it is used consistently. This could show that the editor who composed the appendix was influenced by Ezekiel. In fact, to anyone acquainted with Ezekiel, the figure “thirty-seven” in reference to the exile should set off some alarms. In Ezek 4:6, Yahweh instructs the prophet, as part of a larger symbolic pantomime, to lie down “on your right side, and bear the punishment of the house of 3. If we assume that the assassination of Gedaliah and the flight of the remaining Judeans to Egypt (2 Kgs 25:22–26) occurred within a few years of the destruction of Jerusalem. In Jer 52:30, we read about a third (and presumably final) deportation of Judeans in Nebuchadnezzar’s 23d year (582 b.c.e.), which may have been in response to Gedaliah’s assassination. 4. See Mordecai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings (AB 11; Doubleday, 1988) 329–30.

spread is 6 points short

+

Who Redacted the Primary History?

41

Judah; forty days I assign you, one day for each year.” 5 Although the predominant image in the overall action is “siege,” one element (baking bread over human dung, 4:12) is to symbolize Israel eating its bread “unclean, among the nations” (4:13). This has led many interpreters, including no doubt many in Ezekiel’s own time, to see Judah’s “forty years” as referring to the period of its exile. If one of these people was the final redactor of 2 Kings, a possible motive emerges for his addition of the Evil-Merodach appendix: to signal (at least to those who understood Ezekiel’s “forty years” in the way indicated) that the end of the exile was imminent. In this case, however, it seems unlikely that the redactor would have stopped there. If we assume that the appendix was added no later than a year after the event it records, 6 then two years would remain until the presumptive fulfillment of the prophecy. The message then would appear to be, “Get ready!” To this message, however, the audience might quite reasonably ask in reply, “How?” Assuming the redactor had an answer to this question in mind, we might suppose that he intended simply that the already well-known lessons of DH2 should be taken more thoroughly to heart. In this way, the coming “second chance” on the land might end differently than the first one had. Indeed, the intended audience might even have been King Jehoiachin himself, or his designated heir. In the DH framework it was the king, after all, who determined the moral tenor (and hence the long-term well-being) of the nation. Further, the king was required to keep a personal copy of the Deuteronomic Code and read it aloud to the people every seven years. 7 It is unlikely, however, that a redactor loyal to the teaching of Ezekiel would set his hopes solely upon the monarch, nor would he find the DH, even brought down to the present, adequate for preparing the people for return. His addition of the Evil-Merodach postscript to the DH, we suggest, was one small part of a more ambitious project— namely, supplementing the DH with P. In other words, this was the moment at which the Primary History was born.

5. All Bible citations are from the nrsv. 6. Freedman has argued this in “The Law and the Prophets,” Divine Commitment and Human Obligation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997) 144–45. 7. Deut 17:18–19; 31:10–13.

David Noel Freedman and Brian Kelly

42

,

There are many reasons why RPH would have felt this project to be necessary. First, in its final redaction, the DH is the record of a failure. By the very nature of its composition, it discouraged emulation of its program. The first edition had ended with praise of the (still living) King Josiah in terms so superlative that Josiah was likened to David. 8 And yet the sequel revealed that even the efforts of this new David had failed to halt the slide of the nation into utter collapse. The people, having been led victoriously out of Egypt at the beginning, in the end returned there in defeat and disarray. What better argument could be found for the inadequacy of the underlying code? Another reason was that the exile had raised important questions about holiness, purity, and worship that had not been a problem for the (first) Deuteronomist, since when he wrote, the Temple was still standing and operating. True, prophets such as Jeremiah had found much to criticize, and certain ancient priestly families may have resented their exclusion from the centralized cult, but on the whole no one questioned the need for the cult or its importance. Jeremiah could focus on the moral demands of the covenant precisely because the ritual ones (no matter how they were defined at that time, or by whom) were being observed. Ezekiel’s personal experience is perhaps a good guide here. As a deportee in 597, he faced a new theological dilemma—why had the supposedly invincible city been conquered, and why had so many prominent priests been killed or exiled? As his famous initial visions of the throne-chariot showed, Ezekiel’s eventual answer to these questions was that Yahweh himself, or rather his kabod, had begun to withdraw from his Temple, and would ultimately depart entirely, abandoning both Temple and city to total ruin. In a sense, Ezekiel was tacitly conceding Jeremiah’s charge of complacency among the priesthood. It didn’t matter how correct the ritual inside the Temple might be—if the rulers or the people as a whole were violating the Ten Words, particularly in regard to idolatry, the Temple would be polluted and Yahweh would be forced to withdraw. Thus, even if the priests were obedient and holy themselves, they nevertheless would share in the general calamity—which had, in fact, come to pass most painfully in Ezekiel’s own case. What was the lesson from this? The priests had failed to teach, warn, and rebuke in the way they ought to have—that is, they had failed in 8. 2 Kgs 22:2.

spread is 9 points long

+

Who Redacted the Primary History?

43

the “watchman” function that Ezekiel was now commanded to assume, in such great opposition to his fearful and introverted temperament. Ezekiel, in short, was being made to “bear the iniquity” of the entire priesthood (and people) of Judah, perhaps for several generations back. Once Ezekiel had performed his watchman function by speaking and acting out his prophecies, what would be the best way to ensure that future generations, especially those restored to the land, would not repeat the mistakes of the past? The experience with Josiah and his successors had shown that to rely on the righteousness of a monarch was a risky strategy at best. In fact, as long as the priesthood had been patronized by the monarch, it had been subject to abuse and manipulation. Clearly the priesthood must have more autonomy. Further, the people as a whole must be enlisted in support of the hierocracy. What better way to do this than to incorporate the appropriate ritual laws and ideological material into an already existing sacred history? When we assume that the Evil-Merodach appendix was added to DH2 in conjunction with a priestly redaction of the PH, the appendix, which seems to dangle in the context of the DH alone, now makes better sense. For it not only sounds the warning bell on Ezekiel’s “forty years,” it also subtly reinforces the idea of the relative powerlessness of the monarch. Jehoiachin might have “a seat above the seats of the other kings who were with him in Babylon” (2 Kgs 25:28), but he was still a captive, with no indication that the Babylonian king’s favor would extend any further. What other clues do we have that might help us to narrow our search for RPH? At around the same time that the appendix was added to the DH, the book of Jeremiah received a similar updating. The final chapter of Jeremiah is an adaptation, with minor but noteworthy deletions and additions, of 2 Kgs 24:18–25:30. As for deletions, Jeremiah 52 omits 2 Kgs 25:22–26 (the appointment of Gedaliah, his assassination, and the flight of the remaining Judeans to Egypt), most likely because the same story is related in greater detail earlier in the book of Jeremiah (chaps. 39–43). In its place appears a brief statistical abstract of the number of Judeans deported by Nebuchadnezzar in each of three separate deportations ( Jer 52:28–30). This information appears authentic and strongly suggests that the redactor who inserted it had access to archival information, most likely in Babylon itself. But who was this redactor? There is good reason to believe that he was Seraiah ben Neriah, brother of Baruch. Seraiah’s name appears in a

44

David Noel Freedman and Brian Kelly

,

passage at the end of Jeremiah’s oracle against Babylon ( Jer 51:59–64). If the borrowed material from 2 Kings (chap. 52 of Jeremiah) is disregarded, the passage following the Babylon oracle stands at the very end of the MT of Jeremiah. This passage informs us that in the fourth year of Zedekiah’s reign (593 b.c.e.), Seraiah carried a written message from Jeremiah to the first group of Babylonian exiles. Once he read the scroll to the exiles, Seraiah was to wrap it around a rock and throw it into the Euphrates. It is not unreasonable to suppose that, prior to doing so, Seraiah made a copy of the scroll, which eventually made its way into the book of Jeremiah as (the nucleus of ) the anti-Babylon oracle. 9 The fact that Seraiah is mentioned at the end of Jeremiah does not prove that he redacted the book. Indeed, in the LXX the same passage appears in a different location (as Jer 28:59–64). However, the LXX, which probably derives from an original Egyptian recension of Jeremiah, also ends with a note about one of Jeremiah’s close associates. Again, if we disregard chap. 52, the passage at the end of the Egyptian recension is the brief story about Baruch (chap. 45 in the MT). In both the LXX and the MT, this story seems oddly placed. First of all, the preceding several chapters are all about Jeremiah (with only two passing references to Baruch, in 43:3, 6), while this chapter is about Baruch; further, the preceding chapters end in Egypt some time after 586, whereas this chapter takes us back to 605, to an oracle that Baruch received from Yahweh ( Jer 45:1). Jack Lundbom has argued persuasively 10 that this chapter was a colophon to the first scroll of Jeremiah’s prophecies, which Baruch wrote down that same year (36:1, 32). If this is so, when the chapters about Jeremiah’s subsequent career were added, the redactor intentionally moved the colophon to the end of the work. What significance could this have, other than to indicate that the same scribe was responsible for the later edition as for the original, 605 scroll? Nothing is added in the colophon about the circumstances of the second redaction, which is why it seems chronologically out of place; but, when read carefully, it clearly needs no such updating, since it consists of a prophecy that has been validated by the preceding biographical narrative. In the 605 oracle, Yahweh tells Baruch that Baruch’s ambi9. Regarding Seraiah’s probable scribal qualifications, see Jack R. Lundbom, “Baruch, Seraiah, and Expanded Colophons in the Book of Jeremiah,” JSOT 36 (1986) 102–3. 10. Ibid., 99–101.

+

Who Redacted the Primary History?

45

tions for worldly success will not be fulfilled, because of the impending disaster in Judah; however, Baruch will at least survive (45:5). Baruch did survive and went down with Jeremiah to Egypt after the assassination of Gedaliah (43:6–7). On this theory, then, by placing the 605 colophon at the end of the post-586 edition, Baruch tacitly signals his ongoing survival and thus validates the oracle. Let us return now to the MT. As we have noted, in the MT the Seraiah story stands at the end of Jeremiah (disregarding, again, the historical appendix, chap. 52). Jack Lundbom has argued that this story, like the one about Baruch, has many features of a colophon and may have served as such to the copy of the Babylon oracle that Seraiah made. 11 However, apart from its stated connection to the Babylon oracle, this colophon fits poorly into the larger context. None of the other foreign nation oracles includes such a historical notice; and, even if the Seraiah story were instead to follow directly on the historical chapters, it, like the Baruch story, would break the chronological flow of those chapters. What then is its function in this position? It might be argued that the present position of the Seraiah story is merely a side effect of the transposition of the foreign nation oracles from the middle of Jeremiah (where they are located in the LXX) to the end. Many scholars hold that the LXX location is original, and that the MT represents a dislocation. 12 Further, the order of the oracles themselves was changed to place the Babylon oracle last. One reason for such rearrangements is not far to seek. Ending the book with a prophecy of Babylon’s ultimate downfall would help rally the hopes of the exiles there. But, given the other parallels between the Baruch and Seraiah “colophons,” its position at the end of the work seems more than coincidental. We suggest that Seraiah took a cue from his brother and identified himself as the final redactor by including a reference to himself and, perhaps, to his presence in Babylon. However, even if Seraiah was responsible for the redaction of the Babylonian book of Jeremiah, in order to successfully nominate him for RPH, we would still have to explain how he came so much under the influence of Ezekiel (or of P) that he felt moved (or came to be delegated) to merge P and DH2 into the PH. 11. Ibid., 102. 12. See, for instance, Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20 (AB 21A; New York: Doubleday, 1999) 98.

46

David Noel Freedman and Brian Kelly

,

Unfortunately, the passage we have cited ( Jer 51:59–64) contains all that the Bible has to tell us about Seraiah. In that passage, the only prophet with whom he appears affiliated is Jeremiah; we have no documentation of his ever meeting Ezekiel or having read Ezekiel’s prophecies. However, we may infer a number of things even from the very brief account before us. The first is that Seraiah had to be firmly committed to Jeremiah to carry out the errand described. He was functioning, after all, as an official of Zedekiah, a king who prized Jeremiah’s prophetic abilities, but who lacked the courage to publicly side with Jeremiah against Jeremiah’s detractors. Seraiah therefore risked incurring at the very least Zedekiah’s displeasure, if not far worse. Further, even if the oracle against Babylon that Seraiah bore was not as virulent as what currently appears in the MT, carrying any anti-Babylon message into the heart of the enemy’s territory was clearly dangerous, not only to himself but to his sovereign and country. To be committed to Jeremiah meant perforce to be committed to the Horeb covenant. Seraiah was therefore probably a dedicated Yahwist and concerned about the future of the covenant people. And so if, as we propose, Seraiah was living in Babylon around 560 b.c.e., even if he never had met Ezekiel personally or heard him preach, he would have been keenly interested in his prophecies. Since he was literate and well connected, he would no doubt have heard of Ezekiel and known of the existence of Ezekiel’s work, which was compiled no later than 568 b.c.e. 13 Since he had functioned as an official of Zedekiah, Seraiah clearly had access to the highest levels of power. Unlike his brother, Baruch, who at times shared Jeremiah’s outlaw status, Seraiah seems to have balanced an intense, hazardous religious commitment with the ability to move comfortably within establishment circles. In short, whereas Baruch was destined to be an outsider, Seraiah straddled two worlds. Such diplomatic facility would qualify him superbly for the job of combining the prophetic and the priestly, DH2 and P. Finally, with regard to Ezekiel, the date of Seraiah’s dual embassy in Jeremiah 51 suggests an interesting possibility. The date translates into 593 b.c.e. Ezek 1:2 tells us that in the fifth year of the exile (593/2), Ezekiel had his first vision and began his prophetic career. If we imag13. Freedman, “Earliest Bible,” 347.

+

Who Redacted the Primary History?

47

ine that Ezekiel had been agonizing for the first several years of his exile over Yahweh’s purposes, it is not unreasonable to suppose that external events catalyzed his final movement into visionary experience. Although Ezekiel himself mentions no such precursors, many commentators have noted that a year or two prior to Ezekiel’s call, internal unrest in Babylon had raised hopes of a rapid return to Judah. The revolt was, however, successfully quelled, disappointing whatever hopes may have formed. 14 This in itself may have been enough to push Ezekiel’s mind to the breaking (or break-through) point. However, if he had a chance to interact with the Judean delegation in 593, two other stressful experiences might have resulted for him as well. The first would have been to see for himself what kind of a king Zedekiah was, which no doubt would not have inspired in him great confidence for Judah’s future; 15 the second, and doubtless more life-changing experience, would be to encounter Jeremiah’s prophecies through personal contact with Seraiah. After all, although we can be nearly certain from Ezekiel’s writings that he did know Jeremiah’s work, it is an open question when and where he first encountered it. If he encountered it through Seraiah in 593, this may have been the catalyst for his own reflection and prophesying. And if, as Lundbom suggests, 16 Seraiah remained in Babylon, the basis for an ongoing interchange between scribe and prophet would have been established. Seraiah therefore had the personal qualifications, motive, and opportunity to meld the priestly and prophetic traditions, with their competing and complementary concerns, into a single, all-encompassing history of Israel. Seraiah’s brief, enigmatic appearance at the end of the MT of Jeremiah was his own modest way of signaling his involvement in this project, which had an immeasurable impact on the subsequent course of history. 14. See John Bright, A History of Israel (3d ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972) 329. 15. Just such an encounter may be alluded to in Ezek 14:22a. Ezekiel’s hostility to Zedekiah is clear from the allegory of the eagles and the vine (Ezek 17:1–21); see Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20 (AB 22; New York: Doubleday, 1983) 322. 16. Lundbom, “Baruch, Seraiah,” 108–9.

48

David Noel Freedman and Brian Kelly

This page intentionally left blank.

,

Paradise Regained: Proverbs 3:13–20 Reconsidered Victor Avigdor Hurowitz Ben-Gurion University

#

$

Professor Moshe Weinfeld demonstrated the influence of Wisdom literature on the Deuteronomic source. I dedicate to him this article, in which I will attempt to uncover Wisdom literature’s response to the first story in the Jahwist source. The second and third chapters of Genesis tell the famous tale of Adam and Eve’s sojourn in the Garden of Eden, which came to an end when eating from the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge led to their banishment from Paradise, apparently forever. Excluding the first human couple from their native habitat was meant to prevent them from eating from the Tree of Life and achieving immortality. Possessing knowledge of “good and evil” acquired by their disobedience, combined with eternal life, promise of which was still extended by the possibility of partaking of the Tree of Life, would make the human pair completely God-like, and this was to be prevented at all costs. In order to block them and their descendants from returning, Yhwh-God stationed cherubs to the east of the Garden, apparently at its entrance, and a sharp/fiery, ever-spinning sword ‘to guard the way to the Tree of Life’ (µyyjh ≈[ ˚rd). But was the expulsion indeed permanent, and are eternal life and other blessings of Paradise to be forever beyond the reach of humankind? The Bible contains no stories telling of adventurers such as the legendary Gilgamesh, who wandered far and braved severe hardships, seeking the place at the end of the earth where eternal life was still attainable. Nor does it provide mythic tales of humans such as Adapa who had immortality within their grasp but were deprived of it by their own foolishness or some divine subterfuge. Nonetheless, Scripture does hold 49

50

Victor Avigdor Hurowitz

,

forth a prescription for regaining access to the Tree of Life in particular and the blessings of Paradise in general. This prescription is found in Prov 3:13–20. 1 In fact, a ‘tree of life’ µyyj ≈[ is mentioned four times in the book of Proverbs (3:18; 11:30; 13:12; and 15:4), and in that book alone. In the last three of these cases, the “tree of life” is clearly a metaphor, appearing in individual, one-line adages, and lacking any wider literary context. Various desirable human qualities or circumstances—“the fruit of a righteous man (qydx yrp),” “a fulfilled desire (hab hwat),” and “a healing tongue (ˆwçl aprm )”—are said to be “trees of life,” meaning that they are invigorating, sources of life, health, and good spirit. However, the first occurrence is to be associated, in my opinion, specifically with the famous, legendary “Tree of Life” that stood at the center of the Garden of Eden, as examination of the context will reveal. B. Gemser, even while stating that this tree is “wohl nur bildlich zu verstehnen,” notes aptly, nonetheless: “Die Weisheit ermöglicht ein Lieben paradiesischen Friednes; sie ist ein Lebensbaum, dessen Früchte dem Menschen glückliches und daurhäftes Leben sichern.” 2 1. A thesis similar to the one presented here is offered briefly and with different argumentation by R. S. Hendel, “Getting Back to the Garden of Eden,” Bible Review 14/6 (December, 1998) 17, 47. Another biblical return to Paradise is found in Isa 65:17–25, but the prophetic passage cannot be considered a “prescription,” and the element of wisdom is missing. 2. B. Gemser, Sprüche Salomos (2d ed.; HAT; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1963) 29. R. Marcus, “The Tree of Life in Proverbs,” JBL 62 (1943) 117–20, suggests that all four references are figurative and to be equated with later Hebrew µyyj µs, which is a “drug” or “remedy.” W. McKane, Proverbs: A New Approach (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970) 296, regards µyyj ≈[ as “just a pretty figure of speech” and the mythology moribund. In a like vein, R. E. Murphy, Proverbs (WBC 22; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998) ad loc., opines, “The Tree of Life is a frequent metaphor in the book . . . where it no longer enjoys its original mythological background reflected in Gen 2–3 and in many references in Akkadian and Egyptian literature. In the context of the book it is a metaphor for the happiness that was associated with the good life in sapiential teaching.” M. V. Fox, Proverbs 1–9 (AB 18a; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 159, after tracing the mythological origins of the Tree of Life, concludes, “In Proverbs, the tree of life is devoid of mythological significance and serves only as a figure of vitality and healing.” In contrast, A. Barucq, Le livre des Proverbes (Paris: Lecoffre, Gabalda, 1964) 63, comments, “Il est possible que ‘l’arbre de vie’ de 18a soit en relation avec Gn 2,9; 3,24 où, comme l’arbre de connaissance, il révèle une influence sapientiale.” O. Plöger, Sprüche Salomos [Proverbia] (BKAT 17; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984) 37–38, associates this tree with the one in Genesis 2, while the other references to trees of life he regards

+

Paradise Regained: Proverbs 3:13–20 Reconsidered

51

The fuller context of this reference is vv. 13–20. Proverbs 3 is, on the whole, a collection of a dozen, mostly negative admonitions (the word la ‘don’t’ appears 14 times), each one phrased in the 2d-person sing. and each with a motive. 3 Verses 13–20 are exceptions to this and stand as an individual unit, or perhaps two contiguous and connected units (13–18; 19–20; see below). 4 The hymnic flavor of the passage has

as having turned pale mythologically. M. Dahood, Proverbs and Northwest Semitic Philology (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963) 25, comments on Prov 11:30, “If nepasôt is the positive counterpart of the negative ªal mawet . . . then ºeß ˙ayyim is not a secularized term or a faded metaphor that has survived from older mythological terminology but rather a full-bodied expression of eternal life.” Several traditional commentators (e.g., Saºadyah Gaon) relate the promised life to the Garden of Eden or the World to Come, even though they don’t specifically identify the tree of Proverbs with the Tree of Genesis. There is still scholarly debate whether the biblical µyyj ≈[ is of a Mesopotamian or Egyptian background. For “trees of life” in the ancient Near East and especially in Mesopotamia, see G. Widengren, The King and the Tree of Life in Ancient Near Eastern Religion (King and Saviour 4; Uppsala Universitets Årsskrift 1951:4; Uppsala: Lundequistska, 1951). For “trees of life” in Egyptian literature, see C. Kayatz, Studien zu Proverbien 1–9: Eine Form- und Motivgeschictliche Untersuchung unter Einbeziehung Ägyptischen Vergleichsmaterials (WMANT 22; Neukirchener-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1966) 105–7; N. Shupak, Mishley: Olam Ha-Tanakh (Tel Aviv: Davidson-Atti, 1996) 47c–48a [Hebrew]. According to Å. W. Sjöberg, “Eve and the Chameleon,” in In the Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature in Honor of G. W. Ahlström (ed. W. Boyd Barrick and J. R. Spencer; JSOTSup 31; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1984) 219–21, “there is no evidence that there was a Tree of Life in Mesopotamian myth and cult. The identification of different trees on Mesopotamian seals as a Tree of Life is a pure hypothesis, a product of pan-Babylonianism . . . there is no Sumerian or Akkadian expression ‘Tree of Life.’ ” Nonetheless, S. Parpola, “The Assyrian Tree of Life: Tracing the Origins of Jewish Monotheism and Greek Philosophy,” JNES 52 (1993) 161–208; idem, Assyrian Prophecies (SAA 9; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1997) xxii–xxv, nn. 42, 48, 98, 133, 147, 165, 193, 201, 209, retains the term, despite his acknowledgement that many scholars today prefer the more neutral term “sacred tree.” 3. Prov. 3:1–2, 3–4, 5–6, 7–8, 11–12, 21–24, 25–26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31–32. 4. As for the division into parasiyyot, some traditional commentaries (e.g., Yiz˙aq benArmaªah, “Ha-Meªiri”) start the literary unit in v. 11. W. O. E. Oesterley, The Book of Proverbs (WC; London: Methuen, 1929) 21–22, also begins the unit in v. 11 but adds that the first two verses are out of place. However, Saºadyah Gaon, David Qim˙e, and most modern commentaries group vv. 13–20 together, even while recognizing an internal division. C. H. Toy, Proverbs (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1899) 66, regards vv. 19–20 as a separate subparagraph. R. N. Whybray, Wisdom in Proverbs (SBT 45; London: SCM, 1963) 42–43, declares vv. 11–18 a poem, as opposed to the surrounding “discourses,” while vv. 19–20 he regards as a separate poem. R. B. Y. Scott, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes (AB 18;

52

Victor Avigdor Hurowitz

,

been noticed by exegetes. This unit contains no specific behavioral recommendations and cannot be considered instruction or admonition. Rather, it is unadulterated praise of Wisdom, extolling Her advantages to both mankind (vv. 13–18) and God (vv. 19–20). 5 Before investigating possible allusions to the Garden of Eden story, we should note that this unit seems to have incorporated some morewidely circulated ancient Near Eastern language and literary topoi. Accordingly, this pericope is no different than many other parts of the book of Proverbs. Yits˙aq Avishur has discussed Phoenician influences throughout chap. 3, some of which are located in the particular passage under discussion, including the word pairs ≈wrj//πsk, µwlç//µ[n, and the term µymy ˚ra. 6 All these locutions are attested as well in Phoenician royal inscriptions. To the Phoenician parallels from royal inscriptions, we may add an Aramaic parallel from a well-known letter. The statement in v. 14, yk htawbt ≈wrjmw πsk rjsm hrjs bwf ‘for her price is better than the price of silver, and her income (is better) than gold’, should be compared with a line in the Elephantine letter, Cowley 30:27–28, the famous draft of the petition for restoring the destroyed temple of YHW. We read: ymdk ˆmd ˆjbrw hwl[ hl brqy yz rbg ˆm aymç hla why µdq ˚l hwhy hqdxw πl 1 ˆyrknk πsk And you will have credit before YHW, God of heaven, more than a man who sacrifices to Him holocaust and whole offerings (whose) price is as the price of a thousand talents of silver. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1965) 47, deems the two poems independent but joined together before the composition of chap. 8, which seems to have been based on them. Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 159, speaks of “the macarism proper,” referring to vv. 13–18, to which the poet added “two verses that give human wisdom cosmological significance.” Gemser, Sprüche Salomos, 29, and G. von Rad, Wisdom in Israel (trans. James D. Martin; London: SCM, 1972) 151 n. 4, on the basis of parallels with chap. 8, include vv. 21–26 in the unit as well. See also P. B. Overland, Literary Structures in Proverbs 1–9 (Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University, Department of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies) 285–325, for the same delineation of the unit but on internal literary grounds. This expansion of the unit has no effect on our argument here. 5. The only word in this section in 2d-person sing. is (pronominal suffix) ˚yxpj in v. 15, and this should perhaps be emended and read µyxpj, as suggested by many modern commentaries. 6. Y. Avishur, “Phoenician Topoi in Proverbs 3,” Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 1 (1975) 13–25 [Hebrew].

+

Paradise Regained: Proverbs 3:13–20 Reconsidered

53

The words πsk ymdk ˆmd are exact equivalents (in comparative) to Proverbs’ πsk rjsm hrjs, (in superlative), which have been expanded by the words htawbt ≈wrjmw in order to create parallelism and thereby poeticize a prose, technical expression. Many scholars have suggested that the personification of Wisdom in v. 16, depicting Her as she holds and offers length of days in her right hand and wealth and substance/honor 7 in her left, are reminiscent of Maºat, Egyptian goddess of justice and world order (?), who is often portrayed holding a symbol of life in one hand and a scepter representing wealth and dignity in the other. 8 It should be noted, however, that the objects held by Maºat are not her sole property but may be found in the possession of numerous other Egyptian gods as well. These emblems seem to be regular divine traits. 9 7. See also Prov 22:4 and 1 Chr 29:8, where dwbkw rç[ are linked with, respectively, µyyj ‘life’ and µymy [bç ‘fullness of days’. For the combination of wealth and longevity in Deuteronomic literature, see M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972; repr., Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992) 257. The word dwbk here is generally translated ‘honor’. However, in conjunction with rç[ ‘wealth’, there is no reason to refrain from translating it as a designation of great property or wealth, as found, for instance, in Gen 31:1; Isa 10:3; 61:6; 66:11, 12; etc. In Prov 8:18, the pair appears parallel to hqdxw qt[ ˆwh. In 1 Chr 29:12, the expression occurs in David’s speech in which he blesses the people on the occasion of their generosity in contributing to the Temple building fund. In some cases, the expression is expanded by another term for property, µyskn (Qoh 6:2; 2 Chr 1:11, 12). For this understanding of dwbk, see A. B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur Hebräischen Bibel (Hildesheim: Olms, 1968) 6.20, “dwbk bezeichnet Kostbare Sachen, die dem Besitzer nichts einbringen, wie Lustgärten, Schmuck- und Luxussachen für den eignen Gebrauch.” We need not, however, be so restrictive. 8. See Kayatz, Studien zu Proverbien 1–9, 105. M. Fox, “World Order and Maºat: A Crooked Parallel,” JANES 23 (1995) 37–48, criticizes the commonly held Maºat–Lady Wisdom comparisons but says nothing about this one in particular. However, in his commentary Proverbs 1–9, 157, he points out that the iconographic parallels are not precise, that Kayatz’s interpretation of the wa scepter as symbolizing “Reichtum und Ehre” is tendentious, and that Maºat should not be singled out as the background of the image in Proverbs. 9. An interesting parallel from a wider Kulturkreis to the scene depicted in our passage is found in a Middle Bronze period cylinder seal discovered in Grave 56 at Ugarit. In the middle scene on this seal, a goddess stands on the right and a king on the left. The two figures face each other. The goddess is recognizably a Mesopotamian Lamagoddess because of the horned crown and long flounced dress. The king wears an eggshaped tiara and Syrian-style mantle. The goddess’s hands are extended toward the king in a sign of blessing. The king holds a harpé in his left hand, and at its tip, between the

54

Victor Avigdor Hurowitz

,

To this interesting iconographic parallel from Egypt, we may add a hitherto uncited textual parallel from an inscription on a statuette found at Assur. 10 Olof Pedersén describes the finds in House 20, containing archives of Mutaqqin-Assur and other doorkeepers. Under the floor of a quite large main room, near a limestone block, apotropaic clay figurines were found, quite well-formed standing men, partially covered with plaster, at least one of them bearing an inscription. The inscribed statue, Ass. 8900Ab, had on the right part of his body the inscription: ina sumeli bala†u ibbanni with the left (hand) life is created.

The left part of the body was inscribed: [ina] imitti masrû ibban[ni] with the right [hand] wealth is created.

These texts provide nearly exact parallels to the language and situation of the verse in Proverbs. A close but less-precise parallel to the language of this blessing occurs in a prayer to Ishtar: 11 panukki dSedu arkatuk dLamassu imnuk mi-sa-ri (for mesrû) sumelukki dumqu before you (Ishtar) is the protective spirit, behind you the protective goddess, at your right riches (or justice), at your left prosperity. king and the goddess, stands an Egyptian Ankh sign, the symbol of life. The king’s right hand is raised in front of his face. Since the goddess’s hands are open and the king is holding the symbols, it is likely that the goddess has granted him the things they symbolize, including life. Moreover, under the symbols is a stylized tree. If this is a tree of life, as often thought, then the seal represents both the granting of the life and the tree of life. This seal, with a cosmopolitan panoply of motifs, is a nearly complete illustration of our verses. Cf. P. Amiet, Sceaux-cylindres en hématite et pierres diverses (Ras Shamra– Ougarit 9; Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1992) 28, no. 41. 10. O. Pedersén, Archives and Libraries in the City of Assur: A Survey of the Material from the German Excavations (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 8; Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1986) 2.111 and n. 2; idem, Katalog der Beschrifteten Objekte aus Assur: Die Schriftträger mit Ausnahme der Tontafeln und ähnlicher Archivtexte (Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag, 1997) lists Ass. 8900Aa as bearing the same inscription. 11. Ebeling, Handerhebung 60 = S. D. Sperling, WO 12 (1980) 8–20, esp. 11–12: 16–17. See also B. Foster, Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature (Bethesda, Md.: CDL, 1993) 2.586–87. CAD I/J s.v. imnu reads mesrû on the basis of the continuation of the text. According to Foster, the image of Ishtar is that of her being carried through the streets in a sedan chair.

Paradise Regained: Proverbs 3:13–20 Reconsidered

+

55

In the continuation of the same text we find (line 32): sa imnukki mesrâ lußßip // dumqa luksuda sa sumelukki let me add (to my goods) the wealth which is on your (Ishtar’s) right; let me obtain the good luck which is on your left.

We should also note, in another text (MDP 10 pl. 11 iii 7 [MB kudurru]): ume rubûti lirrik sanate masrê liªatter may he lengthen (his) many/princely(?) days, may he add years of wealth.

The first of these texts depicts a goddess, specifically Ishtar, holding wealth and good fortune in her right and left hands, while the second passage provides a parallel between the blessings of long days and wealthy years. 12 Thus, the picture of personified wisdom extending her blessings to the wise need not be indications of particularly Egyptian background but can equally well be of Mesopotamian provenience or simply indicative of the common cultural heritage of the ancient Near East. The extrabiblical parallels to our passage cited above are mostly technical, sporadic, and not related to any over-reaching theme. They indicate the cosmopolitan nature of the language and imagery of this passage, of the book of Proverbs in general, and are symptomatic of the entire corpus of biblical Wisdom literature. On the other hand, similarities in language and theme with Wisdom’s self-laudatory paean have been noted in Proverbs 8, indicating the possible dependence of chap. 3 on chap. 8. What have not been noticed at all, however, are possible subtle allusions in this passage to Garden of Eden traditions found in Genesis 2–3 on the one hand and Ezekiel 28 on the other, and to divine garden themes found in ancient Near Eastern literature. In this vein we may at least cite Gemser’s intuitive observation: “Die Weisheit ermöglicht ein Leben paradiesischen Friedens; sie ist ein Lebensbaum, dessen Früchte dem Menschen glückliches und dauerhaftes Leben sichern (18).” 13 We will now investigate these allusions to determine their full extent and meaning.

12. See also a Kassite votive inscription concerning a dedication of a thunderbolt (?), or more properly a divine symbol (taking pa.dingir to be parßu), to Adad made ‘for the wealth and healthy life’ ana masrê u bala† salamisu of the donor (E. Sollberger, “Two Kassite Votive Inscriptions,” JAOS 88 [1968] 193:7). 13. Gemser, Sprüche Salomos, 29.

Victor Avigdor Hurowitz

56

,

The most obvious allusion to the Garden of Eden story is the Tree of Life itself. No other location on earth hosted such a tree. To be sure, some scholars suggest that the tree of life here is only a metaphor, 14 but its nonmetaphorical status can be established by finding other allusions to Genesis 2–3 in adjoining verses. Thus, we must now investigate whether the tree stands alone as an isolated motif or is an integral part of a broader array of intertextual connections. The literary unit begins: hnwbt qypy µdaw hmkj axm µda yrça ‘Happy is the man who has found wisdom and the man who derives understanding’ (v. 13). The double occurrence of µda has bothered some scholars, and to be sure it is exceptional. The word yrça and its derivatives with pronominal suffixes such as ˚yrça, wyrça, whrça, and µkyrça appear some forty-five times in the Hebrew Bible. In all cases it occurs in formulaic usage which has been rendered either a declarative statement “Happy is,” “Praised is,” or “Blessed is” the person named following the initial word, or as a construct expression meaning “The happiness/ blessing of a person is that. . . .” In some cases, the word yrça itself is repeated, either once in each limb of a bi-colon verse or expression, or in each of two adjoining, parallel verses (1 Kgs 10:8 = 2 Chr 9:7; Ps 32:1–2; 84:5–6; 119:1–2; 137:8–9; 144:15; Prov 8:32 + 34 [in Isa 3:10, emend the incomprehensible wrma with BH to yrça, parallel with ywa]), but in most instances it appears only with an implicit doubling, where yrça can be understood at the head of the second limb as well (Isa 56:2; Ps 1:1; 33:12; 40:5; 41:2; 65:5; 89:16; 94:12; 106:3; 112:1; 128:1; 146:5; Prov 3:13). At times the phrase appears at the end of a verse without a parallel synonymous limb (Isa 30:18; Ps 2:12; 34:9; 84:13; 127:5; Prov 20:7; 28:14; Dan 12:12). In many cases the nomen regens is a word for man/person çya, çwna, µyçna, rbg, or µda (ˆb). 15 The nomen regens µda is found both in Proverbs (3x—Prov 3:13; 8:34; 28:14) and in other books (4x—Isa 56:2 [µda ˆb following çwna]; Ps 32:2 [following hafj ywsk [çp ywçn in v. 1]; 84:6, 13); but in all books it is the rarer of the possible expressions. Proverbs, to be sure, does not use yrça forms with çya or rbg, but it has its own preference for yrça followed by the pronominal suffix (Prov 14:21; 16:20; 29:18) and in these cases the yrça locution comes at the end of the limb. Of all the yrça locutions, the

14. See n. 2 above. 15. In addition to the biblical references, we may add that the parts of Ben-Sira preserved in Hebrew use only çya (14:2; 34:8; 50:25) and çwna (14:1; 14:20), never µda.

spread is 6 points short

Paradise Regained: Proverbs 3:13–20 Reconsidered

+

57

nomen regens is repeated only in Prov 3:13 and in Ps 144:15 (µ[h yrça wyhla òhç µ[h yrça wl hkkç).

On the basis of an unjustified assumption that the Bible stylistically refrains from verbatim repetitions, these scholars prefer the Septuagint and Peshi†ta readings and emend the second µda to çyaw (Tur Sinai, BHS) or çwnaw. 16 Avishur, who noted that the double appearance of µda in a single verse is unique in the Bible, and who argued for overall Phoenician influence in the chapter, suggested that this too is a Phoenicianism, since Phoenician inscriptions prefer the word µda. It seems, however, that use of µda rather than çya, çwna, or rbg, all of which are no less frequent than µda, as well as the repetition of this word in the same verse are intentional and motivated by literary considerations. 17 The verse obviously applies to any individual in general, but designating him by µda rather than one of its alternatives is dictated by desire to emphasize an allusion to µdah of the Garden of Eden story. 18 We should note that, in Ezek 28:2 and 9, the resident of the divine abode is designated µda, and this word was certainly chosen with µdah and Adam of Genesis 3 in mind. Verses 14–15 speak about the value of wisdom and its profitability. The income wisdom produces is better than that of silver and gold. Wisdom itself is more valuable than coral/rubies, and all a person’s property (or business) cannot equal its worth. Personified Wisdom depicted in v. 16 offers riches and honor or substance (dwbk) in her left hand. This emphasis on wealth as the product of wisdom reminds us of Ezekiel 28, where the king of Tyre, residing on God’s mountain, has accumulated gold, silver, and wealth (lyj) with the help of his wisdom and understanding (vv. 4, 5). According to v. 13, where he is said to 16. On verbatim repetition in the Bible as a well-attested literary phenomenon, see now S. Yona, Expanded Repetition Patterns of Roots and Words in Biblical Poetry: Repetition by Means of Construct-State Expressions (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, 1998) [Hebrew]. 17. One could argue perhaps that µda is used here to be gender-inclusive and refer to females as well. However, even though Wisdom is personified in Proverbs as a female figure and maternal wisdom is occasionally offered, the audience addressed by the book of Proverbs is always male. 18. The male figure in the Garden of Eden story, authored by J, is designated by the generic µdah ‘the man’, rather than the proper name µda ‘Adam’ until 3:17, where the prefix lamed is vocalized with séwaª. The proper noun “Adam” is used subsequently in J in Gen 3:21 and 4:25 and in P in Genesis 5. P in Genesis 1 uses both.

58

Victor Avigdor Hurowitz

,

roam Eden, Garden of God, he is hedged in or canopied over (˚tksm) with a variety of precious stones and gold, perhaps growing on the trees. 19 We should compare the reference to gold and gems there to the note in Genesis concerning the land of Havilah on the shores of the legendary Pishon River: µhçh ˆbaw jldbh µç bwf ayhh ≈rah bhzw ‘The gold of that land is good/fine; there bdellium and lapis lazuli are found’ (Gen 2:12). Although Genesis makes no reference to precious stones and metals in the Garden per se, attribution of such treasures to the land of Havilah may be an attempt to transfer the motif of fabulous wealth outside the Garden and demythologize the Garden wonderland by removing such supernatural phenomena. We might also refer to a broken passage at the end of the ninth tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic (Ninevite recension IX 170–90), which describes the land at the end of the tunnel through the mountains of Darkness. This is the land at the shore of the sea across which Gilgamesh is to find Utnapishtim, survivor of the Flood, who has been granted eternal life. The trees growing there bear leaves and fruit of precious stones. All of these sources together indicate a nexus of common motifs: a garden, a source of eternal life, wisdom, and fantastic wealth. This same combination appears in Proverbs 3. According to v. 17, Wisdom’s paths are of µ[n ‘pleasantness’ and µwlç ‘peace’. Although these terms are not used specifically in Paradise connections, they can remind us, nevertheless, of the tranquility typical of Paradise and divine gardens in the Bible and the ancient Near East. The best example of such a paradise is found in Isa 11:1–9. The ideal king of that passage is to be inspired by God with wisdom, understanding, knowledge, and fear of the Lord (v. 2), which will permit him to judge fairly and enforce his verdicts by word alone (v. 4), without force or violence. The miraculous result will be, not only peace among humans, but tranquility in the natural world, with wild beasts, usually at enmity with each other, living quietly together. The place of this tranquility is designated “my holy mountain.” In other words, wisdom leads to the type of peace regnant in God’s abode, otherwise depicted as His garden. 20 19. For the meaning of hksm and the Gilgamesh parallel cited below, see M. Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 22a; New York: Doubleday, 1997) 581–82. 20. Anticipating the continuation of this argument, the µ[n ‘pleasantness’ and µwlç ‘peace’ are the opposite of the bx[, ˆwbx[ ‘travail and pain’ and hbya ‘enmity’ mentioned at the end of the Garden of Eden story as reflecting Adam and Eve’s new circumstances

+

Paradise Regained: Proverbs 3:13–20 Reconsidered

59

An additional connection with the Garden of Eden story can be added from the final couplet of the Proverbs passage (vv. 19–20). The literary unit containing the Tree of Life reference actually ends with the word rçam at the end of v. 18. It has already been recognized that this word forms a paranomastic inclusio with yrça at the beginning of the unit. 21 Nonetheless, the instructions, adages, and admonitions making up the main part of chap. 3 as well as the 2d-person address do not resume until v. 21 with the vocative ynb ‘My son!’ This calls upon us to explain the function of vv. 19–20 and their juxtaposition with vv. 13– 18. These verses resemble 8:22–31 in thought, especially 8:27–29, and some scholars would suggest that they were influenced by them, but their inclusion here still requires explanation. This couplet speaks of the role wisdom played in creation and continues to play in maintaining the world through irrigation. 22 This provides a parallel with the beginning of the J account of creation, which introduces the Garden story. To be specific, founding the earth and heaven in v. 19 recalls creating earth and heaven in Gen 2:4b ( J), while splitting the subterranean springs (twmwht) and opening the heavens for dew are reminiscent of the subsequent lines in the J account, which mention Yhwh-God bringing rain upon the earth as well as an da (either a mist or a welling up of water) rising up from the ground and the river irrigating and then flowing out of the Garden, according to 2:10. after the curse (Gen 3:15, 16, 17). Wisdom will replace these troubles and restore the primal comfort and tranquility. 21. Since in this verse hb µyqyzjm ‘those who hold onto her’ is paralleled by hykmt ‘those who grasp her’, the parallel to ayh µyyj ≈[ would be rçam. M. S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990) 94–95, has suggested that this may be a hidden reference to the wellknown sacred tree hrça and supposed Israelite goddess by that name, who is here assimilated into Israelite religion as a female personification of wisdom. We should note in regard to this proposal the text cited above—sa imnukki mesrâ lußßip dumqa luksuda sa sumelukki ‘let me add (to my goods) the wealth which is on your (Ishtar’s) right; let me obtain the good luck which is on your left’, in which it is the goddess Ishtar who is depicted in very similar terms to Wisdom in this chapter. Smith’s proposal is rejected by J. Day, “Foreign Semitic Influence on the Wisdom of Israel and Its Appropriation in the Book of Proverbs,” in Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in Honor of J. A. Emerton (ed. J. Day, R. P. Gordon, and H. G. M. Williamson; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) 55–70, esp. 69; however, he ignores the poetic structure of the verse, which is at the heart of Smith’s interpretation. 22. Cf. Plöger, Sprüche Salomos (Proverbia), 36–38, who points out the special role of watering in Genesis 2.

Victor Avigdor Hurowitz

60

,

But the most unique and significant allusion to Genesis 3 occurs in the initial words of Prov 3:17 and 18. Verse 17 starts ykrd hykrd ‘Her ways are ways of ’, paralleled synonymously with hytwbytn ‘Her paths’, while v. 18 begins with µyyj ≈[ ‘the Tree of Life’. Combining these words yields µyyj ≈[ ykrd hykrd ‘Her ways are the ways of/toward the Tree of Life’, echoing loudly µyyjh ≈[ ˚rd ‘the way to the Tree of Life’, which is the final locution, concluding the Garden of Eden story. Only a reader so absent-minded that he would forget the content of one verse immediately upon reading the next would be deaf to the combination of the words and obtuse to what they echo. 23 The connection of ykrd hykrd in v. 17 and µyyj ≈[ in the next can be strengthened by analysis of the literary structure of vv. 13–18 in their entirety. Verse 13 stands alone as an introductory verse to the entire unit, with the initial word yrça being echoed at the end by rçam. Vv. 14–15 constitute a couplet, the topic of which is the material value of wisdom. Verse 16 is to be regarded as an isolated, transitional verse, which refers in its second stich, dwbkw rç[ hlwamçb, to the content of the couplet which preceded it (note especially the synonyms hrqy and dwbk); while in the first stich, hnymyb µymy ˚ra, it refers to the couplet which follows it and mentions µyyj ≈[. This overall structure leaves vv. 17–18 as a couplet, and it is the expression µyyj ≈[ ˚rd, taken from Genesis 3 and broken up here into its two components, which provides cohesion between the two verses. Additional cohesion is provided by the expression ˚rdb rça ‘go on a path’ in Prov 4:14, 9:6, and 23:19, broken up here and inverted to supply the first and last words of the couplet. This enables a secondary translation of v. 18, “It is a Tree of Life to they who hold on to it, and those who grasp it are directed on the way (to the Tree of Life).”

The text thus signals us that the way (back) to the Tree of Life is through wisdom. One who acquires wisdom will find his way back to the Tree of Life and the primordial blessings of Paradise. We have thus located various specific words and general ideas or motifs in Prov 3:13–20 that may be insignificant individually but when taken together can be construed as allusions to the Garden of Eden or Paradise traditions elsewhere in the Bible, and specifically in Genesis 2– 3. Not only the Tree of Life is taken from the Garden of Eden traditions, but the entire literary unit in which it is implanted alludes to the 23. J. H. Greenstone, Proverbs with Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1950), reminds us, that when these verses are recited in the synagogue service while returning the Torah scroll to the ark, they are said in reverse order.

spread is 3 points long

+

Paradise Regained: Proverbs 3:13–20 Reconsidered

61

blessings of the divine garden where humankind had its original home. The way of life offered by Wisdom is in every sense Paradise. We would like to suggest that Prov 3:13–20 offers a solution to Man’s eternal quest for return to Paradise and the Tree of Life. Wisdom will restore Humankind to the Paradise from which he was driven. It obviously will not return him physically to the geographical Eden, and it will hardly grant him biological immortality. But it will provide him a life enjoying the benefits of Paradise of which he was deprived, including longevity, tranquility, and wealth. The tenor of this passage is metaphorical, but the vehicle is its allusions to the reality of Eden. This promise has a most ironic aspect. According to Genesis 2–3, Adam was expelled from Paradise for eating from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, t[dh ≈[. According to Ezekiel 28, man was expelled for misusing wisdom, hmkj, to amass exorbitant profit. In other words, it was misappropriation of knowledge of good and evil, or misuse of wisdom that excluded Man from Paradise. Mental achievements illicitly attained or misused have thus proved dangerous and certainly are not recommended. This leaves proponents of wisdom such as the sages and teachers who authored the book of Proverbs in a difficult position. Since wisdom and knowledge are the commodities produced and promoted by the schools and scribal circles that created the book of Proverbs, it would be unthinkable and self-defeating to blame them for humankind’s downfall. In order to sell its wares successfully, the wisdom school is forced to turn matters on their heads. The wisdom school teaches, therefore, that the way out of Paradise is, both ironically and logically, also the way back in. The wisdom that Man acquired sinfully through acts of disobedience and that led him to greed, dispossessing him of his primal ideal realm, can, if found and extracted through the legitimate means of education, obeying parents and teachers, and learning from life experience, restore the blessings of Paradise. The two declarations of curses for ‘sadness’ (b-x-[ Gen 3:16, 17; 5:26) that YhwhGod pronounced upon the snake and the earth after eating of the Tree of Knowledge (rwra in Gen 3:14, 17 cf. 5:29) will be turned into two ‘blessings’ for happiness of the wise by His daughter, Wisdom (yrça µda and rçam hykmt). 24 24. The word yrça is usually taken to mean ‘happy’ or ‘praised’ on the basis of the well-attested meaning of rça as ‘happiness’ on the one hand or the occasional parallels between this root and llh on the other (Prov 31:28; Cant 6:9). Gemser, Sprüche Salomos, 28 follows a suggestion of H.-J. Kraus that yrça is derived from the verb r-ç-a

62

Victor Avigdor Hurowitz

,

(‘proceed straight’) and means “Erfolgreiche Schritte tut der Mensch . . .” and translates ‘Wohl dem Menschen’. However, in Psalms, the Septuagint renders yrça makaros ‘blessed’, and the Vulgate beatus, and so it has been translated in those places by various English versions and dictionaries such as BDB. Y. Avishur, Encyclopedia Olam Ha-Tanakh on Ps 1:1, adapts this interpretation and adduces in its favor Ps 72:17, ynpl µlw[l wmç yhy whrçay µywg lk wb wkrbtyw wmç (ˆwny) ˆyny çmç, in which there is a close proximity between rça and ˚rb; and Jer 17:7, in which we find òhb jfby rça rbgh ˚wrb, where ˚wrb seems to be a replacement for a more standard yrça. We may add, perhaps, Ps 112:1–2, where yrça at the beginning of v. 1 may stand in long-distance parallelism to ˚rby at the end of v. 2. Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 161, states, “The word is close in force to baruk.” We do not suggest that ˚rb and rça are synonymous, for they clearly function in most cases in different ways. The word yrça designates a general state of mind, while ˚wrb is clearly a state created by divine pronouncement and decree. Although the opposite of ˚rb is rra, the antonym of yrça is ywa. Nonetheless, a state of happiness designated by yrça can be taken as resulting from divine blessing, ˚rb, so it could be the opposite of a state created by divine curse, rra. It is possible, therefore, that the blissful state described by Prov 3:13–18 is intended to be the opposite of the cursed state that followed the expulsion from Eden. Note that the root b-x-[ is used three times to designate Man’s new condition (Gen 3:16 [2x], 17). To be sure, b-x-[ in Genesis 3 and 5 designates physical pain and exhaustion. However, in other contexts this root designates mental states such as ‘vexation’ and ‘anguish’. Furthermore, its later usage as ‘sadness’ occurs already in the Bible (2 Sam 19:3, wnb l[ ˚lmh bx[n ‘the king was saddened over his son’), including Wisdom literature. See especially Prov 15:13, µynp byfy jmç bl hakn jwr bl tbx[bw // ‘A joyful heart makes a cheerful face; a sad heart makes a despondent mood’. Note also Neh 8:10, 11, where it is the opposite of hwdj. It is the influence of this meaning on the author that is the basis for linking b-x-[ and r-r-a in the Garden of Eden story with Proverbs 3.

Cain: The Forefather of Humanity Israel Knohl Hebrew University of Jerusalem

#

$

Chapter 4 of the book of Genesis begins with the story of Cain and Abel (vv. 1–16). It is followed by the Cainite genealogy, which ends with an episode about Lamech (vv. 17–24). At the end of the chapter, there are two verses that deserve special attention: Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, meaning: “God has provided me with another offspring in place of Abel,” for Cain had killed him. And to Seth, in turn, a son was born, and he named him Enosh. It was then that men began to invoke the Lord by name. (Gen 4:25–26)

These verses give rise to several difficulties: This short genealogy is duplicated in vv. 1–7 of chap. 5. What is the reason for this repetition, and why does our genealogy stop after the third generation? Some scholars argue that we have here a fragment of the genealogy of Seth according to the J tradition, while the other genealogy of Seth, in chap. 5, belongs to P. This solution, however, is problematic. While it is true that chap. 5 belongs to P, it is difficult to accept the designation of 4:25–26 to J. In v. 25, ‘Adam’ (µda) is used as a proper name. This is typical of P, 1 whereas J always uses the form ‘the man’ (µdah). Furthermore, the divine name used in v. 25 is God (µyhla). This also is typical of P, 2 whereas in the J tradition we would expect the use of Yhwh. 3 The statement at the end of v. 26, ‘It was then that men began to invoke the Lord by name’, is also very problematic. Some scholars claim that according to this statement, it was at the time of Enosh that people 1. See Gen 5:3–5. 2. See throughout Genesis 1 and Gen 2:2–3. 3. As in Gen 4:1, 3–4, 6, 9, 13, 15–16.

63

Israel Knohl

64

,

began to invoke the Lord by his name Yhwh. This, however, does not fit any of the above-mentioned sources. According to P, the name Yhwh was not used before Moses, while in J, it was already used in Adam’s time. 4 It seems that vv. 25–26 of chap. 4 in their present form are the result of a redactor’s work. 5 Before presenting my theory about the original text and the work of the redactor, I would like to point out one other problematic verse, this time in chap. 5. As was said above, chap. 5 belongs to P. In accordance with the conception of this source, which claims that the name Yhwh was not yet known at this period of time, the name µyhla 6 is used throughout the chapter. However, v. 29 of Genesis 5 deviates clearly from the P tradition. This verse explains the naming of Noah by his father, Lamech: And he named him Noah, saying: “This one will provide us relief from our work and from the toil of our hands out of the very soil that the Lord placed under a curse.”

This verse deviates from the framework of P in two aspects: First, we have here the name Yhwh (Lord). Second, we have here a clear reference to the curse that was placed on the earth, an idea that belongs to the J tradition. 7 It therefore seems that this verse originated in the J tradition. 8 In my view, its original place was at the end of the Cainite genealogy embodied now in chap. 4. I would like to first present the reconstructed text in Hebrew and in English and then to give the reasons for my reconstruction. ˆb dltw 9 wtça ta dw[ ˚ml [dyw .1 rmal jn wmç ta arqyw .2 4. For a review of the different scholarly interpretations of this verse, see S. Sandmel, “Genesis 4:26b,” HUCA 32 (1961) 19–29. 5. The notion that we have here an editorial addition has been suggested by several scholars. See J. M. Miller, “The Descendants of Cain: Notes on Gen 4,” ZAW 86 (1974) 165 n. 6. However, my reconstruction of the original text and my understanding of the editorial process are new. 6. See Gen 5:1, 24. 7. See Gen 3:17–18; 4:11–12. 8. This has been suggested by several scholars; see C. Westermann, Genesis 1–11 (trans. J. J. Scullion; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1984) 359–60; J. D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993) 80. 9. It is possible that the name of Lamech’s wife, Adah or Zillah, was also mentioned here.

spread is 6 points long

+

Cain: The Forefather of Humanity

65

wnydy ˆwbx[mw wnç[mm wnmjny hz .3 òh hrra rça hmdah ˆm .4 òh µçb arql ljh za .5 1. Lamech knew his wife again and she bore a son. 2. And he named him Noah, saying: 3. “This one will provide us relief from our work and from the toil of our hands 4. out of the very soil that the Lord placed under a curse.” 5. Then he began to invoke the Lord by name.

The first line is based on the beginning of Gen 4:25 with the modification of “Adam” to Lamech. Lines 2–4 are taken from Gen 5:29. Line 5 is based on the ending of Gen 4:26: In the Masoretic version of the Bible, we read here, òh µçb arql ljwh za ‘It was then that men began to invoke the Lord by name’. However, in the Samaritan Bible we find a different version: òh µçb arql ljh za ‘Then he began to invoke the Lord by name’. 10 What is the meaning of the reconstructed text, and why was it reworked by the editor? This reconstructed paragraph originally followed the text of J, embodied now in Gen 4:1–24. It ended the story about the descendants of Cain. All of these generations were under the curse that was placed on the earth in the time of Cain (Gen 4:11–12). None of them could till the cursed soil. They turned to other occupations, and no one asked God to remove the curse from the earth. In fact, after Cain murdered Abel and had to hide himself from the presence of God (Gen 4:14), none of his descendants tried to approach the Lord. There was no communication, during this whole period of time, between humanity and God: “No one invokes Your name, rouses himself to cling to you, for you have hidden your face from us.” 11 It was only Lamech, 10. It is true that the Samaritan version, ljh, can be vocalized like the Masoretic Text. However, later Samaritan literature attests the vocalization he˙el. See S. D. Fraade, Enosh and His Generation (SBLMS 30; Missoula, Mont: Scholars Press, 1984) 29–38. The reading ljh (= ‘he began’) is reflected also in the Vulgate and the Syriac versions and in Jub. 4:12. It seems that the Septuagint reflects a Hebrew text that read ljwh but was interpreted as lyjwh ‘he hoped’; see Fraade, pp. 5–11; idem, “Enosh and His Generation Revisited,” in Biblical Figures outside the Bible (ed. M. E. Stone and T. A. Bergren; Harrisburg: Trinity, 1998) 62. The Septuagint, Jubilees, and the Vulgate probably reflect a version in which hz was written instead of za. As for the reason for the change from za to hz, see below, n. 17. 11. Isa 64:6[7]; the association with this verse has been suggested by U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961) 247.

66

Israel Knohl

,

seventh generation from Adam, who in naming his son first referred to God. He expressed the hope that his newborn son, Noah, would be the one to bring comfort by removing the curse of God from the earth. After this, Lamech began to invoke the Lord by name, probably in prayer for forgiveness and salvation. Indeed, the request of Lamech was fulfilled after the flood. After Noah offered sacrifices, God was appeased and removed the curse from the earth (Gen 8:20–21). 12 This enabled Noah to become hmdah çya ‘the tiller of the soil’ (Gen 9:20). According to our reconstruction of the J traditions, Noah was the seventh generation of Cain, and thus, all human beings are also the descendants of Cain! 13 J’s description of the first human generations is strikingly different from P’s. According to P, Adam was perfectly good, like all of the other first creatures. His firstborn, Seth, was begotten in his likeness and after his image (Gen 5:3). Seth and all further generations until the time of the flood were also perfectly good. P makes no mention of the figures of Cain and Abel and their bloody rivalry. The traditions of J and P regarding the first human generations were incompatible. Even if one ignores the sharp difference in the depiction of humanity, there still is a factual disagreement: according to P, Adam’s firstborn was Seth, and Noah was a descendant of Seth. However, according to our reconstruction of the J tradition, Cain was Adam’s firstborn, and Noah was a descendant of Cain. The final redactors of the Pentateuch, who had to put together diverse ancient traditions, found a way to resolve the disagreement between the two traditions. Since they belonged to a priestly school, 14 they adopted the priestly view that Noah was a descendant of Seth. In order to sever the genealogical connection between Cain and Noah, they transferred the description of Noah’s birth and naming from the original ending of J’s Cainite dynasty to P’s Sethite genealogy (Gen 5:28). 15 In place of it, the editors inserted 12. See O. Procksch, Die Genesis (2d ed.; Leipzig: Deicherische, 1924) 58. 13. This has already been suggested by I. Lewy, “The Beginning of the Worship of YAHWEH: Conflicting Biblical Views,” VT 6 (1956) 429–35. However, I cannot accept his theory that Gen 4:26b originally stood after v. 16. 14. On the redaction of the Pentateuch by the Holiness School, see I. Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 101–3; J. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22 (AB 3B; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 1337–44. 15. Another minor change was needed here: the replacement of the regular formula ˚ml ta dlwyw to the irregular ˆb dlwyw at the end of v. 28.

+

Cain: The Forefather of Humanity

67

the story about the naming of Seth (Gen 4:25). This story presents Seth as the son who was born to Adam after the murder of Abel by Cain, harmonizing 16 the two different traditions in this way. 17 The final result is the present portrayal in the Bible: a polarization of the dynasty of Cain and the dynasty of Seth. Seth and his descendants are the “sons of light,” and Cain and his descendants are the “sons of darkness.” 18 This picture is typical of the priestly dualistic conception. 16. Cf. M. Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (trans. B. W. Anderson; Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972) 12 n. 26. 17. According to our reconstruction, the words òh µçb awrql ljh za originally referred to Lamech. In their original setting they ended the story about Lamech and were connected to the rest of the chapter. As a result of the editorial process, these words were left disconnected. This led to the various emendations attested in the different ancient versions. In the Masoretic Text, ljh was changed to ljwh, thus creating a passive form, so that it is an anonymous body of people who started to invoke the Lord by name. In another tradition (reflected in the Septuagint, Jubilees, and the Vulgate) these words were interpreted as if they referred to Enosh. However, the word za, which looked awkward in its new setting, was changed to hz. 18. On this polarization in early postbiblical sources, see Fraade’s monograph, Enosh and His Generation, 25–27 and n. 77.

68

Israel Knohl

This page intentionally left blank.

,

The Punishment of Succoth and Penuel by Gideon in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Treaties A. Malamat Jerusalem

#

$

After Gideon and his three hundred soldiers defeated the Midianites in Cisjordan, they crossed the Jordan and pursued the enemy in the broad expanse of Transjordan into the eastern desert. The Israelites apparently held sway over the northern part of the territory of Transjordan. 1 Clearly, the Israelites were in urgent need of food supplies for their long-range pursuit ( Judg 8:4–9). 2 Gideon approached Succoth (to be identified with Tell Deir ºAlla) and, further south, Penuel (most likely Tullul ed-Dahab) at the mouth of the Jabbok River, both cities being located in northern Transjordan. These cities were requested to supply Gideon’s army (here called ºam) with “loaves of bread.” The intention of this request was most likely for food provisions in general, especially since the text emphasizes that the Israelite soldiers were faint with hunger. 3 However, the two cities refused Gideon’s demand, questioning: “Are the palms of Zebah and Zalmunna [the Midianite kings] already in your 1. A. Malamat, “The War of Gideon and Midian,” in The Military History of the Land of Israel in Biblical Times (ed. J. Liver; Jerusalem: Maarachoth, 1964) 118–23 [Hebrew]. 2. See the commentaries on the book of Judges, especially C. F. Burney, The Book of Judges (London: Rivington, 1920) 227–30; J. A. Soggin, Judges (OTL; London: SCM, 1981) 148–51; Y. Kaufmann, The Book of Judges ( Jerusalem: Kirjath Sefer, 1963) 184–86 [Hebrew]; Y. Amit, Judges (Mikra Leyisraªel; Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1999) 148– 52 [Hebrew]. 3. On the lexeme ºayep ‘faint’ in the sense of ‘hungry’ (raºeb), see several instances in the Bible: e.g., Gen 25:29–30 (concerning Esau, coming from the field, being ºayep, and commanding Jacob to feed him).

69

70

A. Malamat

,

hand, that we should give bread to your army?” ( Judg 8:6). 4 The meaning of the above question is: Are the Midianite kings already defeated by Gideon and thus cannot constitute a menace to the aforementioned cities, or is Gideon unable to overpower the enemy? Gideon retorted that, after his victory over the Midianite kings, he would avenge the two obstinate cities and punish their leaders and inhabitants (8:7–9). Sure enough, after the defeat of the Midianites, Gideon returned to Succoth and Penuel, killed their leaders and inhabitants and, in addition, destroyed the tower—that is, the stronghold—of Penuel (8:11–17). At Succoth, Gideon captured a young man (naºar), who may have been a scribe or a member of the city council, 5 because he was able to write down for Gideon a list of the names of the leadership of the city: “the officials and Elders of Succoth, seventy-seven men” (8:14; the ability to write was not a skill acquired by just any young man). Thereafter, Gideon slayed Zebah and Zalmunna (8:18–21). Already, on the basis of the biblical text, it may be assumed that there existed a kind of vassal-treaty between Gideon and the cities of northern Transjordan, obliging them to supply his army with food during a military campaign. 6 Indeed, a treaty that encompasses the aforementioned stipulation as well as the punishment for its breach (not unlike the story in the Bible) is admittedly rare among the extant treaties of the ancient Near East, but it does exist, especially in Hittite treaties. 7 Let us mention two such treaties that may provide the background for the story of Gideon and his war in Transjordan. In the Hittite treaty (and its parallel in the Akkadian version) from the thirteenth century b.c.e. made between the Hittite king Murshili II and Tuppi-Teshup, ruler of the land of Amurru, obligations are imposed on the vassal (that is, the land of Amurru) relating to the supply of food as well as drinks

4. Cutting off the palm of the hands of the killed enemy as proof of his demise is depicted in Egyptian reliefs; see Y. Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands ( Jerusalem and Ramat-Gan: International, 1963) 2.258–60. 5. See A. Malamat, Israel in Biblical Times ( Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1983) 102 and n. 49 [Hebrew]. 6. Concerning the Hittite army, see R. H. Beal, The Organization of the Hittite Military (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1992) 132. 7. On the stipulation of the vassal’s supplying food to the suzerain, see the collected essays of Y. Muffs, Love and Joy (New York and Jerusalem: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992) 72–76. Muffs deals with tribute and supply for the army solely in the context of Abraham and his journeys (especially Genesis 14).

+

The Punishment of Succoth and Penuel by Gideon

71

for the army of the suzerain. 8 The key sentence for our concern in the treaty is: “The Hittites bring you, Tuppi-Teshup, infantry and chariotry. . . . Tuppi-Teshup must regularly provide them with food and drink.” Such stipulations may be found also in another Hittite treaty (again, there are three Akkadian versions to this text). This second treaty goes back to the middle of the fourteenth century b.c.e. and was made between the Hittite king, Shupiluliuma, and Aziru, the ruler of Amurru, although the stipulations are not as clear as in the former treaty. 9 Finally, we may cite an example referring to the destruction of the city of a vassal who violated the treaty made with the suzerain. It is in the treaty of the land of Ishmerika: “If a city within the land sins, you, the men of Ishmerika, enter and destroy the city and kill the male population.” 10 Thus, we may assume that the destruction of Succoth and Penuel at the hands of Gideon was not merely a matter of conquest but was the expected punishment for the breach of a treaty made with Israel. 8. See now G. Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996) 57: #10 (no. 8). For the original publication of the text and subsequent bibliography, see there, p. 172. 9. Ibid., 35: #7 (no. 5). For the original publication of the text and subsequent bibliography, see p. 172. For a translation that is more supportive of the present thesis, see Muffs, Love and Joy, 73, who cites A. Goetze, ANET, 532 (right column). 10. On this treaty, see in passing Muffs, Love and Joy, 74; for the original publication, see A. Kempinski and S. Kosak, “Der Ismeriga-Vertrag,” WO 5 (1969) 195.

72

A. Malamat

This page intentionally left blank.

,

Myth, History, and Utopia in the Prophecy of the Shoot (Isaiah 10:33–11:9) Lea Mazor Hebrew University of Jerusalem

#

$

The Problems and the State of Research Any analysis of a biblical text should be based on the identification of its borders, its structure, its composition, and the relationship between its components. The prophecy of the Shoot presents difficulties in this regard, as shown by the differences of opinion among scholars. Many think that the prophecy extends over 11:1–9; a few, however, dispute these borders. The dispute mainly concerns the prophecy’s conclusion, though some also question its beginning. Some think the prophecy does not conclude at v. 9 but at v. 10, v. 8, or even v. 5, and that it begins not at 11:1 but at 10:33. 1 The difficulty in determining the borders of the prophecy lies in the sharp transitions from one matter to another in the passage, with the matter of the Shoot mentioned only in 11:1–5. 1. The prevailing view is that the prophecy of the Shoot concludes at v. 9. See, for example, J. Skinner, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah Chapters I–XXXIX (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1915) 102–10; E. J. Kissane, The Book of Isaiah (Dublin: Browne & Nolan, 1960) 1.135–39; A. S. Herbert, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah Chapters 1–39 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973) 88–92; O. Kaiser, Isaiah 1–12 (2d ed.; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983) 252–61; S. Niditch, Chaos to Cosmos: Studies in Biblical Patterns of Creation (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985 ) 80–82; K. Nielsen, There Is Hope for a Tree: The Tree as Metaphor in Isaiah ( JSOTSup 65; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989) 123–44. For the end of the prophecy in v. 8, see E. König, Das Buch Jesaja (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1926) 154–62; G. B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah: I–XXXIX (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912) 211–28. On v. 10 as an integral part of the prophecy, see S. Talmon, “The Significance of Shalom and Its Semantic Field in the Hebrew Bible,” in The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders (ed. C. A. Evans and S. Talmon; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 108–9, 115.

73

74

Lea Mazor

,

The prophecy is constructed link by link: five links, according to those who take its borders as 10:33–11:10; or less, according to those who take its borders as more circumscribed. Each link treats a different subject. Isa 10:33–34 deals with the cutting down of the high trees; 11:1–5 deals with the Shoot, its characteristics, and its actions in establishing social justice; vv. 6–8 deal with peace among the animals and between them and humans; v. 9 states that there will be no more evildoing on the Mount of the Lord; and v. 10 mentions the root of Jesse and his status among the nations. None of these links makes any explicit reference to another, except for 11:10, which contains two words connecting it to 11:1: “root “and “Jesse.” The repetition of these two words is, according to some scholars, a formal indication of the prophecy’s borders. But the question remains whether this literary framework is original or secondary. The phenomenon of jumping from matter to matter is most acute in 11:6–8, which presents the difficulty of what animals have to do in the context of a prophecy dealing with humans. Before vv. 6–8 the subject is the Shoot, and its activity is to establish social justice; after vv. 6–8 the cessation of evildoing on the Holy Mount of the Lord is prophesied. The subject of the clause “They shall not hurt or destroy” (v. 9) is not specified, but it is clear that it is not the animals previously mentioned, because the reason for that is “as the waters fill the sea, so shall the land be filled with the knowledge of the Lord.” “Knowledge of the Lord” is a human trait, not an animal one. It thus seems that v. 9 is connected in its content to vv. 1–5, and vv. 6–8 divides between them. The discrepancy of the subject matter has raised doubts concerning the prophecy’s unity. According to one view, the prophecy concludes in v. 8, with v. 9 being an addition from Hab 2:14; according to another view, the passage comprising vv. 6–9 is a later addition to the core prophecy of vv. 1–5. This addition was composed under the influence of Isa 65:25. 2

2. Eissfeldt discerns two strata in the prophecy: vv. 1–5 and vv. 6–9. He views vv. 1–5 as an original Isaianic prophecy, and vv. 6–9 as a secondary stratum. The reason for this, in his view, is that the concepts found in vv. 1–5 fit those of Isaiah’s prophecies, whereas the picture of future peace on Mt. Zion is foreign to them, yet known from later compositions (O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction [Oxford: Blackwell, 1966] 319). Kaiser also casts doubt on the attribution of the “core prophecy” (vv. 1–5), as he terms it, to Isaiah ben Amoz (O. Kaiser, Isaiah 1–12, 253–54).

+

Myth, History, and Utopia in the Prophecy of the Shoot

75

The problem of the prophecy’s unity is connected with that of its originality. Some think that the prophecy cannot be attributed to Isaiah ben Amoz but to a prophet active in the postexilic period. 3 The main reasons for this are the fact that the prophets of the First Temple period were exclusively prophets of doom and that an eschatological prophecy is unlikely in the eighth century b.c.e. The picture of the choppeddown tree that opens chap. 11 comes, in their view, from someone who was already aware of the cessation of the Davidic dynasty. Against this, others claim that dogmatic views concerning the character of First Temple period prophecy and the development of eschatology in ancient Israel cannot be invoked, since our knowledge of these is inadequate. Linguistic and literary-ideological connections exist between this prophecy and other original prophecies by Isaiah ben Amoz, 4 while the image of the chopped-down tree that comes to life shows that, after the destruction, the Davidic house will be restored. 5 Those who take vv. 6–8 as part of the original prophecy, whether Isaiah ben Amoz’s or some other later prophet’s, have proposed different exegetical solutions for the abrupt transition from the human world to the animal kingdom. The Allegorical Solution The carnivorous animals are a symbol either of the evil in society (the social aspect) or of the nations who perturb Israel (the nationalistic aspect). In both aspects the animal passage loses its independence and is subordinated to other passages in the prophecy: either to what precedes, the establishment of justice in society; or to what follows, the status of Israel among the nations.

3. Gray, The Book of Isaiah, 213–15; E. Sellin, Introduction to the Old Testament (London: S.P.C.K., 1968) 365, 371. 4. B. Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia (KHAT 3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1922) 104; O. Procksch, Isaiah I–XXXIX (KAT 9; Leipzig: Deichert, 1930) 151–52; A. Bentzen, Introduction to the Old Testament (2d ed.; 2 vols.; Copenhagen: Gad, 1952) 1.107–9. See also the summary of research in H. Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 465–67, who attributes the prophecy to Isaiah ben Amoz. 5. Thus O. Kaiser, Isaiah 1–12 (1st ed.; OTL; London: SCM, 1972) 157, who thinks that the image of the chopping off of the Davidic dynasty comes already in 10:33–34, the beginning of the prophecy in his view.

Lea Mazor

76

,

The allegorical approach entails the danger of displacing matters from their original intent and of subjective, tendentious interpretations. It raises questions such as: what does the snake contribute to the matter of carnivorous animals, or what is the significance of the infant, the weaned child, and the young child? The Advantage Solution Verses 6–8 do not deal with animals per se but with the advantage for humans of the animals’ change in nature. These verses refer to a future in which the danger to humans and their property from beasts of prey and snakes no longer exists: the carnivorous animals will no longer prey on flocks, and snakes will no longer pose a threat to the lives of young children. 6 The difficulty with this solution is that the clause “then the wolf shall dwell with the lamb” (v. 6) does not refer to any economic benefit to flock owners but to a state of peace prevailing between all animals. Similarly, the stress of the words “and an infant shall play over a viper’s hole” (v. 8) is not saving children from death by snakebite, but the state of peace prevailing in the future between human beings and snakes. What is common to the allegorical and advantage solutions is that, for both, vv. 6–8 do not constitute a deviation from the human sphere. A solution that takes this deviation into account is the mythological one. The Mythological Solution The matter of the animals should be understood literally. Verses 6–8 speak of peace among the animals and between them and humans, with the intention of showing that the action of the Shoot will restore the world to the primordial state of the Garden of Eden. The mythological interpretation fits the import of the verses, but the question of how they integrate with what comes before and after them still remains. This paper proposes a solution for understanding the structure of the prophecy, its borders, its composition, and the relationship between its components, on the basis of a literary-ideational analysis. The structure revealed will be the basis for the interpretation of the prophecy and its affinities to myth, history, and utopia. Since the most problematic passage in the prophecy from a structural aspect is vv. 6–8, the discussion will begin with them. 6. Ibid., 160–61.

spread is 1 pica long

+

Myth, History, and Utopia in the Prophecy of the Shoot

77

The Vision of the Animals (Isaiah 11:6–8) Isaiah 11:6–8 describes a future reality constituting a return to the age of the Garden of Eden: the beasts of prey will once again return to eating grass, and the enmity between snakes and humans will disappear. The future is described in two images: the first presents the carnivorous and herbiforous animals of the present dwelling peaceably one with another, grazing together, with a young boy shepherding them; and the second image portrays an infant and a weaned child playing with poisonous snakes. The singling out of snakes from the rest of the animals corresponds with the divine curse of the snake in Gen 3:14: “Because you have done this you are cursed more than all beasts, than all the animals of the field.” According to Genesis 3, a special close relationship existed between the woman and the snake, which led to a series of events ending in the cursing of the snake, and this enmity was to prevail from then on between snakes and humans. The prophecy of the Shoot envisions an age where this enmity will cease, and the special, positive relationship between humans and snakes will be restored. The similarities between Isaiah 11 and Genesis 3 are clear; nevertheless, the differences between them cannot be ignored. The prophecy of the Shoot does not refer in general to the relationship between humans and snakes but specifically to the relationship of an infant and a weaned child to particularly dangerous snakes: the viper and the adder. This difference raises the question whether the prophet refers to a paradise tradition other than that reflected in Gen 3:14. It is possible that a remnant of such a tradition is reflected in the speech of Zophar the Naamathite in the book of Job, who refers to the evildoer: “He sucks the poison of asps, and the tongue of the viper kills him. Let him not enjoy the streams, the rivers of honey, the brooks of cream” ( Job 20:16–17). These verses state that the deeds of the evildoer will bring about a drastic change in his fate: on the one hand he will be exposed to the threat of death by snakes, and on the other hand he will be denied the possibility of continuing to enjoy prosperity. Is this a portrait of the human condition after transgressing God’s commandment and being expelled from the Garden of Eden? Portrayals of the Garden of Eden as a place where rivers of honey and cream flowed are known from postbiblical literature and are echoed in the Hebrew Bible ( Joel 4:18). 7 7. On the prophecy’s affinity to the conceptual world of myth, see A. S. Kapelrud, Joel Studies (Uppsala: Lundequist, 1948) 168.

78

Lea Mazor

,

From a linguistic-stylistic perspective, there are conspicuous similarities between the description of the snake’s danger in Zophar’s speech and the description of future enjoyment in the renewed relationship with the snake in the vision of the Shoot. Common to both texts, and a fact that also differentiates them from Genesis 3, is that they both refer not to just any kind of snake but to poisonous ones mentioned by name: the viper and the adder or asp. Both texts mention the adder first, and both make use of the root qny ‘to suckle’ in regard to humans: in Zophar’s speech the sucking of venom, and in the prophecy of the Shoot the “suckling infant” who plays with the snake. The image of suckling, present in both passages, presents the notion that the First Man began his life in the Garden of Eden as a baby, a suckling. Since he was created and not born of a woman, where did his nutrition come from? The tale of the Garden of Eden reflected in Zophar’s speech and the vision of the Shoot answer this question by showing how man suckled his nourishment from the rivers of honey and cream that flowed in the Garden. This conception differs from the one reflected in the Garden of Eden account in the book of Genesis. The story of Genesis 2 implies that the First Man was brought into the Garden as an adult. His role in the Garden was “to till it and tend it” (v. 15), and his sustenance consisted of the fruit of the trees (v. 16), inappropriate to a baby. My proposal explains why vv. 6–8 speak of man as an infant, a weaned child, or a young child. These are stages in the growth of the First Man in the Garden of Eden prior to his transgression and expulsion. In the Garden of Eden, when Man was still an infant, and then a weaned child, he played with the animals. When he grew up into a “small child” he received responsibility over them and “ruled over them.” According to the prophecy, the activity of the Shoot will bring about changes in the world. The relationship of trust and closeness between humans and snakes will be restored, and carnivorous animals will return to eating grass (Gen 1:29–30; 9:3–5). The relationship between humans and animals is a topic appearing in the prophecies of redemption in Isa 35:8–10; Ezek 34:25–26 (cf. Lev 26:3–6), and Hos 2:20[18]. According to these prophecies, the danger to humans expected from beasts of prey will end with a covenant with them, with their removal, or with destruction. The matter of animals also appears in the context of individual redemption. In Eliphaz’s speech in the book of Job, there is a promise: “and have no need to fear

spread is 3 points short

+

Myth, History, and Utopia in the Prophecy of the Shoot

79

wild beasts . . . , and the animals of the field will have peace with you” (5:22–23). The emphasis is on the cancellation of fear of the wild beasts as a result of making a peace covenant with them, not on harmonious life together, as in the prophecy of the Shoot. Psalm 91 says of the person who takes refuge under the wings of God: “You will tread on cubs and vipers, you will trample lions and asps” (v. 13). The viper and the lion symbolize the most ferocious beasts, and trampling on them is a metaphorical expression for their subjugation. The subjugation of beasts is found also in Psalm 8, which says that God put humankind in control of the beasts: “You have made him master over your handiwork, laying the world at his feet, sheep and oxen, all of them and wild beasts too; the birds of the heavens the fish of the sea, whatever travels the paths of the seas” (vv. 7–9[6–8]). Also according to the account of creation in Genesis 1, humans were meant to subjugate the animals. At their creation they received the blessing “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it, and dominate the fish of the sea and the fowl of the heavens and all the beasts that roam the earth” (v. 28). The prophecy of the Shoot makes no mention of subjugating the animals, since they are from the outset considered subdued. The viper and the adder are described as playthings for little children, and the lion is depicted as a domesticated beast, eating grass like cows, and accompanying the flock with the child who shepherds them. This is not the fierce lion that pounces on the flocks and wreaks havoc, with none to deliver (Mic 5:7[8])—the lion whose roar all fear (Amos 3:8) or who devours its prey (Isa 5:29). According to the prophecy of the Shoot, humans will have no need of taking measures to subdue the lion, viper, or any other animal. Their domination will be an integral part of the new cosmic order. The prophecy of the animals is repeated, with variations, in TritoIsaiah: 8 “The wolf and the lamb shall pasture together (djak), and the lion, like the ox, will eat straw, and the serpent’s food shall be earth” (65:25). The picture of the serpent whose food is the earth stresses, 8. For the late dating of Isa 65:25 as opposed to 11:6, see E. Littmann, Über die Abfassungzeit des Tritojesaia (Freiburg: Mohr, 1899) 7. Littmann noted that in 11:6 the word wdjy is used, while in 65:25 this is replaced with djak. He claims that the latter is an Aramaism (adjk) and that djak with the meaning of wdjy is found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible only in the books of Ecclesiastes, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles. (My thanks to Prof. Alexander Rofé of the Department of Bible at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem for pointing this out to me.)

80

Lea Mazor

,

more than in the prophecy of the Shoot, the humiliation of the snake, the enemy of human beings. The serpent, “whose food is the earth,” can never be freed from the primordial curse: “You will eat earth all the days of your life” (Gen 3:14). The eating of earth in the Hebrew Bible is an expression of humiliation: “Nations will see and be ashamed of all their powers . . . they will lick the earth like the serpent; like the reptiles of the land let them come trembling from their hiding places” (Mic 7:16–17); “Let desert-dwellers kneel before him and his enemies lick the dust” (Ps 72:9); and “They shall bow to you, face to the ground, and lick the dust of your feet” (Isa 49:23). 9 The affinities discussed above between the vision of the animals in the book of Isaiah and the creation traditions in Genesis 1–3 and Job 20:16– 17 show that the action of the Shoot will restore the world to its ideal order, as it was at the beginning of days, although the return to Eden will entail one correction: the serpent will not be released from its curse. The Shoot as a Tree and as a King (Isaiah 11:1–5) Isa 10:33–34 describes God as cutting down the high trees, and 11:1 describes the opposite process, the flourishing of the stumps: “Behold the Sovereign God of Hosts will hew off the tree-crowns with an ax; the tall ones will be felled, the lofty ones cut down; the thickets of the forest will be hacked away with iron, and the Lebanon trees will fall in their majesty. Then a shoot will grow from the stock of Jesse, and a branch will spring (axyw) from his roots” (10:33–11:1). The form of axyw (perfect + waw) subordinates 11:1 to the main sentence. 10 The future leader is described in 11:1–5. In the first verse he is portrayed as a tree, with all the descriptive terms belonging to the botanical field, except for the word “Jesse”; the words “Shoot” (rfj) and “branch” (rxn), which are ambivalent in this context, refer both to branches and to royal status. 11 The botanical terminology disappears in vv. 2–5, where the text uses language proper to a king. Thus, there are two currents in vv. 1–5: a metaphorical one referring to the tree and one 9. J. T. A. G. M. van Ruiten, “The Intertextual Relationship between Isaiah 65,25 and Isaiah 11,6–9,” in The Scriptures and the Scrolls: Studies in Honour of A. S. van der Woude on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (ed. F. García Martínez, A. Hilhorst, and C. J. Labuschagne; VTSup 49; Leiden: Brill, 1992) 31–42. 10. J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1–33 (WBC 24; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1985) 170. 11. M. Weinfeld, Justice and Righteousness in Israel and the Nations ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1985) 39–40 [Hebrew].

+

Myth, History, and Utopia in the Prophecy of the Shoot

81

of sayings that are fitting for a king. When the text refers to the leader as springing from the root of Jesse and as a branch from his stock, the two currents are joined in order to express the idea that the king descends from an ancient and reputable dynasty (cf. Mic 5:1). Reference to a leader as a tree and a king is found also in the parable of the cedar tree in the book of Ezekiel. The parable relates that God planted a cedar tree “on a high and towering mountain in the mountainous heights of Israel” (17:22–23). The cedar sprouts branches, bears fruit, and becomes a noble tree. “Every bird of every wing shall dwell beneath it” (v. 23). 12 To be sure, the parable is given without any explanation, but it is reasonable to assume that it alludes to the renewal of the Davidic dynasty. This historical process expresses God’s power to both exalt and abase trees: “I, the Lord, have abased the high tree, I have exalted the lowly tree, I have dried up the green tree, and have made the withered tree bud” (v. 24). The metaphor of king as tree recurs in Ezekiel 31. Here the prophet compares Pharaoh, king of Egypt, to a cedar of Lebanon whose stature is more lofty than any tree of the field. “Its branches multiplied and its boughs grew long because of the abundant water that welled up for it. In its branches nested all the birds of the sky; all the beasts of the field bore their young under its boughs, and in its shadow lived all the great nations” (v. 6). He grew up alongside abundant waters (vv. 5–6) and made all the other trees of the Garden of Eden, also called “the Garden of God” (vv. 7–8), jealous of him (vv. 17–18). The fate of the king changed when he transgressed and his heart became haughty. The description of his punishment integrates terms from both the human and the plant world. The tree’s sentence is “exile” (v. 11), a term fitting a person, and “cutting down” (v. 12), a term fitting a tree. Daniel 4 tells of King Nebuchadnezzar, who saw in his dream a tall tree whose top reached the heavens and whose breadth covered all the earth. In the account of the tree and its fate in vv. 7–9 and 11, the literary dependence on Ezek 31:3–6, 12–13 is conspicuous. The branches 12. This is derived from the flood story (Gen 7:14). The phrase stresses the great number and variety of fowl that will shelter in the great tree. M. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1– 20 (AB 22; New York: Doubleday, 1983) 316. G. A. Cooke, The Book of Ezekiel (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936) 191–92, emends: “And all ‘beasts’ shall dwell underneath it, And all birds shall dwell in its branches.” The MT reads bird; “but birds are mentioned in the next line; moreover, they do not dwell underneath trees. The correction is suggested by Ga.”

82

Lea Mazor

,

of the tree were beautiful, its fruit bountiful, supplying food for all. Under its branches all the beasts of the field and birds of the air take shelter. Everything is fine until an angel calls to cut down the tree. The progression of its downfall is inversely parallel to the portrayal of its prosperity: its branches are cut off, its fruit scattered, and the animals dispersed. In spite of all this the tree is not lost, since its roots remain in the ground. Daniel interprets the dream and says to the king: “The tree that you saw grow . . . it is you, O king” (vv. 17–19). The roots that remained in the ground are a sign that the king’s kingship will be renewed after the break. And so it was. Common to Ezekiel 17, 31, and Daniel 4 is the representation of the king as a tree. The tree is growing on a high hill (Ezekiel 17) or in a place with abundant water (Ezekiel 31). Its growth is measured in stages: the sprouting of branches, the bearing of fruit, and the attraction of animals who take shelter under it. The tree is susceptible to being chopped down, but if its roots remain in the earth it can renew itself. The tree is also exceptional. According to Ezekiel 31 it is larger, stronger, and more beautiful than even the trees of the Garden of Eden. The tree’s extraordinary stature and its serving as a shelter for all the animals separate it from the natural world. It is a cosmic tree. Commonalities exist between the prophecy of the Shoot and the metaphorical tree appearing in these passages in Ezekiel and Daniel, even though there is no direct literary dependence between them. It is possible that these derive from a common literary topos. The vision of Isa 11:1 mentions that from the roots of the tree stump a Shoot will sprout. After the account of the king/tree’s different stages of growth in v. 1 comes a description of the Shoot as king, the animal kingdom, a mention of the mountain, and, finally, a description of many waters. Just as the tree described in Ezekiel and Daniel is a supernatural one, so also the king in the prophecy of the Shoot is described in superhuman terms. The Shoot is endowed with divine characteristics. The literary unit describing its features is well structured, with a general statement, “And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him,” and three pairs of terms detailing it: “A spirit of wisdom and understanding / a spirit of counsel and courage / a spirit of knowledge and fear of the Lord” (vv. 1–2). Each of these three pairs begins with the word “spirit,” stressing the divine source of the Shoot’s characteristics. The Shoot will apply these endowments, bestowed upon him by the divine spirit, to carry out justice on the land. He will have a supernatural

spread is 3 points short

+

Myth, History, and Utopia in the Prophecy of the Shoot

83

capacity for judgment that does not depend on the evidence of the senses. The expression “He will not judge according to what he sees [literally: the sight of his eyes]” (v. 3) alludes to a passage defining the fundamental difference between God and man: “For not according to what man sees [does God see], 13 because man sees according to [his] eyes while the Lord sees the heart” (1 Sam 16:7). The Shoot will also be supernaturally capable of carrying out divine decrees. His utterance will suffice to carry out the death sentence on evildoers (Isa 11:4). The Shoot’s activity in the social and moral sphere will bring about the demise of all evildoers from the land and a fundamental change in the order of creation, as portrayed in the vision of the animals. Verse 9 says, “They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for as the waters fill the sea, so shall the land be filled with the knowledge of the Lord.” When the prophet employs the image of waters covering the earth, referring to the flood or the waters of the primeval world (Gen 1:2), he is describing a new creation. The expression “the holy Mount of God” (Isa 11:9) has different significations in the Hebrew Bible. It can be applied to the Temple Mount, to be expanded to refer to the city of Jerusalem, and even to all of Judah. “The holy Mount of God” refers also to the Garden of Eden in Ezekiel 28, where the terms “Eden” (v. 13) and “the holy Mount of God” (v. 14) are interchangeable. Since this expression has different meanings, the one intended in any specific passage must be determined according to the context and content of the passage. The holy Mount of God here is, in my view, God’s dwelling place—that is, the Temple, also conceived as the Garden of Eden. When the entire world is full of the knowledge of the Lord, God’s dwelling place will no longer be a place of evildoing and destruction. Verse 9 is the climax of the prophecy of the Shoot. It is the only place in the prophecy where God’s words are given in direct speech: “They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain.” The prophet explicates this in the words: “for as the waters fill the sea, so shall the land be filled with the knowledge of the Lord.” God’s holy place is where the determinative events take place—that is, the events that determine reality. At the dawn of history, man transgressed in the Garden of Eden, after which the reality of existence 13. As in the LXX: oßyetai oJ qeovÍ. This is apparently also the reading of 4QSamb. See F. M. Cross, “The Oldest Manuscripts from Qumran,” JBL 74 (1955) 166.

84

Lea Mazor

,

became changed into what we know today. What will prevent the new perfect reality from becoming corrupted again—will insure that humankind will not once again do evil and the world revert to its downfallen state? God’s declarative response, in the first person, that they will not do evil or destroy in the Mount of holiness, promises that the new reality brought about by the Shoot will never change. This, as mentioned, is the climax of the prophecy and its main message. It is thus not surprising that other prophets chose to quote precisely these words, as in Hab 2:14, quoting only v. 9; and Trito-Isaiah (65:25), also quoting v. 9. My discussion up to now has shown that there is a mythical background, not only for the passage dealing with the animals, vv. 6–8, but also for v. 9, dealing with the notion of the Lord’s holy Mountain as the Garden of Eden, and the image of water flooding the seas, recalling the myth of Creation. Does the passage of the Shoot in vv. 1–5 also have mythical affinities with the Creation and the Garden of Eden? The description of the Shoot’s characteristics in v. 2 contains three pairs. Each of these three is composed in an identical manner. The second member of each pair indicates a basic quality of the leader, three in total: understanding, courage, and fear of God, with the first member of each being a term from the semantic field of wisdom: wisdom, counsel, knowledge. Wisdom is thus combined with each quality. The first pair comprises two terms indicating wisdom; the second, counsel and courage—that is, cunning in the art of warfare (2 Kgs 18:20; cf. Isa 36:5). These qualities are hinted at in the names of the child that will sit on David’s throne according to the prophecy of Isa 9:5[6]: “And his name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.” The third pair comprises knowledge and the fear of God. 14 This pair is the most important, because only its qualities are explicitly mentioned again in the continuation of the passage: v. 3 mentions the fear of the Lord, and v. 9 mentions the knowledge of the Lord. 15 Thus, wisdom is the most conspicuous char14. From the linguistic aspect, “the spirit of knowledge and fear of the Lord” can be explained in two ways: either the spirit of knowledge and the spirit of fear of the Lord, or the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord (with ‘the Lord’ common to both nouns). 15. For the combination of ‘knowledge’ (t[d) and its synonyms with “fear of God,” see Isa 33:6, and especially the frequent compound expressions in wisdom literature: Prov 1:7, 29; 2:10; 8:12–15; 9:10; 15:33; Job 28:28.

Myth, History, and Utopia in the Prophecy of the Shoot

+

85

acteristic of the Shoot. His exceptional wisdom will be a divine attribute, because it derives from God’s spirit. Divine wisdom appears in the Hebrew Bible in creation traditions. According to the story of the Garden of Eden in the book of Genesis, eating from the tree of knowledge made man like God, knowing good and evil (Gen 3:5, 22). Ezekiel describes the man that was in the divine Garden of Eden as “full of wisdom” (Ezek 28:12), and Job 15:7–8 tells of the first man, who was “in God’s council,” listened, and gained wisdom. The prophecy of the Shoot states that the shoot from the stump of Jesse will channel his wisdom into the area of justice and righteousness, in line with biblical traditions attributing divine judicial wisdom to Solomon (1 Kgs 3:12, 28) and David (2 Sam 14:17, 20). The Metaphor of the Cosmic Tree as the Prophecy’s Organizing Principle (Isaiah 10:33–11:9) The prophecy opens with the cutting down of the high trees and the branching forth of the tree stump. Isa 11:1 describes the growth of the king/tree in stages. Pictorially visualizing the king/tree, the order of the prophecy’s components move in one glance from top to bottom, as it were. At the top, God’s spirit is found. The spirit rests on the king/tree. The text describes the king and his attributes, and then we look down and see the animals taking shelter in his shade, and the little child herding them. A glance even lower reveals, instead of the little child, the infant and the weaned child, the smallest, playing on the viper’s nest. The serpents themselves are not seen. The viper is in its hole and the adder is in its nest—that is, they are found under the ground. The suckling infant plays on the viper’s hole, expecting that it will strike from it. The weaned child, a bit more sophisticated, does not passively await the serpent’s appearance but takes initiative and sticks his hand into the nest in order to grab the adder. 16 This he does while over the nest—that is, the nest is under him. And here our glance goes even lower than the scene of the infant, because what happens concerns the weaned child’s hand and the adder, both of which are under the ground. Glancing yet lower, the Mount comes into view, and finally, the waters are seen. The phenomenon of rapid transition from one subject to another mentioned at the beginning of this discussion results from this structure. 16. On the meaning of hdh wdy (Isa 11:8), see Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 462.

86

Lea Mazor

,

The scene of the tree is a depiction of the universe from top to bottom: God’s spirit, the king/tree, the animals, the mountain, and the waters. Each unit of the prophecy describes a level in the picture of the world gradually revealed to the prophet’s vision. It is also possible to describe the progression as the flow of God’s spirit downward, through the Shoot, and out to the entire world. God’s spirit, resting on the Shoot, bestows on him divine attributes. By means of divine knowledge he acts to insure social justice, which then reaches the entire natural world and transforms it (peace among the animals and between them and mankind). The climax is when the knowledge of God fills the entire land like water flooding the sea. The organizing principle of the prophecy can also be described chronologically. First the Shoot appears; his activities to insure a just society bring about the abolition of evildoers. Afterward the natural world is transformed, the knowledge of God fills all and, finally, God decrees that the new order will never again be changed. The mythic symbol of the tree on the mountain, that determines the prophecy’s structure, expresses the divine cosmic order. The evildoers are the purveyors of chaos in the universe, and the role of the Shoot is to abolish them. The removal of the anarchic element by the Shoot activates a process of return to the divine order. The new situation where man no longer does evil or wreaks destruction obviates any need for the Shoot. It thus results that the Shoot is but a stage in the transition from present corrupt reality to an ideal existence. The Monarchist’s Addition (Isaiah 11:10) The metaphor of the tree determines the borders of the prophetic unit and its structure. Verse 9 is its climax and conclusion. There is no place for any further utterance. Verse 10 is an addition by someone who wanted to stress the importance of a future Davidic king: “On that day a scion from the root of Jesse will be set up as a signal to the peoples; the nations will rally to it, and its resting-place will be glorious.” The concept of rest is connected with David (Ps 132:8, 14), and especially with Solomon, who is characterized as “a man of rest,” and someone for whom “I will grant . . . rest from all his enemies round about” (1 Chr 22:9). In the prophecy of the Shoot, there is no place for any human leader after the Shoot cuts off the evildoers from the land, and a new creation, where man no longer does evil or wreaks destruction, is brought about.

+

Myth, History, and Utopia in the Prophecy of the Shoot

87

The monarchist responsible for this addition betrays the secondary nature of his words by expanding the sphere of the Shoot’s influence from Israel to the entire world, by employing military terminology in referring to the “signal to the peoples” (cf. 5:26), incongruent with the original prophecy, and by speaking of the “root of Jesse,” whereas the original prophecy spoke not of a root but of a “Shoot” that comes out of the root. The ‘Shoot’ (rfj) and ‘branch’ (rxn) are the subject of the prophecy, not the root. “The root of Jesse” betrays an attempt to connect the addition to 11:1: “Then a shoot shall grow from the stock of Jesse, and a branch shall spring from his roots.” This artificial inclusio misleads readers, because it creates the impression that the prophecy’s borders are 11:1–10, not 10:33–11:9. 17 A Prophecy against Assyrian Imperialism The mythical background of the prophecy does not deprive it of its historicity. Monarchic ideology, both within the Hebrew Bible and outside it, placed its faith in the king to bring about a world of plenty and fertility, such as obtained in the Garden of Eden (see, for example, Psalm 72). The prophecy of the Shoot contains allusions to the Davidic dynasty and to the Temple. The Shoot is described as coming out of “the stump of Jesse.” The expression “he will not judge according to the sight of his eyes” (v. 3) refers to the story of David’s anointing in 1 Samuel 16 (v. 7), and the words “and the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him” are similar to what is related in this same story: “And the spirit of the Lord fell upon (jlxtw) David from that day forward” (v. 13). The holy mountain of the Lord is, when not otherwise qualified, Jerusalem, the city of the Temple (Pss 2:6; 3:5; 48:2–3; 99:9). Moshe Weinfeld sees the prophecy of the Shoot as being a prophecy against Assyrian imperialism, 18 claiming that Isaiah had seen its terrors, beginning with Tiglath-pilesser III and ending with Sennacherib, and was the first to give voice against it and to prophesy the appearance of a divine ruler to take the place of Assyrian despotism. He sees in Isa 10:5–11:10 a kind of trilogy, containing:

17. Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 465–85; M. A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39: With an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (FOTL 16; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996) 197–98. 18. M. Weinfeld, “The Protest against Imperialism in Ancient Israelite Prophecy,” in The Origins and Diversity of Axial Age Civilizations (ed. S. N. Eisenstadt; Albany: State University of New York Press, 1986) 169–82.

88

Lea Mazor

,

1. protest against Assyrian rule and its crimes (10:5–15); 2. a prophecy of the destruction of Assyria (10:16–34); and 3. a prophecy of the appearance of a divine ruler and world redemption (11:1–10). Weinfeld states that the prophecy of the Shoot reveals a transference from Assyrian political imperialism to spiritual imperialism. The divine ruler, according to the prophecy, is possessed of the qualities of an imperial king, even though he rules not by means of power but of spirit. Weinfeld also points out that “the Shoot” is a widespread metaphor for an Assyrian king in Assyrian royal inscriptions, particularly in the days of Tiglath-pileser III. The inscriptions stress the fact that the origins of the Shoot lie in an ancient trunk. The characteristics attributed to the Shoot by the prophecy are the same basic qualities requisite of an Assyrian king, according to the Assyrian monarchic ideology: superior wisdom, great courage, and fear of the gods. The Vision of the Shoot as Utopia: Restoration and Revolutionary Elements The prophecy of the Shoot contains a declaration of the future appearance of a leader who will bring about a situation in which “they shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for as the waters fill the sea, so shall the land be filled with the knowledge of the Lord” (Isa 11:9). This leader is required because the present world is corrupt. Evil and injustice prevails in human society, the animal kingdom is full of beasts of prey, and suspicion and enmity exist between humans and animals. The prophet envisions a situation wherein a fundamental change in human society, in the animal kingdom, and between human beings and animals takes place. All the manifestations of evil in the world will disappear, and peace and harmony will prevail everywhere. The new world will be based on a structured hierarchy: humans will rule over the animals (v. 6), the Shoot will rule over humans (vv. 3–5), and the Shoot will be motivated by the spirit of the Lord (v. 2). The knowledge of God that will fill the land will insure the everlasting permanence of the perfect world order (v. 9). The prophecy foretells the coming of a new age, but it is easy to see that the picture of this new age comprises mostly images from the past: the glory of David and the Garden of Eden. Both of these have passed, to be sure, but not forever, since the Shoot will be a New David, and

+

Myth, History, and Utopia in the Prophecy of the Shoot

89

the perfect order will transform the world into a New Garden of Eden. The glory of the past is thus cast on the future. This course of ideas in the prophecy raises a problem: if the past was so perfect, how did this perfection become corrupted, with the leadership proving incapable of fulfilling its mission in establishing justice, and violence prevailing among living creatures? The critical evaluation of present reality implied in the prophecy is, then, not only in regard to the present but also in regard to the past. The Garden of Eden was an ideal that proved disappointing, just as the choice of David as king was disappointing. The substantial flaw in the glorious past was that it was not built upon a force capable of preventing the world’s corruption. This force is the revolutionary element appearing in Isaiah’s vision of the future. According to his vision, the knowledge of the Lord, bestowed on the Shoot and filling all the land, will not be a return to a previously existing state but an entirely new one. Only with knowledge of the Lord can the world maintain its perfect existence without danger of corruption by created beings, on the one hand, or fear of extermination by the Creator, on the other. The vision of the Shoot and the Garden of Eden myth portray a perfect existence and thus are utopian in character. 19 The difference between them is that the myth of the Garden of Eden places perfect existence at the beginning of days, while the vision of the Shoot envisions it for the future. Thus, the Garden of Eden is a utopian past, while the vision of the Shoot is a utopian future. The term “utopia” first appeared in the book by Thomas Moore, De optimo Reipublicae statu, deque nova insula Utopia (Louvain, 1516). The book describes an ideal social life on a remote island named Utopia. The name is derived from the Greek ouj tovpoÍ ‘No-Where’. The Garden of Eden is indeed the land of nowhere. According to Genesis 2–3, the Garden of Eden no longer exists, and the approach to it is blocked to humanity forever. If the Garden of Eden is a myth about a Nowhere Land, then the vision of the Shoot is a prophecy about Everywhere Land, for the entire land, according to Isaiah, will be filled with knowledge of the Lord like water flooding the seas. Just as there is no place in the sea not covered 19. For the classification of the Genesis Garden of Eden story as belonging to the literary type of Utopia, see Y. Amit, “Biblical Utopianism: A Map Makers Guide to Eden,” USQR 44 (1990) 11–17.

90

Lea Mazor

,

by water, so too there will be no place in the world not full of knowledge of the Lord. The addressee of the prophecy (the auditor or the reader) is found between two Utopias: between that of the past, which no longer exists, and that of the future, which does not yet exist. The prophecy contains no instigation of human activity that might bring the fulfillment of the vision closer, but the auditor’s/reader’s belief in a better future can itself serve as a motivating, hopeful force.

Covenants: The Sinaitic and Patriarchal Covenants in the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17–27) Jacob Milgrom Schechter Institute, Jerusalem

#

$

The Sinaitic covenant is first encountered in the Holiness Code (H) in Lev 18:2b. This is the only place in the book (indeed, in the entire Bible, except for the Decalogue) where the long formula ªånî Yhwh ªélohêkem ‘I am Yhwh your God’ stands at the head of a legal pericope. Elsewhere, it closes a legal pericope, where its rendering is ‘I Yhwh your God (have spoken)’ (e.g., 18:4b), and its short formula ªånî Yhwh is rendered ‘I Yhwh (have spoken)’ (e.g., 18:5b). 1 The exceptional placement of the long formula in chap. 18 is redolent of the self-declaration formula at the head of the Decalogue (Exod 20:2), and it may imply that the laws of Leviticus 18 are equivalent in importance to the Decalogue. The placement of the more complete Sinaitic self-declaration at the end of the blessings pericope (Lev 26:3–13) ‘I Yhwh am your God who freed you from the land of Egypt’ (26:13a), is a deliberate attempt to embody the thrust of the Sinaitic covenant: the blessings will occur if Israel earns them by obeying Yhwh’s commandments (26:3). There are many indications that the term bérît in the blessings and curses of chap. 26 nearly always refers to, or includes, the Sinaitic covenant: 1. Léhaprékem ªet-bérîtî ‘(your) breaking my covenant’ (26:15) refers at least to all of the commandments of priestly authorship, whereas the single use of the same idiom, ªet-bérîtî hepar, in regard

Author’s note: I am delighted to dedicate this small essay on covenants to the doyen in the field of covenant studies, my friend and colleague Moshe Weinfeld. 1. See the discussion in my Leviticus 17–22 (AB 3a; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 1517–18.

91

92

Jacob Milgrom

,

to the patriarchal covenant (Gen 17:14b) refers to the nonobservance of one commandment, circumcision, the sign of P’s covenant. 2. Again, the broken covenant avenged by the sword (Lev 26:25) must refer to the Sinaitic covenant. In contrast, elements of rewards and punishments are missing in the patriarchal covenant. 2 The triad of punishments—sword, plague, and famine (26:25– 26)—explicitly follows in the wake of breaking a covenant ( Jer 34:17; cf. Isa 33:8; Ezek 17:11–21), indicating that we are encountering the Sinaitic covenant. 3. Finally, the Sinaitic covenant contains the exclusive reference to the binding formula between Israel and Yhwh, wéhayîtî lakem leªlohîm wéªattem tihyû-lî léºam ‘I will (continue to) be your God, and you shall be my people’ (26:12). Only half of this formula is found in the patriarchal covenant (Gen 17:8 [H]; the patriarchs are not an ºam!). The full formula appears in Exod 6:7 (H), which adumbrates the Mosaic covenant. 3 The patriarchal covenant is explicitly mentioned in Lev 26:42; it alone specifies the promise of land and seed. It too is a conditional covenant. 4 Older covenantal references imply conditionality (e.g., Gen 18:19 [ JE]). Moreover, since Gen 17:4 (cited above) is a Priestly text, it posits P’s basic doctrine that, if the sanctuary is defiled by Israel’s sins, God will abandon Israel to conquest, subjugation, and expulsion. 5 This reciprocity is absent in patriarchal covenantal accounts. Some scholars hold that the term bérît with the ancestors (Lev 26:45) refers to the patriarchal covenant. Consider Wessely’s and Bertholet’s views:

2. Cf. I. Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 141–45. 3. Cf. Leviticus with Ibn Ezra’s Commentary: Mehoqeqe Yehuda (ed. J. L. Krinsky; Bnai-Brak: Horeb, 1961) [Hebrew]; Commentary of the Ramban on the Torah (ed. H. O. Chavel; Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1960) [Hebrew]; The Commentary of Sforno (ed. A. Darom and Z. Gottlieb; Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1980) [Hebrew]. 4. Indeed, the fact that the patriarchs are named in v. 42, whereas all other covenantal references in chap. 26 (vv. 9, 15, 25, 44, 45) are unidentified, indicates that the latter must refer to the Sinaitic covenant. (Note that 26:9b refers to v. 11 and not to 9a; hence, it too has the Sinaitic covenant in mind.) 5. Contra F. M. Cross, From Epic to Canon (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998) 13–19 and the consensus.

The Sinaitic and Patriarchal Covenants in the Holiness Code

+

93

1. Lev 26:45 verse argues that, just as God remembered the patriarchal covenant for the exiles in Egypt (Exod 2:24; 6:2–8), so he will remember it for the present exiles. 6 2. In all of P and H, bérît ‘covenant’ never refers to Sinai. 7 These reasons are flawed. The Egyptian experience is not analogous. In Egypt, Israel had only the patriarchal covenant to rely on; people in later exiles could also be sustained by the Sinaitic covenant. The argument of silence concerning bérît is equally invalid. The only text that matters is chap. 26, and the covenant containing laws, rules, commandments, and the consequences for their nonobservance, which can only be the Sinaitic covenant, is alluded to three times: vv. 15, 25a, 44a. Moreover, as observed by Gerstenberger, 8 the polaric behavior in chap. 26, imposing obligations on each side, is characteristic only of the Sinai covenant. Ezekiel often refers to the Sinaitic covenant in his condemnation of Israel: “Truly, thus said Yhwh God: I will deal with you as you have dealt, for you have spurned the pact and violated the covenant” (16:59). Then, following the sequence of our chapter (vv. 40–42, 45), he reaffirms the validity of this covenant, “nevertheless, I will remember the covenant I made with you in the days of your youth” (bîmê néºûrayik; note the reference to Jer 2:2, another indication that the subject is the Sinaitic covenant), and makes explicit what is only implicit in our verse: “and I will maintain an everlasting covenant with you [wahåqimôtî lak bérît ºôlam]” (Ezek 16:60). A decisive answer, however, can be given only by the terminology, beginning with the immediately following ambiguous clause ªaser hôßeªtîªotam. On the one hand, it is possible to argue that this clause refers back to the patriarchal covenant in the pre-Sinaitic declaration, waªezkor ªetbérîtî laken . . . wéhôßeªtî ªetkem ‘and I remembered my covenant. Therefore, . . . I shall free them” (Exod 6:5b–6:6aa). In that case, ªaser would have to be emended to baªåser—that is, preceded by the beth of means. 6. N. H. Wessely, Netivot Ha-shalom, vol. 3: Leviticus (ed. M. Mendelssohn; Vienna: von Schmid & Busch, 1846). 7. A. Bertholet, Leviticus (Tübingen: Mohr, 1901); P. Buis, “Comment au septième siècle envisagerait-on l’avenir de l’Alliance? Étude de lv. 26, 3–45,” in Questions disputées d’Ancient Testament (ed. C. Brokelmans; Louvain: J. Duculot, 1974) 131–40. 8. E. S. Gerstenberger, Leviticus (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), trans. D. W. Stott, from Das drittle Buch Mose: Leviticus (Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1993).

94

Jacob Milgrom

,

Then, our clause could be rendered ‘the covenant with the ancestors by which I freed them’. But in the few cases where baªåser is attested, the beth of means never occurs. 9 Alternatively, v. 45a could be rendered ‘I who took them out from the land of Egypt will remember their first covenant’. 10 However, this reading would require a transposition of v. 45aa and v. 45ab. Besides, what in the MT corresponds with ‘I (who)’, which requires the use of the pronoun ªanî? If, on the other hand, the referent is the Sinaitic covenant, neither emendation nor transposition is required. The clause means ‘whom I freed’ or ‘for whose sake I freed’, 11 which can refer only to the generation of the Exodus. (The writer, of course, has had to abandon the fiction that he is a member of that generation.) The term riªsonîm also requires investigation. If the author had the patriarchal covenant in mind, he could have written bérît ªåbotêka ‘the covenant with your fathers’, as in Deut 4:31, which clearly refers to the patriarchs. 12 Moreover, where riªsonîm does not take the article (Deut 19:14; Isa 61:4; Ps 79:8), it carries the plural sense of ‘previous generations’. 13 In fact, one of its three attestations, loªtassig gébûl reºåka ªåser gabélû riªsonîm ‘You shall not move your neighbor’s landmark, set up by the previous generations’ (Deut 19:14a), is wisdom instruction, duplicated in Prov 22:28, ªal tasseg gébûl ºôlam ªåser ºa¶û ªabotêka ‘Move not the ancient landmark set up by your fathers’, where riªsonim is paralleled by ªåbotêka, referring to the fathers of many previous generations. Moreover, Joosten 14 correctly remarks that riªsonîm exhibits the “wellknown tendency of the Holiness Code occasionally to step out of its fictional framework so as to address its real addressees directly.” 15 Since Lev 26:45, in my opinion, was composed by exilic HR, 16 the use of riªsonîm ‘ancestors’ so many generations later is apt. 9. Cf. BDB 84a. 10. W. H. C. Propp, “The Priestly Source Recovered Intact?” VT 46 (1996) 475 n. 69. 11. Commentary of the Rashbam on the Torah (ed. A. I. Bromberg; Jerusalem: Author’s Publications, 1969) [Hebrew]. 12. M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11 (AB 5; New York: Doubleday, 1991). 13. Cf. P. Joüon, Grammaire de l’hébreu biblique (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1923); corrected ed., 1965. 14. J. Joosten, “Covenant Theology in the Holiness Code,” ZABR 4 (1998) 152, citing K. Elliger, Leviticus (HAT 4; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1966) 379. 15. See note on “vomited out,” Lev 18:25 in my Leviticus 17–22, 1580–81. 16. See the Introduction to Lev 26:1–2 in my Leviticus 23–27 (AB 3b; New York: Doubleday, 2001) 2275–79.

spread is 12 points long

The Sinaitic and Patriarchal Covenants in the Holiness Code

+

95

Therefore, the verdict must be in favor of the Sinaitic covenant. One question, however, still remains to be resolved. Just as the patriarchal covenant should have been termed bérît ªåbotêka, so the Sinaitic covenant should have been called by the more obvious term bérît sînay, particularly since it occurs in the envelope of chaps. 25–26 (25:1; 26:46). Why, then, the rare and enigmatic riªsonîm? I would suggest that the author of this verse wanted to refer to both covenants simultaneously. First, as noted, this term implies multiple generations. Then, the author must have had the patriarchal covenant also in mind, because he refers to it (v. 42). Thus, he had to connect the two covenants with a single word. He may even have regarded the two as a single covenant. Since the universal demands for morality inherent in the patriarchal covenant 17 remain in effect, it is possible to speak of the Sinaitic covenant as an extension of its patriarchal forerunner. Above all, H was telling his audience (and us) that God will restore Israel to its land both on the basis of the patriarchal covenant, the promise of progeny and land (v. 42), and on the basis of the Sinaitic covenant, Israel’s observance of the revealed commandments (vv. 3, 14–15). The tacit assumption derivable from this conclusion is that, with the Sinaitic covenant continuing in force, the gruesome consequences detailed in this chapter also remain in force. How different is H’s implicit warning from the subsequent picture of the return from exile envisaged by the prophets ( Jer 31:31–33; Ezek 36:24–30)? Finally, the reference to the Sinaitic covenant in this verse (and allusions to it in 19:2–4; 26:1–2, 15a, 25a) should put an end to the question that has plagued theologians since the beginning of modern scholarship: Why is the Sinaitic covenant absent from P? Zimmerli 18 holds that it was deliberately exorcised from P (and H) so that the relationship between Yhwh and Israel would no longer be conditioned by Israel’s obedience to the commandments. Instead, it is the covenant with Abraham that is given prominence, a covenant of promise (Verheissungsbund) and grace (Gnadenbund). Thus Israel is able to survive in the exile without its Temple and state, not by obedience to God’s law, but by his eternal grace. Zimmerli’s thesis cannot be sustained. First, that God’s covenant with Abraham is one of pure grace is totally refuted by the P source itself: hithallek lépanay wehyeh tamîm wéªetténâ bérîtî bênî ûbêneka ‘Walk before me, and be blameless, and I will 17. Cf. Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 147. 18. W. Zimmerli, “Sinaibund und Abrahambund,” TZ 16 (1960) 268–80.

96

Jacob Milgrom

,

make a covenant between me and you’ (Gen 17:1b–2a). Therefore, the covenant with Abraham is conditioned on Abraham’s blameless behavior, not on God’s grace. 19 Moreover, his descendants are equally bound by this condition: “I have chosen him (Abraham) that he may charge his children and his household after him to keep the way of Yhwh by doing righteousness and justice” (Gen 18:19a [ JE]). Thus, the Abrahamic covenant is not one of grace; it is not even unconditional. 20 This verse can hardly be called “an expectation”; 21 it is a condition. Similarly, Gen 17:1b, hithallek lépanay wehyeh tamîm is not equivalent to the Akkadian ittalak mahriya and (ittalak) salmis, 22 since the latter verbs are perfects, while the former are imperatives, so that the covenant (v. 2a) is clearly conditional on Abraham’s moral rectitude. Finally, as shown by Knoppers, 23 available evidence in the ancient Near East from Mari, Ugarit, Hatti, 24 Babylonia, Assyria, and Elephantine shows that grants, either explicitly or implicitly, are conditional. The recipient and his progeny are expected to provide obligatory service in the form of military service, land cultivation, and/or payment of dues (cf. Gen 18:19). Crüsemann 25 has argued that Yhwh’s explicit statement that he will never repudiate the covenant (v. 44a) can refer only to the Abrahamic covenant, which is “independent of failure on Israel’s part.” However, 19. B. K. Waltke, “The Phenomenon of Conditionality within Unconditioned Covenants,” in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration (ed. A. Gileadi; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988) 123–39; J. Joosten, The People and Land in the Holiness Code (Ph.D. diss., Universitaire Protestantse Godgeleerdheid te Brussels, 1994) 154–57; (Leiden: Brill [revised], 1996) 110–12. 20. This requires a revision of Weinfeld’s Covenant of Grant hypothesis, expounded in “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 90 (1970) 184–203; 92 (1972) 468–69, followed by many; most recently, E. Otto, “Gesetzesfortschreibung und Pentateuchredaktion,” ZAW 107 (1995) 390. 21. M. Weinfeld, The Promise of the Land (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993) 249 n. 118. 22. Ibid., 230. 23. G. Knoppers, “Ancient Near Eastern Royal Grants and the Davidic Covenant: A Parallel?” JAOS 116 (1996) 670–97. 24. But cf. M. Weinfeld, “Traces of Hittite Cult in Shilo, Bethel and in Jerusalem,” in Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrian und dem Alten Testament (ed. B. Janowski et al.; OBO 129; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990) 455–72. 25. F. Crüsemann, The Torah (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), which is a flawed trans. by A. W. Mahnke of De Dora: Theologie und Sozialgeschichte des Alttestamentlichen Gesetzes (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1992).

The Sinaitic and Patriarchal Covenants in the Holiness Code

+

97

as explicated in vv. 40–41, the divine willingness to fulfill the covenant is dependent on Israel’s penitence. Moreover, even the Abrahamic covenant is contingent on the behavior of Abraham’s progeny, “in order that Yhwh may bring about for Abraham what he has promised him” (Gen 18:19b). Yhwh does not change; his promise remains unbroken. But, for it to be realized, Israel must change. Otherwise, Israel remains in exile (the ultimate national punishment) forever. Indeed, as pointed out above, the laws and commandments (Lev 26:3, 15) that Israel is obligated to obey most easily point to Sinai as their source. In truth, however, it turns out in the long run that there is little difference between the covenants of Abraham and Sinai in regard to their fulfillment. 26 The difference lies in their content, but their realization is dependent on Israel’s behavior. Even more recently, Cross has argued that both the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants are unconditional. 27 His evidence is the thirteenthcentury Hittite covenant between Tudkhaliyas IV and Ulmi-Teshep, 28 which states that rebellious sovereigns may be removed, but they must be succeeded by members of the same dynasty. This policy holds for the Davidic covenant but breaks down when applied to the seed of Abraham. Yhwh will remember the covenant only if Israel repents (Lev 26:41–42). This view accords with other pentateuchal sources that aver that Israel will occupy the land or remain on it if it is obedient to the covenant (Exod 23:20–25 [ JE]; Lev 18:26–28; 26:14–15, 32–33 [H]; Deut 4:1; 8:1; 11:8 [D]). Thus, despite the Abrahamic promise, it is possible that a sinful Israel could be removed from its land, never to return. The prophets maintain that God purges the wicked but not the entire people. Yet his fidelity to Israel is always contingent on a righteous remnant (e.g., eighth-century Isa 1:18–20; 10:20–22; 17:4–6). Thus, God’s covenant with Israel is conditional. To be sure, this view changes in the exile. As indicated in the exilic additions to chap. 26 (vv. 33b–35, 43), the return to the land will take place only after the barren land makes up the number of its violated sabbatical years. Isaiah of the exile transfers the determining factor from the land to Israel: Israel must pine sufficiently in the exile (Isa 40:2). However, H and the other preexilic 26. See my Leviticus 23–27, 2343–46. 27. Cross, From Epic to Canon, 14–15 n. 41. 28. Weinfeld, “Covenant of Grant,” 189–90.

98

Jacob Milgrom

,

sources maintain that God’s fidelity to his covenant is conditional on the observance of the covenant. Thus, the reciprocal obligations implied by H’s covenant (vv. 15, 25a 44a), the explicit association of H’s covenant with the Exodus generation (v. 45a), and the possibility that H’s Sabbath is a covenantal sign (Exod 31:16–17) can only lead to the conclusion that the Priestly school of H presumed the existence of the Sinaitic covenant. How, then, can we explain its absence in the H source? One must conclude that the H redactor either removed P’s Sinaitic tradition when he merged JE and P 29 or preferably, he relied on E’s account of such a ceremony (Exod 24:1–8). 30 Moreover, the redactor’s hand is clearly visible in the placement of Priestly texts as encasing the Sinaitic pericope (Exod 19:1–2; 24:15b–18), further indicating that he adopted the entire epic tradition of the Sinaitic event. This eventuality still leaves open the question about the absence of such a tradition in P itself. To be sure, P speaks of a Sinaitic theophany in the Tabernacle on the day following the week-long consecration rites for the priesthood, when Yhwh’s kabôd-fire incinerates the sacrifices at the inaugural service (Lev 9:23–24). However, a ceremony binding the people to God’s laws would still be lacking. The problem is discussed further in my Introduction II F. 31 Here, I briefly state my conclusion. P does not know the Sinaitic revelation and covenant; it relates only that Yhwh’s cloud (presence) descended into the completed Tabernacle (Exod 40:34–35) and, by means of incinerating the altar’s sacrifices with the divine fire emanating from the adytum (indicating his presence there; Lev 9:24), Yhwh indicates his acceptance of the priestly service. That is, he demonstrates his willingness to abide among Israel. But H, as shown by its polemics with the laws of JE, is as much aware of JE as it is of P. Therefore, H can and does absorb the Sinaitic revelation and covenant. And as exemplified by Leviticus 26, H has incorporated both of JE’s covenants (patriarchal and Sinaitic) and both revelations (P’s Tabernacle and JE’s Sinai).

29. G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology (trans. D. M. G. Stalker; vol. 1; New York: Harper & Row, 1962) 135. 30. F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973) 320. 31. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1394–97.

spread is 12 points short

The Sinaitic and Patriarchal Covenants in the Holiness Code

+

99

All of these observations on the nature of the covenant so frequently mentioned or implied in Leviticus 26 demonstrate that the word bérît refers mainly to the Sinaitic covenant (vv. 3, 12, 13, 15, 25), whereas the patriarchal covenant is the explicit subject of only one verse (v. 42; possibly in v. 9). And even the latter two verses are not governed by unconditionality, as shown above. Thus, it can no longer be proposed that chap. 26 refers to postexilic times, when the alleged unconditional covenant was supposedly invoked to justify and spur Israel’s return to its land. It can be demonstrated that the Priestly term heqîm bérît does not mean ‘establish a covenant’ but ‘uphold/maintain a covenant’. 32 Thus, wéhåqîmotî ªet bérîtî should be rendered ‘I will uphold my covenant’. Conversely, Israel annuls the covenant léhaprékem ªet-bérîtî (26:15), which Yhwh refuses to do (léhaper bérîtî, v. 44). The theological import of this antithesis between heqîm and heper is Yhwh’s commitment that he will never desert Israel, however much it violates the covenantal terms. Yhwh will punish Israel with increasingly severe human and natural scourges and eventually banish it into exile. But, since Yhwh has never broken his commitment to the covenant, he is ready to restore Israel to its land, once it contritely confesses its sins. 33 Ezekiel reaffirms (heqîm) the eternity of Yhwh’s covenant with Israel (16:60, 62). In addition, he avers that Yhwh will make a new covenant (karat): the blessings peace from enemies and voracious beasts, rain in its season, fertile crops, cessation of famine, breakage of “the bars of their yoke,” and the (marriage) bond specifying that Israel will be Yhwh’s people and Yhwh will be Israel’s God, which in H is a conditional promise (26:3–13)—in keeping with the Sinaitic covenant—but in Ezekiel becomes an everlasting (i.e., unconditional) covenant (Ezek 34:26–30; 37:26). Another indication that H is fully aware of the Sinaitic covenant is its artful interpretation of the Decalogue in structuring its message. For example, the original core of chap. 19 34 consists of an inclusio (vv. 3–4, 30–32) based on commandments 1, 2, 4, and 5, but nearly in reverse order: 5, 4, 1, and 2 in vv. 3–4 (parents, Sabbath, idolatry, images); and chiastically, 4, 2, 5, and 1 in vv. 30–32 (Sabbath, images [mediums], 32. See my Leviticus 17–22, 1395. 33. See my Leviticus 23–27, 2343–46. 34. See the discussion in the note on 26:44, ibid., 2337, 2343–46.

100

Jacob Milgrom

,

parents [elders], Yhwh only). In the present MT, the appendix, vv. 33– 36, 35 ends with a restatement of the Decalogue’s prologue (Exod 20:2), thereby forming an inclusio with v. 2b. Thus, the H tradent responsible for the appendix was aware that chap. 19, which he had before him, contained an inclusio based on the Decalogue (vv. 3–4, 30–32). He therefore decided to give his expanded chap. 19 (including vv. 33–36) the form of the Decalogue by basing the inclusio on the prologue to the Decalogue. The Decalogue, however, is secondary to the content of chap. 19. That is, the God who freed Israel from Egypt (v. 36b) is also the holy God who can and should be emulated by his people through their fulfillment, not only of the Decalogue, but of the additional duties enjoined upon Israel in this chapter. 36 That the 5th and 4th commandments were chosen to head chap. 19’s list (in that order) may reflect an attempt to show that ethics (respect for parents) and ritual (Sabbath observance) are of equal importance, with a nod in favor of ethics. Concerning why the 3d commandment (sawª ‘vain oath’) was omitted from the inclusio, the reason is perhaps due to the author’s decision to place a lying (seqer) oath into the pericope where he needed it, namely, in his supplement to 5:20–26 in 19:11–12. 37 Alternatively, and preferably, H may have chosen commandments that deal with group rather than individual wrongs (see below). The comparison of Lev 25:55b–26:2 with Exodus 20 and Leviticus 19 38 shows that the former is a rephrasing of commandments 1, 2, and 4 of the Decalogue. The author, whom I identify as the exilic H tradent and redactor (HR), bypassed the commandments that relate to individual behavior (3, 5, 6–10) in favor of the 3 commandments that are the determinants of Israel’s existence and, hence, appropriate as a prolepsis of the curses (vv. 26:14–25) that follow. This tradent (HR) did not want the term sabbat limited to the septannate (26:34–35, 43). He therefore added the weekly Sabbath (26:2), simply by quoting 19:30, so that Israel’s exile would be extended by an additional 90 years. 39 The content of 26:1–2—its stress on idolatry, 35. Cf. M. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20 (AB 22; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983) 291, 303–4. 36. Cf. B. J. Schwartz, The Holiness Legislation: Studies in the Priestly Code ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1999) 277–80 [Hebrew]. 37. Ibid.; see my Leviticus 17–22, 1596–1602. 38. See further, ibid., 1603–8. 39. See their notes, ibid., 1630–36; and my Leviticus 1–16 (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991) 335–39, 365–78.

page is 12 points long

+

The Sinaitic and Patriarchal Covenants in the Holiness Code

101

rather than H’s specification of sexual violations (18:24–30; 20:22), as the cause of Israel’s exile; the use of ma¶kît, a late term (Num 33:52; Ezek 8:12); and the reference to the septannate (26:34–35, 43, exilic passages)—lead inexorably to the conclusion that 26:1–2 is also of exilic provenance. This conclusion is buttressed by the absence of any mention of idolatry in all of H (except for Molek), a sign that 26:1–2 stems from a period later than the eighth century, the main provenance of H. Thus, 25:55b–26:2 (HR) sums up in a condensed form the divine laws determinative of Israel’s (return to and) continuous presence in its land by selecting and rephrasing 3 commandments of the Decalogue: exclusive adherence to Yhwh, his aniconic worship, and the Sabbath observance. Since HR is interested only in national factors of Israel’s destiny, he cites 19:30 as his support text for the Sabbath (rather than 19:3), because it includes another national factor: reverence for the sanctuary (i.e., the cult). In sum, HR, the redactor, is heir to four traditions: two patriarchal (Genesis 15 [ JE]; 17 [P]) and two Sinaitic (Exodus 19–24 [ JE]; Leviticus 9 [P]). Whereas the early Priestly tradition (P) contains no verbal revelation (like the Decalogue) and ratification ceremony, but only Yhwh’s acceptance of the priestly service by incinerating inaugural sacrifices (Lev 9:24), the later Priestly redaction (HR) incorporates the texts of both covenants of the epic source (Genesis 15; Exodus 19–24) alongside its own Priestly tradition (Genesis 17; Leviticus 9). In effect, we are witnessing the formation of the pentateuchal canon.

102

Jacob Milgrom

This page intentionally left blank.

,

“Yet I Have Been to Them f[m çdqml in the Countries Where They Have Gone” (Ezekiel 11:16) B. Oded University of Haifa

#

$

The deportations carried out by the Assyrians and Babylonians from the kingdoms of Israel and Judah to Mesopotamia and other countries presented the exiles with a serious problem: how were they to continue worshiping the God of Israel in Exile? How was it possible to revere God without sacrifices at a holy place of some kind? A people who did not perform sacrifices and give offerings would be considered by the alien environment as a group who did not fear God (gods), which was one of the Assyrian justifications for going to war against an enemy. 1 The deportees who were settled in Samaria continued to worship their gods in the same manner as in their land of origin, and at the same time they served the God of Israel (2 Kings 17). If the people of Judah built sanctuaries to God in Egypt, 2 and Isaiah himself prophesied a sacrificial cult outside the Promised Land (Isa 19:19), one may well infer that the people from Israel and Judah exiled by Assyria and Babylonia would build temples or high places to God at their settlements in the Babylonian exile. To continue with regular worship practices as in the homeland and to offer sacrifices in keeping with the tradition of their ancestors would be the norm. The silence of the sources on the erection of a temple(s) by the exiles in Assyria and Babylonia should not be considered 1. B. Oded, War, Peace and Empire (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1992) 125–35. 2. B. Porten, ”The Jews in Egypt,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism: Introduction; the Persian Period (ed. W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984) 1.372–400; L. Bonner, “Sacrificial Cult among the Exiles in Egypt but Not in Babylonia—Why ?” Dor le Dor 9 (1980/1) 61–71, and the literature there.

103

B. Oded

104

,

proof of their nonexistence, unless weighty factors are adduced that rule out the presence of holy places for sacrifices and offerings. 3 Arguments for the Presence of Holy Places in Mesopotamia In light of the above, arguments have been made in favor of the supposition that temples or holy places of some kind were established by the exiles in Mesopotamia. f[m çdqml ‘A Little Sanctuary’ “Thus said the Lord God: Although I have removed them far off among the countries, yet I have been to them as a little sanctuary (çdqml f[m) in the countries where they have gone ” (Ezek 11:16). 4 Literally, f[m çdqm means a small or a temporary temple. 5 Scholars use this verse as a focal point in postulating the existence of a sacrificial cult at a temple for Yahweh during the Babylonian exile. However, this seems not to mean an actual temple, but an abstract, spiritual idea—that of the presence of God among the exiles. 6 The phrase f[m çdqm may also be seen as an expression of consolation for the exiles, who are in a state of 3. On this problem and discussion, see M. Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics That Shaped the Old Testament (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971) 90; idem, “The Veracity of Ezekiel, the Sins of Manasseh, and Jeremiah 44:18,” ZAW 87 (1975) 11– 16; Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration (OTL; London: SCM, 1968) 32–35. 4. P. M. Joyce, “Dislocation and Adaptation in the Exilic Age and After,” in After the Exile: Essays in Honor of R. Mason (ed. J. Barton and D. J. Reimer; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1996) 45–58. Joyce discusses the passage (vv. 14–21) in which the phrase appears, focusing on literary-philological analysis, whereas this paper concentrates on historical-religious considerations. 5. On the ambiguity of the word f[m in this phrase, which could be interpreted adjectivally or adverbially, and temporally or qualitatively (degree), see D. I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997) 349–50. For discussion, see Joyce, “Dislocation and Adaptation,” 55–56. On temporary temples in Mesopotamia, see V. A. Hurowitz, “Temporary Temples,” in Kinattutu sa darâti (R. Kutscher Memorial Volume; ed. A. F. Rainey; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, Institute of Archaeology, 1993) 37–50. On “small sanctuaries” besides the great Temple, see A. C. V. M. Bongenaar, The Neo-Babylonian Ebabbar Temple at Sippar: Its Administration and Its Prosopography (PIHANS 80; Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1997) 170. 6. M. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20 [AB22; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983] 190; W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel, vol. 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel—Chapters 1–24 (trans. R. E. Clements; Hermenia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 115–16, 262–64

+

“Yet I Have Been to Them f[m çdqml”

105

crisis. God has not deserted them, even though He exiled them far away from Jerusalem to Babylonia. 7 God Himself has become a “sanctuary” for the exiles. 8 Later on, the sages, as is known, interpreted the phrase as referring to synagogues (b. Meg. 29a). 9 µwqmh ‘The Place’ The dispute over the existence of sanctuaries or altars in exile also rests on the phrase in Ezra 8:17, µwqmh aypskb. In various texts, µwqmh denotes a holy precinct, 10 and at Casiphia it was a concentration of ritual attendants, headed by Iddo, the ‘chief ’. Accordingly, the phrase has been interpreted as referring to a temple or a high place. This argument, too, lacks incisive proof, for only Levites and µynytn were at Casiphia (priests are not mentioned), and Levites did not perform sacrifices (see Ezek 44:9–16; Numbers 16). Nor is the fact of their concentration there a proof, since the Assyrian system of deportation was by groups and many times according to places of settlement. Incense Altars Altars for incense with four horns have been interpreted as Israelite altars. Such four-horned altars have been found in Judah, Israel, and Philistia. Regarding the latter, the feature is explained as Israelite influence. Such an incense altar was excavated at Nineveh, dating to the end with references to other texts on this matter; Joyce, “Dislocation and Adaptation,” 45– 48; M. Weinfeld, “Instructions to Visitors to the Temple in the Bible and in Ancient Egypt,” Tarbiz 62 (1993) 5–15 [Hebrew]. 7. On the belief in the ancient Near East that a god (gods) in his anger abandoned his temple and scattered his people who rebelled against him, see, e.g., the inscription of Esarhaddon concerning the destruction of Babylon by his father, Sennacherib. See N. Al-Mutawalli, “A New Foundation Cylinder from the Temple of Nabû Sa Har,” Iraq 61 (1999) 192. 8. Joyce, “Dislocation and Adaptation,” 50, 54, and the references to Lev 19:30; 26:2; and Isa 8:13–14. 9. Indeed, the institution of the synagogue, one of the essential characteristics of Judaism, was developed only later on, but “it is just possible that an institution that might be termed a ‘protosynagogue’ took its first step” (M. Cogan, “Into Exile,” in The Oxford Dictionary of the Biblical World [ed. M. D. Coogan; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998] 360). 10. See, for example, Gen 22:3; 28:11, 19; Hos 5:15; Jer 7:12; Isa 26:21; Mic 1:3; and also Isa 60:13; Ps 24:3. On µwqm as a holy place in West Semitic inscriptions, see the appropriate dictionaries.

106

B. Oded

,

of the eighth or early seventh century. Is this proof of an Israelite place of ritual at Nineveh? Apparently not, because it is more reasonable to assume that the altar was taken as booty from Judah (or Philistia) by an Assyrian king. 11 Priests In Exile there were many priests, including the high priest, who retained their status and their priestly pedigree (2 Kgs 25:18). The vessels of God were taken to Babylon as well (2 Kgs 24:8–17; Jer 27:16–22; 28:1–9; Ezra 1:7–11; 4 Ezra 4:55; 6:17–26). How did these priests support themselves, and in what were they engaged, if not in their special holy work? Denial of Apostasy and Polemics against Idolatry Certain texts and passages in the Bible are interpreted by some commentators as proof, or at least as a hint, of the existence of temples and worship at high places. Examples are the following: (a) 2 Kgs 17:34–40: This passage refers to the exiles from the Northern Kingdom who continued in the sin of the cult even in Assyria. 12 In addition, in verses such as Deut 4:28; 28:36, 64; 29:16, there is a link between exile and idolatry. In any event, the polemic against idolatry and the inherent connection between foreign lands and idolatry do not constitute proof that a temple to Yahweh did exist. (b) Ezek 8:15–18 is interpreted as referring to a ritual place in Babylonia (see also 14:3). Clearly, this is no more than mere conjecture, going beyond the evidence. 13 Certain passages in the so-called Deutero-Isaiah (Isaiah 40–55), which contain polemics against paganism, are interpreted as being directed against the exiles and therefore attesting that the exiles worshiped idols. 14 (c) Ezekiel 20: Ezekiel, the prophet, berates the elders for apostasy after the manner of their fathers. Some interpret this prophecy against the background of 11. See S. Gitin, ” Incense Altars from Ekron, Israel, and Judah: Context and Typology,” ErIsr 20 (Yadin Volume; 1989) 63. 12. M. Z. Brettler, The Creation of History in Ancient Israel (London: Routledge, 1995) 36–37, 114–34, and the reference there to M. Cogan, who discusses this chapter. In Brettler’s view, the passage was written before 586 b.c.e. 13. See de Vaux’s arguments against this claim: R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (trans. J. McHugh; London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1961) 339–40. 14. Y. Hoffman, “The Conception of ‘Other Gods’ in the Deuteronomistic Literature,” IOS 14 (1994) 103–18.

+

“Yet I Have Been to Them f[m çdqml”

107

the controversy that erupted among the exiles over whether to build a high place/temple (v. 29) in Babylonia and the opposition of the prophet to doing so in Exile. 15 True, a quarrel over whether to build an altar/temple may be present here, but proof of the existence of idolatrous cult offerings at a temple of Yahweh is not forthcoming. Centralization of the Cult: A Commandment Contingent on the Land This argument holds that the Deuteronomist law about centralization of the ritual applied only in the Promised Land, in light of Deut 12:1: “These are the statutes and the ordinances that you shall observe to do in the land that the Lord, the God of thy fathers, has given thee to possess it.” Accordingly, it could be inferred that this law had no force abroad. Jeremiah in his prophecy to those who went down to Egypt censures the burning of incense to other gods but not (at least explicitly) the building of temples (chap. 44). This argument is hard to accept. The text in Jeremiah does not speak of the centralization of cult specifically but refers in a very general way to false worship and to all “the statutes and ordinances” that the children of Israel are obliged to uphold by virtue of the covenant. It is inconceivable that the statutes and ordinances would not apply abroad, both in light of the words of the prophets and their warning against idolatry in Exile as well and in light of the fact of the observance of the laws of the Torah by the exiles—indeed, with extra care. Pagan Names The argument is that the pagan names among the Jews in exile indicate conversion, paganism, or syncretism. In Mesopotamia, the manifestation is known of worshiping one god in the guise or in the name of another god. For example, Marduk was worshiped in the guise of the god Shamash; thus, the chief god Marduk was glorified, but at the same time the excellence of Shamash was not diminished. 16 Accordingly, for example, the Jews in Babylonia served the Lord, God of Israel, in the 15. See M. Greenberg, “Ezekiel 20 and the Spiritual Exile,” Oz le-David ( Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1964) 440 [Hebrew], on the resolute position of Ezekiel against the erection of an altar; idem, Ezekiel, 387–88. 16. On this feature and other examples, see W. G. Lambert, “Syncretism and Religious Controversy in Babylonia,” AoF 24 (1997) 158–62; J. Bottéro, “Les étrangers et leurs dieux, vus de Mésopotamie,” IOS 14 (1994) 23–38.

108

B. Oded

,

guise of Marduk-Mordekhai—namely, through syncretism. Since the gods of Mesopotamia were worshiped in temples, the conclusion is that the exiles worshiped in temples. However, these personal names provide no real proof of paganism, nor are they indicative of sacrificial cult; they are nothing but the “outer garb” of some of the Israelites living in exile. On his return to Zion, Zerubbabel did not change his name to a name free from a pagan element; nor did many others. Arguments against the Presence of Holy Places in Mesopotamia None of the aforementioned arguments constitutes proof that the exiles built sanctuaries/high places. All are interpretations, which may be accepted or rejected. One must place the issue in a wider context, using indirect and typological data as well. Indeed, arguments may also be put forward against the supposition that the exiles built a sanctuary/ altars and sacrificed and/or gave offerings to God, as follows. Impure Land “Howbeit, if the land of your possession be unclean, then pass you over unto the land of the possession of the Lord, wherein the Lord’s tabernacle dwelleth” ( Josh 22:19). From this verse, it is clear that setting up altars outside the Promised Land is forbidden. The land of the nations is polluted because of the idol-worship of its residents (see also 1 Sam 26:19; 2 Kgs 5:17; Amos 7:17; Ezek 4:13; Jer 16:13). 17 Lev 18:24–25 presents the notion that idolatry defiles the land. Foreign lands were regarded culturally unclean, in contrast to the sanctity of the Land (Hos 9:3; Amos 7:17; Zech 2:16; Isa 14:2; Jer 5:19; Ps 137:4–5). In Exile, there was no sanctity that allowed the performance of the ritual exactly according to the law. Centralization of the Cult in Jerusalem The demand for centralization of worship “in the place that the Lord your God will choose” (Deuteronomy 12 and see Ps 76:3; 132) eventually presupposes Jerusalem. The ritual of God is not to be altered—not 17. On the cessation of the sacrificial ritual in Exile and the reasons for it, including the impurity of foreign land, see Y. Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel from Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile (trans. and abridged M. Greenberg; London: Allen and Unwin, 1961) 133–34, 148.

+

“Yet I Have Been to Them f[m çdqml”

109

its place or its holy vessels (Ezekiel 40–48; Ezra 6:5, 7, 18). 18 The yearnings to revere God with sacrifices and offerings were firmly interwoven with the hope of the return to Zion, for a house for Him could be built only in Jerusalem, “a place where sacrifices are offered and fire-offerings are to be brought” (Ezra 6:3). The destruction of the Temple was associated with Exile, and the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem would be connected with Return. This idea, which developed by stages in Exile, was put into words later by Zechariah (2:16; 8:7–8). This is apparently true regarding the exiles from Judah, those who upheld the Hezekiah-Josiah reform. But the question remains concerning the position of the exiles from the Northern Kingdom of Israel and later concerning their descendants, who did not experience (or perhaps even rejected) the concept of centralization of the cult in Jerusalem. Did they build temples/altars for sacrifices and offerings in Exile? No direct answer is present in the sources. The matter may be considered in light of the policy of the Assyrians and the Babylonians regarding foreign minorities dwelling in Mesopotamia, as to whether they had the privilege and the possibility of building temples and altars to their national gods in the land of captivity and according to the perception of the exiles (from the Northern Kingdom of Israel), at that time, regarding the “legality” of serving God with sacrifices in an impure land. God Dwells in Heaven It is not essential to go to Jerusalem to serve him, and it is not essential to build a temple to him outside Jerusalem; fear of God may be displayed anywhere in the world, since God dwells in heaven (e.g., 1 Kings 8; Deut 4:36; Ps 115:16). In a heathen country, God can be worshiped in other ways. According to the biblical tradition, God accompanied Abraham in his wanderings from Babylonia via Canaan to 18. R. E. Clements maintains that “the demand for the restriction of worship to one single shrine was a result of the situation which arose in the wake of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple” (“Temple and Land,” Transactions of Glasgow University Oriental Society 19 [1963] 16–28, esp. 18 and 15); L. J. Hopp thinks that Deuteronomy’s cult centralization is a reflection of the exilic situation (“Jerusalem in the Deuteronomic History,” in Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung Gestalt und Botschaft [BETL 68; Leuven, 1986] 106). Note also the statement of Esarhaddon concerning the rebuilding of a certain temple: “I opened up, I examined its structure and I inspected its foundation platform. According to its original design, I measured it out and I did not add to it a single bricklength.” See Al-Mutawalli, “New Foundation,” 192:25–26 and compare with Ezek 43:11.

110

B. Oded

,

Egypt (see also Isa 41:8–9; 51:1–2). The same applies in respect to the people of Israel (Exod 29:45). God is close to Israel, wherever they call out to him (Deut 4:7). In Solomon’s prayer (1 Kings 8), the Temple is depicted as a place of prayer, not sacrifices, in line with the view of the Deuteronomistic History of an exiled community without a temple (see also Jer 29:11–15). 19 The Primacy of Obedience over the Cult Fear of God is not manifested in the offering of sacrifices but first of all in obedience to God through his messengers. Furthermore, in the worship of God, obedience and performance of God’s commandments are valued above sacrifices. The Decalogue (Exodus 20; Deuteronomy 5) makes no requirement either of sacrifices or of building a temple, but there are moral commands and avoidance of the customs of the Gentiles (sculptured image or likeness). This idea appears in several biblical texts without reference to offering sacrifices as a duty (1 Sam 12:14, 23–24; 13:13; 15:22; 16:7; 28:18; Mic 6:8; Hos 6:6; Amos 5:21–25; Jer 7:3–6, 22; Ps 51:12; 69:37; 112). This was so in the Exile as well, not just in the Promised Land. Ezra, who ascended to Zion with the “Law of Moses” in his arms, concentrated on teaching the Torah, and showed but slight interest in the Temple. Ezra personifies the religious perceptions of the community in Exile. 20 The way to worshiping God in a nonsacrificial cult was largely paved by the prophets already before 587/ 6 B.C.E. They certainly did not negate sacrifices in principle but accorded priority to moral behavior and fear of God in the heart and soul over bringing sacrifices. In the Babylonian Exile, the religious customs and rites in the framework of the family and personal piety, such as circumcision, Sabbath, and observance of dietary laws, became the essential hallmarks of identity. Redemption Will Come Soon Jeremiah 28 tells of Hananiah, son of Azzur, who, immediately after the deportation of Jehoiachin, prophesied that within two full years 19. Y. Hoffman, “The Deuteronomist and the Exile,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (ed. D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 666–67; Weinfeld, “Instructions to Visitors,” 5–15. 20. H. D. Mantel, “The Dichotomy of Judaism during the Second Temple,” HUCA 44 (1973) 55–87.

+

“Yet I Have Been to Them f[m çdqml”

111

God would bring back from the Babylonian captivity all the captives of Judah together with Jeconiah/Jehoiachin (vv. 1–4). This clearly evinces the hope that redemption would come soon. If it were to come soon, there would be no need to build a temple in exile and then to have to destroy it in the very near future. Jeremiah firmly dismisses such a hope. Redemption would certainly come but at the appointed hour. For all that, Jeremiah does not suggest that the exiles build a temple. Absence of Minorities’ Temples in Mesopotamia Tens of thousands of people were deported to Mesopotamia from countries conquered by the Assyrians and the Chaldeans. But, from the sources we possess, there is not a single clear-cut and unambiguous indication of the existence of a temple belonging to a minority in Babylonia. Even the Assyrians, who ruled Babylonia for various periods, whose religion did not greatly differ from that of the Babylonians, and who actually adopted many Babylonian gods seem to have had difficulty establishing an Assyrian temple in Babylonia. There is no evidence of a temple to the god Assur in Babylonia. 21 Therefore, it is very doubtful that it was possible to build a temple to Yahweh—to him alone (monotheism) or together with other gods (through syncretism). Opposition to the erection of temples to foreign gods in Babylonia was probably promoted by the priests of Babylonia, not only because of their zealousness over the Babylonian gods but also because of the threat to their hegemonic status and for economic reasons as well. In Mesopotamia, temples served as centers for economic activity and were rich in possessions, thanks to endowments from the kings, donations, and the engagement in cures for illness. These generated economic and social influence, which the local clergy had no interest in sharing with foreign minorities, still less with deportees. 22 In addition, the ritual laws in the traditions of 21. See G. Frame, “My Neighbour’s God: Assur in Babylonia and Marduk in Assyria,” Bulletin 34 (1999) 13, 15. Beaulieu claims that in Uruk, during the Assyrian Empire and later on as well, there was a temple to the primeval god AN.SÁR identified with the god Assur. Nevertheless, Beaulieu notes that (a) the name of the god was “consistently spelled AN.SÁR,” and (b) “Uruk was the exception.” These two facts only hint at the difficulty of erecting a temple devoted to a non-Babylonian god in Babylonia. See Paul-Alain Beaulieu, “The Cult of AN.SÁR/Assur in Babylonia after the Fall of the Assyrian Empire,” SAAB 11 (1997) 55–73. 22. On the temple as an important financial institution and the center of economic activity, see Bongenaar, Ebabbar Temple.

112

B. Oded

,

the deportees from various countries were contrary to, even forbidden by, the domestic ritual laws. 23 Such a conflict would no doubt create tension. The native Egyptians destroyed the temple of Yahu in Elephantine (410 b.c.e.), apparently because they resented the blood sacrifices of the Jews. 24 From this it may be concluded that, even if the exiles had wished to establish a temple in Babylonia, they would not have succeeded, owing to the assumed prohibition or objection by the Babylonians to the erection of a temple to a foreign god in their land. The Danger of Syncretism The argument about the prohibition against establishing temples in Babylonia to non-Babylonian gods is in the end understandable. But, even if the exiles had been allowed to worship their gods according to the ritual customs practiced in their homeland and to build temples, it is still highly doubtful that Israelite/Judean exiles would have done so, due to the danger of syncretism. The temple is a place ripe for the penetration of pagan influences, especially in lands with an “idolatrous culture” as developed and splendid as in Assyria, Babylonia, and Egypt. In Mesopotamia, the function of the temple was to symbolize the attachment of the city’s chief god to the city and its community. The statue of the chief god was set up in the temple. 25 Note the hierarchy in the pantheon: the chief god is “the king of the gods,” while the others are ranked in descending order. In Babylon, Marduk occupied the top position, at the expense of the other gods. Therefore, since in Mesopotamia the god of the city and its periphery was deemed the chief god, the God of Israel dwelling in a temple in that city would be considered of lower rank, at least according to the perception and insistence of the local people, for whom rank was an important matter of principle. Nor is there any guarantee that the local authority, influenced by the Babylonian clergy, would not introduce the local city god into the exiles’ temple in order to demonstrate and symbolize his superiority. The community of exiles might also be forced to make certain alterations in 23. See A. L. Oppenheim, who notes that the ritual laws in Mesopotamia were different from those followed in Syria and Israel (Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964] 186–92). 24. L. L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 138. 25. On the prominent status of Marduk, who replaced other gods or united (syncretically) with them, see A. R. George, “Marduk and the Cult of the Gods of Nippur at Babylon,” Or 66 (1997) 65–70; Lambert, “Syncretism,” 158–62.

+

“Yet I Have Been to Them f[m çdqml”

113

the temple on account of Marduk, “king of the gods”—as was the case in temples to other Mesopotamian gods in various cities of Babylonia, such as Nippur, near or in which Ezekiel lived with other exiles from Judah. Such alterations would not just discourage the exiles from establishing a temple to the God of Israel in Babylonia but would actually deter them from building one at all. Moreover, the very existence of a temple carries the danger of idolatrous infiltration and mimicry of pagan practices. An extreme expression of this is in Ezek 20:25–29. 26 In exile, the danger of religious defilement is greater, especially when “sinful thoughts” take shape regarding the inability of the national God to redeem and to prevent the national disaster ( Jer 44:16–19). In the opinion of most scholars, there was a considerable degree of syncretism in the cult of the Jews of Elephantine, and the local Egyptian and Syrian-Aramaean religious influence was also marked. Indeed, the Jews of Elephantine disappeared without a trace. 27 To all the foregoing, it should be added that the destruction and the deportations caused intensified fear of the sin of idolatry. The calamity was explained as a punishment for the sin of idol-worship. Seeing the high places and sanctuaries outside Jerusalem as a sin perhaps began in the time of Hezekiah or Josiah, but its expression can be seen in subsequent historiography and in the reality of the Exile in Babylonia. Therefore, avoidance of building a temple and of sacrificial cult should also be regarded as one means among others in the strategy for survival as a unique entity. Intervention by the Authorities in Temple Affairs The destruction of the temple of Yahu in Elephantine (410 b.c.e.), which had been built in 525 b.c.e. with the assent of the Persian government, is just one example of intervention of the authorities and the local population in temple affairs, for good or for ill. Residing as a minority within a pagan-alien population always involves the risk of Gentiles’ entering the temple (see, for example, Lam 1:10). The issue of a permit to build a temple, the demolition of temples, and their desecration at the initiative of the ruler, are well known in history. Moreover, the king could command that his statue be set up in the temple, either as a symbol of his rule and his presence at the place or as an expression 26. Greenberg, “Ezekiel 20,” 436–42, and on p. 439: “This was a reaction of rejection against the tendency to renew the ritual in Babylonia.” 27. Cogan, ”Into Exile,” 361.

114

B. Oded

,

of his divinity. 28 With respect to a pagan religion, the act had no religious significance, but for a monotheistic religion (which the faith of Israel was for most of the exiles in Babylonia), the matter was of the essence. Furthermore, the realm as such supervised the activities of the temple. 29 Thus, it would be in the interest of the exiles not to build a temple, so preventing interference by the pagan authority in the temple of the God of Israel. In addition, a temple was an institution that required much money for its maintenance. A small and dispersed community of exiles could not be expected to take upon themselves the burden of construction of a temple and the organization and support of a team of various ritual attendants. For that, temples needed privileges from the ruler (see Ezra 7:24), including protection from the surroundings, a matter that increased the dependence of the temple and its adherents on the pagan ruler. Conclusion Many of the details presented here are open to debate because of the very limited available primary sources, the nature of the texts, and the processes of redaction with tendentious coloring, which inspire varied and controversial exegesis. While no decisive evidence has been found and none of the foregoing arguments would carry sufficient weight on its own, cumulatively and within a broader context they buttress the conclusion that f[m çdqml should not be taken to refer to, or provide evidence for, a (small or temporary) temple/high place to the God of Israel in Mesopotamia. There was no sacrificial cult in a temple to Yahweh among the Babylonian exiles, a factor that contributed to the exiles’ sense of distinctiveness. This conclusion seems to me historically plausible, even if not altogether compelling. At the same time, the absence of a temple/high place to Yahweh does not exclude the possibility (or rather probability) that substantial numbers of Israelite/Judean deportees and their descendants “went after other gods” (to use the Deuteronomist terminology) but in local Mesopotamian temples. These exiles truly lost their original and unique entity and identity.

28. As for the Assyrian kings, see the references in S. W. Cole and P. Machinist, Letters from Priests to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal (SAA 13; ed. S. Parpola; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1998) xiii–xv, and in the “Introduction” there. 29. On the supervision by inspectors and supervisors of the king, see Bongenaar, “Ebabbar Temple,” 34, 99, 473.

Daniel 12:9: A Technical Mesopotamian Scribal Term Shalom M. Paul Hebrew University of Jerusalem

#

$

At the conclusion of the vision of the ram (symbolizing the Median and Persian Empires) and the he-goat (representing the Greek kingdoms and Alexander the Great), Daniel is commanded (8:26): µtøs} µybr µymyl yk ˆwzjh ‘Keep the vision a secret, for it pertains to the distant future’ (lit., “to far-off days”). 1 The text goes on to record (8:27) that “Daniel was perplexed by the vision and no one could explain it” (lit., “there was no understanding it”). Daniel’s lack of understanding of the revelation is a clear indication of its esoteric nature. Then, again in chap. 12 at the conclusion of the visions (12:4), he is ordered to “keep the words secret (µtøs}) and seal (µtøj“w)' the book until the time of the end,” which is an overt reference to the author’s own time. This command to keep the book secret is understandable in light of the fact that the visions were supposedly seen by Daniel during the reign of Belshazzar, king of Babylon (chaps. 7–8), Darius, king of Media (chaps. 9, 11), and Cyrus, king of Persia (chap. 10) and were to remain classified until the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, which was the actual period of the composition of the second half of the book of Daniel (chaps. 7–12). At that time, they were to be made public for the consolation of the Author’s note: It is my great privilege to be a member of the Editorial Committee of this volume, as well as to dedicate this small contribution to Moshe Weinfeld, friend, colleague, and master of Biblical and Mesopotamian literature. 1. The Hebrew expression µybr µymy appears once more, in Ezek 12:27, and in a seventh-century b.c.e. Ammonite inscription from Tell Siran (lines 6–8): jmçyw lgy tqjr tnçbw µbr tmwyb ‘May he [Amminadab, king of the Ammonites] rejoice and be happy for many days and in years far off ’. See K. P. Jackson, The Ammonite Language of the Iron Age (HSM 27; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983) 35–44.

115

116

Shalom M. Paul

,

people, who were suffering under the hardships of Greek monarchical persecutions. 2 When Daniel again remarks, “I heard but did not understand,” he further inquires, “My Lord, what will be the outcome of these things?” (12:8). The angelic figure responds, in turn, “Go, Daniel, for these words are ‘secret/obscure and sealed (µymitUj“w' µymItUs)} until the time of the end’ ” (v. 9). As Ginsberg perceptively noted, “the words ‘hidden and sealed’, borrowed from v. 4, where they mean just that, have acquired (in 12:9) the figurative sense of ‘obscure and mysterious.’ ” 3 Ginsberg’s acute exegetical insight can now be corroborated in light of a Mesopotamian scribal practice, according to which the terms kakku sakku (the first, derived from the Akk. verb kanaku ‘to seal’, 4 and the second, from sakaku ‘to be clogged, stopped up [said of the ears]’ 5) occasionally appear together in a technical usage referring to a category of literary compositions or individual references that are “sealed (= hidden) and obscure.” The textual documentation, though sparse, is as follows: 1. [. . . ]. kakku sakku sû libittu sû ‘[. . .]. It is hidden and obscure. It is a brick’. 6 2. mul†u u musalu sa ina qatesu kakku sakku sû mussulu sa muladda ‘The comb and the mirror that are in her [the goddess Asratu’s] hands—it is obtuse and obscure—is a representation of the Corpse Star’. 7 3. hitaku mihilti 8 abni sa lam abubi 9 sa kakku sakku ballu ‘I [Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria] have examined the inscriptions on stone (dat2. For two very fine commentaries on the book of Daniel, see L. F. Hartman and A. A. Di Lella, The Book of Daniel (AB 23; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1978); J. J. Collins, Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993). 3. H. L. Ginsberg, Studies in Daniel (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1948) 31. 4. CAD K 136–42. 5. CAD S 68. 6. See A. Livingstone, Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986) 68–69:5 (with commentary on p. 70); CAD K 153; S 78. 7. Livingstone, Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works, 61:11 (with commentary on p. 62); CAD K 153; M/2 257; S 78. The text was published by J. Epping and J. N. Strassmaier, “Neue babylonische Planeten-Tafeln,” ZA 6 (1891) 242:11–12. See also M. Falkner, “Die Relief des assyrische Könige,” AfO 16 (1952–53) 28. 8. For the reading mihilti (for the logogram gù.sum) in this NA text, as opposed to mihisti (CAD B 41; K 137) or mihißti (CAD S 78), see W. G. Lambert and A. R. Millard,

Daniel 12:9: A Technical Mesopotamian Scribal Term

+

117

ing) from before the Flood that were sealed, obscure, and confused’. 10 4. 1 3 kakku sakku ‘One set of three (writing tablets) of the sealed, obtuse (compositions)’. 11 Parpola, who first commented on these texts, assumed that since the last-cited reference occurred in the line before bul†e ‘medical recipes’ (line 17u), 12 it “possibly refers to a medical or exorcistic compendium,” but he acknowledged that its appearance in “other passages suggests a different interpretation.” 13 One should note, moreover, that in line 4u of this same text there is a reference to 3 kammani ‘three k. texts’, 14 which “could be a general term for ‘esoteric compositions.’ ” 15 Thus, here, too, kakku sakku may have a similar meaning. Lambert, in his response to Parpola, did not accept the latter’s interpretation of the term as referring to medicinal plants, although he did agree that it was a “descriptive title of a kind of text.” 16

Atra-Hasis: The Babylonian Story of the Flood (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969; repr. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1999) 26, where many occurrences of the phrase lam abubi ‘before the flood’ are quoted and discussed (pp. 25–27). For the phonetic change mihißtu § mihistu § mihiltu as an example of the general phonetic shift (partial assimilation) ßt § st § lt, see M. Held, “mhß/*mhs in Ugaritic and Other Semitic Languages,” JAOS 79 (1959) 173. 9. The Akkadian expression lam abubi appears as a calque in Hebrew in Ps 29:10: “The Lord sat enthroned from before the Flood (lwbml); the Lord sits enthroned, king forever.” See D. T. Tsumura, “ ‘The Deluge’ (mabbûl) in Psalm 29:10,” UF 20 (1988) 351–55; C. Cohen, “bçy lwbml uh (Ps 29:10): A New Interpretation,” Les 53 (1989) 193–201 [Hebrew]; idem, “The ‘Held Method’ for Comparative Semitic Philology,” JANES 19 (1989) 18–20; W. W. Hallo, “The Limits of Skepticism,” JAOS 110 (1990) 195 and n. 97. 10. M. Streck, Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige bis zum Untergange Nineveh’s (VAB 7; 3 vols.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1916) 2.256:18. See also T. Bauer, Das Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals: Vervollständigt und neu bearbeitet (2 vols.; Leipzig: Zentralantiquariat der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, 1933) 2.84 n. 3; CAD B 41; K 137; S 78. 11. See S. Parpola, “Assyrian Library Records,” JNES 42 (1983) 12:16u (with commentary on p. 22); CAD S 78. 12. CAD B 312. 13. Parpola, “Assyrian Library Records,” 22. 14. Ibid., 12:4u (with commentary on p. 22). 15. See CAD K 125–26, “tablet, literary composition,” for references. 16. W. G. Lambert, “A Late Babylonian Copy of an Expository Text,” JNES 48 (1989) 220–21.

118

Shalom M. Paul

,

This descriptive scribal terminus technicus can now be shown to be present in Dan 12:9 as well, where Heb. µymItUj“w' µymItUs} are none other than the semantic equivalent of the very same Akkadian literary expression, kakku sakku: kakku = µymItUj“ ‘sealed up’, and sakku = µymItUs} ‘obscure’, which together connote a cryptic esoteric text that pertains to the mysterious incomprehensible vision whose interpretation would be revealed only at the end of days. 17 17. For other Mesopotamian influences on Daniel, see my “Mesopotamian Background of Daniel 1–6,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception (ed. J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint; VTSup 83; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 2001) 1.55–68.

The Covenant at Mount Sinai in the Light of Texts from Mari Frank H. Polak Tel Aviv University

#

$

It is the aim of this study to explore the inner logic of the covenant scene at Mount Sinai (Exodus 19–24). The arduous problems concerning the repetition of the covenant proclamations, the order of events, and the relationship between the different ceremonies on Mount Sinai may be eludicated in the light of texts from Mari published in the last twenty years. These texts deal with negotiations and sworn alliances relating to Babylon, Esnunna, Mari, and Upper Mesopotamia and can throw new light on the covenantal proceedings in Exodus 19–24. Sinai Covenant and Treaty Pattern The pericope of the covenant at Mount Sinai was of paramount importance to those scholars who viewed the covenant idea as the focus of biblical thought. Buber pointed to the analogy between the Sinaitic covenant and the agreement between David and the Israelite tribes (2 Sam 5:1–3), which, as shown by Pedersen, is comparable to the pre-Islamic oath of allegiance and fidelity (the bayºah). 1 Von Rad sought to reconstruct the cultic ceremony for which the scene at Mount Sinai provides 1. M. Buber, Königtum Gottes (1932), in Werke (3 vols.; Heidelberg: Kösel and Schneider, 1964) 2.650–62; J. Pedersen, Der Eid bei den Semiten in seinem Verhältnis zu verwandten Erscheinungen sowie die Stellung des Eides im Islam (Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des islamischen Orients 3; Strassburg: Trübner, 1914) 52–63 (on the blood ceremonies of Exod 24:5–7, see ibid., 51). Pedersen follows W. Robertson Smith, The Religion of the Semites: The Fundamental Institutions (repr. New York: Meridian, 1957) 319 n. 2. The theological significance of the covenant notion as such is discussed by W. Eichrodt, Theologie des Alten Testaments (2 vols.; 6th ed.; Stuttgart: Klotz / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957) 1.9–15, 18–23.

119

120

Frank H. Polak

,

the charter. 2 His analysis was to a large extent confirmed by Mendenhall’s detection of the parallel between the structure of biblical Covenant texts and the pattern of ancient Near Eastern suzerain treaties, as preserved in particular by Hittite texts. 3 These perceptions led to a new appreciation of the importance of the covenant idea as a general theme and the treaty patterns by which compositions such as the book of Deuteronomy seem to be structured. 4 However, this new insight paradoxically brought with it a depreciation of the Sinai covenant, because here no clear parallel with the covenant pattern could be detected. 5 2. G. von Rad, “Das Formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuch,” Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (2 vols.; Munich: Beck, 1958–73) 1.9–86, esp. 20–24, 28–33, 44–47. In his view a similar ceremony fits the basic structure of the book of Deuteronomy (op. cit., 34–35). 3. G. E. Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition,” BARead 3 (ed. E. F. Campbell and D. N. Freedman; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1970) 25–53 (originally published in BA 17/3 [1954] 50–76); W. Beyerlin, Herkunft und Geschichte der Ältesten Sinaitraditionen (Tübingen: Mohr, 1961) 59–78. The connections with the Hittite treaty pattern can be viewed in the light of David’s relations with the neo-Hittite kingdom of Hamath (2 Sam 8:9–11). The kingdom of Amurru, formerly subservient to the Hittite empire, is situated on the northern border of the Israelite Kingdom. Inscribed arrowheads of Zakarbaºal, king of Amurru (rma klm l[brkz) have been published by R. Deutsch and M. Heltzer, Forty New Ancient West Semitic Inscriptions (Tel Aviv–Jaffa: Archeological Center, 1994) 12, fig. 1. 4. Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms,” 42, 44, 49–51; a detailed treatment of the parallels between the treaty texts and the biblical covenant pattern along these lines is offered by K. Baltzer, Das Bundesformular (WMANT 4; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1960) 19–51; M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972; repr. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992) 59–71. Note also the divine declaration to Moses tyrb trk ykna hnh (Exod 34:10: “See, I conclude a covenant”). According to A. Toeg, this tradition is no less primary than the covenant tradition in Exod 19–24 (Lawgiving at Sinai [ Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977] 71 [Hebrew, with English summary]). 5. D. J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament (AnBib 21; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963) 153–57, 160–63, 168–70 (Treaty and Covenant: New Edition, Completely Rewritten [AnBib 21A; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978] 245–56). Continuing along these lines, L. Perlitt rejects all (or almost all) connections between the Sinai pericope and the covenant pattern, unless under Deuteronomic influence (Bundestheologie im Alten Testament [WMANT 36; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969] 93–99, 158–66). But Perlitt’s thesis that Hos 6:7 does not relate to the covenant idea is refuted by the careful discussion of E. W. Nicholson, God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986) 179–83. Thus, Nicholson (pp. 188, 192) ascribes the covenant idea to prophetic circles prior to Hosea but accepts the thesis that the

+

The Covenant at Mount Sinai in the Light of Texts from Mari

121

Thus, McCarthy views the pericope of the divine invitation to the covenant (Exod 19:3b–8) as an independent unit that is not connected to the theophany scene in the continuation of the narrative (vv. 11–19). He also does not recognize any significant element of the treaty pattern in the decalogue. Even though he admits that the pericopes of the ritual at the foot of the mountain (Exod 24:3b–8) and the festive meal on the mountain (Exod 24:1, 9–11) embody ancient traditions, in his view their main emphasis is cultic rather than legal or covenantal. 6 McCarthy’s judgment has held sway despite studies that indicate traces of the treaty pattern in the invitation to the covenant 7 and despite allusions to this pattern that have been detected in the sanctions mentioned in the decalogue (Exod 20:5b–6), 8 in the promises of assistance against the enemy (23:22–23, 27), and in the border delineation (23:31). 9

ceremony of Exod 24:3–8 does not reflect a preprophetic tradition. In his view (p. 215) the covenant idea implies a rationalization of the archaic sacral relationship between people and deity. However, McCarthy (Treaty and Covenant, 156–57) rightly points to the sacral character of the divine proclamation (Exod 19:6), which describes the ‘vassal’ (db[) as a priest (µynhk tklmm ‘a kingdom of priests’) and the “subservient” people as a ‘holy nation’ (çwdq ywgw). 6. McCarthy, ibid., 161–64, 173. In his view the theophany patterns of 19:10–20 were introduced by E (p. 163), on the basis of liturgical tradition (Treaty and Covenant: New Edition, 256–58, 264). 7. Baltzer, Bundesformular, 37; Beyerlin, Sinaitraditionen, 81–83. These findings vindicate the view that the covenant tradition encompasses the notion of treaty together with that of salvation-history and a cultic proclamation of the law, as argued by A. Weiser, Introduction to the Old Testament (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1961) 83–99. 8. The similarity between the sanctions of vv. 5b–6 and the treaty elements of blessing and curse has been recognized by F. C. Fensham, Exodus (Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1970) 133 (in spite of the misgivings expressed in his general discussion of the pattern, p. 124); B. Uffenheimer, Early Prophecy in Israel ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1999) 159–60 (the original Hebrew edition dates from 1972; see also W. Zimmerli, “Das Gesetz im Alten Testament,” TLZ 85 [1960] 481–98, esp. 493). 9. Weinfeld (Deuteronomy, 71–72, esp. 71 n. 1) points out that this feature is found also in the Abba-AN treaty from Alalah (lines 31–39; 18th century b.c.e.), for which see D. J. Wiseman, “Abban and Alalah,” JCS 12 (1958) 124–29; A. Draffkorn, “Was King Abba-AN of Yamhad a Vizier for the King of Hattusa?” JCS 13 (1959) 94–97. For the negotiations concerning the mutual borders of the future allies, see the letter by Ibal-pi-Il II of Esnunna to Zimri-Lim: D. Charpin, “Un traité entre Zimri-Lim de Mari et Ibal-pi-Il II d’Esnunna,” in Marchands, Diplomates et Empéreurs: Études sur la civilisation mésopotamienne offertes à Paul Paul Garelli (ed. D. Charpin and F. Joannès; Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1991) 139–66, esp. 151–52 (lines 18–27).

122

Frank H. Polak

,

These problems are placed in new light by a large number of Old Babylonian texts that have been published, inter alia, in two volumes of the Archives Épistolaires de Mari (AEM I/1, 2). 10 The new texts contain a wealth of information concerning the negotiations leading to a treaty alliance, the role of the royal envoy as go between, and the ceremonies related to the ratification of a treaty. Some of these texts relate to such powers as Babylon, Esnunna, Mari, and Elam, but many texts deal with small kingdoms in Upper Mesopotamia. These texts suggest that the narrative of the Sinaitic covenant embodies the patterns of the ceremonies and rituals involved in the establishment of a political alliance. This thesis does not imply that the pericope of the covenant at Mount Sinai must be viewed as a homogeneous literary unit. On the contrary, even if one assumes that this section basically forms one single literary unit, one still has to make allowance for some secondary expansions, for example, the repeated order not to ascend to the mountain (19:20–25) 11 and the digression concerning the aim of God’s speaking 10. J.-M. Durand (ed.), Archives Épistolaires de Mari I/1 (Paris: Éditions Recherches sur les Civilisation, 1988); D. Charpin et al. (eds.), Archives Épistolaires de Mari I/2 (Paris: Éditions Recherches sur les Civilisation, 1988). Recent translations with commentary are offered by J.-M. Durand (ed.), Les documents épistolaires de Mari (Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient 16–18; 3 vols.; Paris: Cerf, 1997–2000). The alliance between Hammu-rapi and Zimri-Lim for the war against the Elamite s u k k a l . m ah has been published by J.-M. Durand, “Fragments rejoints pour une histoire Elamite,” in Fragmenta Historiae Elamicae: Mélanges offertes à M. J. Stève (ed. L. de Meyer, H. Gasche, and F. Vallat; Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1986) 111–28, esp. 111–18. The list of oaths in the opening of this agreement (lines 1–2) is matched by the long list in the opening of “An Old Assyrian Treaty from Tell Leilan” (published by J. Eidem, in Charpin and Joannès (eds.), Marchands, Diplomates et Empéreurs, 185–207) and the opening of the treaty between Zimri-Lim and Ibal-pi-Il, published by Charpin, “Traité entre Zimri-Lim et Ibal-pi-Il,” 141–47. The provisions of the latter alliance pertain to warfare, whereas the Tell Leilan treaty seems to focus on commercial relationships. The continuity between the empires of first third of the second millennium and the NeoAssyrian empire of the first half of the first millennium has been discussed by J.-M. Durand, “Précurseurs Syriens aux protocoles néo-Assyriens,” in Charpin and Joannès (eds.), Marchands, Diplomates et Empéreurs, 13–71, esp. 69–71. 11. Beyerlin views this episode as a Midrash on the instructions preceding the theophany (Sinaitraditionen, 12–13; so also E. Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch [BZAW 189; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990] 48–49); in the view of J. Licht, such difficulties as those presented by Moses’ triple ascent are to be considered diverse expressions of the tension inherent to the theophany theme (“The Sinai Theophany,” in Studies in Bible and the Ancient Near East Presented to Samuel E. Loewenstamm [ed. Y. Avishur and J. Blau; 2 vols.; Jerusalem: Rubinstein, 1978] 1.251–67, esp. 1.255–56 [Hebrew, with

+

The Covenant at Mount Sinai in the Light of Texts from Mari

123

with Moses (19:9). 12 Hence, in the present discussion I will focus on the underlying unity of the Sinai pericope. This unity seems intrinsic to the intertextual tradition of this pericope rather than artificially imposed by the redaction. 13 The idea that a mixed lot of disjointed fragments could be turned into a meaningful complex by a skillful redaction is far less plausible than the notion of a common literary (partly oral) tradition, in which the development of the narrative is conditioned by traditional plot structures. 14 Negotiations and Treaty Ratification in Ancient Babylonia A traditional structure of this type is embodied by the pattern of the negotiations prior to the ratification of a treaty. The Mari texts mention the steps taken by Hammu-rapi to initiate an alliance with the new king of Esnunna, Íilli-Sîn. Zimri-Lim’s ambassador in Babylon, YarimAddu, warns his master that Hammu-rapi has sent a ‘small tablet’ ( †uppum ßehrum) to Esnunna, in order to propose such an alliance. The missive explains the purpose of the ‘small tablet’: if the conditions are accepted by Íilli-Sîn, the definitive treaty provisions will be established in the ‘large tablet’ (†uppum rabûm). 15 Hence, the †uppum ßehrum embodies the preliminary accord, whereas the †uppum rabûm constitutes the agreement proper, with all the obligations entailed by it. 16 It appears, English summary, 2.201–2]). See also S. E. Loewenstamm, “The Presence at Mt. Sinai,” Immanuel 5 (1975) 20–26. 12. Beyerlin, Sinaitraditionen, 11; Toeg, Lawgiving, 58–59. 13. For a number of theses concerning traditional, intertextual literary unity, see my “Theophany and Mediator: The Unfolding of a Theme in the Book of Exodus,” in The Book of Exodus (ed. M. Vervenne; BETL 126; Leuven: Peeters, 1996) 113–47; idem, “Water, Rock and Wood: Structure and Thought Pattern in the Exodus Narrative,” JANES 25 (1997) 19–42. 14. R. C. Culley, Themes and Variations: A Study of Action in Biblical Narrrative (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992) 12–23. 15. For the proposal, see AEM I/2, text 372, lines 5–22 (“†uppam rabêm,” lines 15, 18, also called “†uppi ßi[mdatim]” [line 18]); for the refusal by Esnunna: text 373, lines 43–46 (“†uppim ßehrim sa lipit napistim,” line 43). The “large tablet” of the treaty between Esnunna and Mari has been published by Charpin, “Traité entre Zimri-Lim et Ibal-pi-Il,” 139–47 (see pp. 149–57, for the earlier proposal, from the beginning of Zimri-Lim’s reign). For a treaty proposal by the Hittite king to Niqmaddu of Ugarit, see nn. 17, 22 below. 16. See M. Anbar, “ ‘Thou Shalt Make No Covenant with Them’ (Exodus 23.32),” in Politics and Theopolitics in the Bible and Postbiblical Literature (ed. H. Reventlow, Y. Hoffman, and B. Uffenheimer; JSOTSup 171; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994) 41–48.

124

Frank H. Polak

,

then, that the sending of such proposals was standard diplomacy. Proposals for establishing an alliance are also found in the letters sent by Suppiluliuma to Niqmaddu, the king of Ugarit. 17 In biblical narrative the preliminary accord is represented by the delegation of the Israelite tribes that proposed kingship over Israel to David (2 Sam 5:1–2); 18 only in a second instance did the elders of Israel arrive in Hebron to finalize the royal covenant and to anoint David in the divine presence (v. 3). In Upper Mesopotamia not a few alliances involve small kingdoms, such as Andarig, Kurda, Numha, and Ilan-ßura, or tribal leagues, such as the dumu Yamina. 19 These procedures form an excellent analogy for the opening of the scene at Sinai (Exod 19:3–8), where the divine proclamation should be viewed as a preliminary proposal rather than a covenant agreement proper. 20 The assent by the Israelites, then, does not constitute the final ratification of the covenant, but rather affirms that the proceedings can continue. 21 Moses serves as go between, in the same way that Abner mediates the agreement between the Northern tribes and David (2 Sam 3:12–13, 19–21). 17. J. Nougayrol, Textes Accadiens des Archives Sud (Archives internationales) (PRU 4; Paris: Imprimerie Nationale et Klincksieck, 1956) 35–37 (text 17.132, lines 7–28, 49–52). 18. In my view, this is the most plausible interpretation of the assertion “all the tribes of Israel came to David at Hebron and said” (2 Sam 5:1). On the David narrative and its relevance for the traditions of the covenant, see Pedersen, Der Eid bei den Semiten, 60–61, 63; Zafrira ben Baraq, “The Mizpah Covenant as the Source of the Israelite Monarchic Covenant,” Beit Mikra 21 (1976) 402–11, esp 408–10 [Hebrew, with English summary]. In this analysis, the preliminary accord reached by these delegates does not double the formal agreement between David and the elders (tyrb); the redactioncritical analysis of this pericope is defended by P. K. McCarter, II Samuel (AB 9; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1984) 131. The “contractual” form of Israelite kingship is discussed by B. Halpern, David’s Secret Demons (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001) 297–300. 19. See J.-R. Kupper, “Zimri-Lim et ses vassaux,” in Charpin and Joannès (eds.), Marchands, Diplomates et Empéreurs, 179–84, esp. 179–82; D. Charpin, “Un Souverain éphémère en Ida-maras: Isme-Addu d’Asnakkum,” MARI 7 (1993) 165–91; M. Anbar, “In That Day the Lord Made a Covenant with Abram,” Beit Mikra 45 (2001) 115–20 [Hebrew, with English summary]. For the opening of the negotiations between ZimriLim and Adalsenni of Burundum, see ARM 10, text 140. 20. In a sense, then, this invitation indeed constitutes a “small covenant genre,” as postulated by J. Muilenburg, “The Form and Structure of Covenantal Formulations,” VT 9 (1959) 345–65. 21. Against Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 168, 191; Nicholson, God and His People, 174–75.

+

The Covenant at Mount Sinai in the Light of Texts from Mari

125

Following acceptance of the proposal, two procedures are possible. On the one hand, both kings may convene at a given place or one of the kings may make an appearance at the court of the second king. The treaty by which Ugarit accepted Hittite suzerainty and received the protection of the empire, was concluded with Niqmaddu’s appearance in Suppiluliuma’s residence at Alalah. 22 In the Mari realm, a letter from Zimri-Lim’s envoy, Yasim-Il, conveys the news of the meeting of Atamrum, the king of Andarig, and Asqur-Addu, the king of Karana, at Íidqu, near their common border. 23 In other cases, however, both kings remain at their respective residence, while their alliance is concluded by a ceremony in two stages, at two different locations. The first ceremony is held at the court of the one king and attended by a delegation from the second king. Afterwards a delegation of the first king witnesses a corresponding ceremony at the palace of the second king. For instance, when Hayyasumû and the vassal kings of Ilan-ßura pledge allegiance to Zimri-Lim, they convene at Nahur, together with the envoy from Mari. The next step is that a large legation from Ilan-ßura will pledge loyalty at Mari, in the presence of Zimri-Lim himself. 24 In such cases the treaty ceremony is bilocal, in contrast to the monolocal ceremony in which the subordinate king (the “son”) presents himself before the overlord (the “father”), or both kings convene together as equals (“brothers”). Such ceremonies can be based on written texts ( †uppi lipit napistim or †uppi nis ilim), but in Upper Mesopotamia one also encounters oral agreements, based on ritual and solemnia verba. 25 In biblical narrative, a parallel for these proceedings may be detected in the visit that Joram, the son of the king of Hamath, Toi, paid to David, bringing precious gifts after his victory over Hadadezer (2 Sam 8:9–10). 26 This visit probably represents the first phase of a bilocal treaty ceremony, for it is difficult to imagine that David would not respond to the gesture by the king of Hamath, whose 22. Nougayrol, Archives Sud, 48–52 (text 17.340, lines 22–30). 23. AEM I/2, text 404, lines 9–12. 24. AEM I/2, text 347, lines 24–27; see also text 389, lines 20–29; 390, lines 2u– 15u; 391, lines 3–5; 393, lines 2–10; ARM 13, text 147, lines 5–9, 16. On the role of the mediator, see also AEM I/2, text 393, 11u–18u; and ARM 2, text 37, as represented by M. Anbar, Les tribus amurrites de Mari (OBO 108; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991) 102–3, 188. For the parallels of the latter text, see n. 29 below. 25. Durand, “Précurseurs Syriens,” 13–71. 26. Halpern, David’s Demons, 193–97; McCarter, II Samuel, 250.

126

Frank H. Polak

,

importance is evidenced by Shalmaneser’s account of the battle of Qarqar (853 b.c.e.). The formulas used on these occasions include a number of phrases that seem close to some of the expressions used in the conclusion of the Sinaitic covenant. First of all, some of the accounts of the ratification ceremonial mention the ritual of ‘killing the donkey’ hayaram qatalum; for example, ul amsali ina tamgurtika hayari sa salimim iq[qatil] u damqatim birini niskun (‘is it not true that yesterday my treaty donkey has been killed with your approval and that we have concluded an entente cordiale?’), 27 a ritual that has its biblical counterpart in the “Covenant between the Pieces” (Gen 15:9–10, 17–21; Jer 34:8–9, 18) and the blood ritual at the foot of Mount Sinai (Exod 24:5–6). 28 In one case, a treaty of this kind is concluded at the instigation of, and with the active intervention by, one of Zimri-Lim’s envoys (ARM 2, text 37). 29 Verbal parallels with some of the expressions used in the Sinai pericope are found in the oath of allegiance of Atamrum, the king of Andarig in Upper Mesopotamia. Atamrum proclaims exclusive loyalty to Zimri-Lim, with no other lords besides him: ullanum zimri-lim abini ahini rabêm u alik panini sarrum sanûm ul ibassi (‘besides Zimri-Lim, our father, our elder brother, and our leader, there is no other king’). 30 This proclamation is announced before allied kings and their troops, as well as the envoys from Babylon and Esnunna, to their great annoyance. In a ceremony in which the kings of Ilan-ßura swear fealty to Zimri-Lim, both the suzerain and his principal vassal are mentioned: ullan zimri-lim u hayya-sumû belum u abum sanûm ul ibassi (‘besides ZimriLim and Hayya-sumû, there is no other lord and father’). 31 27. AEM I/2, text 428, lines 3u–5u; see A. Malamat, Mari and the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1998) 168–71, and cf. text 404, lines 12–16, 32–33, 50–51; see also n. 31 below. 28. See S. E. Loewenstamm, “The Covenant between the Pieces: A Traditiohistorical Investigation,” in Comparative Studies in Biblical and Ancient Oriental Literatures (AOAT 204; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1980) 273–80. On the nature of this ritual, see n. 40 below. 29. See M. Noth, “Old Testament Covenant-Making in the Light of a Text from Mari,” in The Laws of the Pentateuch and Other Studies (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1966) 108–17. This text is paralleled by A. 1056 and A. 2226 (Charpin, “Isme-Addu d’Asnakkum,” 182–86; Durand, Documents épistolaires, 1.443–47). 30. AEM I/2, text 347, lines 9–12. 31. AEM I/2, text 404, lines 17–18, 20–21; see also Durand, “Précurseurs Syriens,” 53–54 (text A. 322: anse˙aªiri iqtu[lu] ummami belnima belni; belam sanêm ul nisahhur ‘They killed donkeys as follows: Our lord is our [only] lord; we shall not turn to another lord’;

+

The Covenant at Mount Sinai in the Light of Texts from Mari

127

This formulation seems close to the commandment of undivided loyalty, ynp l[ µyrja µyhla ˚l hyhy al (Exod 20:3, ‘You shall have no other gods besides me’, njpsv), and thus confirms the distinction between this “Main Commandment” and the detailed instructions, as proposed by Baltzer. 32 Another formula of interest is provided by the declaration of the kings of Ilan-ßura convened at Nahur in order to express total obedience to Zimri-Lim: [s]a qabê zimri-lim-ma belini nippes (‘what ZimriLim, our lord speaks, we shall do’). 33 This formula is rather close to the formula proclaiming Israelite loyalty: hç[n òh rbd rça lk (Exod 19:8, ‘everything that the Lord has spoken, we shall do’; similarly 24:3). The Sinai pericope, then, employs formulas that still adhere to the phraseology of the ancient Amorite kingdoms of Upper Mesopotamia and the Mari realm. An additional formula concerns honest intention: nis iliya dsamas u d ( addu) sa ana zimri-l[im mar] yah[dun-lim] sar mari ki u ma[t h]anames it[tamû] ina damiqtim ina l [i]bb[im] gamrim (‘the oath unto my gods Samas and Addu, which is sworn to Zimri-Lim, son of Yahdum-Lim, the king of Mari and the land of the Hanû, is [sworn] with good intentions and in complete sincerity’); [ina iw]itim u idat lemuntim la aspurs[um], ina libbiya gamrim lu aspursum (‘I have not written [to him] with ill will or evil intentions; indeed, in complete sincerity I have written to him’). 34 This phrase is comparable to the Hebrew formulae µlç bbl (e.g., 2 Kgs 20:3), µt bbl (e.g., Gen 20:5–6), bbl trçy (1 Kgs 3:9). 35 text A. 230: inanna atta ullanum qaran ßubat zimri-lim taßabbatu suma belni u abuni; ana sarrim sanîm ul tasappar u sarram saniam ul teseªi; suma belni u abuni: ‘Now, you, apart from the fact that you take hold of the corner of the cloak of Zimri-Lim, he is our [only] lord and our father; you will not write to another king and will not look for another king; he is our [only] lord and our father’). 32. Baltzer, Bundesformular, 22, 30–31, 37–38 (cf. Exod 15:26; Ps 81:10–11). 33. AEM I/2, 120–21; text 347, lines 9–12. 34. Durand, “Fragments histoire Elamite,” 111–15 (lines 24–27); F. Joannès, “Le traité de vassalité d’Atamrum d’Andarig envers Zimri-Lim de Mari,” in Charpin and Joannès, Marchands, Diplomates et Empéreurs, 167–77 (lines 4u–7u; cf. line 11). For the suspicions that negotiations are not being conducted in complete sincerity, see also the letter by Ibal-pi-Il II to Zimri-Lim: Charpin,“Traité entre Zimri-Lim et Ibal-pi-Il,” 153 (line 47). 35. On these and similar phrases, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 76–77. In view of the data from the Old Babylonian period, their attribution to the seventh century is not self-evident.

128

Frank H. Polak

,

These formal similarities provide the justification for the structural comparison between the biblical covenant tradition and the treaty procedures of Mari and other kingdoms of the Old Babylonian period. Monolocal and Bilocal Ceremonies at Mount Sinai In the Sinai covenant the first agreement was pronounced at the foot of the mountain, when the tribes were summoned to ceremonially ascend at the sounding of the Yobel horn: ‘when the horn sounds long, they shall come up to the mount’ (Exod 19:13, rhb wl[y hmh lbyoh ˚çmb). This is the interpretation implied by the Deuteronomic recast, ‘for you were afraid of the fire and did not go up the mountain’ (Deut 5:5, yk rhb µtyl[ alw çah ynpm µtary). 36 The indication of time and place are both extremely problematic, when they are viewed apart from their ceremonial context. The indication of the place implies a certain ascent to the mountain, whereas in the previous pericope the mountain is forbidden territory (a ˙aram). In view of the status of the mountain, the purpose of the Yobel signal is also called into question. The traditional explanation is that the blast of the horn marks the end of the ceremony 37 and thus opens the mountain to all human traffic; but this construction is hardly credible. Is it likely that people would enter an area where the deity had appeared in all his majesty? Thus, the ascent to the mountain only makes sense if viewed as part of a ritual—that is, as an act that pertains to the ˙aram itself. The connection to holy ritual is also indicated by 36. This analysis is not vitiated by the fact that this clause could belong to an interpolation that separates the reference to the divine act of speaking (Deut 5:4) from the speech itself (v. 6), as shown by M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11 (AB 5; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1991) 240; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 81 n. 1. 37. In the Mekilta of R. Ishmaªel, this verse is interpreted as permission to ascend to the mountain after ‘the horn has withdrawn its voice’ (µta wlwq ta lbyoh ˚wçmyçk rhb twl[l ˆyaçr), alluding to the account of the ascent of Moses and the seventy elders (24,1.9; Mek., 213; see also Peshi†ta; Aq., Symm., Theod., and Tg. Onq.; Frg. Tg.; Tg. Neof.; Tg. Ps-J. with slight variation). The Mekilta of R. Shimºon bar Yo˙ay even explains rpwçh qwspyçk, an explanation similar to that of the LXX (o§tan aiJ fwnaµ kaµ aiJ savlpiggeÍ kaµ hJ nefevlh ajpevlq¬ ajpo; touÅ oßrouÍ ejke∂noi ajnabhvvsontai ejpµ to; oßroÍ ‘when the sounds and the trumpets and the cloud withdraw from the mountain, those people will ascend to the mount). But this explanation indicates a fatal difficulty: the Greek contains a long expansion, which is to solve the problem that this instruction only refers to the ram’s horn and not the other signs of the theophany. The Greek cannot serve to buttress the proposed emendation çwmb (for ˚çmb) because this lexeme is never rendered by ajpevrcomai.

+

The Covenant at Mount Sinai in the Light of Texts from Mari

129

the hymn concerning the ascent to the Temple Mount: ‘Who may ascend the mountain of the Lord? Who may stand in his holy place?’ (Ps 24:3, wçdq µwqmb µwqy ymw òh rhb hl[y ym). 38 Presumably, then, the Israelites were summoned to witness the conclusion of the covenant at the ˙aram itself, that is, on the lower slopes of the mountain, near human territory. This interpretation entails a monolocal ritual of an outspoken mythical nature, as indicated by the theophany of the divine descent upon the mountain (Exod 19:16, 18–20). 39 The slope of the mountain seems to represent the common border between the Israelite habitat and the divine precincts. The proclamation of the Decalogue (20:1–17) is most plausibly viewed in the framework of the solemnia verba. However, as the divine voice makes itself heard, the Israelites react with complete panic, which causes them to retreat to a safe distance. They beg Moses to continue mediating between them and the divine overlord, as he already had been doing for a long time (20:18–21). 40 38. The asv renders: ‘Who shall ascend into the hill of Jehovah’, following the Vulgate, quis ascendet in montem Domini. Also note Jer 5:10 (hytwrçb wl[, rendered in the Vulgate as ascendite muros eius); 9:20; 48:18; Ezek 13:5; Obad 1:21; Cant 7:9; In Psalm 47:6 the sounding of the shophar indicates the theophany: òh ,h[wrtb µyhla hl[ rpwç lwqb (‘God ascends midst acclamation; the Lord, to the blasts of the horn’, njpsv). A cultic interpretation is also suggested by Josh 6:5: ta µk[mçk ,lbwyh ˆrqb ˚çmb hyhw hlwdg h[wrt µ[h lk w[yry ,rpçh lwq (‘And when a long blast is sounded on the horn— as soon as you hear that sound of the horn—all the people shall give a mighty shout’, njpsv), after which they are to go up the crumbling walls (cf. 6:20). The LXX does not represent the clause rpwçh lwq ta µk[mçk of the MT; apparently this plus of the MT is a harmonistic adjustment to v. 20, as is the LXX rendering of the phrase ˆrqb ˚çmb lbwyh as wJÍ a˙n salpishvte t¬Å savlpiggi. 39. S. E. Loewenstamm, “The Trembling of Nature during the Theophany,” Comparative Studies in Biblical and Ancient Oriental Literatures (AOAT 204; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 173–89; J. Jeremias, Theophanie: Die Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen Gattung (WMANT 10; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965); Polak, “Theophany and Mediator,” 134–38. 40. In Deuteronomy 5, this scene (5:23–27) follows the scene of the Decalogue (vv. 6–21) and the concluding verse that refers to the unique character of this divine speech (v. 22), as already described in v. 4 (cf. also 4:11–13, 33–36). In this context, the connection between the divine voice itself and the panic of the Israelites is even more outstanding than it is in Exodus 19–20. However, since the Deuteronomic version represents a free recast of the traditional account, this variant does not constitute direct evidence for a narrative in which the divine address did not contain the Decalogue. On legal and rhetorical figures in Deuteronomy 5, see N. Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot (AnBib 20; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963) 140–50.

130

Frank H. Polak

,

This retreat interrupts the monolocal ceremony. In the following, two ceremonies are held. One ceremony takes place at the foot of the mountain, in the presence of all the people (24:3–8), and the other on the mountain itself, in the divine presence, with the participation of Moses and a large delegation from the people (24:9–11). Thus, the proceedings are held at two locations, in the same way as the bilocal treaty ceremonies. While the first stage concerns the human obligations detailed in the ceremony that is enacted in the human sphere, at the foot of the mountain (and not on its lower slopes), the second stage relates to the divine side. Moses at first ascends to the mountain in order to receive the divine instructions regarding the terms of the covenant, the †uppum rabûm, as it were (20:21). This procedure is necessary because the divine proclamation was interrupted by panic on the Israelite side. After he receives the †uppum rabûm (Exod 20:22b–23:26), Moses announces the terms to the people at the foot of the mountain (the ‘covenant document’ rps tyrbh, 24:3–8) and ratifies them by ritually sprinkling the blood of sacrificial bulls on the altar and the people, as ‘the blood of the covenant’ (tyrbh µd, vv. 6, 8). 41 Previous studies tended to highlight the threat implied by the sprinkling of the blood on the participants, a threat that is made explicit in the neo-Assyrian oath imposed on Matiº-Il. 42 However, since the blood is also sprinkled on the altar, this aspect of the ceremony may also derive from the notion of communion, as already suggested by Robertson Smith and Pedersen. 43 Indeed, this latter view 41. On the Mari parallel to this ceremony, hayaram qatalum, see the discussion on p. 126 above. This is hardly the place to deal with the instructions for the zukru ritual at Emar, which included the anointing of the betyls before the gate, while the participants took part at the sacrificial meal: D. Arnaud, “373. Rituel de la fête-zukru,” Textes sumériens et accadiens: Texte (Emar 6/3; Paris: Éditions Recherches sur les Civilisations, 1986) 350– 64. The continuation of the rituals does not specifically suggest a covenant ceremony. 42. For the threats addressed to Matiº-Il, see J. A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefireh (BibOr 19A; rev. ed.; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1995) 47, lines 39–40; S. Parpola and K. Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths (SAA 2; Helsinki; Helsinki University Press, 1988) XXVII–XXVIII, 8–9 (Text 2, lines 10u–35u). S. E. Loewenstamm speaks of a Drohritus (“The Covenant between the Pieces,” 270–73, 279–80). But McCarthy (Treaty and Covenant: New Edition, 255 n. 22) argues that texts concerning the Drohritus do not contain any reference to blood; hence, it seems that the present ritual suggests communion rather than threats. 43. Pedersen, Der Eid bei den Semiten, 21–22, 25; Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites, 269–76; A. van Gennep, The Rites of Passage (London: Routledge, 1960) 31–32.

+

The Covenant at Mount Sinai in the Light of Texts from Mari

131

is now strongly confirmed by one of the terms for an ally participant in a covenant ritual: ul sa damiya atta (‘aren’t you of my blood’, that is, ‘my ally by blood’). This expression recalls the ancient custom of blood brotherhood. 44 This ritual held in front of the Israelites at the foot of the mountain is followed by Moses’ ascent to the mountain of God at the head of a large delegation, in order to participate at a festive meal in the divine presence (24:9–11). Followers of the historico-critical approach mostly view this meal as a mere double of the previous ritual, since both ceremonies serve to establish a covenant relationship. 45 In support of this argument, Anbar points to the fact that texts from the Old Babylonian period mention meal and sacrifice as two distinct ways to establish an agreement. 46 However, one also encounters a covenant ceremony involving ritual slaughter and a festive meal: istu †emsunu ustaddinu, u riksa[tim irkus]uma, ansehayarum iqqatil, ahum aham ni[s] ilim lim [u]sazkirma, ana kasim usbu / istu iqrusu, kasam istu, ahum ana ahim qistam issima (‘after they came to an agreement and concluded an accord, a donkey was 44. See AEM I/2, 33 (Text A. 2730); J. Çerny, “Reference to Blood Brotherhood among Semites in an Egyptian Text of the Ramesside Period,” JNES (19) 161–63; van Gennep, Rites of Passage, 31–32; pace Nicholson, God and His People, 171. 45. See, e.g., Beyerlin, Sinaitraditionen, 19–23; Blum, Komposition des Pentateuch, 91–93. In contrast, McCarthy (Treaty and Covenant, 162) and Nicholson (God and His People, 127–32) prefer to construe “eating and drinking” as a sign that the elders continued living, an interpretation that empties the two verbs of their specific content. Perlitt (Bundestheologie, 181–90) views this festive meal as a cult ritual. However, biblical cult is a human act toward the deity and is thus confined to the center of divine presence among humans. Perlitt does not give any example for human, cultic presence at the divine abode itself, for example, Mount Íapan, Olympus, Ida, or Parnassus. According to the Babylonian myth, thanks to Adapa’s very presence at Anu’s abode, he is eligible for immortality. 46. M. Anbar, “Deux cérémonies d’alliance dans Ex 24 à la lumière des archives royales de Mari,” UF 30 (1999) 1–4; on ceremonies of this kind in a commercial context, see J.-M. Durand, “Sumérien et Akkadien en Pays Amorite,” MARI 1 (1982) 79–89; Pedersen, Der Eid bei den Semiten, 24–25, 51; see also A 2567 (rev. lines 3–4), published by Charpin, “Isme-Addu d’Asnakkum,” 178–81; Durand, Documents épistolaires, 1.635– 38 (text 440). Even drinking alone may indicate a treaty relationship, as shown by Meptu’s announcement: assur ki ekallatum ki u esnunna ki istu, inanna ana bitim isten ituru (A. 2459, lines 4–7: ‘Assur, Ekallatum, and Esnunna have drunk; now they have turned into one house’), quoted according to D. Charpin and J.-M. Durand, “Assur avant l’Assyrie,” MARI 8 (1997) 367–91, esp. 387–88. Hence, it seems preferable to reject McCarthy’s argument (Treaty and Covenant, 162) that the notion of a meal to seal an alliance is Beduinic rather than ancient custom.

Frank H. Polak

132

,

slaughtered. They swore each to one another an oath on the deity, and sat down to drink. After they had cut up [scil. the meat] and drunk the goblet, each gave the other a present’). 47 Apparently, then, the expressions “killing the donkey,” and “eating and drinking” indicate different parts of one ceremony. The common meal suggests the communion of the participants in the ceremony, in the same way that this communion is indicated by the sprinkling of the blood. The exchange of presents seems to serve a similar goal. 48 The Sinaitic Covenant: Mythical and Legal Aspects For the present discussion, however, the decisive point is that the festive meal at Mount Sinai is held at the very home of the God of Israel, on the divine mountain. This meal, then, embodies a theophany, although in a way that is quite different from the divine descent on the mountain. By viewing the divine presence and by partaking in a meal at the divine abode, the members of the delegation participate in a ritual that involves both the deity and the Israelite elders. Implicitly, then, the scene on Mount Sinai confirms the obligation that the Israelite community at first took upon itself at the foot of the mountain. In the context of a bilocal covenant ceremony, the instructions regarding the ascent to the mountain (24:1–2) are functional because they make Moses aware of the need for an additional ritual apart from the public gathering of the Israelites that is already implied in the introductory formula ‘Now these are the ordinances which thou shalt set before them’ (21:1: hlaw µhynpl µyçt rça µyfpçmh). With respect to the legal ceremony, then, the logic of the covenant ritual is impeccable, since (a) the Israelites are presented with a covenant proposal that is accepted; (b) they prepare for the meeting with the divine partner on the lower slopes of the mountain—as it were, common ground; (c) they reel back out of fear, and thus Moses ascends to the mountain to receive the covenant terms; (d) at the foot of the mountain, the terms are ratified by the entire community, (e) whereas on the mountain, the Israelite delegation meets the divine partner. Only 47. AEM I/2, text 404, lines 60–64. F. Joannès (ibid., 262–63), reads igrusu in hendiadys with istu ‘after they went to drink the cup’. But since the verb qarasu is attested in the meaning ‘to cut up (meat)’, this reading iqrusu seems preferable in the present context. 48. Pedersen, Der Eid bei den Semiten, 25, 51–52; van Gennep, Rites of Passage, 29– 31; see Homer, Iliad 6.212–36; 1 Sam 18:3–4.

spread is 6 points long

The Covenant at Mount Sinai in the Light of Texts from Mari

+

133

the duality of the bilocal ceremony can serve as a substitute for the monolocal meeting of the deity with all the people. Since this event sequence describes the actual encounter of the human and the divine, the ceremonies as such can only be viewed as mythical. That is to say, the mythical aspects are entailed by the legal patterns, whereas the legal symbolism is possible only by virtue of the mythical view, which is underscored by the motifs of the theophany and, specifically, by the many poetic features, the most outstanding of which is the dramatic imagery dominating the description of the divine descent upon the mountain (19:16–19). 49 While the divine descent on Mount Sinai is described in terms of natural manifestations observed by those in the camp, the scene on the mountain embodies a different picture. 50 Twice the narrator states that the invitees actually “saw God.” 51 The first instance is an introduction to what they did see in fact: Exod 24:10:

µx[kw rypsh tnbl hç[mk wylgr tjtw larçy yhla ta waryw rhfl µymçh And they saw the God of Israel: under his feet there was the likeness of a pavement of sapphire, like the very sky in radiance. Exod 24:11: wtçyw wlkayw µyhlah ta wzjyw And they beheld God, and they ate and drank.

This concrete, almost anthropomorphic, picture stands out because of its poetic features. Although the verb hzj appears in the Jethro episode (Exod 18:21), 52 it is mostly confined to poetry, 53 for example, in 49. For the image of the divine fire, see also my “Theophany and Mediator”; Exod 24:15; 3:2–4; Gen 15:17 (ça dyplw ˆç[ rwnt); on the “trembling of nature,” see n. 39 above ( Judg 5:4–5; Ps 18:8; 29:6; Hab 3:6, 10). 50. The mythical aspects of this scene have been perceived by H. Gressmann, Mose und seine Zeit: Ein Kommentar zu den Mose-Sagen (FRLANT 18; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913) 182; and cf. the description of the king of Pursahanda in the epic of the “King of Battle”: Shlomo Izre'el, The Amarna Scholarly Tablets (Groningen: Styx, 1997) 66–75, esp. 68–70 (EA 359, lines 13u–14u). 51. In contrast, the phrase òh µ[nb twzjl (Ps 27:4; cf. Mic 4:11; Ps 17:15; 63:3), which is related to wlkyhb rqblw, does not detail any specific visual perception. For the parallelism har/hzj, see Isa 33:17, 20; Joel 3:1; Ps 63:3; Job 19:27; Prov 24:32. 52. The rhetorical style of the Jethro episode has been discussed by E. L. Greenstein, “Jethro’s Wit: An Interpretation of Wordplay in Exodus 18,” in On the Way to Nineveh: Studies in Honor of George M. Landes (ed. S. L. Cook and S. C. Winter; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999) 155–71. 53. See also, e.g., Isa 26:11; 30:10; 33:17, 20; 47:13; Mic 4:11; Ps 11:4, 7; 17:2, 15.

134

Frank H. Polak

,

Balaam’s description as “Who beholds visions from the almighty, prostrate, but with eyes unveiled” (Num 24:4: ywlgw lpn hzjy ydç hzjm rça µyny[). Other poetic elements include the term rhf, which in this context hardly could indicate ‘purity’; it seems preferable to connect it with Ugaritic †hr (‘radiant’; bht.ksp.whrß/bht †hrm.iqnim ‘a palace of silver and gold, a palace of shining lapis lazuli’, CTA 4 V:19). 54 The expression µymçh µx[ is also found in Sir 43:1: µymç µx[ rhfl [yqrw µwrm rawt wrdh fybm (‘the splendor of on high and the expanse in its radiance— the firmament of heaven manifests its glory’). In this verse, µymç µx[ (ei®doÍ oujranouÅ) is matched by the parallel [yqrw µwrm, indicating that this µx[ actually is equivalent with [yqr. 55 In this pericope, then, the idea of the actual conclusion of the covenant involves two different and even opposed spheres. The metaphor of the covenant itself belongs to the legal sphere, and so do the procedures entailed by this metaphor. On the other hand, the notion of an actual encounter with the deity brings with it strongly mythical motifs relating to the descent of God onto the mountain and to the sight of the divine abode. As a charter myth for Israel’s way of life, the covenant idea involves both the legal and the mythical dimension. Both aspects together determine Moses’ role as mediator. The mythical dimension stands out as he enters the cloud in order to meet the deity and to receive the tablets of the twd[ (31:18: the “pact” according to the njpsv), written by the finger of God, whereas the legal dimension is most obvious in his receiving and transmitting the divine instructions. Moses’ role of mediator, then, represents at the same time both the legal and the mythical aspects of the covenant idea. 54. G. del Olmo Lete, Mitos e leyendas de Canaan según la tradicion de Ugarit (Madrid: Christandad, 1981) 555. 55. Hence, the use of µx[ in this context is not to be compared to that of the same lexeme in the phrase hzh µwyh µx[b; for a different view, see J.-L. Ska, “Le repas de Ex 24,11,” Bib 74 (1993) 305–27. For [yqr as a poetic term, see Ps 19:2; Isa 42:5; F. H. Polak, “Poetic Style and Parallelism in the Creation Account (Gen 1.1–2.3),” in Creation in Biblical and Postbiblical Literature ( JSOTSup 319; ed. Y. Hoffman and H. Graf Reventlow; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002) 2–31, esp. 11.

chapter title high

‘No Ephod or Teraphim’— oude hierateias oude delon: Hosea 3:4 in the LXX and in the Paraphrases of Chronicles and the Damascus Document Alexander Rofé Hebrew University of Jerusalem

#

$

The MT and the Greek Translation Hosea 3:4 says: dwpa ˆyaw hbxm ˆyaw jbz ˆyaw rç ˆyaw ˚lm ˆya larçy ynb wbçyE µybr µymy yk :µyprtw For the Israelites shall go a long time with no king and no official, and no sacrifice and no pillar, and no ephod or teraphim.

The Septuagint (= LXX) renders the verse: diovti hJmevraÍ polla;Í kaqhvsontai oiJ uiJoµ Israel oujk oßntoÍ basilevwÍ oujde; oßntoÍ aßrcontoÍ oujde; oußshÍ qusivaÍ oujde; oßntoÍ qusiasthrivou oujde; iJerateivaÍ oujde; dhvlwn.

An attempt to retrovert this into Biblical Hebrew, while overlooking the minor differences attributable to the liberties taken by the translator, yields the following: hnhUkw jbzm ˆyaw jbz ˆyaw rç ˆyaw ˚lm ˆya larçy ynb wbçyE µybr µymy yk :µyrwaw For the Israelites shall go a long time with no king and no official and no sacrifice and no altar or priesthood or urim.

The questions arises: what is the nature of this reading? Did the translator have it in his Hebrew Vorlage? And, if so, what relationship does this presumed Vorlage bear to the Masoretic text (= MT)? Author’s note: This article was translated from Hebrew by Simeon Chavel.

135

136 MT: LXX:

Alexander Rofé

,

hbxm ˆyaw jbz ˆyaw ‘and no sacrifice and no pillar’ jbzm ˆyaw jbz ˆyaw® ‘and no sacrifice and no altar’

The reading of the LXX here makes the most sense when understood as the result of a change already present in the translator’s Hebrew Vorlage. The pillar, said the Rabbis, was beloved of the fathers (= the patriarchs), but despised by the children (= the people of Israel). 1 With this aphorism they explained why the Bible recounts that Jacob anointed a pillar in Beth-el (Gen 28:18; 35:14) and other similar actions (the pillar in Gilead, Gen 31:45–54), and why, on the other hand, the book of Deuteronomy forbids the establishment of a pillar because “the Lord your God despises” it (Deut 16:22). According to the critical method, the stories about Jacob reflect a cultic tradition current in Israel from ancient times, 2 whereas the law in Deut 16:22 expresses the innovations of the Deuteronomic school, active beginning with the seventh century b.c.e. Over time, the Deuteronomic law influenced later scribes, who then corrected several of the ancient texts accordingly. Thus, for example, Exod 24:4 says of Moses: µytçw rhh tjt jbzm ˆbyw hbxm hrç[ ‘he built an altar at the foot of the mountain along with twelve pillars’, but the Samaritan Pentateuch corrected it to “twelve stones,” a reading probably extant in the Vorlage of the LXX: kaµ dwvdeka livqouÍ. 3 Presumably, such corrections have entered into the MT as well, as in Gen 33:20, which has jbzm µç bxyw ‘he erected there an altar’; but reason dictates that it originally read, hbxm µç bxyw ‘he erected there a pillar’. 4 The LXX to Hos 3:4, reading “altar” instead of “pillar,” reflects, then, this type of correction, which was already made in the translator’s Vorlage. This change constitutes a nomistic correction, quite familiar to us from biblical textual witnesses. 5 1. Sifre on Deuteronomy, par. 146 (ed. Louis Finkelstein; Berlin, 1940; repr. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1969) 200. 2. See Z. Weisman, From Jacob to Israel: The Cycle of Jacob’s Stories and Its Incorporation within the History of the Patriarchs ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1980) [Hebrew]. Weisman discerned ancient elements in the Jacob cycle. 3. My colleague Yair Zakovitch pointed out this example to me; see A. Rofé, Introduction to Deuteronomy ( Jerusalem: Akademon, 1988) 19–21 [Hebrew]. 4. See J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs usw. (4th ed.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963) 48 n. 1. 5. Compare my “Nomistic Correction in Biblical Manuscripts and Its Occurrence in 4QSama,” RevQ 14 (1989) 247–54; idem, “The Editing of the Book of Joshua in the Light of 4Q Josha,” in New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the Fifth Meeting . . .

‘No Ephod or Teraphim’—oude hierateias oude delon

+

137

The presumed Hebrew reading, jbzm ˆyaw jbz ˆyaw ‘and no sacrifice and no altar’, affirms the antiquity of its first half, jbz ˆyaw ‘and no sacrifice’, against the opinion of those who emend, hbxm ˆyaw jbzm ˆyaw ‘and no altar and no pillar’. 6 Indeed, it appears that it is unnecessary to find here two nouns of the same type (as in “king . . . official”), for in what follows, the author employed the term jbz, an all-inclusive term for sacrifices, and beside it hbxm, a concrete noun in the singular, as if to say: there will be no sacrifice and not one pillar. Note in addition that this represents evidence of an “orthodox” correction in one of the versions of Hosea. These two points will serve us further on. MT: LXX:

µyprtw dwpa ˆyaw µyrwaw hnhUkw®

‘and no ephod or teraphim’ ‘or priesthood or urim’

Consistently, the LXX translates hnhUk as iJerateÇa. If the translator has rendered his Hebrew Vorlage faithfully, then he read here hnhUk. 7 Further on in the text, the LXX has oujde; dhvlwn: the adjective dh`loÍ means ‘luminous’, and the noun, ‘the illuminating (items)’, renders µyrwah in Num 27:21 and in 1 Sam 28:6. The noun dhvlwsiÍ derived from the same root translates µyrwah in Exod 28:30; Lev 8:8; and 1 Esd. 5:40 (compare the MT to Ezra 2:63 and Neh 7:65). 8 Once, in Deut 33:8, dh`loi stands for the MT reading, µymwt. 9 Again, if the translator followed his Hebrew Vorlage, then he read µyrwa here. The Greek negative particles appear in their shortened form in this word pair—no longer as oujde; oßntoÍ and the like, but simply as oujdev. Taking note of

for Qumran Studies—Paris, 1992 (ed. G. J. Brooke et al.; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 73–80; L. Mazor, “A Nomistic Reworking of the Jericho Conquest Narrative Reflected in the LXX to Joshua 6:1–20,” Textus 18 (1995) 47–62. 6. See I. L. Seeligmann, “The Beginnings of Midrash in the Books of Chronicles,” Tarbiz 49 (1980) 14–32, esp. 21 n. 21 [Hebrew]; repr. in idem, Studies in Biblical Literature ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992) 461 n. 21. 7. L. Treitel presumed that the translator used a general term rather than the specific one, ephod (Die alexandrinische Übersetzung des Buches Hosea [Karlsruhe: Bielefeld’s, 1887] 22). But it remains unclear why he would choose this translation for ephod, a translation otherwise unattested in the LXX. 8. On the relationship between 1 Esdras and its parallels in the canonical books, see Z. Talshir, I Esdras: From Origin to Translation (SCS 47; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), and the additional literature cited there. 9. In light of the meaning of the Greek noun and the rest of the translation, it stands to reason that the Hebrew Vorlage of Deut 33:8 LXX read ˚ymwtw ˚yrwa or that the translator reversed the order on his own.

138

Alexander Rofé

,

this translator’s method in Hos 1:7, hmjlmbw brjbw tçqb µ[yçwa alw µyçrpbw µyswsb, where he placed the negative particle before each one of the nouns (kaµ ouj swvsw aujtouÍ ejn tovxå oujde; ejn rJomfaÇç oujde; ejn polevmå oujde; ejn a§rmasin oujde; ejn ªppoiÍ oujde; ejn iJppeu`sin), one may presume that in his Hebrew Vorlage here the negation continued from the beginning of the verse: µyrwaw hnhUkw . . . ˆyaw . . . ˆyaw . . . ˆyaw . . . ˆya. This is not to reject the possibility, however, in light of the additional evidence brought below, that the presumed Hebrew Vorlage here also had one negative particle, namely: jbzm ˆyaw jbz ˆyaw rç ˆyaw ˚lm ˆya . . . µyrwaw hnhUk ˆyaw. What does this difference between the MT and the LXX signify? Most commentators dismissed the value of the LXX here as a textual witness and did not even bother to mention it. 10 Only one commentator offered his explicit opinion that the translator no longer knew what the ephod and teraphim were; hence his rendition. 11 However, a measure of doubt begins to creep in, for in a previous verse, Hos 3:2, the translator extricated himself from the difficulties posed by his Hebrew Vorlage with transliterations; why should he not do likewise here? What’s more, the LXX translators regularly employed transliterations for dwpa and for µyprt. 12 10. In addition to the commentaries in the standard series, I checked the following works: J. Wellhausen, Die kleinen Propheten, übersetzt und erklärt (3d ed.; Berlin: Reimer, 1898); P. N. Schlögl, “OS 3, 4 5,” BZ 9 (1911) 144–45; P. G. Borbone, “Il capitolo terzo di Osea,” Henoch 2 (1980) 257–66; G. I. Emmerson, Hosea: An Israelite Prophet in Judean Perspective ( JSOTSup 28; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984) 12–14; P. G. Borbone, Il libro del profeta Osea (Quaderni di Henoch 2; Turin: Zamorani, n.d. [1990]). In Hebrew, see N. H. Tur-Sinai, “The Prophet Hosea and His Marriages (Hosea 1–3),” Hallashon Vehassefer, vol. Hassefer (2d ed.; Jerusalem: Bialik, 1960) 304–23. See further the literature cited in the notes below. 11. T. K. Cheyne, The Book of Hosea (CB; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1913) 61: “The meaning of ‘ephod and teraphim’ was already forgotten in the time of the Septuagint translation of Hosea . . . (he identifies the teraphim with the Thummim, comp. Sept. Deut. xxxiii, 8 . . .).” Before Cheyne, in the same vein, see E. F. C. Rosenmüller in Scholia in Vetus Testamentum (ed. J. Chr. S. Lechner; Leipzig: Barthii, 1836) 6.42: “Videtur per Theraphim intellexisse Urim et Thummim.” 12. For dwpa: ejfwvd, ejfouvd (13x); the “translation” ejpwmÇÍ (23x) merely gives a Greek form to the Hebrew noun—ejpwmivÍ is the collarbone! For µyprt: qerafÇn and the like (7x); aside from these, again, the transliteration was once “corrupted” into a Greek word, qerapeÇa. The word µyprt was translated as gluptovÍ (once), eißdwlon (3x), and kenotavfia (2x). In Zech 10:2, the nature of ajpofqeggovmenoi opposite Hebrew µyprt is unclear to me.

+

‘No Ephod or Teraphim’—oude hierateias oude delon

139

Moreover, the LXX has an advantage over the MT. The first two word pairs—king and official, sacrifice and pillar—list items that, to Hosea, turned Israel away from complete faithfulness to God, but that the normative religion of his time viewed as acceptable. Such is not the case for the ephod and, especially, for the teraphim, which clearly refers to statuettes of idolatrous practice! The last word pair then, to the degree that it can be evaluated, bends the logic of the verse. Not for naught did Yehuda Hallevi, in his poem µyçljn µyçr ydy, return to the ephod and teraphim of Hos 3:4 to legitimize them: µyprtw dwpa ˆyaw µypswmw ˆydymtw µypgn l[ rpkl 13.µyprçl twmdhl

πsw rybd πs µa alh tkr[mw tkrpw trpkw trfq ˆyaw larçyb la tçwdq

Hallevi has unmistakably equated the teraphim with the legitimate cult objects that existed in Israel until they were lost in the destruction of the Temple—certainly not in line with the straightforward meaning of the verse in Hos 3:4. By contrast, µyrwaw hnhk ˆya ‘no priesthood or urim’ fits well with the previous word pairs: Israel will have no selfrule, no cult, and no oracles of God. Is it possible that the LXX here attests to a real variant? Scholars have debated the value of the LXX for the Minor Prophets in general and Hosea in particular. 14 Admittedly, the presumed Vorlage of the translators is of lesser value than the MT, and the translators themselves did not stand out on account of their level of comprehension; nevertheless, the LXX to Hosea attests several good readings, preferable to the MT. Suffice it to point out the following selection: 5:11 8:10

wx yrja ˚lh lyawh; LXX awç® (tw`n mataivwn) µyrç ˚lm açmm f[m wljyw; LXX jçmm® (tou` crivein)

13. D. Jarden, The Liturgical Poetry of Rabbi Yehuda Halevi ( Jerusalem: Jarden, 1986) 37–38 [Hebrew]. In rabbinical homilies, by contrast, the ephod atones for the teraphim; see b. Zeba˙. 88b; ºArak. 16a; y. Yoma 7.3 (38); Lev. Rab. 10:6; Cant. Rab. 4:4. 14. Treitel, Die alexandrinische Übersetzung des Buches Hosea; idem, “Die Septuaginta zu Hosea,” MGWJ 41 (1897) 433–54; K. Vollers, “Das Dodekapropheton der Alexandriner [part 1],” ZAW 3 (1883) 219–72; [part 2], 4 (1884) 1–20; G. H. Patterson, “The Septuagint Text of Hosea Compared with the Masoretic Text,” Hebraica 7 (1890–91) 190–221; A. Kaminka, Studien zur Septuaginta an der Hand der zwölf kleinen Prophetenbücher (Frankfurt a. M.: Kauffmann, 1928); H. S. Nyberg, Studien zur Hoseabuche (Uppsala: Lundequist, 1935); H. D. Neef, “Der Septuaginta-Text und der Masoreten-Text des Hoseabuches in Vergleich,” Bib 67 (1986) 195–220.

140 10:13 12:9

13:5 13:9 13:10 14:3

Alexander Rofé

,

˚yrwbg brb ˚krdb tjfb yk; LXX ˚ybkrb® (ejn toiÍ a§rmasÇn sou)—despite Ugaritic drkt afj rça ˆw[ yl waxmy al y[ygy lk; LXX wl® waxmy al wy[ygy® lk afj rça ˆw[l (pavnteÍ oiJ povnoi aujtou` oujc euJreqhvsontai aujtå` di∆ ajdikÇaÍ, a¶Í h¶marten) rbdmb ˚yt[dy yna; LXX ˚yty[r® (ejpoÇmainovn se) ˚rz[b yb yk larçy ˚tjç; LXX ym® (tÇÍ bohqhvsei) ˚yfpçw; LXX ˚fpçw® or ˚fpçy® (krinavtw se); read: ˚yrç lkw ˚wfpçy wnytpç µyrp hmlçnw; LXX wnytpç yrp® (karpo;n ceilevwn hJmw`n)

Aside from these, it is worth mentioning the LXX testimony to two secondary but very significant Hebrew readings: 12:5 13:4

wnaxmy la tyb; LXX ˆwa tyb® (ejn tå` oißkå Wn)—a theological emendation in the Hebrew Vorlage! here the LXX has the following plus: (ejgw; de; kuvrioÍ oJ qeovÍ sou) sterew`n oujrano;n kaµ ktÇzwn gh`n, ou• aiJ cei`reÍ eßktisan pa`san th;n stratia;n tou` oujranou`, kaµ ouj parevdeixav soi aujta; tou` poreuvesqai ojpÇsw aujtw`n: kaµ ejgw; ajnhvgagovn se (ejk gh`Í Aijguvptou, kaµ qeo;n plh;n ejmou` ouj gnwvs¬.)

Retroverted into Hebrew, this plus would read: alw µymçh abx lk ta wrxy ydy rça ≈ra rxwyw µymç hfwn ñ˚yhla òh yknawÑ al ytlwz µyhlaw µyrxm ≈ramÑ ˚ytl[h yknaw µkyrja tkll µtwa ˚ytyarh 15.ñ[dt

In light of this cumulative evidence, the LXX to Hos 3:4, hnhk ˆyaw® µyrwaw ‘and no priesthood or urim’ gains considerable weight as a textual variant. In my opinion, it should be considered a lectio praeferenda. Supporting Witnesses: The Paraphrases At this point we should note that witnesses supporting the LXX to Hos 3:4 do exist. 16 One such witness occurs in the book of Chronicles, 15. On the nature of this plus, see Borbone, Il libro del profeta Osea, 179; and my essay, “The Name YHWH ÍEBAªOT and the Shorter Recension of Jeremiah,” in Prophetie und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit—Fs. S. Herrmann (ed. R. Liwak and S. Wagner; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1991) 307–15, esp. 311–12. Of late, readings from a Qumran manuscript of the Minor Prophets have been published, and the manuscript contains this plus; see R. Fuller, “A Critical Note on Hosea 12:10 and 13:4,” RB 98 (1991) 343–57. 16. My late friend Raphael Weiss pointed out the following two witnesses in his essay, “Textual Witnesses to the Bible in the Pesharim and the Rest of the Qumran Scrolls,”

‘No Ephod or Teraphim’—oude hierateias oude delon

+

141

which brings a paraphrase of the passage in question (2 Chr 15:3–4): rxb bçyw .hrwt allw hrwm ˆhk allw tma yhla all larçyl µybr µymyw :µhl axmyw whçqbyw larçy yhla òh l[ wl And Israel shall go a long time with no true God, and with no instructing priest, and with no Torah. In his distress, he shall return to the Lord, the God of Israel. They will seek Him out and He will be available to them.

For clarity’s sake, I will present Hosea and Chronicles in juxtaposition: wbçy rja . . . ˆyaw . . . ˆyaw . . . ˆya larçy ynb . . . µybr µymy yk: Hos 3:4–5 . . . òh ta wçqbw . . . . . . bçyw . . . allw . . . allw . . . all larçyl µybr µymyw: 2 Chr 15:3–4 . . . whçqbyw . . . òh l[

The contents in Chronicles have changed totally in contrast to Hosea. The prophet predicted the divestiture of the institutions that hindered the people from clinging to God; as opposed to him, the expositor in Chronicles speaks of the absence of the foundations of faith: the true God, an instructing priest, and Torah. But one important element is shared by 2 Chr 15:3–4 and Hos 3:4, particularly according to the LXX: the former has hrwm ˆhk and the latter has µyrwaw hnhUk®. The difference between the two sources with regard to the second word has no significance, because ancient scribes grasped the Hiphil forms of the two verbs, hòòry and ròòwa, as being synonymous. Alternate readings and translations attest to this. 17 One may infer from this that the author of Chronicles read the passage in Hos 3:4 similar to the way the Greek translator did: µyrwaw hnhUk ˆyaw or the like, perhaps µyrwaw ˆhk ˆyaw. 18 in the collection of his essays, Mishut Bamiqra ( Jerusalem: Rubinstein, 1977) 277–300, esp. 293–94 [Hebrew]. Zipora Talshir courteously reminded me of the homily on Hosea in the book of Chronicles. 17. Cf. J. M. Allegro, Qumran Cave 4—I (4Q158–4Q186) (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968) 58. Deut 33:10, bq[yl ˚yfpçm wrwy is cited there, bwq[yl ˚yfpçm wryayw, like the LXX dhlwvsousin. The change is not at root theological, as the following additional instances indicate. In Judg 13:8 also the LXX renders wnrwyw with kaµ fwtisavtw hJmaÅÍ. Similarly, see 2 Kgs 12:3; 17:27–28; in the last two verses, fwtÇzein translates ‘the instruction of ’ (hòòry) the priest teaching the Cuthites! So, too, see Sir 45:17 in the Greek translation. On the theological development in the Apocryphal and Qumranic literature, see the articles [in Hebrew] by M. Kister, “Levi = Light,” Tarbiz 45 (1976) 327– 30; “Marginalia Qumranica,” Tarbiz 57 (1988) 315–25, esp. 321–24. 18. The Targum to the Prophets reads at the end of Hos 3:4, ywjmw dwpa tylw ‘and no ephod or instructor’. Did the Hebrew Vorlage possibly read hrwmw dwpa ˆyaw? Generally,

142

Alexander Rofé

,

There are solid grounds for presuming that the author of Chronicles had this reading before him. This author, from the fourth century b.c.e., raises the banner of Torah and its observance. Therefore, the formulation hrwt allw . . . tma yhla all befits him well. But not so hrwm ˆhk. The priests in Chronicles play no role in the instruction of the people, in contradistinction to preexilic and early postexilic passages, which had seen the priests as “those who grasp the Torah.” 19 In Chronicles, instructing the people in Torah took a different form; a delegation made up of five officers, nine Levites, and only two priests would leave Jerusalem to teach in the cities of Judea (2 Chr 17:7–9). In this depiction, the Chronicler has articulated his own ideals, which also fit the new reality emerging in his times, the democratization of the learning and teaching of Torah, which constituted a revolution of great significance in the history of Israel. Because the instructing priest does not belong to the Chronicler’s world view, it seems likely that he found this instructing priest in his text of Hos 3:4. An additional paraphrase that deserves consideration appears in the Damascus Document (= CD), p. 20, lines 13–17, 20 as follows: µ[ 21wbç rça hmjlmh yçna lk µt d[ ñdjyh :readÑ dyjyh hrwy πsah µwymw ˆya .rma rçak larçyb la πa hrjy awhh ≈qbw ≥µy[bra µynçk bzkh çya Hiphil hòòry is rendered with Aramaic πòòla. But an exception occurs in Isa 28:26. Besides, yòòwj renders hòòry in the margins of Tg. Neof. to Exod 4:12; 15:25; 24:12; Deut 24:8. 19. See Lev 10:11; Deut 24:8; Jer 18:18; Ezek 7:26; 22:26; 44:23–24; Hos 4:6; Mic 3:11; Zeph 3:4; Hag 2:11; Mal 2:4–9. 2 Kgs 12:3 says, “Joash did what was right in the eyes of the Lord all his days because he was instructed by Jehoiada the priest.” 2 Chr 24:2 copied this verse as follows: “Joash did what was right in the eyes of the Lord all the days of Jehoiada the priest.” The revised formulation does not merely limit the period of King Joash’s righteousness (to Jehoiada’s death) but also removes the instruction of Jehoiada. According to the Chronicler, Joash kept to the Torah even when contradicting the practices of Jehoiada; see 2 Chr 24:6. 20. For the publications of the Damascus Document, see S. Schechter, Documents of Jewish Sectaries, Vol. I: Fragments of a Zadokite Work (Cambridge, 1910; repr. New York: Ktav, 1970); M. Broshi (ed.), The Damascus Document Reconsidered ( Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1992). For English translations, consult F. García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English (Leiden: Brill, 1994) 46; J. H. Charlesworth, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, Vol. 2: Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck] / Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995) 34–35; F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, Vol. 1: 1Q1–4Q273 (Leiden: Brill, 1997) 578–79. 21. Following Fitzmyer’s emendation in his corrections to Schechter. See Fragments of a Zadokite Work, “Prolegomenon,” p. 24, and cf. Broshi, ad loc.

‘No Ephod or Teraphim’—oude hierateias oude delon

+

143

.qdxb jykwm ˆ?ya¿w fpwç ˆyaw rç ˆyaw ˚lm And from the day of the gathering in of the unique Teacher (read: of the Teacher of the Community) until the end of all the men of war who turned away with the Man of Lies will be about forty years. And during that period, God’s wrath will be kindled against Israel, as he said: there will be no king and no official and no judge and no one reproaching with righteousness.

In the first place, CD is clearly presenting here a “pesher” to Hos 3:4, since it took the fourfold negation ˆyaw . . . ˆyaw and the juxtaposition of king and official from there. Second, it is quite unlikely that the author of CD also included elements from 2 Chr 15:3–4 in his homily. Not only is the book of Chronicles hardly represented at all in the Qumran literary holdings, 22 but it also is never referred to in the pesharim and homilies of the sect’s members! This fact grants the paraphrase in CD the status of an independent textual witness to Hos 3:4. It is unrelated to the book of Chronicles; hence its value for textual reconstruction. One should also pay attention to the paraphrased citation: ˚lm ˆya . . . fpwç ˆyaw rç ˆyaw. The third noun is synonymous with the second, as in Exod 2:14, wnyl[ fpwçw rç çyal ˚m ç ym, and similar passages. In this case, CD’s pesher adds synonyms freely and may therefore also exchange them one for the other. This fact has much significance for our study, as will become apparent in what follows. The pesher speaks of the period after the passing of the community’s teacher, qdxh hrwm (‘the Teacher of Righteousness’), who founded the sect. Indeed, the words qdxb jykwm ˆyaw ‘and no one reproaching with righteousness’ refer to him, as 1QpHab 5:9–11 says: whwrz[ alw qdxh hrwm tjkwtb wmdn rça µtx[ yçnaw µwlçba tyb l[ wrçp .bzkh çya l[

22. See V. Glessmer, “Liste der biblischen Texte aus Qumran,” RevQ 16 (1993) 153–92, esp. 189. According to Glessmer’s lists, only one manuscript of Chronicles exists at Qumran, 4Q118. Trebolle Barrera has published part of it; see J. Trebolle Barrera, “Édition préliminaire de 4QChronique,” RevQ 15 (1992) 523–29. (Thanks to Steve Pfann, who alerted me to this article.) The word ynl[tw in the first column of the published text leaves room to doubt whether the text belongs to Chronicles or to a homiletical revision of the book of Kings that included a psalm of entreaty similar to the one attributed to Hezekiah in Isa 38:9–20. Compare Ps 71:20, ynl[t bwçt ≈rah twmwhtmw ‘From the depths of the earth you will raise me up again’; 102:25 ymy yxjb ynl[t la yla ‘My God, do not take me away in the midst of my days’.

144

Alexander Rofé

,

Its interpretation concerns the House of Absalom and the members of their council, who kept silent during the reproach of the Teacher of Righteousness and did not help him against the Man of Lies. 23

The Teacher of Righteousness, who led the sect, was a priest, as emerges from a comparison of two other passages in Pesher Habbakuk: µyaybnh wydb[ yrbd lwk ta rwçpl h?nyb wbl¿b la ˆtn rça ˆhwkh ypm .wm[ l[ twabh lk ta la rps µdyb ?rça¿ from the mouth of the Priest in whose [heart] God has placed [understand]ing to interpret all the words of his servants, the Prophets, through [whom] God has foretold all that will befall His people. (1QpHab 2:7–9) .µyaybnh wydb[ yrbd yzr lk ta la w[ydwh rça qdxh hrwm l[ wrçp Its interpretation concerns the Teacher of Righteousness to whom God has made known all the mysteries of the words of his servants, the Prophets. (7:4–5) 24

In this vein, the pesher on Psalm 37 fits well; true, it has survived here only in a fragmentary state, but it mentions [ ]h hrwm ˆhkh. 25 It stands to reason, on the basis of the use of synonyms noted above, that the passage before the author of CD and interpreted by him with reference to the Teacher of Righteousness, the founder of the sect, read something like: hrwm ˆhk ˆyaw . . . rç ˆyaw ˚lm ˆya. The paraphrase in CD then, also backs the LXX to Hos 3:4 as a supporting witness. 26 23. M. Burrows, The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark’s Monastery, vol. I (New Haven, Conn.: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1950) pls. LV–LXI. B. Nitzan has prepared an edition with commentary in Hebrew, The Pesher Habbakuk Scroll from the Scrolls of the Judean Desert (1QpHab) ( Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Bialik, 1986). For English translations, consult García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, 197–202; G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (4th ed.; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995) 340– 47; García Martínez and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 1.11–20. 24. See the comments of Nitzan, Pesher Habbakuk, on the passages cited. 25. See Allegro, Qumran Cave 4—I, 44, frgs. 3–4, 1, col. iii, line 15. 26. In a rich article, Edward Greenstein cautioned scholars against using citations and paraphrases from the Bible in later sources, because presumed textual alternatives may derive from imprecise citations based on memory. To this I rejoin: citations and paraphrases are textual witnesses; one must weigh their value, as usual in text criticism. If they combine with other witnesses coming from elsewhere and if they follow the recognized processes of textual transmission (as in our instance of theological emendations), then one must respect their contents. For Greenstein’s comments, see E. L. Greenstein, “Misquotation of Scripture in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Frank Talmage Memorial Volume (ed. B. Walfish; Haifa: Haifa University Press, 1993) 71–83. Examples

+

‘No Ephod or Teraphim’—oude hierateias oude delon

145

A Theological Correction Once we have concluded that we prefer the presumed reading ˆyaw µyrwaw ˆhk÷hnhk, then the question of how the reading of the MT, µyprtw dwpa ˆyaw, devolved from it requires explanation. It seems reasonable to suggest that a theological correction caused it. 27 At some stage, the religion of Israel rejected the urim as a mantic medium. A copyist influenced by this objection found the passage µyrwaw ˆhk÷hnhk and substituted it with the negative items µyprtw dwpa, idolatrous cultic instruments such as the ones mentioned in Judges 17 (v. 5) and 18 (vv. 14, 17, 18, 20—on these verses, see below). In light of the discovery of a theological correction in this verse in the presumed Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX (jbzm for hbxm), such a correction in the parent text of the MT should occasion no surprise. Do proofs for theological emendations regarding the issue of the ephod and the urim exist in the textual witnesses of the Bible? One correction of this type (but in a different form) appears in 1 Sam 14:18. The LXX, retroverted to Biblical Hebrew, says: hyja la lwaç rmayw larçy ynpl awhh µwyb dwpa açn awh yk dwpah hçygh. The MT, however, has: µwyb µyhlah ˆwra hyh yk µyhlah ˆwra hçygh hyjal lwaç rmayw larçy ynbw awhh. Undoubtedly, the LXX suggests a preferable text here. 28 The diviner’s medium of the ephod has been erased from the archetype of the MT. This same correction occurs in 1 Kgs 2:26; Abiathar was at David’s beck and call throughout the period of David’s dodging of Saul, but rather than the ark of the Lord (which all the textual witnesses attest), he carried with him the ephod. The text was emended in opposition to this mantic instrument. Here one may also add the passages in which David seeks the Lord’s oracle (the Hebrew expression òhb laç carries a technical meaning and indicates the medium of a priest bearing an ephod), but then, before God’s answer, there is a “break in the middle of the verse”:

of my method may be found in my article “Qumranic Paraphrases, the Greek Deuteronomy and the Late History of the Biblical Nasiª,” Textus 14 (1988) 163–74. 27. Patterson already pointed in this direction (“The Septuagint Text of Hosea,” 211). 28. See I. L. Seeligmann, “Studies in the History of the Biblical Text,” Tarbiz 25 (1956) 118–39, esp. 123, repr. in idem, Studies in Biblical Literature ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992) 300–301 [Hebrew], and the literature cited there in n. 17. English translation: Textus 20 (2000) 1–30.

146

Alexander Rofé

,

1 Sam 23:2

David inquired of the Lord, as follows, “Shall I go and smite these Philistines?” The Lord said . . . 1 Sam 23:10–11 David said, “. . . Will Saul come here, as your servant has heard? Lord, the God of Israel, please tell me!” The Lord said, “He will come.” 2 Sam 5:19 David inquired of the Lord, as follows, “Shall I go up against the Philistines? Will you deliver them into my hands?” The Lord said to David, “Go up, because I will deliver them, those Philistines, into your hands.”

It stands to reason that in these passages, as in some other passages exhibiting the “break in the middle of the verse,” the phenomenon preserves a remnant of an excision done to the text—occasionally for theological reasons. The various testimonies to an objection against priestly divination, which involved the ephod and the urim, join forces here. Possibly, this objection occurred in a relatively ancient period, perhaps bringing about the cessation of manticism centered around the priestly use of the ephod. The objection to the priest’s mantic use of the ephod, which we uncovered at the text-critical level, also comes to expression at the literary level. D, the document that constitutes the bulk of the canonical book of Deuteronomy, again and again mentions the roles of the priests—to carry the ark (10:8), to serve the Lord and bless His name (10:8; 18:5, 7; 21:5), to judge (17:9–12; 19:17), to instruct the people regarding leprosy (24:8)—and not once does it refer to their role as bearers of the ephod. 29 More significantly, in its laws of war D portrays the priest standing before the people on the eve of battle (20:2–4). This constitutes a classic situation for consulting the ephod for an oracle from God! The priest here, however, does not use his mantic instruments; rather, he gives a general, inspirational speech in the spirit of Deuteronomic theology. D’s silence regarding the urim becomes thunderous; this is no coincidence. What’s more, D provides an alternative to divine revelation—the word of the prophet (18:14–22). 30 Quite apparently, D deliberately remained silent about priestly divination. 29. The “Blessing of Moses,” which mentions ˚ydysj çyal ˚yrwaw ˚ymt (Deut 33:8), constitutes an ancient poem predating the composition of D. It offers no evidence regarding the religious institutions of D. 30. The Jewish tradition sensed well this silence of D; Tg. Yer. renders Deut 18:14b as follows: yy ˆwkl bhy ayxwrt aybnw aymwtw ayrwa ˆylwyç anhk ˆhla ˆwhtwk al ˆwtaw ˆwkyhla ‘but you are not like them; rather, the Lord your God has given you priests inquiring of the urim and thummim and righteous prophets’.

spread is 6 poinst long

+

‘No Ephod or Teraphim’—oude hierateias oude delon

147

At this point, one should note the position of P, chief among the Pentateuchal documents. P enjoins the placement of the urim into the fpçmh ˆçwj ‘breast-plate of justice’ (Exod 28:30) and then describes the fulfillment of this command (Lev 8:8). And yet, P entirely lacks the making of the urim! The Samaritan Pentateuch preserves their making in Exod 28:30; 29:31, and it also appears in Exod 29:31 according to 4QExod–Levf. 31 The readings in the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Qumran scroll may present secondary supplements meant to fill a perceived lack in the original text. The Samaritan Pentateuch frequently attests this concern. But it is not impossible that in this instance these texts preserve a primary reading excised from the MT in order to minimize the urim as much as possible. To date, I see no convincing solution to this crux. What is clear, however, is that P, according to the MT, makes only passing reference to the urim, as a tangent, in an offhand manner that does unseemly justice to the prominent role this hoary institution played. 32 The objection to priestly mantic function, then, came not only to text-critical but also to literary expression. On the face of it, the originality of the word pair “ephod and teraphim” in Hos 3:4 seems to find support in its appearance in the story about the foundation of the Danite temple in Judges 17–18. It even appears to me that this instance of the word pair explains why the last one hundred years have not witnessed one scholar asking whether the LXX reflects a reading and what its nature is. 33 Nevertheless, from the moment it becomes plausible that a reading such as µyrwaw hnhk ˆyaw did exist in a Hebrew manuscript and that it predates the reading in the MT, one should explain why the analogy of Judges 17–18 does not apply to Hos 3:4. First, the nature of the ephod and the teraphim in Judges 17–18 must be addressed. Judging by appearance, again, they join the lsp (statue) and the hksm (molten image) of Micaiah’s temple in a quartet delineating various types and sizes of sculpted figures—carved wood, cast metal, woven or knitted thread (the ephod), and the like. Actually, 31. E. Ulrich et al., Qumran Cave 4—VII: Genesis to Numbers (DJD 12; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994) 133–44, esp. 139. Cross, who edited the full scroll, did not grasp the scope of the problem in these verses. 32. Cf. U. Cassuto, Commentary to the Book of Exodus ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1952) 265–67 [Hebrew]. 33. Indeed, the last one to raise this possibility was Patterson in the year 1890–91 (“The Septuagint Text of Hosea,” 211).

148

Alexander Rofé

,

however, the statue and molten image, on one hand, and the ephod and teraphim, on the other, constitute two separate groups. Micaiah’s mother fashioned the statue and the molten image and founded the temple in her son’s house with them (17:4). Afterward, Micaiah took a second initiative; he made “an ephod and teraphim and invested one of his sons, who became his priest” (17:5). Infer from this that the ephod and teraphim were the equipment of the priest and, since the priest served only one function in the story of Micaiah—namely, to inquire of the Lord—it seems reasonable that the ephod and teraphim served in this capacity, as mantic paraphernalia. 34 The above analysis calls for the emendation of the subsequent verses in the story, in chap. 18. The Danites commandeered the statue and the molten image (vv. 17, 18), whereas the priest joined up with them and brought along with him the ephod and teraphim (v. 20). Textual witnesses have blurred the distinction among the various implements. A remnant of this exists in the MT to v. 20, which reads, “The priest’s heart gladdened and he took the ephod and the teraphim and the statue”; a copyist accidentally added “and the statue” but did not continue by adding “and the molten image.” The LXX filled in the “lacuna”—an incorrect supplement. The story about the founding of the Danite temple, in essence, presents the opposite of a hieros logos. A hieros logos recounts how a given place is invested with holiness by the immanence or appearance of the divinity there; this story, by contrast, describes the founding of a temple through deeds beginning with theft and ending with armed robbery. 35 The terse language, common in biblical literature, should not mislead 34. Ezek 21:26 and perhaps Zech 10:2 refer to them as idolatrous or rejected mantic media. In two stories they appear as sculpted forms for domestic use: Gen 31:19, 30, 32–34; 1 Sam 19:13–16. Therefore, the author of Judges 17–18 employed “teraphim” as a derogatory term for the equipment of the divining priest; so did the editor of Hos 3:4, who substituted “teraphim” for “urim.” For the etymology of teraphim, consult the newer encyclopaedias. 35. I have found consonant comments in the following works: M. J. Lagrange, Le Livre des Juges (Paris: Gabalda, 1903) 293–95; M. Noth, “The Background of Judges 17–18,” in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of J. Muilenburg (ed. B. W. Anderson and H. Harrelson; New York: Harper, 1962) 68–85; J. A. Soggin, Judges: A Commentary (OTL; trans. from Italian; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981) 268–69; T. Rudin, “The Appendix to the Book of Judges ( Judges 17–21),” Beer Sheva 2 (1985) 141–65 [Hebrew]; Y. Amit, “Hidden Polemic in the Conquest of Dan: Judges XVII–XVIII,” VT 40 (1990) 4–20.

+

‘No Ephod or Teraphim’—oude hierateias oude delon

149

us. When Micaiah cries that they have stolen “my gods, which I made” (18:24), he recycles an established expression employed by generations of biblical authors to ridicule the sculpted forms used in idolatry. In this case, in a story characterized by this type of sublimated polemic, it should occasion no wonder that the author used the derisive language of “ephod and teraphim” for “ephod and urim” or “urim and thummim” to represent the priestly mantic instruments. Not so Hos 3:4. It was noted above that the prophet delineated pairs of items considered legitimate institutions in his time: king and official, altar and pillar. . . . The continuation to this list has no room for the derogatory language of ephod and teraphim. The third pair, too, appeared in matter-of-fact language. Therefore, the presumed reading, µyrwaw ˆhk÷hnhk ˆyaw, deserves to be the preferred one.

150

Alexander Rofé

This page intentionally left blank.

,

Reexamining the Fate of the “Canaanites” in the Torah Traditions Baruch J. Schwartz Hebrew University of Jerusalem

#

$

The Migration-and-Displacement Tradition The picture painted by modern historians, archaeologists, and biblical scholars confirms little of what the biblical authors supposed to have constituted Israel’s premonarchic history and denies categorically a large portion of it. One example is the claim, found throughout the biblical literature, that the land which, by the time the biblical literature began to be created, Israel had occupied for generations, was once inhabited by a cluster of ethnic groups—“peoples” or “nations”—to whom it has become customary to refer as “the Canaanites” and that the Israelite people came into existence elsewhere and migrated to the “land of Canaan,” displacing these aboriginal inhabitants. Scholars of recent decades have for the most part come to deny this version of Israel’s prehistory. 1 They have shown that while Israel may have, inter alia, appropriated to itself authentic memories of the migrations and settlements of various tribes and clans occurring over a long period of time, and while it may refer to features of topography and landscape that indeed bear evidence of conquests and destructions, 2 the Israelites were not the natural descendants of a single ethnic entity that entered 1. Regarding the period of Israel’s prehistory, this is true not only of scholars belonging to the “minimalist” school but also of mainstream, moderate scholars by whom the literary, archaeological, and epigraphical evidence of a First-Temple Israel is taken seriously. 2. See Nadav Naªaman, “The ‘Conquest of Canaan’ in the Book of Joshua and in History,” in From Nomadism to Monarchy (ed. Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Naªaman; Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi and Israel Exploration Society, 1994) 218–81.

151

152

Baruch J. Schwartz

,

the “land of Canaan,” either en masse or gradually, after having become religiously and culturally defined and numerous enough to constitute a “great nation.” Still, though the biblical traditions concerning the migration of the Israelites to their land from afar and the displacement of the Canaanite population cannot serve as reliable sources of information about Israel’s ancestors in the ages preceding their formulation, they are by no means devoid of historical value. They provide an accurate reflection of the self-image of the Israelite body politic in the age when they were recounted. The tradition of migration and displacement is historically valuable as an authentic expression of Israel’s sense of the meaning of its national existence. In all of its versions, this tradition says in effect: we are not the original inhabitants of this land; we are newcomers on the stage of history, the youngest of nations. We came here from afar; not long before coming here, we were subservient to others. In order for us to enter this land and take possession of it, the original occupants needed to be displaced; this was accomplished for our benefit by God in accord with a plan he conceived and of which he informed us in advance. By telling this tale of Israel’s origin, the ancient Israelite was saying something like: we recognize that one God created and has dominion over all, but we also cannot help but notice that we are the only people to acknowledge this and to serve him. The only logical explanation for this fact is that acknowledging and serving this deity is our raison d’être. He has created us, the Israelite people, for this purpose, and in order to accomplish it he has given us territory and political sovereignty. These are not ours by right but as a sacred trust and charge. On our own we could not have obtained them; even Yhwh himself went to considerable effort in order to arrange for us to have them. We have them not for our own benefit but for his. We exist not as other nations do, in order to subdue others and pursue greatness, but rather in order to carry out a divinely ordained task, and our continued existence depends on our carrying it out faithfully. If we fail, a God capable of dispossessing nations of their territory can do the same to us. Biblical historiographers share in common the two basic elements of this tradition, Israelite migration and Canaanite displacement. Yet they have imagined the actual process in different and contradictory ways. We shall concentrate here on the second motif, the supposed disappearance of the purported former inhabitants of the land of Canaan, first

spread is 3 points short

+

Reexamining the Fate of the “Canaanites” in the Torah Traditions

153

studied over a decade ago by Moshe Weinfeld. 3 I shall attempt to reexamine the different views of how this was thought to have taken place. The basis for comparison will be the Torah sources J, E, P, and D. 4 I take these to have been complete and continuous narrative documents, each containing a law code, composed independently of each other (with the exception of D, which draws on E) and ultimately combined into the Torah-book. They can be retrieved and reconstituted (the first two in part, the latter two virtually in their entirety) by a process of disentangling the interwoven strands, and this is the basis of my claim that one may speak of the separate viewpoints expressed by each. I will make no attempt to trace any developmental line from one source to another (except for the literary trajectory leading from E to D), because I believe that the attempt to reconstruct the history of biblical thought, law, and institutions by arranging the Torah sources in some evolutionary order is methodologically unsound. Therefore, I will concentrate solely on the exegetical task of elucidating the tradition of “what happened to the Canaanites” in each one of its versions. 5 The Nonpriestly Sources As demonstrated by Weinfeld, the nonpriestly historiographical literature found in the Torah exhibits two distinct views of the fate of the pre-Israelite population of Canaan. On the one hand are the preDeuteronomic sources of the Torah ( J and E), according to which the previous occupants were to have fled Canaan in the wake of the Israelite invasion and conquest. On the other hand is the Deuteronomic tradition, according to which the former population of Canaan was to have been destroyed in the face of the Israelite tribes.

3. Weinfeld’s study was first published as “hyswlkwah lç hmrjhw hçrwh ,çwryg arqmh yqwjb tylarçyAµdqh,” Zion 53/2 (1988) 135–47; the English translation appears in Moshe Weinfeld, The Promise of the Land: The Inheritance of Canaan by the Israelites (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993) 76–98. References below are to the English version. 4. For the traditions outside the Torah, see Sara Japhet, “Conquest and Settlement in Chronicles,” JBL 98 (1979) 205–18 and below, n. 17. 5. For my earlier analysis of this topic, see my Holiness Legislation: Studies in the Priestly Code ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1999) 228–37 [Hebrew]. Here I have broadened the scope on several points and corrected several conclusions that now appear to have been faulty, as will be pointed out below.

154

Baruch J. Schwartz

,

The detailed comparison of the Torah sources, from which this distinction emerges most clearly, is best accomplished when J and E are considered separately. J’s version of the Sinai covenant (Exod 34:2–3 + 5–27) 6 centers around Yhwh’s demand, “Observe what I command you this day” (Exod 34:11). 7 To spell out his intention, Yhwh begins by proclaiming, “I am about to drive out (vreg)o before you the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites” (Exod 34:11), and then he commands the Israelites not to grant a covenant to (Al tyrb trk) the inhabitants of the land (vv. 12, 15). The practical sense of this prohibition is explained by the order to “tear down their altars, smash their pillars, and cut down their sacred posts” and the warning not to take part in the worship of their gods, “lest they . . . in the course of lusting after their gods and sacrificing to their gods, invite you, and you eat of their sacrifices, and you then take wives from among their daughters for your sons, and their daughters, lusting after their gods, cause your sons to lust after their gods” (vv. 15–16). In other words: until such time as the evacuation of the Canaanites is complete, the danger exists that the Israelites may intermarry with them and be attracted to the worship of their gods; they are therefore forbidden to do so. This basic postulate is shared by E, as evidenced by its repeated use of the same verb (çrg ‘drive out’) to denote the manner in which God intends to deal with the Canaanites (Exod 23:28, 29, 30, 31). 8 E too re6. This narrative continues the thread of 32:26–29 and 33:1–5 + 12–23. According to J, the covenant made at Sinai came in the wake of some act of rebellious, “stiffnecked” behavior and consisted of Yhwh’s gracious forgiveness and promise to lead the Israelites into Canaan. The question of whether some or all of the laws that, in the present text of the pericope, were also imparted at this time (vv. 17–26) are original to J or whether these are a later stratum in the text can be left out of the present discussion. Here we are dealing only with the hortatory portion of Yhwh’s words (vv. 10–16); their connection with the Yahwistic narrative here is certain and is further evident from their connection with Num 25:1b–2 + 3b–4 ( J). The remainder of Exod 34:1–28 belongs to E, although v. 4 has been revised to include the name “Sinai.” 7. The translation of biblical texts is based on the njpsv, with occasional changes made for clarity. 8. The words contained in Exod 20:19b–23:33, which God orders Moses to relay to the Israelites (Exod 20:19a), are part of the Elohistic narrative that follows the Decalogue and continues with the covenant made at the mountain (Exod 24:3–8 + 11bb–15a + 18b). Since this narrative relates that, in preparation for the covenant ceremony, Moses wrote down all the words of Yhwh (24:4) and then read them aloud to the Israelites (24:7), the narrator naturally refers to the document as a “book of the covenant” (24:7). This has led to the scholarly convention of referring to the laws contained in this speech (21:2–23:19) as “the Book of the Covenant,” as though this were some independent

spread is 9 points long

+

Reexamining the Fate of the “Canaanites” in the Torah Traditions

155

counts that a central element of the covenant made at the mountain of God 9 was the divine command, “You shall grant no covenant to them or their gods” (Exod 23:32), and here too the practical intent of this order is the obligation to refrain from worshiping their gods and to tear down their idols and pillars and smash them to bits (v. 24). And, just as in J, the rationale is entirely religious: “lest they cause you to sin against me; for you will serve their gods—and it will prove a snare to you” (v. 33). A clear contrast to this is found in D. As elsewhere, D follows the style and terminology of E but reshapes them to suit its own underlying assumptions. 10 In D’s presentation of the promises made in the wilderness of Moab, the Israelites were assured that, with the help of God, they were to wage a war of annihilation against the occupants of Canaan and that, when “Yhwh your God delivers them to you and you defeat them, you must doom them to destruction. Grant them no covenant and show them no compassion” (Deut 7:2). Here the phrase “grant them no covenant” takes on a new meaning: do not allow them to remain alive (see 9:3; 20:16–17), 11 “show no pity” (7:16). D too warns against intermarrying with them (v. 3); here, however, the danger is not only that “they will turn your children away from me to worship other gods” (v. 4) but also that such conduct will cause Yhwh’s anger to “blaze forth against you and he will promptly wipe you out” (v. 4). Thus, in D’s version, Israel was warned: annihilate them or else Yhwh will annihilate you. In D, the Israelites are thus charged both with the annihilation of the Canaanites and with the destruction of their places and instruments of document, but as far as the text is concerned they, along with the concluding exhortation (23:20–33) with which we dealing here, are an integral part of the Elohistic narration. 9. As is well-known, E does not relate that the revelation and law-giving took place at Sinai, and indeed does not mention the name “Sinai” at all. In E’s view these events took place at “the mountain of God,” said to be located in the Horeb area (see Exod 3:1; 18:5; 19:2b–3 [where µyhIløa”h:Ala< should probably be µyhIløa”h: rh"Ala