The Book of the Twelve: An Anthology of Prophetic Books or The Result of Complex Redactional Processes? [1 ed.] 9783737007306, 9783847107309

Citation preview

Osnabrücker Studien zur Jüdischen und Christlichen Bibel

Band 4

Herausgegeben von Georg Steins

Heiko Wenzel (ed.)

The Book of the Twelve An Anthology of Prophetic Books or The Result of Complex Redactional Processes?

With a foreword of Georg Fischer SJ

V&R unipress Universitätsverlag Osnabrück

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. ISSN 2198-6339 ISBN 978-3-7370-0730-6 Weitere Ausgaben und Online-Angebote sind erhältlich unter: www.v-r.de Veröffentlichungen des Universitätsverlags Osnabrück erscheinen im Verlag V&R unipress GmbH. © 2018, V&R unipress GmbH, Robert-Bosch-Breite 6, D-37079 Göttingen / www.v-r.de Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Das Werk und seine Teile sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung in anderen als den gesetzlich zugelassenen Fällen bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Einwilligung des Verlages.

Contents

Preface

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Abbreviations

7

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

Thomas Renz Habakkuk and Its Co-Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

Christopher R. Seitz The Unique Achievement of the Book of the Twelve. Neither Redactional Unity Nor Anthology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer Reading Zechariah’s Vision Report in the Book of the Twelve . . . . . . .

49

Johannes Taschner / Heiko Wenzel Narrative, Debate, and the Book of the Twelve

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

79

Heiko Wenzel One or Twelve? Hermeneutics, Expectations, and A Framework for Reading the Twelve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

93

Hendrik J. Koorevaar The Twelve and the Fifteen: About the Size, Order, and Relationship inside the Writing Prophets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Andrew E. Hill A Theology of Prayer in the Book of the Twelve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

Preface

Why another book on the Book of the Twelve? Because there is lively debate about it and much to learn from various scholars. Different approaches and opinions do not make dialogue impossible. Rather, they facilitate fruitful discussions, raise important questions, and stimulate further research. Perhaps differences are necessary for a positive, constructive dialogue. At least that is what happened at the meeting out of which this collection of essays grew. Approaching differences with an attitude of attentiveness and willingness to learn stimulates learning processes. After all, this is one of the primary goals of scholarship. This collection hopes to be one little part of such a process. Many people and institutions played a role in making this project possible. Their contributions and support are greatly appreciated. First of all, the contributors to this volume made the meeting and the collection what it is. Thank you for your cooperation. Also, my thanks go to the ETF Leuven, which hosted our meeting and – along with the FTH Gießen – provided necessary funds for the meeting and for the publication. In addition, the publication was made possible by the financial support of the AfeT. Last but not least, I greatly appreciate Georg Steins’ willingness to publish this collection in the Osnabrücker Studien zur jüdischen und christlichen Bibel and the invaluable support of the staff at Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Heiko Wenzel, Gießen

Abbreviations

(in addition to the SBL Handbook of Style)

ANEM AOTC BCAT Berit Olam BibSem BIS BThSt CThM CurBR EBC EccR EJL FAT II HBM HCOT ITL IVP LCBI LSTS NTM PFES SBET SHBC SHS Siphrut SJCA SCJ TVGBM UTPSS

Ancient Near East Monographs / Monografias Sobre El Antiguo Cercano Oriente Apollos Old Testament Commentary Series Biblischer Commentar über das Alte Testament Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative and Poetry Biblical Seminar Biblical Interpretation Series Biblisch-Theologische Studien Calwer Theologische Monographien Currents in Biblical Research Expositor’s Bible Commentary Ecclesia Reformanda Early Judaism and Its Literature Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe Hebrew Bible Monographs Historical Commentary on the Old Testament The International Theological Library InterVarsity Press Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation Library of Second Temple Studies New Testament Monographs Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology Smyth and Helwys Bible Commentary Scripture and Hermeneutics Series Siphrut: Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures Studies in Judaism and Christianity in Antiquity Stone-Campbell Journal TVG Bibelwissenschaftliche Monografien University of Texas Press Slavic Series

Foreword

Many natural phenomena display different appearances under different conditions. Water, for example, according to temperature and other conditions, may be fluid, may form crystals of ice or snow, or may evaporate into the air, often becoming imperceptible to us, but sometimes visible as clouds. Similarly, seemingly white light may be broken, by passing through a prism, to reveal all the colours of the rainbow, from violet to red. Atomic researchers note the paradoxical character of light, which behaves like a wave under certain conditions, and like a mass under others. God’s word can also display apparently contrasting facets. The papers of this conference on the ‘Minor’ Prophets tackle their apparent ambivalence: on the one hand, the twelve scrolls are clearly individually constructed, yet, on the other, they display obvious points of contact indicating a certain unity. However, this phenomenon can be observed, even more extensively, in many areas of the Bible and thus it is to be expected that the articles in this volume will also contribute to other fields of biblical research. The Torah, for instance, consists of five scrolls, which belong together and form a whole; nevertheless the Book of Deuteronomy has its own characteristics, being set apart, in vocabulary and in some of its concepts, from the books of Genesis through to Numbers. In a similar way, we may see the Psalter in one way as a unity, and in another, as being constituted of 150 individual Psalms; there again, we find a tendency to bring together several distinct poems into various collections, and, in a further step, into one great ‘book’. In the books of the prophets, similar features can be observed. The Book of Isaiah addresses at least three different time periods: the Neo-Assyrian, the NeoBabylonian, and the post-exilic Persian era. All these backgrounds are incorporated into one book, and have found expression in its old tripartite division (First, Second, Third Isaiah); however, in recent times this last has been questioned more and more frequently, and rightly so. Within the Minor Prophets, the Book of Zechariah is sometimes analysed in a comparable way, also assuming

12

Foreword

various stages of composition. Besides being composed of distinct ‘materials’, Isaiah and Zechariah are both transmitted as individual books. The key issue behind all these cases is the combination of ‘different’ elements, which are considered as belonging together, into one ‘whole’. How can we perceive and explain the obvious tendency of biblical texts and books to bring together apparently contrasting features within one unit? The Bible, both as a whole, and in its constituent parts, clearly has a tendency to mix perspectives and motifs, thus conveying a multi-faceted impression of what it wants to communicate. This can be a challenge to modern readers, who are more used to ‘linear’ thinking. It requires us to adjust to another way of ‘seeing’, namely to perceiving various dimensions of the topic, rather than thinking only unilaterally. Such an attitude is important for our approach to God’s word and the work of our colleagues. We are invited to recognize the findings of opposing exegetical ‘schools’, the limitations or weaknesses of our own research, and to discover what is most illuminating in the different methods used. A brief look at some of the theological motifs used in the Twelve provides examples of this. Hosea compares God to a moth, rottenness, and a lion (Hos 5:12, 14). Habakkuk addresses him, in a unique way, as “My Holy One” (Hab 1:12), and in Zechariah he declares himself to be a “firewall” around Jerusalem (Zech 2:5), an expression only encountered here. These present very diverse aspects of the biblical God, but the canon asks us to see them together, and to reflect on their function, as individual messages as well as in their relationships with one another. Even so, YHWH will still exceed all our efforts to comprehend his unfathomable, immeasurable richness, the deepest root for the iridescent abundance of his revelation, which transcends by far all our human concepts and insights. This volume on the Twelve may bring us to a greater appreciation of how something which presents in a variety of forms, ultimately derives from one common origin and exhibits only distinct perspectives of human attempts to grasp what is fundamentally beyond perception and language. Georg Fischer SJ, Innsbruck

Thomas Renz

Habakkuk and Its Co-Texts

1.

Introduction

Habakkuk has been transmitted to us from antiquity as part of the Twelve and is found between Nahum and Zephaniah in every biblical manuscript, including all fragments large enough to allow us to determine its location within a larger corpus. The sequence Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah is also nearly universal wherever the twelve prophets are listed.1 The only exception known to me is at the end of a passage in the Ascension of Isaiah (3:13–4:22).2 The passage is an early Christian interpolation to a Jewish composition (known today as “The Martyrdom of Isaiah”) which was transmitted alongside a Christian work (“The Vision of Isaiah”) as “The Ascension of 1 So, e. g., in 4 Ezra 1:38–40 which reflects the standard order found in Greek manuscripts. Marvin A. Sweeney argues that this reflects the original order, see “The Place and Function of Joel in the Book of the Twelve,” in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve (ed. Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart; BZAW 325; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 133–54. By contrast, James D. Nogalski, Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve (BZAW 217; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993), 20–57, argued that the sequence in MT manuscripts is earlier. He is followed in this by, e. g., Aaron Schart, “Dodekapropheton,” in Septuaginta Deutsch. Vol. 2: Psalmen bis David; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011), 2275–86; cf. Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 80–7. Barry A. Jones initially suggested that the order in the LXX is earlier than the one in MT and proposed that Jonah was originally placed last as reflected in 4QXIIa (The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: A Study in Text and Canon [SBLDS 149; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995], 129–69, 222–4). Later, in his contribution “The Book of the Twelve as a Witness to Ancient Biblical Interpretation,” in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve (ed. James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney; SBLSymS 15; Atlanta: SBL, 2000), 65–74, he concluded that “the originality of one sequence of books over another is impossible to establish” and argued for an original diversity of arrangements (69). See also n. 54. 2 A list of seventy-two prophets and prophetesses in OT and NT attributed to Epiphanius of Salamis and attested in manuscripts from the tenth century onwards is no exception. See Theodor Schermann, Prophetarum vitae fabulosae (Leipzig: Teubner, 1907), 1–3. Its sequence is the one also followed in MT manuscripts, supplemented by other prophets, namely Isaiah between Jonah and Micah, and Obed, Abdadon (Ἀβδαδών), Jeremiah and Baruch between Habakkuk and Zephaniah, followed by Uriah (see Jer 26:20), Ezekiel, Daniel and Ezra before Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi (prophets 40–60 in the list).

14

Thomas Renz

Isaiah” of which it constitutes the first five chapters.3 Towards its conclusion the prophecy links back to the canonical book of Isaiah and then adds: And all these things, behold they are written in the Psalms, in the parables [= poems] of David, the son of Jesse, and in the Proverbs of Solomon his son, and in the words of Korah and of Ethan the Israelite, and in the words of Asaph, and in the rest of the psalms also which the angel of the spirit inspired, (namely) in those which have no name written, and in the words of Amos my father,4 and of Hosea the prophet, and of Micah, and of Joel, and of Nahum, and of Jonah, and of Obadiah, and of Habakkuk, and of Haggai, and of Zephaniah, and of Zechariah, and of Malachi, and in the words of the righteous Joseph [apparently a reference to The Prayer of Joseph, a work now almost lost], and in the words of Daniel.

Apart from the position of Amos which may be due to his identification with the father of Isaiah and the juxtaposition of Nahum and Jonah as both dealing with Nineveh,5 this list of the twelve prophets appears to be nearly random when compared with the better known sequences in manuscripts of the Book of the Twelve. It suggests that there was no one canonical order which easily tripped of the tongue (or pen) of first century authors although we cannot be confident about this, given the slender evidence and the fact that the deviation from the standardized sequence reflected in the MT is only known from manuscripts transmitted within a Christian context.6 What is particularly remarkable about 3 Michael A. Knibb, “Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (vol. 2: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works; ed. James H. Charlesworth; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985), 143–76. Knibb argues against the view proposed by R. H. Charles that 3:13–4:22 at one time had an independent existence but allows that it may have been part of another work. He dates it to the end of the first century CE. 4 The identification (or confusion) of Amoz (Isa 1:1) and Amos (Amos 1:1) was common in early Christian tradition, cf. ibid., 156. 5 As with other sequences we may see a hint of chronological sequence with Amos, Hosea and Micah early on and Zechariah and Malachi concluding the collection but the placement of Zephaniah between Haggai and Zechariah and of Nahum prior to Jonah causes more havoc to any presumed chronology than any oddity we might observe in the MT and LXX sequences. 6 The order in which the twelve prophets are discussed in The Lives of the Prophets varies. Manuscripts which reflect one of the versions attributed to Epiphanius of Salamis (Schermann, Prophetarum vitae, 3–25, 55–67) or the version attributed to Dorotheus of Antioch (ibid., 25–55) follow the standard LXX sequence. A version attributed to Hesychius of Jerusalem (ibid., 98– 104) reflects the order in the MT. The earliest complete text still extant, in Codex Marchalianus, belongs to an anonymous recension also attested in other manuscripts (ibid., 68–98), whose sequence is similar to most LXX manuscripts except that Amos and Micah are in reverse order. This Hosea-Micah-Amos sequence is also attested in a ninth century Latin manuscript which refers to Obadiah and Jonah between Elijah and Elisha, mentions Joel between Haggai and Malachi, and omits Zechariah (ibid., 105–6; Zechariah ben Jehoiada [2 Chr 24:20–22] is also missing). The use of the standard LXX arrangement or a variation of it may be related to the fact that the known versions are all Christian but it is nevertheless remarkable that the Hosea-MicahAmos sequence is evidently not a mistake found in only one or two manuscripts but a genuine

Habakkuk and Its Co-Texts

15

the enumeration in the Ascension of Isaiah is that Nahum precedes Jonah and that Zephaniah is placed after Haggai. It seems that any chronological considerations or concern for a story line were readily ignored. The unusual order given in the Ascension of Isaiah 4:22 could serve as a control group with which to test the rhetorical force of the standard arrangements. This essay explores the significance of the placement of Habakkuk within our canon of Scripture in three steps. First, the pairing of Nahum and Habakkuk will be examined because this pairing is sometimes thought to be responsible for the placement of Habakkuk before Zephaniah. Then we will look at the sequence of the three books Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah. Finally, the question of the Book of the Twelve as a context which should shape our reading of Habakkuk will be considered. Ched Spellman distinguishes between “mere” contextuality and “meant” contextuality. The former “is the effect that arises in the mind of the reader when writings are seen in relation to other writings.”7 Reading Habakkuk as part of the biblical canon involves a decision to see it in relation to the other canonical writings. In addition, Spellman like others allows for “the possibility of an intended contextuality” where the juxtaposition of writings within the canon is intended by the compilers. The latter would be significant both for historical and for canon-conscious readings of Habakkuk.8 This essay in effect seeks to answer the question whether in the case of Habakkuk there are such guidelines generated by its placement within the canon or, in Spellman’s terminology, whether the contextuality is likely to be “meant”. Two things appear to be undisputable. First, twelve compositions, each associated with a named prophet,9 were preserved and transmitted together as one collection from (at least) as early as the second century BCE. Secondly, the Book of the Twelve was not written by one author at one time. It also seems to be widely

alternative tradition. In any case, the various editions of The Lives of the Prophets suggest that the Book of the Twelve did not have one definitive shape even among Christians. See further D. R. A. Hare, “The Lives of the Prophets,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 2: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works (ed. James H. Charlesworth; Garden City: Doubleday, 1985), 379–99 and David Satran, Biblical Prophets in Byzantine Palestine: Reassessing the Lives of the Prophets (SVTP 11; Leiden: Brill, 1995). 7 Ched E. Spellman, Toward a Canon-Conscious Reading of the Bible: Exploring the History and Hermeneutics of the Canon (NTM 34; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2014), 110. 8 In my view a proper theological reading of the Bible is of necessity a canon-conscious reading. Spellman argues that “a canon-conscious reading of Scripture is one that follows the guidelines generated by the canonical context” (ibid., 101). 9 I assume that ‫“( ַמְלָאִכי‬my messenger”) and ‫“( ע ַֹבְדי ָה‬servant of Yah”) are to be read as names, Malachi and Obadiah. The question whether these, and maybe others such as Nahum (“comforter”), are pen names or the names of historical persons is immaterial here.

16

Thomas Renz

agreed that most, but maybe not all,10 of the twelve compositions first circulated on their own and then in smaller collections before forming a Book of the Twelve. Most scholars believe that this process involved editorial additions to the compositions. The question is whether such editorial work was undertaken in part with a view to turning the Twelve into more than an anthology, namely a coherent composition with an overall theme and/or perspective or even with a plot and/or argument.

2.

The Pairing of Nahum and Habakkuk

The question whether the juxtaposition of Nahum and Habakkuk is more or less accidental or deliberate arises regardless of one’s view about the nature of the Book of the Twelve. If we see the Twelve as a unified composition in which an argument is pursued, we might expect the pairing of Nahum and Habakkuk to be deliberate. But, especially if the argument is a loose one, we cannot rule out the possibility that the overall argument of the Twelve could have been developed just as well within, say, a Nahum-Zephaniah-Habakkuk sequence. Thus it would be possible to argue that the Book of the Twelve should be read as a single rhetorical unit, while not making much of the specific juxtaposition of Nahum and Habakkuk. Conversely, where the Twelve is seen as an anthology of prophetic writings without a grand unifying perspective or plot, it is nevertheless possible to judge the combining of Nahum and Habakkuk to have been deliberate. In other words, the question at hand deserves to be examined in its own right first of all. Our examination of this issue faces the difficulty that we do not know when Nahum and Habakkuk were first transmitted alongside each other. In particular, we do not know whether earlier forms of one or both of these compositions were transmitted together or whether the two were only combined once they had undergone their final redaction. It is conceivable that an originally closer fit between the two writings has been obscured by later redactional layers although this seems unlikely and no such proposal has been offered. The possibility of an originally accidental pairing which was strengthened and turned into a deliberate pairing by subsequent editors seems more likely. As we examine to what extent we should consider the pairing of Nahum and Habakkuk purposeful, we will be exploring also at what stage any decision to pair these writings might have been made.

10 Joel and Malachi, and maybe Obadiah and Jonah, are the most likely candidates for having been composed with the larger collection in mind.

Habakkuk and Its Co-Texts

17

The groundwork for such an examination was laid by Rainer Kessler in his “Nahum-Habakuk als Zweiprophetenschrift – Eine Skizze.”11 He observes first of all that the Twelve follow a rough chronological sequence, notes that Nahum should therefore stand between Micah and Zephaniah, and then asks why Habakkuk is also found here. His answer is that Nahum-Habakkuk were already a pair.12 But the argument from chronology is not fully persuasive. On the one hand, given that (1) Zephaniah is situated in “the days of Josiah” (Zeph 1:1), (2) Nahum focuses on the end of the Assyrian empire (fall of Nineveh, 612), and (3) Habakkuk concerns Babylonian dominance (from 605), it would seem more logical to place a paired Nahum-Habakkuk composition after Zephaniah which is situated mostly within the Assyrian period (ca. 640–609). Chronology does not demand that Nahum must stand before Zephaniah. The question is therefore maybe not so much why Nahum and Habakkuk stand alongside each other but why Zephaniah is always the last text before we get to the prophets that are situated in the Persian period, beginning with Haggai. On the other hand, it could be argued that in terms of their main concerns the sequence Nahum-Habakkuk-Zephaniah does in fact make chronological sense. Nahum focuses on the fall of Nineveh, Habakkuk takes the story further with the rise of the Babylonian empire, and Zephaniah focuses on the desired response among God’s people to the threatened Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem and Judah.13 In other words, reading Habakkuk after Nahum is undoubtedly fitting and fruitful but their place within the Twelve offers no clear indication that the two writings were meant to be read together prior to their inclusion in the larger collection. This may or may not have been the case. Again, the more interesting question is probably the placement of Zephaniah.14 For Kessler the main argument for considering Nahum-Habakkuk a single composition prior to their inclusion into the Twelve is their arrangement as an ABBA diptych: theophany-psalm (Nahum 1), judgement for Nineveh (Nahum 2– 3), judgement for the Chaldeans (Habakkuk 1–2), theophany-psalm (Habakkuk 11 Published in Erich Zenger (ed.), “Wort JHWHs, das geschah…” (Hos 1,1): Studien zum Zwölfprophetenbuch (HBS 35; Freiburg: Herder, 2002), 149–58. 12 Kessler rightly questions the earlier date given to (the basic layer of) Habakkuk by Walter Dietrich who sees in Hab 1:6 the beginning of Babylonian independence from Assyria. 13 Joseph A. Everson, “The Canonical Location of Habakkuk,” in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve, (ed. Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart; BZAW 325; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 165–74, seems to think that Zephaniah was located after Habakkuk because it was “remembered primarily in conjunction with the traumatic events that resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem” (169) which occurred after the death of Josiah, a death which in his view “raised precisely the kind of questions that seem to be addressed by the Habakkuk scroll” (172). On this view, Habakkuk was placed before Zephaniah not because it had already been attached to Nahum but to encourage its use as a reflection on Josiah’s death. 14 Cf. Marvin A. Sweeney, Zephaniah: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 2–3.

18

Thomas Renz

3). Is this convincing? Nahum 1 and Habakkuk 3 are both prayers which feature the coming of YHWH and its effects on the natural world but they read very differently. Nah 2–3 celebrate the fall of Nineveh, while Habakkuk 1–2 first complain about the dominance of the Chaldeans and then look towards its end. Not only does the material in these chapters belong to very different genres, it is also worth noting that the relationship between Nahum 2 and 3 is quite different from the relationship between Habakkuk 1 and 2. Looking at the arrangement of these chapters in more detail does not strengthen the case for a larger ABBA structure beyond the broad brush observation made at first. In other words, more detailed analysis does not support the initial impression. Before we continue examining Kessler’s argument, it is worth pointing out that Duane Christensen had already proposed a palistrophe uniting Nahum and Habakkuk. He identified “the problem of theodicy” in Habakkuk 1 as the centre of a chiasm which he saw surrounded by taunt songs (Nahum 2–3; Habakkuk 2) and hymns of theophany (Nahum 1; Habakkuk 3).15 If we define more precisely Hab 1:1–2:5 as the centre,16 Christensen’s proposal seems to me more convincing as a broad take on these chapters. But while this may offer an interesting reading strategy, more evidence in the form of specific links would be required for me to accept that such an arrangement was intended by an author or redactor. Kessler is aware of this and seeks to provide this evidence. He notes the use of common motifs in the middle of the “diptych” in the reference to carved and cast images (Nah 1:14; Hab 2:18),17 the description of military might with the use of animal imagery (Nah 2:12–14; Hab 1:8),18 the use of ‫ הוֹי‬in Nah 3:1 as well as five times in Habakkuk 2,19 and the collocation of city and bloodshed in Nah 3:1 as well as Hab 2:12.20 Self-confidence is challenged both in 15 See “The Book of Nahum: A History of Interpretation,” in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts (ed. James W. Watts and Paul R. House; JSOTSup 235; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 187–94 (193). 16 Cf. Paul L. Redditt, “The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: A Review of Research,” in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve, (ed. Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart; BZAW 325; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 1–26 (14). This is taken up by Simon Wakeling to be discussed below. 17 Cf. Deut 27:15; Judg 17:3–4; 18:14, 17–18; Isa 42:17. Kessler refers to Hab 2:15 but he means 2:18. 18 There is no overlap in the animals referenced. By contrast, ‫( זְֵאֵבי ֶעֶרב‬Hab 1:8) is also found in Zeph 3:3 and the similar ‫ זְֵאב ֲעָרבוֹת‬is used in Jer 5:6 along with ‫( ַאְריֵה‬Nah 2:12) and ‫( נֵָמר‬pl. in Hab 1:8). 19 Cf. the sequence in Isa 5:8, 11, 18, 20–22 and similar ‫ הוֹי‬sayings (e. g., Isa 33:1; Jer 22:13) which in their general characterisations of behaviour are arguably closer to Habakkuk 2 than the specific reference to a city in Nah 3:1 for which cf. esp. Ezek 24:6, 9 (with ‫)אוֹי‬. 20 Cf. Mic 3:10. The bloodshed motif with land and city is especially prominent in Ezekiel (7:23; 9:9; 22:2–3; 24:6, 9). Condemnation of the shedding of innocent blood is of course frequent within the prophetic literature (e. g., Isa 1:15; 4:4; 26:21; Jer 2:34; 7:6; 19:4; 26:15).

Habakkuk and Its Co-Texts

19

Nah 3:8–10 and Hab 2:9 but of course also in many other places in the prophetic literature. The motif of drunkenness features as a form of judgement in both Nah 3:11 (for loss of control) and Hab 2:16 (for loss of honour, using the cup-ofYHWH motif specifically). Kessler acknowledges the lack of significant semantic overlap here and in most cases and therefore agrees with Jörg Jeremias’s conclusion that the similarities between Nahum and Habakkuk’s proclamation are limited to a few, commonly used motifs, no more than would be expected in two roughly contemporary prophets.21 Indeed, some of the differences appear to be at least as significant as the similarities. Thus, e. g., the use of animal imagery in Nahum with its lion motif relates to Assyrian propaganda rather than experience,22 while in Habakkuk it reflects the experience of fast-moving cavalry rather than Babylonian propaganda.23 Kessler also recognises that the styles of Nahum 2–3 and Habakkuk 1–2 are very different from each other with the former paying no significant attention to Judah, while the latter focuses on the impact of foreign armies on Judah.24 He traces these differences to their different origins and concludes, “Irgendwelche Anzeichen dafür, dass Nahum und Habakuk in diesem Stadium ihres Entstehens bereits eine Zweiprophetenschrift gebildet hätten, sehe ich nicht.”25 Evidence for a purposeful two-prophet composition must therefore be sought in the psalms in Nah 1 and Hab 3. Here Kessler finds semantic as well as thematic agreements. First, he mentions YHWH’s action against ‫ ָנָהר‬pl. // ‫( יָם‬Nah 1:4; Hab 3:8, 9, 15) but in the light of the sea’s symbolic significance within ancient thought and the importance of rivers and canals as a source of life and line of defence the use of this motif is not surprising in connection with empires that rely on mighty rivers.26 The use of ‫ ְנָהִרים‬in the rhetorical question in Hab 3:8 is quite different from 21 Jörg Jeremias, Kultprophetie und Gerichtsverkündigung in der späten Königszeit Israels (WMANT 35; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970), 87. 22 See my “The Colour Red and the Lion King: Two Studies in Nahum,” in Sprache lieben – Gottes Wort verstehen: Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese. Festschrift für Heinrich von Siebenthal (ed. Walter Hilbrands; TVGBM 17; Gießen: Brunnen, 2011), 163–77. Cf. Izak Cornelius, “The Lion in the Art of the Ancient Near East: A Study of Selected Motifs,” JNSL 15 (1989): 53–85; Gordon H. Johnston, “Nahum’s Rhetorical Allusions to the Neo-Assyrian Lion Motif,” BSac 158 (2001): 287–307; Brent A. Strawn, What is Stronger Than a Lion? Leonine Image and Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (OBO 212; Fribourg, Switzerland: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005). 23 The simple remark made twice about the Babylonians in Jeremiah, “they ride on horses” (6:23; 50:42) may be indicative of significant progress in this area in the seventh and sixth centuries BCE but note Ezek 23:6, 12, 23 with reference to the Assyrians. Isaiah was already impressed by the speed of the Assyrians (5:26–28). The Babylonians may have further increased speed by relying on (Scythian) cavalry units more than chariotry. 24 I do not share Kessler’s characterisation of these passages in every respect but we are agreed that the differences between the two compositions are great. 25 Kessler, “Zweiprophetenschrift,” 152. 26 Cf. Isa 11:15; 19:5 for Egypt and Isa 50:2 more generally. For the wider significance of the

20

Thomas Renz

the use of ‫ ְנָהרוֹת‬in proclamation in Nah 1, and it is debatable whether ‫ ְנָהרוֹת‬in Hab 3:9 indicates God’s enemy or instrument. There are huge differences in the meteorological picture drawn with Nahum depicting a draught in which even the sea is dried up and Habakkuk speaking of water torrents and the churning of the sea. Secondly, Kessler is impressed by the reference to specific territories: Bashan, Carmel and Lebanon in Nah 1:4; Cushan and Midian in Hab 3:7.27 But the regions are of course quite different both in their geographical location and in what they symbolise, with Nahum evoking lush lands in the north and Habakkuk desert tribes in the south. Thirdly, YHWH’s appearance has an impact on hills and mountains (Nah 1:5; Hab 3:6, 10) but again, looking more closely, the differences are as noteworthy as the similarities. While Nahum employs ‫ רעשׁ‬and ‫ מוג‬to describe the impact,28 Habakkuk uses verbs which are not found elsewhere with hills or mountains as their subject, namely ‫פצץ‬, ‫( שׁחח‬both v.6) and ‫( חיל‬v.10). If Nah 1:2–8 had been composed with Habakkuk 3 in mind, as Kessler argues, use of the specific verbs found in Habakkuk would have made for a much stronger link than a general reference to the quaking of hills and mountains which is after all not altogether unexpected in a theophany (cf. Exod 19:18; Judg 5:5; Ps 68:9 [Eng. 8]; 114:4). The same could be said, fourthly, for impact on the earth and humanity. Nahum refers to ‫ ָהָאֶרץ‬and to ‫( ְוֵתֵבל ְוָכל־י ֹ ְשֵׁבי ָבּה‬1:5), Habakkuk to ‫ ֶאֶרץ‬and ‫( גּוֹיִם‬3:6, 12). The semantic overlap is in fact minimal (only ‫ )ֶאֶרץ‬and insignificant. Finally, both texts include references to YHWH’s ‫ זַַעם‬and ‫( ַאף‬Nah 1:6; Hab 3:12, cf. v. 8),29 although Nahum uses ‫ֲחרוֹן ַאפּוֹ‬, while Habakkuk uses ‫ ַאף‬on its own. Both use the verb ‫חרה‬, although again Habakkuk uses it, unusually, on its own with ‫ ַאף‬in the second colon, while Nahum follows the standard usage of combining ‫ חרה‬with ‫ַאף‬.30 Thus, while there is overlap in the terminology for YHWH’s anger, it is not as significant as might appear at first, given the different syntactical constructions and terminology used.31 In sum, an examination of the detailed phrasing of Nahum 1 and Habakkuk 3 does not readily support the view that one was composed with an eye to the other.

27 28 29 30 31

motif within ancient cosmology and theology see, e. g., Michael A. Grisanti, “‫יָם‬,” NIDOTTE 2:461–6. Cf., e. g., for the Nahum references Isa 2:13; 33:9; Jer 22:20; 50:19; Zech 11:1–2, for Midian Isa 9:3; 10:26; 60:6. Cushan is not elsewhere attested, unless it is a reference to king CushanRishataim (Judg 3:8–10) which seems unlikely. The former is used with mountains also in Ps 46:4 [Eng. 3] and Jer 4:24; the latter is found with hills also in Amos 9:13 but with a very different connotation. Cf. Ps 69:25 [Eng. 24]; 78:49; Isa 10:5, 25; 30:27; Lam 2:6; Zeph 3:8. More than ninety times in the Hebrew Bible, including Isa 5:25; Hos 8:5; Zech 10:3. Habakkuk also uses ‫( ֶעְבָרה‬cf. Hos 5:10; 13:11; Zeph 1:15, 18), Nahum ‫( ֵחָמה‬cf. Hab 2:15, also, e. g., in Mic 5:14; Zech 8:2).

Habakkuk and Its Co-Texts

21

Quite apart from the claimed links with Habakkuk 3, Kessler believes that the fact that YHWH’s appearance on a ‫( יוֹם ָצָרה‬Nah 1:7; cf. Hab 3:16 but also Obad 1:12, 14 and Zeph 1:15)32 is said in Nahum to be not only destructive for his enemies but also beneficial for “those who seek refuge in him” (Nah 1:7) can only be explained on the assumption that the hymn was composed with both Nahum and Habakkuk in mind, as Nahum 2–3 focuses on the destruction of Nineveh without reference to Judah. This seems to me misguided for two reasons. First, while Judah does not feature in the latter part of Nahum, the destruction of Nineveh is obviously of interest precisely because of the deliverance it brings to the oppressed (1:15 [Eng. 2:1], cf. 3:19). According to 1:2, the judgement is also an outworking of divine jealousy and nothing in what follows in the book is opposed to this perspective.33 Indeed, a lengthy description of YHWH which focuses exclusively on anger and destruction would have been remarkable. There is nothing surprising about an opening hymn that extols YHWH as both avenger and protector to introduce a celebration of the fall of the capital of an oppressive empire. Secondly, the alleged role of the poem in interpreting YHWH’s actions both against Nineveh and against the Chaldeans as a theophany pre-empts the argument within Habakkuk. Habakkuk 1 is concerned with the lack of divine intervention in response to the break-down of law and order in the wake of Babylonian domination. The chapter would lose its urgency, maybe even its rationale, if readers had already been prepared by Nahum 1 to expect divine punishment of the Babylonians. While later canonical readers rightly read the destruction of Nineveh as a paradigm for the destruction of all evil, knowing that the Babylonian empire came to an end as well, it seems rather questionable that Nahum-Habakkuk was published together with the end of the Babylonian empire fresh in mind. The presentation of Habakkuk’s complaint presumes the ability of readers to suspend knowledge of the end of Babylon in order to empathise with the anguish of the prophet before receiving the challenge to remain faithful in the midst of continuing to experience evil and oppression. This would be compromised by a determined compositional strategy in which Nahum already adumbrates the fall of Babylon in the depiction of the fall of Nineveh. The juxtaposition of Nahum and Habakkuk is fruitful and may indeed be deliberate but we have found no indications of purposeful editorial activity to tie 32 Outside the Twelve the phrase is used in 2 Kgs 19:3; Ps 20:2 (Eng. 1); 50:15; Prov 24:10; 25:19; Isa 37:3; Jer 16:19. 33 Klaus Seybold argued in Profane Prophetie: Studien zum Buch Nahum (SBS 135; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989) that Nahum grew, as it were, from the back to the front. He believes that the earliest material was not explicitly theological and considers the poem at the beginning of the book to be very late. Even so, he develops a rationale for the composition of the opening hymn as interpretative for the remainder of the book which, rightly in my view, has no need to look beyond Nahum.

22

Thomas Renz

Nahum and Habakkuk together which arguably should have produced tighter verbal links beyond the common superscription. Kessler suggests that Nah 1:1 was formed by a combination of elements from Hab 1:1 and 3:1 but he does not specify the details and it remains unclear what contribution he thinks Hab 3:1 might have made to Nah 1:1.34 The use of both ‫ ַמ ָשּׂא‬and the verb ‫( חזה‬Hab 1:1) or the noun ‫ ָחזוֹן‬derived from it (Nah 1:1) is noteworthy but the syntax is so different that it would be hasty to conclude that Nah 1:1 must have been composed with Habakkuk in mind.35 Kessler’s proposal in part responds to earlier attempts by Nogalski and Schart to identify redactional activity in connection with the incorporation of Nahum and Habakkuk into a larger corpus.36 Kessler points out that the presumed redactional links are tenuous because equally significant links could be drawn to any number of texts outside the Twelve. I agree with his critique but I believe that it applies just as much to his own proposal for Nahum-Habakkuk as a Zweiprophetenschrift.37

3.

The Nahum-Habakkuk-Zephaniah Sequence

While, in terms of their main contents, Nahum and Zephaniah could be filed as “Assyrian period” and Habakkuk as “Babylonian period” (see above), the three have often been grouped together as belonging to roughly the same period,38 34 There is no lexical overlap between the two verses. Kessler may be thinking of the combination of a genre designation (‫ ֵסֶפר ֲחזוֹן‬in Nahum, ‫ ְתִּפ ָלּה‬in Habakkuk) with the personal name but the name is introduced with a preposition in Habakkuk, without in Nahum and elaborated upon with the designation of role (‫ )ַהנִָּביא‬in Hab 3:1 but with a reference to a clan or location (‫ )ָהֶאְלק ֹ ִשׁי‬in Nah 1:1. The two superscriptions could hardly be more different. 35 It is of course perfectly possible that one provided the inspiration for the other but pursuing this line would lead us to speculate about what went on in an author’s or editor’s mind rather than explaining what is written. Neither text presents a problem that needs solving or could be addressed by appeal to dependence of one text on the other. 36 The proposed connections between Nahum 3 and Habakkuk 1 will be discussed below, as they have been used as an argument for a strong redactional unity of the Book of the Twelve rather than as an argument for a close literary link between Nahum and Habakkuk specifically. 37 We may add that while Nahum and Habakkuk were usually transmitted together as part of the Twelve, we have no evidence to show that they were interpreted as one composition. Thus the commentary on Nahum among the Dead Sea scrolls (4Q169 = 4QpNah) make no reference to the earlier commentary on Habakkuk (1QpHab, on chs. 1–2 only). The two writings were clearly used and interpreted separately from each other. Cf. Heinz-Josef Fabry, “Die Nahumund Habakuk-Rezeption in der LXX und in Qumran,” in “Wort JHWHs, das geschah…” (Hos 1,1): Studien zum Zwölfprophetenbuch (ed. Erich Zenger; HBS 35; Freiburg: Herder, 2002), 159–90. 38 Byron G. Curtis, e. g., identifies Nah-Hab-Zeph as a “Josianic-era set” alongside a “Hezekianera set” consisting of Hos-Am-Mic, see “The Zion-Daughter Oracles: Evidence on the Identity

Habakkuk and Its Co-Texts

23

earlier than the post-exilic compositions that follow but, in terms of presumed setting, although not necessarily in terms of time of composition, later than the preceding writings in so far as their setting is indicated.39 Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah are the three prophets who are clearly dated beyond the end of the northern kingdom and prior to the end of the southern kingdom. Above we have briefly discussed the sequence of the three. Zephaniah was likely positioned last in the sequence because of all the Minor Prophets it brings us closest to a reflection on the big historical turning point which is the destruction of Jerusalem before its conclusion looks forward to the restoration which is beginning to be implemented in the final three compositions of the Twelve. So, while its temporal assignment to the reign of Josiah (Zeph 1:1) suggests placing Zephaniah chronologically earlier than Habakkuk (which responds to Babylonian dominance), a concern with the destruction of Jerusalem logically follows a concern with the dominance of the Babylonian empire. This is not to deny that Zephaniah’s message is largely forward-looking to the end of Jerusalem rather than reflecting on it looking back (the latter happens, e. g., in the book of Lamentations), just as Habakkuk looks forward to the later event of the end of Babylon. But the focus of much of Zephaniah is the response to the (threatened, future) destruction of Jerusalem just as the focus of Habakkuk is the response to the (present) dominance of Babylon, and in this sense Zephaniah is inviting response to a later event than Habakkuk. Also, within the anthology of the twelve writings Zephaniah is clearly best suited to marking the great watershed event that is the destruction of Jerusalem, the distinction between pre-exilic and post-exilic prophecy. (There is no ostensibly exilic prophecy within the Book of the Twelve.) Nahum and Habakkuk are both concerned with the end of empire, albeit in different ways. In Nahum the end of (the Assyrian) empire is the focal point, in Habakkuk the focal point is the (Babylonian) empire at its height. The Babylonians whose rise brings the end of the Assyrian empire celebrated in Nahum become the problem in Habakkuk. It therefore makes sense that they follow each other with (anticipatory) celebration of the end of the Assyrian empire in Nahum being succeeded by the problem of Babylonian might and the anticipation of its end in Habakkuk. The command to hush before YHWH in anticipation of his intervention (Hab 2:20) is taken up in Zeph 1:7. This probably offers the closest verbal link between the two compositions but Nogalski’s view that “Zeph 1:7 effectively quotes Hab 2:20” is not widely shared.40 The combination of the

and Ideology of the Late Redactors of the Book of the Twelve,” in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve (ed. James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney; SBLSymS 15; Atlanta: SBL, 2000), 166–84. 39 Joel and Obadiah are not clearly set in a specific period of time. 40 Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 190. Johannes Vlaardingerbroek, Zephaniah (HCOT; Leuven:

24

Thomas Renz

interjection ‫ ַהס‬with ‫ ִמ ְפּנֵי‬is also found in Zech 2:17 which also shares with Hab 2:20 but not Zeph 1:7 a reference to God’s holy abode/dwelling. Also, Zeph 1:7 is unlike the other two references in offering no basis on which to identify real or literary addressees.41 All in all, ‫( ַהס ִמ ְפּנֵי ֲאדנֹ ָי יְהִוה‬Zeph 1:7) is too unlike ‫ַהס ִמ ָפּנָיו‬ ‫( ָכּל־ָהָאֶרץ‬Hab 2:20) to assume a specific quotation, not least given the presence of ‫( ַהס ָכּל־ ָבּ ָשׂר ִמ ְפּנֵי יְהוָה‬Zech 2:17) in the wider corpus.42 The preceding discussion has shown that the Nahum-Habakkuk-Zephaniah sequence has sufficient merit within an anthology which is roughly ordered chronologically for it not to raise any concerns or issues, nor for it to require any explicit editorial links. But how did it come about? The Habakkuk-Zephaniah sequence, while plausible, is arguably insufficiently close to deduce the existence of a unified Nahum-Habakkuk-Zephaniah corpus prior to its inclusion in the Book of the Twelve any more than the Nahum-Habakkuk sequence.43 A number of scholars believe that one of the early collections out of which the Book of the Twelve grew was the Vierprophetenbuch consisting of Hosea, Amos, Micah and Zephaniah.44 This would imply that Habakkuk was incorporated into the body of an existing collection rather than merely being added at the end of an already existing corpus, maybe at the same time as Nahum. As noted above, if Nahum-Habakkuk formed a unified composition prior to their inclusion into the Twelve, for which I have found no firm evidence, they could have been appended together to the Vierprophetenbuch if this had been considered an important literary unit. The place of Nahum-Habakkuk is different in standard Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, following Jonah in the LXX tradition (cf. 4 Ezra 1:39–40),

41 42 43

44

Peeters, 1999), 82, and Sweeney, Zephaniah, 79, discuss Hab 2:20 along other passages to explore the usage of ‫ ַהס‬but neither even discusses the possibility that we have a quotation here. These points were made by Ehud Ben Zvi, A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Zephaniah (BZAW 198; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991), 79–80. Cf. Martin Beck, Der “Tag YHWHs” im Dodekapropheton: Studien im Spannungsfeld von Traditions- und Redaktionsgeschichte (BZAW 356; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005), 101. This is not to say that an argument could not be made for a Zweiprophetenschrift consisting of Habakkuk and Zephaniah, only that it would be no more convincing than it is for NahumHabakkuk (e. g., ‫ ְתִּה ָלּה‬is used within the Twelve only in Hab 3:3 and Zeph 3:19–20 but its reference is different and its parallel term, ‫הוֹד‬, is not found in Zephaniah [but Hos 14:7; Zech 6:13; 10:3]; ‫ יוֹם ָצָרה‬is found in Hab 3:16 and Zeph 1:15 but also in Nah 1:7 and twice in Obadiah as well as seven times outside the Twelve). For a detailed argument in favour, see Jakob Wöhrle, Die frühen Sammlungen des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Entstehung und Komposition, (BZAW 360; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), 241– 84, and “‘No Future for the Proud Exultant Ones’: The Exilic Book of the Four Prophets (Hos., Am., Mic., Zeph.) as a Concept Opposed to the Deuteronomistic History,” VT 58 (2008): 608– 27. For the counterargument, see Tchavdar S. Hadjiev, “Zephaniah and the ‘Book of the Twelve’ Hypothesis,” in Prophecy and Prophets in Ancient Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (ed. John Day, LHBOTS 531; London: T&T Clark, 2010), 325–38, and Christoph Levin, “Das ‘Vierprophetenbuch’ Ein exegetischer Nachruf,” ZAW 123 (2011): 221– 35.

Habakkuk and Its Co-Texts

25

Micah in the Masoretic tradition (cf. 8HevXIIgr; MurXII). This could be an indication that they were added to a collection at the same time but it may just as well be the result of different compilers coming to similar conclusions about the suitability of pairing Nahum with Habakkuk. It also reminds us that if there was a Vierprophetenbuch, its chapters have come to be separated by more than just the addition of Nahum and Habakkuk. In the LXX tradition Joel-Obadiah-JonahNahum-Habakkuk separate the penultimate of the Vierprophetenbuch from the final prophet in the collection; in the MT tradition each of the four is separated from its neighbour by at least one other prophet.45 While some are optimistic that the various redactional stages involved can be reconstructed with a fair degree of confidence, others remain unpersuaded. Thus Michael S. Moore, in a sympathetic review of Jacob’s Wöhrle’s dissertation, commented: Exactly how much of this is plausible is difficult to say. Apart from some level of empirical control, it remains impossible to know how to distinguish the possible from the probable in a study like this. This is a fine dissertation, which largely accomplishes its goals, to be sure. Yet one wonders after reading it how much it actually advances our understanding of Hosea–Malachi.46

Moore particularly urged greater attention to other ancient Near Eastern collections and concludes: “Like most redaction criticism divorced from its ancient Near Eastern context, many of the arguments here are circular, speculative, and ex silentio.” In addition, many redaction-critical proposals build on earlier proposals which themselves do not often enjoy support by a strong consensus of scholars. There are, broadly speaking, two indications that are used in reconstructing the redactional history of the Book of the Twelve. One clue is the presence of tensions within a writing attributed to a single prophet, suggesting later redactional activity; the second clue is the existence of similarities between writings attributed to different prophets, suggesting editorial linkages. I have not been persuaded that there are any tensions which put into question the coherence of, e. g., Nahum or Habakkuk,47 and, with Klaas Spronk who argues that Nahum reacts to Micah, and Jonah to Nahum, I suspect that “the many correspondences between the individual books of the Twelve Prophets” which are not related to 45 The list in Ascension of Isaiah 4:22 keeps the first three together but not in the same order (Amos, Hosea, Micah) and has six prophets in between Micah and Zephaniah, including Haggai. 46 The review was published in CBQ 69 (2007): 566–8. The first citation is from p. 567, the second from pp. 567–8. Cf. Beck, Der “Tag YHWHs,” 1–23, and “Das Dodekapropheton als Anthologie,” ZAW 118 (2006): 558–81, on earlier proposals. 47 I withhold judgement on Zephaniah for the time being, as most of my work in the last decade and a half has been on Nahum and Habakkuk rather than Zephaniah. Distinctions between precompositional, compositional, and post-compositional levels which I have not found persuasive in the case of Nahum and Habakkuk may prove more useful in the case of Zephaniah.

26

Thomas Renz

their origin in a similar sociological and theological milieu “can be explained as indications that the writers reacted to already existing books, using images from predecessors and building upon their authority.”48 If Habakkuk was added (maybe alongside Nahum) to a collection which already contained Zephaniah, along the lines of those who believe that the Book of the Twelve grew out of a Vierprophetenbuch (Nogalski, Schart, Albertz, Wöhrle, Schwesig), the rationale for the Nahum-Habakkuk-Zephaniah sequence would seem to rest on two pillars. (1) Zephaniah provided in the Vierprophetenbuch the final warning before the destruction of Jerusalem, as well as offering hope beyond the destruction,49 and still fulfils that role in the expanded book. It therefore has to be placed last before the writings of the post-exilic prophets Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. (2) In any arrangement that is roughly chronological, as seems to be the case for the various editions of the Book of the Twelve and its predecessors, Habakkuk can be expected to follow Nahum rather than precede it. This is true regardless of the specific redaction-historical model followed, e. g. whether or not Habakkuk was added alongside or later than Nahum. This means that no specific redactional links between the three writings are required to justify their sequence. Nahum and Habakkuk tell us that empires come and go. Zephaniah adds that the same goes for the little kingdom of Judah. Regardless of its origin, the Nahum-Habakkuk-Zephaniah sequence is standard within the Twelve. Does it lead to a fresh reading of Habakkuk? House suggests that Habakkuk offers a first widening of the scope of judgement found in Nahum. The fall of Nineveh, celebrated in Nahum, removes a “chief source of sin” but does not in fact resolve “the universal problem of iniquity announced in Hosea-Micah.”50 But, House argues, Zephaniah offers a more definite resolution in the announcement of universal judgement and the promise of a multi-national remnant. “All wicked persons of any nationality will be annihilated and a remnant of believers of all nationalities will emerge and prevail.”51 While House 48 Klaas Spronk, “Jonah, Nahum, and the Book of the Twelve: A Response to Jacob Wöhrle,” JHS 9 (2009), art. 8, at http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_110.pdf. 49 Rainer Albertz, “Exile as Purification. Reconstructing the ‘Book of the Four’,” in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve (ed. Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart; BZAW 325; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 232–51, argues that the Vierprophetenbuch, “supposedly written in the later exilic period, cannot end in total destruction and hopelessness, particularly as it started with a much more hopeful perspective in the book of Hosea (2:16–17; 3:5; 11:8–11; 14:2–9). Thus, it is very unlikely that Zeph 3:8a formed the end of the Book of the Four, as Nogalski proposed… either Zeph 3:11–13 [Zeph 3:1–8bα.10–13] ended the Book of the Four or that book never existed” (236). 50 Paul R. House, “Dramatic Coherence in Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah,” in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts (ed. James W. Watts and Paul R. House; JSOTSup 235; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 195– 208 (205). 51 Ibid., 206.

Habakkuk and Its Co-Texts

27

shows that it is possible for readers to find dramatic coherence in the NahumHabakkuk-Zephaniah sequence, he does not demonstrate an authorial or editorial intentionality as the originating cause of the sequence. His observations about the use of different types of speeches within the three writings, the alternation of speakers, the depiction of different characters which becomes more complex by taking more writings into account, are of a sort which could have been made along similar lines by examining a different sequence (e. g., ObadiahHabakkuk-Haggai) and do not reveal that the given sequence is more plausible, coherent or satisfying than another sequence.52

4.

The Book of the Twelve as Habakkuk’s Co-Text

Its placement alongside Nahum amplifies Habakkuk’s message about the end of empires; its placement next to Zephaniah amplifies the message that it is not only large empires that are devoured by their greed. How might the wider collection of writings in which Habakkuk is placed shape our reading of Habakkuk? First, we may note what is already true within the Nahum-Habakkuk-Zephaniah sequence, namely that focusing on the superscription of the individual writings Habakkuk is placed alongside both ‫ חזון‬prophets (Nahum, also Obadiah; cf. Hos 12:11) and ‫ דבר יהוה‬prophets (Zephaniah, also Hosea, Joel, and Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi with variations in the superscription; cf. Jonah 1:1 and see Amos 7:16; 8:11–12). Conrad suggested a distinction between “conventional prophets” like Isaiah who “receive vision (‫ )חזון‬from Yahweh, who is present in the temple” and unconventional prophets (Amos, Jeremiah) who come to a temple to announce the end of the kingdom and who see “words.”53 He counts Ezekiel and, to a lesser extent, Jonah among the unconventional prophets. The details of his argument need not concern us here;54 a distinction between central (mainstream, con52 It is noteworthy that House uses phrases like “prophecy uses many literary devices” (ibid., 207) and “the text of the Twelve unites its diverse parts” (ibid., 208) in which literary activity is attributed to phenomena rather than people. 53 The distinction between, on the one hand, ‫( ִדְּבֵרי ָעמוֹס‬Amos 1:1) and ‫( ִדְּבֵרי יְִרְמי ָהוּ‬Jer 1:1) and, on the other hand, ‫( ֲחזוֹן י ְ ַשְׁעי ָהוּ‬Isa 1:1), see Edgar W. Conrad, “Forming the Twelve and Forming Canon,” in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve (ed. Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart; BZAW 325; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 90–103 (99). Within the Twelve, Nah 1:1, which includes ‫ֲחזוֹן נַחוּם‬, compares with Isa 1:1; no other superscription compares directly with Amos 1:1. Other superscriptions use the singular associated with the divine name (‫ ) ְדַּבר־י ְהוָה‬rather than the plural with the name of the prophet. 54 Conrad does not discuss the significance of the use of ‫ ְדַּבר־י ְהוָה‬in the lengthy superscription to Ezekiel (1:3) or within the body of Amos and Jeremiah as well as Isaiah (cf. also Isa 2:1 with Amos 1:1) and other “conventional” prophets or the (positive) use of ‫ ָחזוֹן‬in Ezekiel (7:13, 26; 12:22–23, 27; contrasted with negative evaluations of ‫ ֲחזוֹן ָשְׁוא‬in 12:24 and ‫ ֲחזוֹן ָשׁל ֹם‬in 13:16) and, arguably, in Jeremiah where only the addition of ‫( ֶשֶׁקר‬in 14:14) or ‫( ִל ָבּם‬in 23:16) qualify

28

Thomas Renz

ventional, temple) prophets and peripheral (marginal, unconventional, nonconformist) prophets is widely accepted. What is noteworthy, therefore, is that while sometimes prophets who speak words of comfort (weal) and prophets who announce judgement (woe) are pitted against each other, both within the prophetic corpus itself (e. g., Jeremiah 23; Ezekiel 13) and in secondary literature, the Book of the Twelve encompasses both kinds and thus suggests that messages of weal and woe can and maybe should be heard together. Looking at the Book of the Twelve as a literary unit, we first pay attention to the frame of the collection which is the same in all extant physical collections, namely Hosea (Hosea 1–3) and Malachi.55 Both Sweeney and Watts suggest that the focus on YHWH’s enduring love and the restoration of a covenant relationship with his people at the beginning and end of the Book of the Twelve is programmatic.56 We may see an echo of this in Habakkuk’s promise of life beyond present distress based on YHWH’s faithfulness. I am not sure that this illuminates Habakkuk in a way that would offer new insights into the writing but we may take it as strengthening the view that Habakkuk speaks as a representative of God’s people and that YHWH’s faithfulness is grounded in his loving commitment to his people. Secondly, while it is debatable whether there is one theme that holds the Book of the Twelve together, a case is often made for the concept of the Day of YHWH as an integrating motif, given its prominence in the collection.57 After all, 13 of the the vision negatively. His observation that the verb ‫“( נבא‬prophecy”) to describe the activity of the prophet is prominent in Amos, Jeremiah and Ezekiel but not found at all elsewhere (Joel 3:1; Zech 13:3–4 do not refer to Joel or Zechariah respectively) is interesting. The use of Joel 1:2 and Mic 1:2 to claim Joel and Micah among the more conventional prophets is surprising in the light of similar calls to hear in Amos 3:1, 13; 4:1; 5:1; 8:4. 55 4QXIIa shows that other collections existed but not that other editions of the Book of the Twelve were extant. Philippe Guillaume, “The Unlikely Malachi-Jonah Sequence (4QXIIa),” JHS 7 (2007), art. 15, at http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_76.pdf had already questioned Fuller’s proposal of a Malachi-Jonah sequence in this scroll (see n. 1 above). Mika S. Pajunen and Hanne von Weissenberg, “The Book of Malachi, Manuscript 4Q76 (4QXIIa), and the Formation of the ‘Book of the Twelve’,” JBL 134 (2015): 731–51, offer strong arguments to the effect that the scroll contained fewer than half of the minor prophets with one of them between Malachi (which may have been the first on the scroll) and Jonah (likely the last). This means that The Twelve is only known to us in collections which begin with Hosea and end with Malachi, even if some of the writings were also copied independently or in other collections. 56 Marvin A. Sweeney, “Sequence and Interpretation in the Book of the Twelve,” in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve (ed. James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney; SBLSymS 15; Atlanta: SBL, 2000), 49–64, (56–7); John D. W. Watts, “A Frame for the Book of the Twelve: Hosea 1–3 and Malachi,” in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve (ed. James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney; SBLSymS 15; Atlanta: SBL, 2000), 209–17. 57 See already Roland E. Wolfe, “The Editing of the Book of the Twelve,” ZAW 53 (1935): 90–129. Cf. David L. Petersen, “A Book of the Twelve?,” in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve (ed. James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney; SBLSymS 15; Atlanta: SBL, 2000), 3–10 (9–10); Rolf Rendtorff, “How to Read the Book of the Twelve as a Theological Unity,” in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve (ed. James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney; SBLSymS 15;

Habakkuk and Its Co-Texts

29

16 occurrences of the exact collocation ‫ יוֹם יְהוָה‬are in the Twelve.58 Joel-AmosObadiah towards the beginning of the collection (cf. sequence in MT but not LXX manuscripts) “form a group of writings in which the Day of the Lord is of central importance,” observes Rolf Rendtorff.59 In his view Jonah picks up the question whether escape from such divine judgement is possible (cf. Joel), correcting Obadiah in which escape for God’s enemies is not contemplated. The motif is of obvious importance in Zephaniah and also appears in the final chapters of Zechariah and Malachi. Beck’s detailed examination demonstrates, convincingly in my view, both how important the motif of the Day of the YHWH is for a number of passages in the Twelve from diverse settings and how unlikely it is that the prevalence of the motif is best explained as the result of redaction-critical activity across the corpus. Beck argues that the writings of which the book of the Twelve is composed were long transmitted and edited as discrete texts. They were finally combined with a focus on the expectation that a Day of the YHWH was still to come for the people of God.60 This expectation is, in a sense, already given in Habakkuk, as Habakkuk 2–3 lead us to expect a decisive divine intervention in the future to set things right. The larger co-text of the Twelve offers a reminder that this need not be good news for everyone in Judah. This seems to me implied also already in Habakkuk 2 because the condemnation of the Babylonian empire on which the expectation of its fall rests is couched in language which is just as, and sometimes more, applicable locally. It is less clear to what extent a decision to read the whole of the Book of the Twelve in the light of an expectation of a coming Day of YHWH changes one’s reading of Habakkuk. Beck describes a tradition-historical development from the idea of the Day of YHWH as a particular divine intervention to punish specific wrongdoing of his people (e. g., in Amos 5:18–20) towards a day of universal judgement in post-exilic early apocalyptic literature (e. g., Mal 3:22–24 Atlanta: SBL, 2000), 75–87; and “Der “Tag JHWHs” im Zwölfprophetenbuch,” in “Wort JHWHs, das geschah…” (Hos 1,1): Studien zum Zwölfprophetenbuch, (ed. Erich Zenger; HBS 35; Freiburg: Herder, 2002), 1–11; Everson, “Canonical Location,” 167–72; Beck, Der “Tag YHWHs”. 58 Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11; 3:4; 4:14; Amos 5:18 (twice), 20; Obad 1:15; Zeph 1:7, 14 (twice); Mal 3:23. The other three occurrences are Isa 13:6, 9 and (with preposition) Ezek 13:5. Variations such as ‫יוֹם‬ ‫( ַליהוָה‬Isa 2:12; Ezek 30:3) are more prominent outside, see Daniella Ishai-Rosenboim, “Is ’‫( יוֹם־ה‬the Day of the Lord) a Term in Biblical Language?” Bib 87 (2006): 395–401 (398). But this does not alter the observation that the phrase is more common in the Twelve than in other parts of the Bible, maybe with the exception of Lamentations, which like Ezek 13:5 looks back to a day of YHWH, see 1:12 (cf. Isa 13:13); 2:1, 21, 22 (cf., e. g., Zeph 2:2–3). 59 Rendtorff, “How to Read,” 77. Petersen sees a reference to the Day of YHWH already in Hosea 9:5 which speaks of a ‫ ;יוֹם ַחג־י ְהוָה‬Rendtorff believes the topic appears first in Joel. 60 A “thematized anthology” is also how Petersen, “A Book of the Twelve?,” 10, characterises the final product. By contrast, Paul-Gerhard Schwesig, Die Rolle der Tag-JHWHs-Dichtungen im Dodekapropheton (BZAW 366; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), attempted to correlate the development of the theme of the Day of YHWH with the development of the Book of the Twelve.

30

Thomas Renz

[Eng. 4:1–3]). If the latter shapes our reading of Habakkuk, we may re-read the anticipated downfall of the Babylonian empire as a picture of the day of final judgement. Would this imply that there is therefore no more specific, decisive divine intervention to be expected until “the great and terrible day” (Mal 3:23 [Eng. 4:5])? Maybe this was how the anthology was read for a while but with the passage of time, the experience of a decisive divine intervention in the death and resurrection of Christ and in the destruction of the temple in 70 CE the larger biblical co-text surely argues against such a limitation. In other words, seen as part of the whole Bible of OT and NT we are free to read Habakkuk’s prophecy as fulfilled iteratively rather than just once at the end of days. Any narrowing of its application by way of a certain reading of the Book of the Twelve as focused on one specific day of YHWH is thus undermined.61 Theodicy is also sometimes identified as the major theme of the Book of the Twelve.62 In fact, one of the more sensitive and persuasive attempts at a synchronic reading of the Twelve majors on theodicy. Simon Wakeling argues that the twelve prophetic writings are meant to be read together, in the sequence reflected in the MT, and assert YHWH’s faithfulness to his promises in the face of apparent evidence to the contrary.63 Yet it is precisely in Habakkuk that Wakeling’s reading seems to get stuck. He accepts the palistrophe across Nahum and Habakkuk with “the problem of theodicy” (Hab 1:1–2:5) as the centre which we discussed above. This, he argues, “shapes the interpretation of Nahum” so that retrospectively Nahum can be read as vindicating “Yahweh’s use of Assyria to exact retribution on the northern kingdom.” He then suggests that “Habakkuk’s close relationship with Nahum has the rhetorical effect of demonstrating that, as Yahweh is righteous in judging Nineveh, so also he is righteous in punishing Judah.”64 But this would undermine the prophet’s questioning in Habakkuk 1. Habakkuk’s complaint would be emptied of its meaning, if it was clear that the ruthless aggression of the Babylonians is God’s righteous punishment on Judah. 61 I do not see an increasing differentiation of the righteous and the wicked within the people of God in the historical development of the Day-of-YHWH motif. Such a differentiation seems to me an intrinsic part of the expectation of a Day of YHWH in all extant texts. What varies is the extent to which the people of God are aware that they are not all on the side of the righteous. In other words, even Amos’ audience did not object to YHWH differentiating between the righteous and the wicked; they just did not expect to be classified among the latter. 62 E. g., Raymond C. Van Leeuwen, “Scribal Wisdom and Theodicy in the Book of the Twelve,” in In Search of Wisdom: Essays in Memory of John G. Gammie (ed. Leo G. Perdue, Bernard Brandon Scott, and William Johnston Wiseman; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 31–49. 63 Simon Wakeling, “The Minor Prophets as a Unity Developing Theodicy,” EccR 2 (2010): 124– 53, reproduced at http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/articles_ecclesia-reformanda.php. The origin of the essay lies in a postgraduate dissertation which I supervised at Oak Hill Theological College, London. 64 Ibid., 141.

Habakkuk and Its Co-Texts

31

Wakeling appears to suggest that what the prophet could not see, the later reader can see by reading Habakkuk 1 with Nahum 3. I am not convinced that this is a plausible reading strategy. This is maybe a good place to discuss the connections between Nahum 3 and Habakkuk 1. Here is Nogalski’s characterisation to which I have added footnotes with information on usage of the terms and phrases in question: Nineveh is attacked by horsemen ([Nah] 3.3), while Babylon attacks Jerusalem with horsemen (Hab 1.8);65 Nineveh will go into captivity (Nah 3.10), while Babylon collects captives (Hab 1.9).66 Nineveh becomes a mockery whose fortifications are ready to be destroyed (Nah 3.12, 14), while Babylon laughs at the fortification of rulers (Hab 1.10).67 Nineveh’s shepherds and kings are defeated (Nah 3.18), while Babylon mocks rulers and kings (Hab 1.10)68.69

Given the topic, none of the connections is really surprising which is to say that there is not a single unusual lemma or turn of phrase to point readers towards a specific link with another text.70 Do they at least cumulatively make a case? Nogalski argues in favour of an intentional redaction of Habakkuk 1 with Nahum 3 in mind on the grounds that “the Babylonian commentary material in Habakkuk expands a previously existing wisdom piece about the prosperity of the wicked.”71 I am not convinced about the existence of such a wisdom piece. In my view, the traditional material used in Habakkuk fulfils an important role in providing both a motivation for the claim that the Babylonian empire cannot but self-destruct and making a wider application possible. But I do not believe 65 ‫ ָפָּרשׁ ַמֲעֶלה‬in Nah 3:3; ‫ ָפָּרשׁ ַמֲעֶלה‬and ‫ וָּפָר ָשׁיו ֵמָרחוֹק י ָב ֹאוּ‬in Hab 1:8. Cf. the reference to locusts like horsemen in Joel 2:4 and the divine declaration of deliverance without horsemen in Hos 1:7. There are sixteen references in Isa-Jer-Ezek. 66 Nahum has ‫ַלגּ ָֹלה ָהְלָכה ַב ֶשִּׁבי‬. Within the Twelve the lemma ‫ גּ ָֹלה‬is also found in Amos 1:15 (with the verb ‫ )ָהַלְך‬and, with reference to return from captivity, in Zech 6:10; 14:2. The link with Habakkuk consists in the lemma ‫ ְשִׁבי‬which is probably used as an abstract noun in Nahum (cf. Amos 9:4) but as a concrete noun in Hab 3:1–9. The only other reference within the Twelve refers to captured horses (Amos 4:10). There are 21 references in Isa-Jer-Ezek. 67 ‫ִמְבָצר‬, cf. Hos 10:14; Amos 5:9; Mic 5:10 (Eng. 11). There are ten references in Isa-Jer, none in Ezekiel. 68 ‫( ֶמֶלְך‬sg. in Nahum, pl. in Habakkuk) is used more than fifty times in the Twelve, with reference to a human king outside Israel in Hos 5:13; 8:10; 10:6; Amos 1:15; 2:1; Jonah 3:6–7; Mic 6:5; Zech 9:5 as well as in references to Darius in Hag 1:1; Zech 7:1. 69 James D. Nogalski, “Intertextuality and the Twelve,” in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts (ed. James W. Watts and Paul R. House; JSOTSup 235; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 102–24 (122). 70 In other words, if one considered the two texts separately apart from their co-texts, one would not be pushed to make a connection between them. Reading them sequentially as part of the Twelve, one is of course more likely to notice the similarities. The point is that there is no evidence of redactional work to strengthen the effect gained by the mere juxtaposition of the two writings. 71 Nogalski, “Intertextuality,” 123.

32

Thomas Renz

that there ever was an edition of Habakkuk in which 2:5–20* did not refer to the Babylonian empire. Wakeling therefore rightly observes that “the connection between Nahum 3 and Habakkuk 1 is through imagery rather than quotations or allusions.” He claims that this explains “the absence in Habakkuk of language from Nahum alluding to the promises in Joel and Obadiah” which, in his view, elsewhere is critical for the argument within the Twelve. To my mind, this merely re-states “the lack of quotations and allusions in Habakkuk from earlier writings of the Twelve.”72 If the Book of the Twelve is read as a unity focused on theodicy, then Habakkuk surely makes a major contribution to such a reading. But there seems to be no solid evidence within Habakkuk itself to urge such a reading of the Twelve. Another motif which is introduced early, namely in Hosea and Joel, and plays a significant role in the Book of the Twelve is the motif of the land as an indicator of the health or otherwise of God’s relationship with his people.73 But this motif is not limited to the Minor Prophets and does not feature prominently in Habakkuk. In fact, it plays virtually no role in Habakkuk’s complaint in ch. 1 where there is only the slightest of hints of this motif in the reference to the oppressing empire enjoying plentiful food (1:16), which introduces the gluttony and drunkenness metaphor for imperialism which is important for 2:5 (cf. 2:15). The sayings in ch. 2 twice refer to violence done to the land (2:8, 16) and it is possible to discern here a greater concern for violence against the earth and its non-human inhabitants than may appear at first.74 But there is no reference to agricultural produce. The correlation between failure of crops and divine punishment found elsewhere in the Book of the Twelve is not made in Habakkuk 1–2, nor is there a promise of harvest as a sign of God’s favour. So it is maybe not surprising that the failure of fig-trees, vineyards and olive groves in chapter 3 is not explained with reference to the sin of God’s people and rejoicing in God’s salvation is possible nevertheless (3:17–18).75 The land pays a 72 All citations from Wakeling, “Minor Prophets,” 142. For the use of ‫ יוֹם־ָצָרה‬in Hab 3:16 and Zeph 1:15 see the discussion above. 73 See, e. g., Laurie J. Braaten, “God Sows: Hosea’s Land Theme in the Book of the Twelve,” in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve (ed. Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart; BZAW 325; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 104–32, and “That God May Heal the Land: A Liturgical Context for the Book of the Twelve” (paper presented at the meeting of the New England Region of SBL, 2001); Nogalski, “Intertextuality,” 113–6, and “Joel as ‘Literary Anchor’ for the Book of the Twelve,” in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve (ed. James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney; SBLSymS 15; Atlanta: SBL, 2000), 91–109 (100–4). 74 See Laurie J. Braaten, “Violence Against Earth: Moving from Land Abuse to Good Neighbor in Habakkuk,” (paper presented at the annual meeting of SBL, 2015). 75 Contrast, e. g., Hos 2:11–14, 17, 23–25 (ET 9–12, 15, 21–23); Hag 2:15–19 within the Book of the Twelve, and see, e. g., Isa 32:12–13, Jer 5:17 for lack of fruitfulness as a sign of punishment. Note also that earlier in the chapter the references to the land (sea, rivers, mountains) are not agricultural. It may be possible to read v. 17 with v. 16 rather than v. 18 in which case it would describe the disaster that is to befall the (Babylonian) aggressor and thus could be considered

Habakkuk and Its Co-Texts

33

critical role in the relationship between YHWH and his people throughout the Bible;76 Habakkuk’s discourse is not in any obvious way developing an argument specific to the Book of the Twelve. The closest verbal links to Hab 3:17 are in fact found outside the Book of the Twelve, in Jer 5:17 with which it shares four significant words (‫) ְתֵּאָנה ; ֶגֶּפן ; ָבָּקר ;צ ֹאן‬.77

5.

Conclusion

Francis Watson observed that if the Book of the Twelve was read “as a whole” already in antiquity, this does not mean that readers expected “a coherent train of thought” on the lines argued by Aaron Schart and others.78 He concluded that, “In fact, there is little evidence of this, and considerable evidence that the distinct identity of each of the twelve was maintained. It seems that the collection of the twelve into a single book affected their status more than their interpretation.”79 My own research agrees with this. Its placement in the Book of the Twelve demands that Habakkuk is read as a canonical prophetic book. This is different from reading an archaeologically recovered text. Co-text is context. But the context is not a book which has erased the integrity of the individual writings which were put together in the one collection and I have not been able to discern

76

77

78 79

in terms of divine punishment. Even then the motif would be used differently from the passages within the Twelve where it is an indicator of God’s relationship with his people. See Christopher J. H. Wright, God’s People in God’s Land: Family, Land, and Property in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990); Norman C. Habel, The Land Is Mine: Six Biblical Land Ideologies (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995); Ellen F. Davis, Scripture, Culture, and Agriculture: An Agrarian Reading of the Bible (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009). The closest link within the Twelve is with Hag 2:19 with which it shares ‫ ֶגֶּפן‬, ‫ ְתֵּאנָה‬and ‫( זַי ִת‬cf. Deut 8:8 which has the three in the same order as Haggai; 2 Kgs 5:26 has ‫ זַיִת‬with ‫)צ ֹאן וָּבָקר‬. The fig tree (‫ ) ְתֵּאנָה‬features prominently in some of the writings in the Twelve (Hos 2:14; 9:10; Joel 1:7, 12; 2:22; Amos 4:9; Mic 4:4; Nah 3:12; Hag 2:19; Zech 3:10), as does ‫ ֶגֶּפן‬, the vine (Hos 2:14; 10:1; 14:8; Joel 1:7, 12; 2:22; Mic 4:4; Hag 2:19; Zech 3:10; 8:12; Mal 3:11) but the former is found thirteen times in Jeremiah (three times in Isaiah) and the latter seven times each in Isaiah and Ezekiel (five times in Jeremiah) which makes it difficult to postulate literary dependence. Nogalski recognises this but still claims that “Hab 3:17 takes up vocabulary and motifs which appear in Joel 1–2” on the grounds that “both relate agricultural distress to the attack of an enemy people (cf. Joel 1:6f.) with a decidedly eschatological perspective” (Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve [BZAW 218; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993], 176) and that “the themes appear periodically in other significant portions of the Book of the Twelve” (ibid., 177). He claims that three of the four occurrences of “produce” are in the Twelve (Hab 3:17; Hag 1:10; Zech 8:12) but ‫ יְבוּל‬is also used for the produce of the land in Lev 26:4, 20; Deut 11:17; 32:22; Judg 6:4; Ps 67:7 (Eng. 6); 78:46; 85:13 (Eng. 12); Ezek 34:27. Watson, Paul, 87–88. Ibid., Paul, 88. Cf. Helmut Utzschneider, “Flourishing Bones: The Minor Prophets in the New Testament,” in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures (ed. Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden; SBLSCS 53; Atlanta: SBL, 2006), 273–92.

34

Thomas Renz

plausible editorial interventions to guide us towards reading Habakkuk as a chapter of a book rather than a literary unit in its own right. Nonetheless the Book of the Twelve forms a de facto literary context. Is this context significant? Barry A. Jones noted that “it remains the case that the only evidence for reading the book of Habakkuk as bearing a relationship to events in the late seventh century is the location of the book within the larger collection of the Twelve.”80 It is true that the placement of Habakkuk between Nahum and Zephaniah suggests that the writing refers to the Babylonian onslaught that ultimately led to the destruction of Jerusalem rather than some other Chaldean incursion.81 Even if it were not the only piece of evidence,82 Habakkuk’s co-text plays a significant role in our reading of Habakkuk. But this historical setting is arguably not particularly important for Habakkuk’s canonical role in shaping the theology and ethics of God’s people. The context of the prophet’s complaint, the divine response, and the prophet’s concluding prayer are the experience of injustice and the failure of Torah as a result of oppression by an imperial power. Whether this power is Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, Persian, Greek or Roman does not seem to matter much. The Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem is of course a major event in the Bible but it is not clear that Habakkuk contributes much or anything towards addressing this historical situation specifically, or that the argument of Habakkuk would proceed differently, if the complaint were not linked to this specific historical situation. At the same time, while Habakkuk is suited to reflection on questions of theodicy more broadly, it is not clear that it specifically advances an argument set out over the course of the writings anthologised in the Book of the Twelve. Reading Habakkuk as part of a wider corpus can be stimulating although I have also observed in my critique of Kessler how it might dull the edges of the composition. If we had a copy of the Twelve arranged according to the list in 80 “The Seventh-Century Prophets in Twenty-first Century Research,” CurBR 14 (2016): 129–175 (154). 81 James D. Nogalski suggests that Habakkuk’s location within the Twelve encourages readers to associate Hab 1:2–4 with a time between 612 and 605 (The Book of the Twelve: Micah to Malachi [SHBC 18b; Macon: Smyth and Helwys, 2011], 659). This assumes that 1:5–11 is a first divine response to Habakkuk’s (first) complaint. But I believe that 1:5–11 is in fact a citation of an oracle as part of a single complaint speech which encompasses 1:2–17 and this would suggest a slightly later date. So also, e. g., Michael H. Floyd, “Prophetic Complaints About the Fulfillment of Oracles in Habakkuk 1:12–17 and Jeremiah 15:10–18,” JBL 110 (1991): 397–418, and idem, Minor Prophets: Part 2 (FOTL 22; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 85–6; Gert T. M. Prinsloo, “Reading Habakkuk as a Literary Unit: Exploring the Possibilities,” OTE 12 (1999): 515–35; David Cleaver-Bartholomew, “An Alternative Approach to Hab 1,2–2,20,” SJOT 17 (2003): 206–25; Watson, Paul, 139–42. 82 Similarities with Jeremiah may be adduced as suggesting a Neo-Babylonian setting as well, maybe especially if it is accepted that Hab 1:5–11 is a creative re-writing of Jer 5:15–17 or a similar prophecy.

Habakkuk and Its Co-Texts

35

Ascension of Isaiah, Habakkuk would be preceded by Obadiah and followed by Haggai. I am not persuaded that our reading of Habakkuk as part of such a hypothetical Book of the Twelve would be noticeably different, even if our reading of the Twelve might be different. Nor am I persuaded that we would understand Habakkuk differently, if it were part of an anthology of, say, eight prophetic writings or, e. g., an anthology that included Daniel and Lamentations but not Joel. None of this argues against the significance of having exactly twelve prophetic writings collected in an anthology that is not altogether random. No minor prophet seems to have been attached to a major prophet rather than the Twelve at any point in transmission history.83 But this makes sense even if the intention behind the anthology was little more than preserving shorter prophetic writings in one place. If Habakkuk were to be placed between Jeremiah and Ezekiel, would we read it differently? I doubt it. This is to say, while the presence of Habakkuk within the Twelve may or may not impact on how we read the Book of the Twelve, it does not seem to me that the presence of the anthology does much to shape our reading of Habakkuk. It is not likely that we would still read Habakkuk without a biblical canon or that Habakkuk’s prophecy would have survived without the development of prophetic literature in Judah. We do not encounter Habakkuk in the same way that we encounter a prophetic text unearthed from the Mari archives. In this sense Habakkuk’s co-text is hugely significant for our reading of this text but it is the canonical co-text more than the specifics of the Book of the Twelve which is decisive here. Indeed, it may be a question of genre as much as of co-text. Habakkuk arguably belongs to the genre “Israelite prophetic book” and is collected in an anthology with other books of the same genre.84 This appears to be a genre in which no new compositions were written beyond the Persian period.85 Many of the similarities and links between Habakkuk and other prophetic writings are best explained by recourse to a common tradition and the commonalities of genre. Donald Gowan offers “a theological explanation of the existence of the prophetic books” which locates the origin of prophetic books in God’s determination “to do a new thing, in effect to start over” with his people.86 83 For the writings with which I am most concerned it could well be argued that Nahum is at least as close to the book of Isaiah, Habakkuk to Jeremiah and Zephaniah to Ezekiel, as to any of the other writings in the Twelve. 84 Ehud Ben Zvi, “The Prophetic Book: A Key Form of Prophetic Literature,” in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century (ed. Ehud Ben Zvi and Marvin A. Sweeney; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 276–97. 85 Ibid., 283. Ben Zvi notes the absence of non-canonical prophetic books from our historical record. He notes that the genre “gospel” in a similar way was used only within a limited time span. 86 Donald E. Gowan, Theology of the Prophetic Books: The Death and Resurrection of Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 9–10. It has often been noted that while the

36

Thomas Renz

From a different angle, Ehud Ben Zvi comments on “the memory-scape shaped and evoked by the prophetic books” and notes that “the collection of prophetic books drew much of the attention and mindshare of the reading community to: (a) the catastrophe of 586 BCE (and thus also to its forerunners [the fall of Samaria] and counterparts [the deliverance of Jerusalem in 701 BCE]); and (b) the utopian future.”87 This agrees well with my own research on the origin of the book of Ezekiel.88 It also fits as an explanation for the existence of the Book of the Twelve which anthologises books related to the end of Israel or Judah and/or the new beginning after the exile and books that can be read as offering further comments on the circumstances of these critical events. The prominence of themes like the day of YHWH, theodicy and the (loss of) land in several writings is hardly surprising; prophets who functioned as divine messengers with a narrower perspective than the death and resurrection of the people of God were not associated with prophetic books designed to be read and re-read.

prophecy is found across the ancient Near East, prophetic books seem to have been written only in Hebrew. Cf. Diana Vikander Edelman and Ehud Ben Zvi (eds.), The Production of Prophecy: Constructing Prophecy and Prophets in Yehud (London: Equinox, 2009). 87 Ehud Ben Zvi, “The Yehudite Collection of Prophetic Books and Imperial Contexts: Some Observations,” in Divination, Politics and Ancient Near Eastern Texts (ed. Alan Lenzi and Jonathan Stökl; ANEM 7; Atlanta: SBL, 2014), 145–69 (citation from pp. 151 and 158). 88 See The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel (VTSup 76; Leiden: Brill, 1999).

Christopher R. Seitz

The Unique Achievement of the Book of the Twelve. Neither Redactional Unity Nor Anthology

In this essay I want to take up the larger question being posed of the Twelve – Anthology or Redactional Unity? – by starting with a conceptual framework for considering the matter more generally. I will then use Joel as an illustration of the challenge of answering the question and indicate why I think the two options as indicated are not the right ones, based upon the opening conceptual framework which sets out the moving target that the Book of the Twelve actually is on this score. The second part of the paper will then turn to the Book of Isaiah and the comparisons that may be thought to show them kindred editorial projects, indeed influencing each other as well in bringing each of the respective works to final form. While this view of the relationship between Isaiah and the Twelve is in my judgment flawed, I will endeavor to show there is another way to think about a feature they do hold in common and which opens up a more convincing means by which to compare them and understand their achievements as largescale literary works. I have in view what I call the “effect of a middle” or, so to say, the fact that both works have sought to identify and give significance to a stable, theologically weighted fulcrum point at the precise middle of the book. That this is true of a collection of twelve individual works as well as the single Book of Isaiah is significant. It will be my position that this feature is intended to encourage a typological, one-to-one figural correspondence between God’s actions in time, and not a strictly chronological, one-after-another episodic and sequential one, as the reader moves from the beginning to the end of the sixty-six chapters of Isaiah and across the landscape of the individual witnesses of a single Book of the Twelve, both impressive literary achievements.

38

1.

Christopher R. Seitz

The Book of the Twelve: A Unique Literary Achievement

Let us begin by considering the conceptual possibilities for understanding the relationship between individual works which exist now in a larger collection (several not applicable to the Book of the Twelve, but provided rather to establish the range). 1. One author plans a series and has already worked out the plot of ensuing books in relationship to the book presently being written. Of course alterations in the master plan can happen as the entire collection emerges over time. Karl Barth’s volumes in Church Dogmatics or the serial productions of N.T. Wright on the New Testament come to mind as examples.1 2. One author writes a book. It is successful. A decision is made by the same author to write a prequel/s or sequel/s and so create a set of collected works. One thinks of J.K. Rowling’s successful series, Harry Potter, for example. 3. A decision is made by a different author to take advantage of an original work’s success, and a sequel or prequel is composed by that different hand. I mention this possibility primarily to ease toward the example under discussion (The Book of the Twelve). 4. A book emerges from an author on theme X. Subsequently, a publisher decides to produce an omnibus of different works and chooses this work for the collection, intentionally placing the book in position 3 of 12. A reader can spot the obviousness of the sequence and the logic of its placement by virtue of the collections’ larger sense as a collection with this or that governing theme or common topic. 5. Twelve different works by different authors with no strong relationship to one another – beyond genre similarity – are preserved in a collection because as individual works they are significant and they are too small to be preserved independently. In theory, their order could be rearranged with no serious effect. This is akin to the anthology idea. See the rabbinic musings in respect of Hosea, for example.2 6. Twelve different works (as in the fourth example above) are placed in a specific order and then outfitted with an editorial overlay that relates them successfully, in so doing dampening their once independent status and message. The alert reader can recognize this former independence in vestige and can also speculate successfully on the development of the whole and the point it now

1 The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1992) is followed by three further published volumes and two planned but not completed, to round out a series of six total volumes. 2 B. Bat. 14b–15b. Reference is made to fearing Hosea would get lost because too short, and of the need to include it with a larger collection of smaller prophetic books.

The Unique Achievement of the Book of the Twelve

39

seeks to make as a twelve-fold but single whole achievement. This is akin to the redactional unity idea. 7. One work comes into existence. A second work seeks to preserve that work and also introduce a new work, and to guard the original and itself, whilst also relating them.3 Variations of the same thing occur as new inspired works arise, affecting positioning and editorial associations according to the same pattern of integrity and integration. New works then come into play primarily in association with the developing collection. 8. In the example the Book of Joel in the Twelve collection, it is one of the final works and so its field of association is high as part of the character of its literary composition as an individual work from its inception. It is aware of the others works and understands the collection and sequence as critical to how it makes its point. This makes it a special individual witness and a special associated witness both.4 Drawing on the last two examples then, the Twelve takes form differently depending on whether at early, medial or latter stages. This is evidenced by the way the twelve works remain individual contributions, marked as such by clear beginnings and endings, and by the way they are different and distinctive in content and form and in the manner by which their associations with other works is manifested. This would mean in turn that any effort to understand the Twelve as a collective achievement, with associations and editorial linkages, will do so by attending to the integrity of each of the twelve individual works and will from that vantage point seek to understand editorial efforts to relate them more proximately and more globally, which will differ in character depending on the book in question. And in the case of later works, they likely understand their individual achievement always to be in relationship to a nearing-completion larger collection. In my judgement this is true of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Malachi. It is anticipated by Habakkuk, Haggai and Zechariah (its own complex special case as an individual witness). By contrast Amos and Hosea are special cases of mutual influencing at the earliest development of a collection concept, as Jeremias has shown.5 This effort at the coordination of two different prophetic legacies indicates the direction the 3 On the beginning of the process, see Jörg Jeremias, “The Interrelationship between Amos and Hosea,” in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts (ed. James W. Watts and Paul R. House; JSOTSup 235; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 171–86. 4 See Christopher R. Seitz, Joel (ITL; New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016). 5 On Jeremias, see note above and for the larger discussion of the Twelve see Christopher Seitz, Prophecy and Hermeneutics: Toward a New Introduction to the Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007).

40

Christopher R. Seitz

larger collection will in time take through medial and later stages. Micah has a special relationship to Isaiah and to a growing collection both. Nahum’s compact present message is to be heard in relation to Jonah which precedes it. The same can be said of Zephaniah and a developing pre-exilic collection, with its crescendo of judgment language based upon the highly developed theme of the Day of the Lord. In the case of the last eight examples we can think of the original works themselves and their subsequent editing in relationship to the evolving collection. But at no point is the individual character marking the twelve individual works ever eclipsed by editorial associations, made by others or indigenous to the works themselves (as in the case of the latest books mentioned above). The twelve-ness of the XII is crucial to its proper estimate as a collection. In this we have to hand a brilliant counter-example in the Book of Isaiah, with which it is customarily paired in the many lists that have come down to us in Jewish and Christian circles, and whose length as a single book corresponds to the XII as a collection of twelve individual works. Before we turn to a reflection on how these two achievements might profitably be compared, the Book of Joel will be briefly considered in order to give fuller illustration of this opening section.

2.

The Example of Joel

I have lately finished a commentary on Joel for the International Theological Commentary series. I want here to provide a very brief summary of my conclusions. The book of Joel is a coherent literary achievement intended to anticipate the scenes of divine judgment (especially with the language “the Day of the Lord”) in the ensuing books of the Twelve. It picks up from the final refrain of Hosea and choreographs how the wise who walk in God’s ways endure his judgment and receive his mercy (Hos 14:9). The center of the book (Joel 2:12–16) scripts God’s enactment of mercy in the face of repentance and acknowledgement of his ways – the ways revealed to Moses in Exod 34:6. The locust plague is a realistic feature of Joel’s presentation but also a metaphorical device intended to point to the totality of national assault as this unfolds in the Book of the Twelve. To ask “Do the four Hebrew words point to locust-savvy Israel?” is at once sensible but also may miss the tetrad’s significance as a marker of totality and national comprehensiveness (so the history of interpretation).6 Joel and other later witnesses help demonstrate that the Book of the Twelve is not an anthology of works whose sequence is a matter of indifference. Several of the books likely had independent life, but equally the pressure was always there to 6 See Josef Lossl, “When is a Locust Just a Locust? Patristic Exegesis of Joel 1.4 in the Light of Ancient Literary Theory,” JTS 55 (2004): 575–99, and my discussion in Joel, 120–128.

The Unique Achievement of the Book of the Twelve

41

affiliate books, as Jeremias has argued with the pupils of Hosea and Amos and the way they have editorially linked the two books and allowed the message of social justice and cultic purity to serve as two sides of one coin. Later books in particular – Jonah, Obadiah, Joel, Malachi – have a clear literary structure and integrity, even as they deliver their message in the context of Twelve Books the reader will be aware of. Intermediate books – Micah, Habakkuk, Nahum, Zephaniah – are more difficult to evaluate on this understanding. The Twelve is equally not a collection in which the lateral linkages and redactional history are more critical to interpretation than the twelve-book form itself. The XII is not Isaiah. The beginnings and endings of books are clearly marked and mean us to take the books as having their own literary significance. In the example of Joel, the opening verses belong inextricably to the logic of Joel as a single work and serve to provide the lens on what follows in that work. Nogalski’s idea that Joel’s unprecedented theme “Has this ever happened?” means, “Has the repentance called for in Hosea ever happened?” makes Joel too reliant on an exterior theme and unable to function as an individual work without requiring a context supplied by something fully outside its frame.7 The introduction is perfectly comprehensible as an appeal to tell a thing across ensuing generations and that reference declares its sense as we read on into the witness of Joel. This is why the entire history of interpretation, including virtually all modern commentary, takes the reference to mean the fourfold locust plague and the response to it, scripting the repentance of the wise (Joel 2:12–16) Hosea had called for but seen unenacted as his book closed. Indeed that is the most decisive theme hermeneutically in Joel. Joel is a book intended to locate every generation to come before the horizon of God’s judgment in history as this will unfold in the XII. That Joel is read on Ash Wednesday, before God’s judgment of the world enacted in his Son at the Cross, is perfectly attuned to the hermeneutical achievement that Joel represents, attested to by virtue of its location in the XII and long noted in the history of interpretation.8 So Joel’s relationship to Hosea on the one hand, and to the works that follow on the other, is a critical index for how we are to read it as a single work. This stands in contrast, however, to the idea that its own internal deployment of the unprecedented theme borrows the root idea from a different book and demands that we see the reference focused on non-repentance, as Hosea had otherwise exhorted the wise. In fact, the opposite point is being registered in the Book of Joel. An unprecedented locust plague is both a realistic fact and a metaphorical sign of dramatic fourfold divine judgment in its full totality. This judgment is 7 Ibid., 115–7. 8 On Jewish use of Joel see my discussion (ibid., 91–2). The haftaroth places the reading of Joel 2:15–27 after Hosea 14:2–10 for the Sabbath before Yom Kippur.

42

Christopher R. Seitz

played out in Joel’s own realistic context for its own sake and also so as to anticipate the appearance of the prominent Day of the Lord theme in the books to follow. Inside of its own carefully constructed individual presentation, it scripts the occasion of proper repentance so as to serve as a model for the community of Joel’s imagined audience and the reader of the Twelve both, whose journey through the Twelve with its long historical range of God’s ways of justice and mercy with Israel and the nations is just beginning. This is indeed the majestic achievement of the Book of Joel. This achievement is calibrated to the wider context of the Twelve’s coming-to-be but not at the cost of evacuating the individuality of the individual witness in the literary form and final canonical shape we now have it, as book two following book one and opening on to Obadiah and the books that will follow. It is hoped that this single example of the Book of Joel serves to blunt the sharp distinction between anthology and redactional unity, even as it is but one significant if later contribution to the question of the proper estimate of the Twelve in its final form. In the commentary on Joel one can see that other later works make their own contributions in distinctive ways (Obadiah, Jonah, Malachi). This is in contrast to medial and early works. To evaluate the Book of the Twelve as a whole requires a proper estimate of the way each individual work has its own character as such and in relation to the proximate and more global collective whole.

3.

Isaiah and “The Effect of a Middle”

A serious reflection on the redactional and intertextual connections between the Book of the Twelve and Isaiah cannot be pursued here in detail, but the more general theme will allow us to make some remarks pertinent to the character of the Book of the Twelve. The topic could imply there is a relationship between these two long works – Isaiah and the XII – but just what is it? An apple and a basketball are both round, but we can be very sure they are not so due to cross fertilization. Yet for some the discussion is predicated on just this notion.9 That is, the Book of Isaiah and the Book of the Twelve are held to manifest editorial cross-pollination. It is necessary to press this a bit further in the light of recent XII research. That is, a view 9 Erich Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeptionen von Jesaia 1–39 im Zwölfprophetenbuch. Untersuchungen zur literarischen Verbindung von Prophetenbücher in babylonischer und persischer Zeit (OBO 154; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1997), 35–6, 119–25. An English-language translation treatment of this topic by Odil Hannes Steck can be found in The Prophetic Books and Their Theological Witness (trans. James Nogalski; St. Louis: Chalice, 2000). The original German, Die Prophetenbücher und ihr theologisches Zeugnis: Wege der Nachfrage und Fährten zur Antwort (Tübingen: Mohr, 1996) influenced the treatment of Bosshard-Nepustil.

The Unique Achievement of the Book of the Twelve

43

of the mutual compositional history of Isaiah and the XII will presuppose that the XII itself be thought of as manifesting a high degree of redactional over-working that is comprehensive in character, extending over all the individual writings, and in so doing displaying a consistent overlay that can be isolated and assigned to layers of editors. This in turn leads to the possibility of redactional comparisons with Isaiah. What is happening in the XII itself is happening then in relation to Isaiah, in spite of them originating in very different ways. This is not a view of the XII I subscribe to, as noted in the previous sections. Rather, I hold the twelve-ness of the XII to be a marked, deliberate, and distinctive feature. The editorial work associating them in a collection is therefore best considered on a case-by-case, book by book, basis. This also includes works among the XII whose origins and situation in life is best understood in relation to a larger, slowly evolving, XII logic – so, in my view, Joel, Obadiah, and Jonah. So any effort to understand the Book of Isaiah and the Book of the Twelve – on this view – will come at it with an eye toward how they are very different works, in origins and compositional history, and only then see if we can comprehend any proper grid of comparison. If Isaiah as a whole is greater than the sum of its parts, the parts dimension of the XII remains critical to its interpretation. Parenthetically, I would register the same caution about the Book of Isaiah and the Psalter, where a similar conception in them both exists concerning Davidic kingship and the kingship of YHWH (Isaiah 40–55 in fruitful comparison with Book 4 of the Psalter). But a book with 150 individual compositions and the Book of Isaiah exhibit this similarity not at the level of a redactional history pollinating them both, that we are intended to identify and work out the details of.10 Rather, both are concerned, within the compass of their own specific canonical shaping, with a similar theology of kingship, differently manifested given the shape peculiar to them respectively: The one is a prophetic witness originating in the oral proclamation of an 8th century prophet, and extensions of that original message as God’s own inspirational accomplishment over several centuries; the other, a book of prayers, somehow related to David and later choral guilds, now organized into five books with complex economic and ontological dimensions. David never goes away, but the psalms of David, son of Jesse, are also ended, Book Two’s conclusion declares. No strictly serial, sequential reading will do proper justice to the final shape of the Psalter and its own unique achievement. David, the Davidic line, the righteous Israel suffering as did David and the monarchy, and the ascents of Book Five which return us to the David of Book

10 Christopher R. Seitz, “Royal Promises in the Canonical Books of Isaiah and the Psalter,” In Word Without End. The Old Testament as Abiding Theological Witness (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2005), 150–67.

44

Christopher R. Seitz

One – this is a sequentiality built on the conception of figural significance, which never loses the historical past but sees in it the future’s coming reality.11 In working on Isaiah over many years, and more recently on the Book of the Twelve, I have been struck at how certain provisional observations about the logic of them as whole works – three Isaiahs, or twelve prophets to be re-organized so as to get at their real (‘historical’) sequence – while starting out as assured results of higher criticism, proved in the end to be useful provisional observations and that is all. More needed to be said about the actual shaping of the literature when the dust settled on them as total works. I want to mention two things specifically at this point. Though the Masoretic activity that led to preserving these works and seeing to the stable transmission of them is much later than the period we are presently discussing, it nevertheless exposes features that we now know go well back into their own compositional history and final editorial form. Hence the remarkably stable order of the XII at Qumran and Nahal Hever. So for example, I hold it to be implausibly random that the exact middle point of the XII, itself deeply imbedded in the compositional history and final logic of the Book of Micah itself, reads: “Zion will be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem become a heap of ruins.” The Masoretic marking of this as the half-way point by verse uncovers a reality already imbedded in the final form of the XII. To adopt Christian language, this is the “Good Friday” of the Book of the XII, followed by the “Easter” refrain shared by Micah and Isaiah both: “In the latter days, the mountain of the house of the Lord will be the highest of all the mountains.”12 Childs had argued that Isaiah and Micah have been mutually reinforced, and there is much to that suggestion.13 It stands on ground similar to what Jeremias has argued for Amos and Hosea. Here however, we are talking about works in different canonical locations (The Book of Isaiah and the Book of the XII). What Childs did not pursue, within the compass of his 1979 Introduction, was the significance of these Micah verses in light of the 11 See Christopher R. Seitz, “Psalm 2 in the Entry Hall of the Psalter,” in Church, Society, and the Christian Common Good: Essays in Conversation with Philip Turner (ed. Ephraim Radner; Eugene: Wipf and Stock, forthcoming). 12 See the fuller discussion in Prophecy and Hermeneutics, 127–9. 13 “The present shaping of Micah’s prophecy has interpreted the book by placing it within a larger context shared by the prophet Isaiah. The common moulding has the effect that Isaiah serves as a commentary on Micah and vice versa. The use of a verbatim passage in such a central position consciously directs the reader to the other collection of prophecy. The two messages are not to be fused since each has been preserved with a distinct shape as a discrete entity. Yet the two are heard together for mutual enrichment within the larger corpus of prophecy” (Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979], 438). I discuss the matter in more detail in “Scriptural Author and Canonical Prophet: The Theological Implications of Literary Association in the Canon,” in Biblical Method and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John Barton (ed. Katharine J. Dell and Paul M. Joyce; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 176–88.

The Unique Achievement of the Book of the Twelve

45

final form of the XII itself. (And of course he would not have agreed with the global redactional models of the XII that have suggested for some a fruitful redactional comparison of the XII and Isaiah in the manner of cross-pollination). How was this middle point achieved? Of course we will never know the details. But given the arguments for a meaningful shaping of the XII as a whole, it obviously would have required figuring out how to weigh both sides of the middle so that this centre point eventuated and stabilized – not unlike loading the respective pans of a balance scale, an Obadiah over here and a subsection of Zechariah over there, and multiply that according to your own factorial in the light of 775 verses on either side of Mic 3:12 to be negotiated, all the while preserving the integrity of what would be twelve works, each with the character of their individual final form maintained. This is an extraordinary achievement whose details in execution we will never track properly, no matter how many legions of dissertation-writers are unleashed. The situation in Isaiah is different, though the outcome begs comparison. In an SBL seminar paper written twenty years ago,14 I gave some sustained reflection on the Isaiah corpus in its final form, in the light of a published monograph and a commentary on Isaiah then in press, and as I began to turn to Isaiah 40–66.15 My observations were these: 1. Isaiah 34–35 anticipate 40ff, as had long been noted. 2. Isaiah 36–39 have an exact if shorter correlate in 2 Kings 18–19. 3. Ackroyd had in 197416 persuasively shown that the non-chronological order of the three sections comprising i) Isaiah 36–37, ii) Hezekiah’s healing in Isaiah 38, and iii) the Babylonian emissaries in Isaiah 39 had their own order and logic after all, especially as assisting a transition to Isaiah 40ff, hence their elaborated form vis-à-vis what we find in Kings. 4. So what of the inquiry of Ackroyd extended to the present assemblage represented by Isaiah 34–39 in their entirety? Why separate the material with obvious kinship to Isaiah 40ff with the narrative texts of Isaiah 36–39? My answer was that the same chronological concerns of interest to historical criticism were again here taking a back-seat to a different canonical shaping process which had priority. The effect of this was to make the deliverance of Zion, and the reversal of health for Hezekiah, types which presaged the comforting and deliverance proclaimed forcefully in Isaiah 40–55, and beyond. “Zion’s Final Destiny” was of ultimate concern, and the work of the 14 “On the Question of Divisions Internal to the Book of Isaiah,” SBLSP 32 (1993): 260–6. 15 Zion’s Final Destiny: The Development of the Book of Isaiah (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1991); Isaiah 1–39: IBC (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993; Japanese trans. 1996; 2nd ed., 2003). 16 Peter R. Ackroyd, “An Interpretation of the Babylonian Exile: A Study of 2 Kings 20, Isaiah 36–39,” SJT 27 (1974): 328–52.

46

Christopher R. Seitz

servant and servants in the chapters that followed this ordered block, had in view the redemption of Israel so that Zion might become the place of light for the nations. This is a very compressed and rough-and-ready summary of my thinking then, and now. So the border marked by historical criticism at Isaiah 40 remained intact, but needed a fuller evaluation in the light of these preceding six chapters. The trial of the nations in Isaiah 40–48 would be better comprehended when seen in the light of the Assyrian challenge – and defeat – reported in Isaiah 36–37, where a plan of old was also referred to, much as in Isaiah 40–48’s former and latter things. The Babylonian emissary that sees everything in Isaiah’s day, will ultimately meet the same fate as Assyria in Isaiah 36–37, all this already promised in the final form of Isaiah 13–23.17 This leaves us then with a clear pointer to our topic with respect to the XII. For Isaiah 33 occupies the same place in Isaiah that Mic 3:12 and 4:1ff does in the XII. The Masoretic notation of the half-point by verse falls at Isa 33:21 and is marked by the final colophon as ki ‘im sham ‘adir (“for there the Lord is majestic for us”). The most penetrating work on this chapter has been undertaken by Beuken18 and evaluated and adjusted by Childs.19 All agree this is a hermeneutically singular chapter, as well as a chapter significant for the interpretation of the larger Isaiah witness. Please note that it too is finally concerned with the ultimate destiny of the restored Zion, thus anticipating chapters 34ff and also mirroring the same interest manifested in Micah in the XII. The Lord is exalted (Isa 33:10; so Isa 6:1 and the servant in Isa 52:13); he will fill Zion with justice and righteousness (so Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah); Zion is a peaceful habitation and an immovable tent (so Isa 54:2). Look upon Zion, for there the Lord is majestic for us – so the middle point of Isaiah proclaims (Isa 33:20–21). One challenge of the chapter is the theme of kingship. In a famous study of 1922, Mowinckel classified the chapter as a unified prophetic liturgy composed in the cult.20 Its purpose was to extol the vindication of Israel, the restoration of Zion, and the Lord as king. In the words of verse 32: The Lord is our judge, our prince, our King. But what then of the reference in Isa 33:17 to seeing a king in his beauty as one looks upon Zion the immovable tent? Gunkel argued this was the same Lord king.21 Others held it was David. But what then would that mean? Childs, in my view, rightly resists the instinct to choose one over the other. “There will be the 17 18 19 20

This is the argument developed in greater detail in “Isaiah 40–66,” NIB 6: 307–552. William A.M. Beuken, “Jesaja 33 als Spiegeltext im Jesajabuch,” ETL 67 (1991): 5–35. Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 242–9. Sigmund Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien 2: Das Thronbesteigungsfest Jahwäs und der Ursprung der Eschatologie (Kristiana, 1922), 235–8. 21 Hermann Gunkel, “Jesaja 33, ein prophetische Liturgie,” ZAW 42 (1924): 177–208.

The Unique Achievement of the Book of the Twelve

47

anticipated messianic king, but his function remains as always to serve as an earthly representative of Israel’s true heavenly king.”22 I agree with this interpretation of Isaiah 33 and believe further confirmation of it can be found in the present canonical shape of the central Isaiah 33 in relation to the chapters that now follow. So Hezekiah is the type of that just and righteous king. One sees in him a foreshadowing of this king we shall look on his in beauty. The final messianic hope is aligned not just with YHWH’s ultimate kingship, but also with earthly examples of that in Hezekiah. Time does not permit further support for this reading, but we can see an example of it immediately preceding in Isaiah 32. There is far less controversy in declaring this chapter to center on a Davidic king, and not the Lord as king. The only question is the character of its messianism: eschatological or more immediately proximate? In my view this ambiguity lies at the heart of the text’s intention. We shall see the king in his glory in Hezekiah in the chapters that follow, but Hezekiah is always a type of the eschatological messiah king under YHWH’s kingship. Chapters seven, nine and eleven maintain the same careful balance earlier in the book.23 The existence of a significant center text in Isaiah and in the XII, then, serves to prevent a reading of both larger works as though half one is primarily to be viewed as chronologically prior to, and so updated or corrected by half two. Instead of a beginning, middle and ending form of narrativity as the chief lens by which to view Isaiah or the Twelve, we are introduced instead to the theological achievement of typology. The former and the latter logic of Isaiah 40–48 insists that what is latterly fulfilled was formerly hidden away and always “part of the plan” when seen from God’s accomplishing perspective. Only when the threat of idolatry arises in the form of laying claim to fulfillment by one’s own insight, does the prophet say, “created now, not long ago” (Isa 48:7). Because you were treacherous and were tempted to say “I knew of them already” I create now (Isa 48:6–8). But the arch counterpart remains: I also told you long ago so you could not attribute your present knowledge to your idols (Isa 48:5). When in Isa 55:3 the eternal mercies to David embrace as well those the prophet addresses – the servants of the servant, perhaps even the nations – the centre-text principle keeps us from loosening the earthly messianism of half one from its extensions both eschatological and more broadly covenantal in half two. The brilliant achievement of both the XII and Isaiah, in their final canonical shape, resists any one-after-the-other sequential account in which the former is defined in relation to the latter as eclipsed or released from ongoing duty and accomplishment. Here the former-latter linkage referred to in the series found in 22 Childs, Isaiah, 248. 23 Christopher R. Seitz, “Fixity and Potential in Isaiah,” in The Multivalence of Biblical Texts and Theological Meanings (ed. Christine Helmer; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2006), 37–45.

48

Christopher R. Seitz

Isaiah 40–48 finds corroboration in the final structure of Isaiah 32–39 and Isaiah 33 as the pivotal centre-text of Isaiah. The same can be said of Mic 3:12 and 4:1ff within the logic of the XII. The XII also makes clear by its very form that later witnesses diachronically understood have been placed in former position prior to Mic 3:12 in order precisely to correlate typologically events whose significance cannot be understood by plotting them on the one-after-the-other model of secular historiography. Joel’s locusts are locusts and the serial assault of the nations both, such as will unfold in the witnesses following his own. The lateness of his witness is precisely what enables the outfitting of a providential scheme: now rooted within the former witnesses of Hosea and Amos in the canonical shape of the Minor Prophets as a total witness. In the lengthy textual transmission-history of Isaiah and the XII, we see them positioned next to each other in the lists preserved. The XII precedes Isaiah in the order of the Major Prophets familiar in English printed texts; or we have the b. batra order of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, followed by the XII. Obviously, the similarity of their long temporal ranges encourages this. But the logic of their middle point and larger canonical shape may also be a contributing factor. This is not due to cross pollination but rather to kindred concerns respectively registered in both impressive works. Both contain a decisive centre-text that serves to encourage a typological association of God’s works in former and latter conjunction across the largescale presentations of Isaiah and the Book of the Twelve.

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

Reading Zechariah’s Vision Report in the Book of the Twelve

1.

Introduction

The multitude of scholars who have worked on Zechariah’s vision report all know what an enigmatic and fascinating text this is. As the text stands, the vision report is part of several, gradually wider, textual corpora: Zechariah 1–6, Zechariah 1–8, the book of Zechariah, and the Book of the Twelve. Each textual corpus endeavours, at least in theory, to incorporate the vision report and to make it conform to and fit in with the surrounding material. Building on the work of those scholars who have looked at the textual links between the vision report and other biblical texts, this article explores the adjacent question: what are the key differences in reading Zechariah’s vision report as a part of the Book of Zechariah and as a part of the Book of the Twelve? To anticipate my conclusion, I shall demonstrate that Zechariah’s vision report shows more affinity with the adjacent texts in Haggai and Malachi than with the more closely situated material in Zechariah 9–14. As such, we may conclude that the book of the Twelve constitutes a more closely aligned literary context in which to read Zechariah’s vision report than what the book of Zechariah does. This, finally, casts doubts on the common view that the unit of a biblical book constitutes the ultimate literary context of a given biblical text. The underlying issue here, to cite Michael H. Floyd, is to explore the circumstances which form the matrix of the book of Zechariah. There are two, mutually incompatible options: 1. Zechariah 1–8 and 9–14 belong together because they were written by the same person / group of people. If this claim turns out to be plausible, then the answer to the aforementioned question is a given: yes, the book of Zechariah constitutes the immediate literary context of Zechariah’s vision report and reading the latter as part of the former will yield important exegetical insights.

50

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

2. Zechariah 1–8 and 9–14 were written in different sociocultural circumstances by people without clear links to one another. If this is the case, namely, if there is no inherent authorial and/or redactional connection between the two parts of the book of Zechariah, a most important question arises: why did someone (because someone evidently did) decide to fuse the two parts together and to treat all fourteen chapters of Zechariah as constituting a distinct prophetic book?1 Was the main reason literary, i. e. to forge a bridge between Zechariah and Malachi, or social, i. e. to respond to a particular social situation? Furthermore, if the latter, why was Zechariah 9–14 attached to Zechariah 1–8 in particular (rather than to another book in the Twelve)?

2.

The Structure of Zechariah

The structure of the book of Zechariah manages to be both lucid and opaque at the same time. Its surface structure is delimited by a trio of dating formulas: 1:1–6; 1:7– 6:15; 7:1–14:21. The final section in 7:1–14:21 is then divided into three main subsections: chapters 7–8; 9–11; 12–14. The latter two sections are set apart from the first one by help of its opening formula “a burden of the word of the Lord” ('‫)משא דברי ה‬ (9:1; 12:1), thus suggesting that chapters 7–8 are distinct from chapters 9–11 and chapters 12–14 respectively. Notably, nothing in these two ‫ משא‬formula in 9:1 and 12:1 indicates that the oracles to follow are to be attributed to Zechariah.2 At the same time, these same ‫ משא‬phrases are not as strong dividers as the dating formula: they do not isolate the discourses in Zechariah 9–11 and 12–14 from the discourses that precede or follow them to the same extent as the dating formula in 7:1 does.3 This surface structure accomplishes a number of things. Here, I wish to highlight three: 1. First, it sets the vision report (including the oracle in 6:9–15) apart from both the opening section in 1:1–6 and the following oracular material in 7:1–14:21. 2. Secondly, it encourages the reader to approach all of 7:1–14:21 as a single unit, uttered by the prophet in the fourth year of Darius I’s reign.4 1 Michael H. Floyd, “Zechariah and Changing Views of Second Temple Judaism in Recent Commentaries,” RelSRev 25 (1999), 262. Floyd further states that the mere fact that Zechariah 9–14 probably does not stem from the prophet Zechariah “does not justify the treatment of 1–8 and 9–14 as separate works.” 2 Michael H. Floyd, Minor Prophets. Part 2 (FOTL 22; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2000), 306. 3 Serge Frolov, “Is the Narrator also among the Prophets? Reading Zechariah without Presuppositions,” BibInt 13 (2005): 28–9. See also Floyd, “Zechariah and Changing Views,” 262, who compares the situation with Isaiah were some subsections also bear the heading ‫( משא‬e. g. Isa 13:1; 15:1; 17:1). 4 See further the discussion in Frolov, “Is the Narrator also among the Prophets,” 28–9.

Reading Zechariah’s Vision Report in the Book of the Twelve

51

3. Thirdly, the expression '‫ משא דבר ה‬in 9:1 and 12:1 serves to connect Zechariah 9–11 and 12–14 with each other and with Mal 1:1 which contains the similar phrase ‫משא דבר ה' אל ישראל ביד מלאכי‬. While most scholars accept the first division,5 few agree with the second one, the reason being that it contradicts the results of source-criticism: the material in Zech 7:1–8:23 is unlikely to have been written in the same time period and thus unlikely to have addressed the same issues as the following Zech 9:1–11:17 and 12:1–14:21.6 While chapters 7–8 can easily be understood as relating to matters in the sixth century BCE, the same is not true for chapters 9–14. In addition, as pointed out by Gonzalez, any reading which presupposes that one and the same prophet, in a single day, answered questions about fasting, made a massive proclamation concerning the international political situation, accomplished several sign acts, and made another proclamation concerning the relationship between Jerusalem and the nations, is not the easiest reading! 7 As to the third point, there is a clear distinction between the occurrences of the phrase '‫משא דבר ה‬ in Zechariah and the longer phrase in Malachi which serves to introduce a new (literary) character, namely, Malachi.8 The division between chapters 1–8 and 9–14 is most clearly reflected in Zechariah commentaries. Al Wolters’s recent commentary on Zechariah stands out in this respect in that it treats the entire book in a single volume. A quick look at the main commentary series (e. g. Old Testament Library, Anchor Bible) conveys a different situation, however: Zechariah 1–8 is interpreted alongside Haggai 1–2, while Zechariah 9–14 is either interpreted on its own or together with the third “burden,” namely the book of Malachi. 5 For an opposing view, see Heiko Wenzel, Reading Zechariah with Zechariah 1:1–6 as the Introduction to the Entire Book (CBET 59; Leuven: Peeters, 2011). For another different perspective, see also Meredith G. Kline, “The Structure of the Book of Zechariah,” JETS 34 (1991): 179–93. He sees Zech 6:9–15 as the centre piece (the primary “hinge” in the book) of the book, upon which both the preceding and the following section are connected. More recently, see also Yohan Im and Pieter M. Venter, “The Function of Zechariah 7–8 Within the Book of Zechariah,” HvTSt 69 (2013): 10 pages. They view Zech 7:1–8:21 as the introduction to the remainder of the book of Zechariah, in line with the structure suggested by the date formula. 6 The notion of a single author is here defined as a single individual person writing in the same historical circumstances. It is, of course, possible to envision a single author who writes two texts with a 50 year gap in between. See, e. g., Byron G. Curtis, Up the Steep and Stony Road: The Book of Zechariah in Social Location Trajectory Analysis (SBLABib 25; Atlanta: SBL, 2006), who maintains that the book of Zechariah was written by one author over a long period of time. Chapters 1–8 and chapters 9–14 stem from two time periods. 7 Hervé Gonzalez, “Zechariah 9–14 and the Continuation of Zechariah During the Ptolemaic Period,” JHS 13 (2013), Article 9, pp. 8–9, n. 23. http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_189. pdf. 8 Ibid., 9, n. 27.

52

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

This ambiguous relationship between the different parts of Zechariah within the overall structure of the book has given rise to multiple theories pertaining not only to the gradual growth of the material in the Haggai-Malachi corpus, but also to the overall development of the book of the Twelve. In short, was Zechariah’s vision report first incorporated into the book of Zechariah and later into the Twelve or, alternatively, was it primarily situated within a literary corpus consisting of Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 which subsequently was linked to an early form of the Book of the Four, and only at a later stage connected with Zechariah 9–14 and shaped into an individual prophetic book? In parallel, this situation raises the related question of what it means to read Zechariah’s vision report contextually, as the context, at least from a diachronic perspective, is far from self-evident. In order to find our way through the jungle of scholarly theories, we need to isolate and evaluate the arguments that are germane to the various theories. It should be noted that I use the term “Haggai-Malachi Corpus” to denote the literary unit consisting of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi in the final form of the Twelve. It carries no connotation of any early, redaction-critical unity of these three books.

3.

Cohesion and Distinction in the Haggai-Malachi Corpus

Textual cohesion can be accomplished through a variety of means: shared structure, shared themes, and shared vocabulary. The following investigation examines those factors that hold the various textual blocks in Haggai-Malachi together and those that keep them distinct. As we have already mentioned the matter of structure, the ensuing discussion will explore matters of thematic and verbal affinity. In this discussion, I shall investigate the use of “intertexts” between the various sections, here understood as the diachronic interaction between a later text (the alluding text) and an earlier text (the text being alluded to). This type of textual interaction is often interpretative, seeking to elucidate and lend authority to the earlier text, as well as to make that text relevant to later audiences, yet it cannot be excluded that the later author employs a textual allusion in order to contradict or reject the earlier text. Intertexts further serve to connect distinct textual corpora, where the ratio of textual allusions between two texts stands in correlation to the esteem in which the alluding author holds the text being alluded to: a high number of allusions to a specific text suggests that the alluding author held that particular earlier text in high regard; few allusions to a given text may be a sign that the alluding author was uninterested in that same text.

Reading Zechariah’s Vision Report in the Book of the Twelve

3.1

53

Commonality between Haggai and Zechariah 1–8

Many factors lend cohesion to Haggai-Zechariah 1–8: shared literary personae (Joshua, Zerubbabel), shared themes (the building of the temple), and shared structures (similar dating formulas and overlapping dates). Although the dating formulas are not identically shaped,9 and although the references to Joshua and Zerubbabel are not located in the earliest layer of Zechariah’s vision report,10 the overall consistency of the material conveys a unequivocal message to the readers that Zechariah’s vision report and Haggai 1–2 form some sort of literary unit which can be read together fruitfully, despite the fact that the two texts are preserved in two different books. At the same time, the difference in terms of genre and content between Zechariah 1–8 (vision report with interspersed oracles, focus on the building of the temple, the returning exiles, the fall of Babylon) and Zechariah 9–14 (two “burdens,” “the Day of the Lord”, the presupposition that the temple is [re-]built) gives credit to the view that (1) Zechariah 1–8 and Zechariah 9–14 did not belong together originally and that (2) they were composed in different historical circumstances.11 In parallel, the heading “burden of the words of the Lord” (‫משא‬ '‫ )דברי ה‬in Mal 1:1 effectively creates a new textual unit consisting of Zechariah 9– 14 and Malachi.

3.2

Commonality between Zechariah 1–8 and 9–14

Significantly weaker arguments speak in favour of reading Zechariah 1–8 together with the following chapters 9–14. Several scholars, such as Rex Mason12 and Brevard Childs,13 have emphasized the shared thematic links across the book of Zechariah. Continuing on the same line, Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers argue for a human connection between the two parts: the authors of Zechariah 9– 14 were probably individuals who “emerged in the shadow of Zechariah […] 9 See Jakob Wöhrle, Die frühen Sammlungen des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Entstehung und Komposition (BZAW 360; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), 367–74. 10 See Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, Zechariah’s Vision Report and its Earliest Interpreters: A Redaction-Critical Study of Zechariah 1–8 (LHBOTS 626; London: Bloomsbury, 2016). 11 For a good overview of the arguments in favour of differentiating between Zechariah 1–8 and Zechariah 9–11, 12–14, with cited bibliography, see Gonzalez, “Zechariah 9–14 and the Continuation of Zechariah,” 5–8. 12 Rex Mason, “The Relation of Zech 9–14 to Proto-Zechariah,” ZAW 88 (1976): 227–39. He highlights five traditions, present in Zechariah 1–8, which are modified in chapters 9–14: the prominence of the Zion tradition, the divine cleansing of the community, universalism, the appeal to the earlier prophets, and the provision of leadership as a sign of the new age affinity. 13 Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 482–5.

54

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

belonging to a circle of prophets among whom the words of the earlier prophets were preserved and expanded upon, but among whom the words of Zechariah […] were especially revered.”14 They do not seem to be fully convinced, however, as they also state that whilst they “do not doubt the validity of seeing the two parts of the canonical Zechariah in close relationship,” they wonder “whether the FirstSecond Zechariah interplay is […] simply one of many instances of Second Zechariah’s referential treatment of his scriptural forebears, notably prophets.”15 It is furthermore significant that most of Childs’s examples of affinity are not between Zechariah’s Vision report and Zechariah 9–14 but instead between Zechariah 8 and the continuing text. To quote Childs, “ch. 8 provides the content to the imperatives which ch. 13 signals and links the two parts of the book closely together.”16 Other scholars highlight the dissonance that is created by the heading in Zech 9:1. According to Moseman, for example, readers come to the verse expecting a continuation of the hopeful prophecies of Zechariah 1–8. Instead, they are confronted by the depiction of Israel’s unfaithfulness which, when the two parts are being read together, serves to explain the lack of fulfilment of the preceding prophecies.17 3.2.1 The Book of Zechariah and its Intratexts It is well-known that Zechariah 9–14 offers a mosaic of textual allusions. As such, it is a “reinterpretative text.”18 Yet, as we shall discover, few of its intertexts are located in the surrounding material. This lack, in turn, highlights the need to ponder further the current location of Zechariah 9–14 between Zechariah 1–8 and Malachi. Yes, it is there in the final text but why? I do not wish to challenge the extant affinity between Zechariah 1–8 and Zechariah 9–14.19 I contend, however, that this affinity is not closer than, say, between Zechariah 9–14 and Jeremiah, or between Zechariah 9–14 and Ezekiel. In my view, we are being “misled” by the fact that Zechariah 1–14 forms a single canonical book as it

14 Carol L. and Eric M. Meyers, Zechariah 9–14: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 25C; New York: Doubleday, 1993), 27–8. 15 Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 38. This conclusion is borne out by the charts on pp. 40– 3 which does not list a single shared theme between Zechariah 1–8 and Zechariah 9–14. 16 Childs, Introduction, 484–5. 17 R. David Moseman, “Reading the Two Zechariahs As One,” RevExp 97 (2000): 494. 18 Michael H. Floyd, “Deutero-Zechariah and Types of Intertextuality,” in Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14 (ed. Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd; JSOTSup 370; London: T&T Clark, 2003), 243–4. 19 Rex Mason, “The Use of Earlier Biblical Material in Zechariah 9–14: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis,” in Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14 (ed. Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd; JSOTSup 370; London: T&T Clark, 2003), 3–208.

Reading Zechariah’s Vision Report in the Book of the Twelve

55

makes us assess the links between Zechariah 1–8 and 9–14 on a different scale than the links between Zechariah 1–8 and other books.20 There are, in fact, only two unmistakeable cases of verbal similarity between Zechariah 1–8 and Zechariah 9–14, namely, between 9:8 / 7:14 (the unique expression ‫ )מעבר ומשב‬and 9:9 / 2:14 [Eng. 2:10] (four shared elements).21 Taking a closer look at these two examples immediately reveals that the material in Zechariah 9 does not related to the vision report proper; it alludes to the oracular material in chapters 1–8. Discussing these similarities, Richard L. Schultz argues that although the similarity between 9:8 and 7:14 is notable, it does little to enhance the interpretation of the two texts, given that the two passages speak about different matters. In fact, one does not need to recognize the allusion to 7:14 in order to understand 9:8. As to 2:14 and 9:9, the later text draws on a number of earlier texts, among them Isa 9:6–7; 11:1–5; 32:1–8; Hos 3:4–5 and Mic 5:2–4. As such, it is potentially methodologically flawed to single out the allusion to Zech 2:14, merely because of the textual proximity between the two passages. At the same time, given the additional shared “eye imagery,” Schultz concludes that the affinity between Zech 9:1–8 and earlier passages in Zechariah 1–8 “serve to link the two sections of the book of Zechariah.”22 In my view, when we view these two examples as part of the wider web of textual allusions in Zechariah 9–14, they lose their pride of place and fade in comparison. A number of scholars have studied the rich and varied assortment of textual allusions in Zechariah 9–14.23 There is verbal similarity between Zechariah 9–14 and the Deuteronomistic History,24 Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel,25 as well as 20 I thus partly challenge Redditt’s conclusion that Zechariah 9–14 stands closer to Zechariah 1– 8 than to any other book in the Twelve. See further Paul L. Redditt, “Zechariah 9–14: The Capstone of the Book of the Twelve,” in Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14 (ed. Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd; JSOTSup 370; London: T&T Clark, 2003), 305. His ensuing investigation on pp. 306–12 does not bear out this statement in full. It is not fully clear why the discussion of intertexts needs to be limited to the Twelve. 21 Noted by, among others, Joyce G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC; Downers Grove: IVP, 1972), 68–9. 22 “The Ties that Bind: Intertextuality, the Identification of Verbal Parallels, and Reading Strategies in the Book of the Twelve,” in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve (ed. Paul R. Redditt and Aaron Schart; BZAW 325; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 34–7. 23 See, e. g., Katrina J. A. Larkin, Eschatology of Second Zechariah: A Study of the Formation of a Mantological Wisdom Anthology (CBET 6; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994), 249–50 (conclusion), and Magne Saebø, Sacharja 9–14: Untersuchungen von Text und Form (WMANT 34: Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969), 161. 24 Raymond F. Person, Second Zechariah and the Deuteronomistic School (JSOTSup 167; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993). 25 Konrad R. Schaefer, “Zechariah 14: A Study in Allusion,” CBQ 57 (1995): 66–91, Nicholas H.F. Tai, Prophetie als Schriftauslegung in Sacharja 9–14: Traditions- und kompositionsgeschichtliche Studien (CThM 17; Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1996), 280–4 (conclusion), Eibert Tigchelaar, “Some Observations on the Relationship between Zechariah 9–11 and Jeremiah,” in

56

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

with Micah and the Psalter.26 With this in mind, we are likely to concur with Schart who doubts that Zechariah 9–14 were originally written within the context of Zechariah 1–8.27 Although Gonzalez has tried to counter these findings by showing that Zechariah 9–14 relies heavily on earlier prophecies, in that way epitomizing the statement in Zech 1:4; 7:7, 12 about “prophets of old” (‫הנביאים‬ ‫)הראשנים‬,28 his findings are actually part of the problem insofar as these passages in Zechariah 1–8 are (1) not part of the vision report proper (Zech 1:7–6:15) and, in parallel, (2) most likely part of the latest layers of the text and thus editorial in character. The interaction between Zechariah 9–14 and the preceding vision report is thus scarce indeed. Before concluding this section, we need to address Curtis’s research on this matter. As part of his argumentation in favour of the authorial unity of the whole book of Zechariah, Curtis demonstrates that (1) the same rare words occur in both sections, and (2) these words appear with a higher density in these two sections than elsewhere.29 This type of statistical analysis is, however, methodologically unsound. It highlights the vocabulary that is shared by the two specific textual corpora, in this case Zechariah 1–8 and Zechariah 9–14. At the same time, the results are inconclusive in that his analysis does not investigate all possible combinations. The selected two textual corpora determine the vocabulary under investigation; this is not an investigation of all words within all biblical texts, only a (predetermined) selection thereof. Expressed differently, it is possible that a comparison between Zechariah 1–8 and Hosea would reveal the same number of occurrences of shared vocabulary etc., only with different words. In sum, Zechariah 1–8 is far from being the prime interlocutor of Zechariah 9– 14. Whatever Zechariah 9–14 is doing, it is not interacting with Zechariah 1–8 to any significant degree and it is most certainly not interpreting Zechariah’s vision report in Zech 1:8–6:15. This, in turn, makes reading Zechariah’s vision report as part of the book of Zechariah a doubtful endeavour.

26 27 28 29

Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14 (ed. Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd; JSOTSup 370; London: T&T Clark, 2003), 260–70, and Rex Mason, “Why is Second Zechariah so Full of Quotations?” in The Book of Zechariah and its Influence (ed. Christopher M. Tuckett; Burlington: Ashgate, 2003), 21–8. Suk Yee Lee, Intertextual Analysis of Zechariah 9–10: The Earlier Restoration Expectations of Second Zechariah (LHBOTS 599; London: T&T Clark, 2015). Aaron Schart, Die Entstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuchs (BZAW 260; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998), 275. Gonzalez, “Zechariah 9–14 and the Continuation of Zechariah,” 15. For Gonzalez, this “conceptual and linguistic congruity hints that Zech 9–14 was written as the continuation of Zech 1–8.” Curtis, Up the Steep and Stony Road, 240–54.

57

Reading Zechariah’s Vision Report in the Book of the Twelve

3.3

Commonality between Zechariah 1–8 and Malachi

The lack of affinity between Zechariah 1–8 and Zechariah 9–14 opens the new question as to whether Malachi constitutes the closest wider literary context in which to position and read Zechariah’s vision report. 3.3.1 Verbal Affinity Erich Bosshard and Reinhard Kratz explored the verbal affinity between (the presumed various textual layers in) Malachi and the surrounding books, with focus on shared single roots.30 Nearly a decade later, Andrew E. Hill compiled a list of examples of what he calls “Malachi’s interdependence”, i. e. passages in Malachi that show verbal affinity with other textual passages (without determining the direction of the influence). On the basis of the noted instances of textual interaction across Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi,31 the following chart emerges: Malachi Mal 1:10 Mal 1:13

Zechariah’s Vision Report ‫מי גם בכם‬

Mal 2:12

Hag 1:9

‫והפחתם אותו‬

Mal 2:11 … ‫יהודה … בישראל ובירושלם‬ ‫י ה וד ה‬ ‫מאהלי יעקב‬

Mal 3:2b–3a ‫כי הוא כאש מצרף וכברית מכבסים‬ ‫וישב מצרף ומטהר כסף וטהר את נבי‬ ‫לוי וזקק אתם כזהב וככסף‬

Oracular Material in Haggai + Zechariah 1–8 Hag 2:3 ‫מי בכם‬

Zechariah 9–14

‫ונפחתי בו‬

Zech 2:2 [Eng. 1:19] ‫את יהודה אל ישראל וירושלם‬ Zech 12:732

‫את אהלי יהודה‬

Zech 13:9a33 ‫והבאתי את השלשית באש וצרפתים כצרף‬ ‫את הכסף ובחנתים כבחן את הזהב‬

30 “Maleachi im Zwölfprophetenbuch,” BN 52 (1990): 32–4. 31 Andrew E. Hill, Malachi: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 401–12. 32 See also Karl William Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching: Prophetic Authority, Form Problems, and the Use of Traditions in the Book of Malachi (BZAW 288; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 240, n. 85. 33 See also Bosshard and Kratz, “Maleachi im Zwölfprophetenbuch,” 41, and Judith Gärtner, Jesaja 66 und Sacharja 14 als Summe der Prophetie: Eine traditions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Abschluss des Jesaja- und des Zwölfprophetenbuches (WMANT 114; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2006), 280–83. They all argue that Zech 13:9 is the later text which alludes to the existing Mal 3:2–3. Cf. also Rainer Kessler, “The Unity of Malachi and Its Relation to the Book of the Twelve,” in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations – Redactional Processes – Historical Insights (ed. Rainer Albertz, James D. Nogalski, and Jakob Wöhrle; BZAW 433; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012), 223–36 (232–3), for a contrary opinion.

58

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

(Continued) Malachi Mal 3:4

Zechariah’s Vision Report

Oracular Material in Haggai + Zechariah 1–8

Zech 14:14

‫יהודה וירושלם‬

14:2134

Mal 3:16ba

Zech 13:9

‫ובחנוני‬

Mal 3:14b ‫ומה בצע כי שמרנו משמרתי וכי הלכנו‬ ‫קדרנית מפני ה' צבאות‬

Zech 11:5b

‫ורעיהם לא יחמול עליהן‬ 11:6a '‫כי לא אחמול עוד על ישבי הארץ נאם ה‬ Zech 3:9

‫כי הנה‬

‫שוב‬

Mal 3:24 [Eng. 4:6] ‫פן אבוא והכיתי את הארץ חרם‬

Zech 2:13 14 [Eng. 9–10]

‫כי הנני‬ ‫כי הנני בא‬

Zech 11:16 Zech 14:1a

‫כי הנה‬ '‫הנה יום בא ה‬

Zech 1:6aa ‫אך דברי וחקי אשר צויתי את‬ ‫עבדי הנביאים‬

Mal 3:22 [Eng. 4:4] ‫זכרו תורת משה עבדי אשר צויתי אותו‬ ‫בחרב על כל ישראל חקים ומשפטים‬

Mal 3:24 [Eng. 4:6]

‫ובחנתים‬

Zech 1:4b37 ‫ולא שמעו ולא הקשיבו אלי נאם‬ '‫ה‬ 7:11 ‫וימאנו להקשיב ויתנו כתף‬ ‫סררת ואזניהם הכבידו משמוע‬

Mal 3:17bb ‫כאשר יחמל איש על בנו מעבד אתו‬

Mal 3:23 [Eng. 4:5] ‫הנה אנכי שלח לכם את אליה הנביא‬ ‫לפני בוא יום ה' הגדול והנורא‬

‫בית יהודה אל היוצר‬

Zech 3:7aa ‫כה אמר ה' צבאות אם בדרכי‬ ‫תלך ואם את משמרתי תשמר‬

‫ויקשב ה' וישמע‬

Mal 3:19a [Eng. 4:1] ‫כי הנה היום בא‬ 3:19b ‫ולהט אתם היום הבא אמר ה'צבאות‬

‫בירושלם וביהודה‬

Zech 13:936

‫אל בית האוצר‬

Mal 3:10

‫יהודה …בירושלם‬

Zech 1:335 ‫שובו אלי… ואשוב אליכם‬ ‫אמר ה' צבאות‬

Mal 3:7 '‫שובו אלי ואשובה אליכם אמר ה‬ ‫צבאות‬ Mal 3:10

Zechariah 9–14

3:8 (hiphil)

‫כי הנה מביא‬

Zech 2:14 [Eng. 2:10] ‫כי הנני בא‬

Zech 1:3, 4, 6, 16

9:9 14:5b

‫הנה מלכך יבוא‬ ‫ובא ה' אלהי כל קדשים עמך‬

‫שוב‬ Zech 14:1a

‫ושבו בה וחרם לא יהיה עוד‬

Looking at the wider picture of Malachi’s interaction with earlier texts from a diachronic perspective, Karl William Weyde has explored the wide selection of texts 34 See also Bosshard and Kratz, “Maleachi,” 43, and Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, 301, n. 95. 35 See also Bosshard and Kratz, “Maleachi,” 32, Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, 309, 329, and Rainer Kessler, “The Unity of Malachi,” 233. For a different perspective, see also Joseph Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel: From the Settlement in the Land to the Hellenistic Period (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983), 234–5, who argues that the affinity between Zech 1:3 and Mal 3:7 suggests that both sources are related and both have employed and modified Deuteronomistic language. 36 See also Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, 297, n. 76. 37 Hill further detects a link to Zech 1:14 but that cannot be verified. Hill assertion may be a typo for Zech 1:4.

59

Reading Zechariah’s Vision Report in the Book of the Twelve

upon which the book of Malachi draws, ranging from Pentateuchal material to prophetic traditions, Psalms, and the Deuteronomistic History. Weyde concludes that a “preference for one of these traditions is hardly discernible.”38 Turning to the particular relationship between Zechariah and Malachi, Weyde highlights the following cases of affinity, in addition to the ones already mentioned by Hill: Malachi Mal 1:3a God’s hate

Zechariah’s Vision Report (‫)ואת עשו שנאתי‬

Oracular Material in Haggai + Zechariah 1–8 Zech 8:1739 ‫כי את כל אלה אשר שנאתי נאם‬ '‫ה‬

Mal 1:4 God’s wrath ('‫ )אשר זעם ה‬against Edom

Zech 1:12 God’s wrath against Jerusalem and the cities of Judah 40 (‫)אשר זעמתי‬

Mal 1:9a entreating God: ‫ועתה חלו נא פני אל ויחננו‬

Zech 7:2

'‫לחלות את פני ה‬ 8:2141 '‫נלכה הלוך לחלות את פני ה‬

Mal 1:10–11 (exhortation + promise) Mal 2:3aa

‫הנני גער לכם את הזרע‬

Mal 2:3ab ‫וזריתי על פניכם פרש חגיכם‬

Zech 1:3; 8:9 (exhortation + promise)42 Zech 3:243 ‫יגער ה' בך השטן ויגער ה' בך‬ ‫הבחר בירושלם‬ Zech 2:244 ‫אלה הקרנות אשר זרו את‬ ‫יה ו ד ה‬ 4 ‫לידות את קרנות הגוים הנשאים‬ ‫קרן אל ארץ יהודה לזרותה‬

Mal 2:4 (God has sent [‫ ]שלח‬a commandment) Mal 2:7 (depiction of the ideal priest)

Zechariah 9–14

Zech 2:13, 15; 4:9; 6:15 (God has sent [‫ ]שלח‬Zechariah to his people)45 Zech 3 (the cleansing and commissioning of the High Priest)46

38 Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, 399. 39 Ibid., 75, n. 28. See also Bosshard and Kratz, “Maleachi,” 32. 40 Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, 103, n. 142. Weyde notes that the closest parallels are in Ezek 25:14; Jer 49:12; and Lam 4:21. 41 Ibid., 134–6. 42 Ibid., 327. There is no verbal similarity here. Instead, the three passages use the same structure of exhortation + promise. This structure is not unique to these three passages, however, but appears in many other passages. 43 Ibid., 164, n. 224. It should be noted that Weyde maintains that the key intertext of Mal 2:3 is Ps 119:21. The link between Malachi and Zechariah is strong, however, due to the shared object of the rebuke, namely, the priesthood. 44 Ibid., 165, n. 227. 45 Ibid., 175. 46 Ibid., 199.

60

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

(Continued) Malachi Mal 3:2aa

Zechariah’s Vision Report ‫ומי מכלכל את יום בואו‬

Oracular Material in Haggai + Zechariah 1–8 Zech 2:14b [Eng. 2:10]47 ‫כי הנני בא ושכנתי בתוכך נאם‬ '‫ה‬

Zechariah 9–14 Zech 9:9 aaβ48 14:149 14:5b50

Mal 3:5 Mal 3:12

‫אלמנה ויתום‬ ‫כל הגוים‬

Mal 3:19 [Eng. 4:1] (general destruction)

Zech 7:1051 Zech 7:1452

‫הנה מלכך יבוא לך‬ ‫הנה ים בא להי‬

‫ובא ה' אלהי כל קדשים עמך‬

‫ואלמנה ויתום‬ ‫כל הגוים‬ Zech 14:2 (general destruction of Jerusalem)53

At a first glance, the table looks relatively evenly spread out, yet a closer look warrants the following observations: 3.3.1.a Malachi and Zechariah’s Vision Account There is verbal affinity between Malachi and two of Zechariah’s vision accounts: the second one (2:2) and the fourth one (3:7, 8, and 9): – In the case of the second vision account, there are two cases of verbal commonality: 1. Mal 2:11 / Zech 2:2 share three words: Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem. This commonality is, however, unlikely to be a proper textual allusion, insofar as knowledge of the earlier text (whichever it is) does not increase the reader’s appreciation or understanding of the later text. 2. Mal 2:3ab / Zech 2:2, 4 share the use of the verb ‫זרה‬, yet the context of these two sections differs greatly. While God will scatter dung on the people of Israel in Malachi, the horns will scatter the nations in Zechariah. The existence of any kind of textual allusion is therefore doubtful. – In the case of the fourth vision account, there are four instances of agreement: 1. There is affinity between Mal 3:14 / Zech 3:7. This agreement is specific and probably constitutes a textual allusion. The commandments uttered to the High Priest Joshua (Zech 3:7) are here being negated by the (priestly?) speakers as “vanity” and without gain (‫)שוא עבד הלנים ומה בצע‬.

47 48 49 50 51 52 53

Ibid., 296, 312. Ibid., 312. Ibid., 294, n. 60. Ibid., 296. Ibid., 305, 308–9. Ibid., 346. Ibid., 368, n. 80.

Reading Zechariah’s Vision Report in the Book of the Twelve

61

2. There is general thematic affinity between the notions of an ideal priest in Mal 2:7 and a cleansed priesthood in Zechariah 3. 3. There is verbal affinity between Mal 2:3aa and Zech 3:2 due to the shared use of the verb ‫גער‬. 4. The remaining two (very similar) examples (Mal 3:19 [Eng. 4:1] / Zech 3:9 and Mal 3:23 [Eng. 4:5] / Zech 3:8) are significantly less specific because (1) the shared vocabulary is generic (‫ )הנה‬and inexact (paal [‫ ]בוא‬versus hiphil [‫)]מביא‬.

3.3.1.b Malachi and the Oracular Material in Zechariah 1–8 There is a substantial degree of shared vocabulary between Malachi and the oracular material in Haggai-Zech 1–8. Many of these examples appear in two key texts: Zech 1:1–6 and Zech 2:10–17. There are also examples from the oracular material in Zech 1:12–17; 6:9–15; Zechariah 7–8; and Haggai. In particular, the affinity between Zech 1:1–6 and Malachi stands out: – The thematic and verbal affinity between Mal 3:7 (‫ )שובו אלי ואשובה אליכם אמר ה' צבאות‬and Zech 1:3 (‫ )שובו אלי… ואשוב אליכם אמר ה' צבאות‬is substantial and unlikely to be coincidental. – Likewise, the textual affinity between Mal 3:16 (‫ )ויקשב ה' וישמע‬/ Zech 1:4b ('‫ )ולא שמעו ולא הקשיבו אלי נאם ה‬/ Zech 7:11 (‫ )וימאנו להקשיב ויתנו כתף סררת ואזניהם הכבידו משמוע‬is probably not accidental. – Finally, the thematic and verbal affinity between Mal 3:22 [Eng. 4:4] (‫ )זכרו תורת משה עבדי אשר צויתי אותו בחרב על כל ישראל חקים ומשפטים‬and Zech 1:6aa (‫ )אך דברי וחקי אשר צויתי את עבדי הנביאים‬is striking and thus probably intentional. This affinity does not, however, involve Zechariah’s vision report or the accompanying oracles but the opening scene in Zech 1:1–6, a text which most critical scholars see as a (much) later addition to the Zechariah 1–8 due to its distinct theology of conditional salvation which stands at loggerhead with the unconditional theology of the following vision report.54 3.3.1.c Malachi and the Oracular Material in Zechariah 9–14 There are fewer but still a good number of examples of verbal affinity between Malachi and Zechariah 9–14. They are fairly evenly distributed across the texts. Some examples are unconvincing: Mal 3:10 / Zech 13:9 (the different spelling of 54 See further my discussion in Tiemeyer, Zechariah’s Vision Report, 237–47.

62

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

the word “treasure”, the different function of the word “house”). Other examples are, however, more compelling: – The similarity between Mal 3:2b–3a (‫כי הוא כאש מצרף וכברית מכבסים וישב מצרף‬ ‫ )ומטהר כסף וטהר את נבי לוי וזקק אתם כזהב וככסף‬and Zech 13:9a (‫והבאתי את השלשית‬ ‫ )באש וצרפתים כצרף את הכסף ובחנתים כבחן את הזהב‬is unlikely to be accidental. – Likewise, the extended notion of the coming of YHWH / the Day of YHWH which appears in Mal 3:2aa (‫)ומי מכלכל את יום בואו‬, Mal 3:19 (‫)כי הנה היום בא‬, Zech 2:14b ('‫)כי הנני בא ושכנתי בתוכך נאם ה‬, Zech 9:9 aaβ (‫)הנה מלכך יבוא לך‬, and Zech 14:1 ('‫ )הנה יום בא ה‬suggests a conscious textual link.

3.3.2 Thematic Affinity There is also some evidence of shared thematic affinity between Malachi and the material in Haggai-Zechariah. Malchov has argued that the reference in Mal 3:1a brings Zech 1:16 to mind, and that the concept of a messenger in Mal 3:1bb is a later development of the messianic concept tied to Zerubbabel in Zech 4:11–14 and 6:9–14.55 Malachi

Zechariah’s Vision Report

Oracular Material in Haggai + Zechariah 1–8 Zech 1:16 ‫שבתי לירושלם ברחמים ביתי יבנה בה‬

Zech 4:11–14

Zech 6:9–14

Mal 3:1ba ‫ופתאם יבוא אל היכל האדון אשר אתם מבקשים‬ Mal 3:1bb ‫ומלאך הברית אשר אתם חפצים הנה בא‬

Zechariah 9–14

As we can see, there is little in terms of shared vocabulary here. At the same time, there is a certain thematic affinity, centred on the idea that God will return to his temple in Jerusalem, accompanied (in some form or shape) by his scion. Berry offers a more detailed study of the textual allusions in Malachi, arguing that Malachi is influenced by “Zechariah, Haggai, other books of the Twelve, the major prophets, the former prophets, and the Torah,” as well as Ezra and Nehemiah.56 In short, most of the Hebrew Bible! He notes four particular themes that occur across Malachi and Zechariah 1–8 (of which one appears in Zechariah’s vision report) and three that occur across Malachi and Zechariah 9–14:57 – word of YHWH (Mal 1:1 / Zech 1:1; 8:1; 9:1) 55 Bruce V. Malchow, “The Messenger of the Covenant in Mal 3:1,” JBL 103 (1984): 252–5. 56 Donald K. Berry, “Malachi’s Dual Design: The Close of the Canon and What Comes Afterwards,” in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts (ed. James W. Watts and Paul R. House; JSOTSup 235; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 269–302 (272–3). 57 Ibid., 270–2.

Reading Zechariah’s Vision Report in the Book of the Twelve

– – – –

63

curse and blessing (Mal 2:2 / Zech 5:3; 8:13)58 covenant of Levi (Mal 2:4–9 / Zech 12:13)59 messenger (Mal 3:1 / Zechariah 1–6; 12:8)60 return [to YHWH] (Mal 3:7 / Zech 1:3–4; 8:3)61

In addition, Berry detects correspondence between the pairing of Moses and Elijah in Malachi with the pairing of the Joshua (representing the Law) and Zerubbabel (serving as a prophetic figure).62 Curtis adds three features that bind Haggai and Malachi together: – the prophet as a messenger (Hag 1:13; Mal 1:1) – the focus on Torah (Hag 2:11; Mal 2:6) – the use of the phrase ‫ ביד‬+ name (Hag 1:1, 3; 2:1; Mal 1:1)63 In view of this, it is fair to state that there is only limited thematic affinity across the three books. Moreover, what exists is often vague and general.

3.4

Preliminary Conclusion

Based on this analysis, I wish to draw some preliminary conclusions. First, there are very few touching points between Zechariah’s vision report (second account [2:2], sixth account [5:3]) and the book of Malachi. The exception is the fourth account (Zechariah 3) which, as many scholars point out, has a different quality compared with the other seven vision accounts and thus may not have been present in the earliest version of the vision report.64 In contrast, a considerable amount of shared vocabulary exists in Malachi and the oracular material in Haggai-Zechariah 1–8. In particular, there is a strong sense of affinity between Malachi and the opening section in Zech 1:1–6 which suggests a conscious strategy. This affinity may testify to editorial activity. The shared statements are 58 Ibid., 278. Berry notes that the perspective in Zechariah “almost directly opposes the perspective of Malachi.” 59 Ibid., 280. Berry notes that the name Levi appears only in these two texts in the Latter Prophets. 60 Ibid., 281–2. 61 Ibid., 283. Berry states that Malachi depends on Zech 1:3. 62 Ibid., 287. 63 Byron G. Curtis, “The Mas’ot Triptych and the Date of Zechariah 9–14: Issues in the Latter Formation of the Book of the Twelve,” in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations – Redactional Processes – Historical Insights (ed. Rainer Albertz, James D. Nogalski, and Jakob Wöhrle; BZAW 433; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012), 191–206 (194–5). 64 See further the overview in Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, Zechariah and His Visions: An Exegetical Study of Zechariah’s Vision Report (LHBOTS 605; London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 116–7.

64

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

suggestive of a (very late) redactor who wished to connect the message of Zechariah with the message of Malachi (cf. Nogalski below). It is possible that Zech 1:1–6 was purpose-written to ease this connection. The question remains, however, whether Zech 1:1–6 was written to serve as the introduction to Zechariah 1–8 corpus or to the entire book of Zechariah. Finally, there are at least two compelling cases of textual interaction between Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi (Mal 3:2b–3a / and Zech 13:9a; Mal 3:19 / Zech 14:1). It should be noted, though, that the extant links between Zechariah 1–8 and Malachi would have stood out more clearly had it not been for the intermediate Zechariah 9–14. In other words, the positioning of Zechariah 9–14 between Zechariah 1–8 and Malachi renders the textual links between Zechariah 1–8 and Malachi less visible to the reader. There are various possible ways of interpreting this data. Notably, on the basis of the textual affinity between Zechariah 8 and Mal 1:2–5, Bosshard and Kratz conclude that these links (1) are the result of a conscious editorial effort to provide a continuation of the Haggai-Zechariah 1–8 corpus in the Book of the Twelve,65 and that they show that (2) the earliest material in Malachi was attached to Zechariah 1–8 prior to the inclusion of Zechariah 9–14.66 In contrast, the material in Malachi which draws on Zechariah 9–14 belongs to a later layer, added at a time when Zechariah 9–14 had been inserted after Zechariah 1–8.67 In my view, Bosshard’s and Kratz’s reasoning is potentially circular, given that the textual allusions form part of the argumentation in favour of the gradual growth of Malachi.68 Although there is scope for detecting textual layers in Malachi,69 it is difficult to establish the details of such textual growth with any level of certainty. Thus, on the basis of textual allusions alone, it is impossible to determine whether Zechariah 9–14 belongs with the material that precedes it or with the material that follows it. The links backwards in Zechariah 9 are equally weighted with the shared use of the term ‫ משא‬pointing forward. This meagre evidence is, however, insufficient to make any firm judgement. In fact, just the very opposite appears to be true: Zechariah 9–14 sits very loosely in its present context indeed.

65 66 67 68

Bosshard and Kratz, “Maleachi,” 35–7. Ibid., 32–4. Ibid., 42–5. They date this layer to the third century BCE (p. 45). Cf. Kessler, “The Unity of Malachi,” 234, who argues that an analysis of the textual allusions in Malachi to other texts cannot give an answer to the question whether Malachi was added to Zechariah 1–8 or to Zechariah 9–14, given that, in his view, Malachi was incorporated into the book of the Twelve in its present form. 69 See, e. g., the recent article by Aaron Schart, “Cult and Priests in Malachi 1:6–2:9,” in Priests and Cults in the Book of the Twelve (ed. Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer; ANEM 14; Atlanta: SBL, 2016), 213–34.

Reading Zechariah’s Vision Report in the Book of the Twelve

4.

65

History of Research: Redaction-Critical Theories

Having exhausted the information that can be gleaned from textual allusions, let us turn to matters of redaction-criticism. What came first, the book of Zechariah or the Haggai-Zechariah 1–8 corpus? Furthermore, what is the role of Malachi in this scheme of things? Most scholars argue in favour of the existence of an early Haggai-Zechariah 1– 8 corpus at one point in the history of the development of the Book of the Twelve.70 The near consensus view is that from a text-historical perspective Zechariah’s vision report is more closely aligned with the preceding material in Haggai than with the following material in Zechariah 9–14. Thus, when reading Zechariah’s vision report diachronically, it can be read fruitfully together with Haggai. This answer, however, is not fully satisfactory when looking at the same issue from a reader-oriented perspective for the single reason that Haggai is a separate book from Zechariah but Zechariah 9–14 is not! We therefore need to explore this issue further.

4.1

Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi as Subsequent Examples of Fortschreibungen

A number of scholars have noted the affinity between Zechariah 1–8 and Malachi and see the latter as the continuation of the former. They differ, however, in their views pertaining to the original form of Malachi: to what extent was Malachi an independent book when it was connected to Zechariah 8? Among these scholars, some maintain that Malachi never existed as an independent book. Instead, it was purpose-written as Fortschreibung of Zechariah 1–8. Zechariah 9–14, in turn, constitutes another, later, example of Fortschreibung, composed to fit its current place after Zechariah 1–8. Bosshard and Kratz are the key proponents of this theory, advocating the following scheme of textual growth: Zechariah 1–8; 1st Malachi layer; Zechariah 9–13; Zechariah 14 and 2nd Malachi layer; 3rd Malachi layer.71 Odil Hannes Steck, following suit, argues that Mal 1:2–2:9 and 3:6–12 formed the initial continuation of Zechariah 1–8, while later material in Malachi and Zechariah 9–14 were added in subsequent redactions.72 70 See, e. g., Schart, Entstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuchs, 256–7, Wöhrle, Die frühen Sammlungen, 285–385, Jakob Wöhrle, “The Formation and Intention of the Haggai-Zechariah Corpus,” JHS 6, article 10. http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_60.pdf. 71 Bosshard and Kratz, “Maleachi,” 42–3. 72 Odil Hannes Steck, Der Abschluss der Prophetie im Alten Testament: Ein Versuch zur Frage der Vorgeschichte des Kanons (BThSt 17; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991), 30–60.

66

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

Others among these scholars are more interested in the final form of the text and seek to explain how Zechariah 9–14 functions in its present position, given that it is there. Marvin Sweeney, for example, suggests that Zechariah 9–14, in the final form of the text, serves as an extension of the material in Zechariah 7–8. For instance, Zechariah 7:8–14:21 constitute the response to the question posed by Sharezer in Zech 7:1–7. Furthermore, chapters 9–14 elaborate on what the oracle in Zech 8:20–23 (that the nations will recognize YHWH) would mean and how it would come to pass.73 Gonzalez likewise regards Zechariah 9–14 as “the fruit of such scribal interventions within the book of Zechariah, as evidenced by the text’s extensive intertextuality.”74 Taking a more historical-critical approach, Boda argues that Zechariah 7–8 was likely to have formed the conclusion of the book of Zechariah. Its message later paved the way for the attaching of Zechariah 9–14 which together came to form the book of Zechariah.75 I agree with the aforementioned scholars regarding the scribal quality of Zechariah 9–14. I also accept the view that in the current form of Zechariah, chapters 7–8 serves as a bridge. In itself, however, this theory makes little sense, given the blatant lack of shared themes and concerns. Why Zechariah 1–8? Why not another text with which it had more in common? The intertextual quality points to the scribal character of Zechariah 9–14; it does not point towards a connection with Zechariah 1–8! On the contrary, we have seen that there are few clear links between these two textual corpora. We shall return to this issue further below.

4.2

Malachi and Zechariah 9–14 as Independent Booklets

Other exegetes argue that (an early form of) Malachi existed at the time when it was attached to the Haggai-Zechariah 1–8 corpus. 4.2.1 Malachi and Zechariah 9–14 as Random “Book-Ends” Several, predominantly early, scholars detect no inherent connection between Zechariah 1–8 and 9–14. Rather, they stem from different time(s) and different author(s) and were fused together at a later stage for unclear reasons.76 Bernhard 73 Marvin A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets. Volume Two (Berit Olam; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000), 566–7, 641–2). It should be noted, however, that Sweeney thinks that chapters 9– 14 originated independently from chapters 1–8. 74 Gonzalez, “Zechariah 9–14 and the Continuation of Zechariah,” 13. 75 Mark J. Boda, “From Fasts to Feasts: The Literary Function of Zechariah 7–8,” CBQ 65 (2003), 390–407. 76 See, e. g., Bernhard Stade, “Deuterozacharja: Eine kritische Studie. Teil 1,” ZAW 1 (1881): 1–96 (esp. p. 1, n.2). Stade maintained that all of Zechariah 9–14 stemmed from a single author,

Reading Zechariah’s Vision Report in the Book of the Twelve

67

Stade, for example, maintains that Zechariah 9–14 was originally transmitted together with Malachi. At a later point, it was (mistakenly) associated with Zechariah 1–8.77 Alternatively, Samuel R. Driver sees Zechariah 9–11, 12–14, and Malachi 1–3 as three booklets of anonymous prophecies that were simply attached to Zechariah 1–8.78

4.2.2 Malachi and Zechariah 9–14 as Individual Extensions to the Growing Book of the Twelve Other exegetes, chiefly those who detect redactions which encompass the entire book of the Twelve, maintain that core collections of Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi originally existed independently from one another and from other books in the book of the Twelve. These collections first underwent book-wide redactions. Later, having been incorporated into the Twelve, they underwent redactions connected to the growing body of the Twelve. James Nogalski, in agreement with Bosshard, Kratz, and Steck vis-à-vis the primacy of Malachi over Zechariah 9–14 (cf. above), postulates that Malachi was composed especially for the purpose of serving as the conclusion of the book of the Twelve. At that point, it was attached directly to Zechariah 1–8. At a later date, Zechariah 9–14 was added to the existing proto-Zechariah/Malachi corpus. Zechariah 9–14 was inserted between Zechariah 8 and Malachi in order to ease the transfer. Zechariah 9–14 is thus a literary bridge.79 This bridge, however, is not uniform in character. First Zechariah 9–11 was compiled as a transition piece between Zechariah 1–8 and Malachi. This transition piece later received its own embellishments (Zech 9:9–13; 12:1–13:6).80 As to Zechariah 14, a chapter filled to the brim with textual allusions to earlier traditions, is a later addition which functioned to unite the themes of the Latter Prophets, drawing especially from Isa 66:16–24.81 Redditt likewise argues that the originally independent booklets of Zechariah 9–11 and Zechariah 12–14 were added to the Haggai-Zechariah +

77 78

79 80 81

living during the second half of the Diadochoi wars 306–278 BCE. For a good overview of different views, see Nogalski, Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve (BZAW 218; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993), 213–7. Bernhard Stade, “Deuterozacharja: Eine kritische Studie. Teil 3,” ZAW 2 (1882): 275–309 (307– 9). An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (5th rev. ed.; ITL; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1894), 332–3. In more recent times, Joseph Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon: A Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origins (SJCA 3; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977), 108, has adopted this latter view, arguing that Zechariah 9–11; 12–14; Malachi 1– 3 originated as three anonymous supplements to the rest of the book of the Twelve. Nogalski, Redactional Processes, 211–2. Ibid., 236. Ibid., 241–7.

68

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

Malachi corpus.82 In my view, the main problem with this theory is that it never offers a satisfactory answer as to why Zechariah 9–14 was attached to Zechariah 1–8 rather than, say, after Malachi or before Zechariah 1–8. As a bridge-text, it is counter-productive in that it actually disturbs the existing links between Zechariah 8 and Malachi 1 (cf. above). Jakob Wöhrle follows Nogalski in part yet also disagrees with him on key issues. Beginning with Zechariah 9–14, Wöhrle detects an early collection of oracles in Zechariah 9–13*, oriented towards problems within the Judahite community, which primarily targets the political and religious leadership (i. e. “the shepherds” in the text). This material cannot be understood as Fortschreibung of Zechariah 1– 8, however, given the positive estimation of the leadership in Zechariah 4; 6:9–15, even though it is possible that this collection was caused by Zerubbabel’s disappearance from view (Abtreten). Rather it was originally a collection in its own right.83 According to Wöhrle, the three collections Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, and Zechariah 9–14 were joined together with Joel, Amos, Micah, Nahum, and Zephaniah (although not in their final form) in what he calls the Fremdvölkerschicht I during the fifth and the fourth century BCE.84 As to Malachi, Wöhrle suggests that an early form of the book existed as an independent booklet prior to its inclusion into the book of the Twelve. This early material was subsequently incorporated into the growing book of the Twelve at a later stage as part of the Fremdvölkerschicht II redaction. Thus, in contrast to Nogalski, Wöhrle maintains that Zechariah 9–14* was already attached to Zechariah 1–8 at the time when Malachi was added. In his view, the redactor responsible for incorporating Malachi in the book of the Twelve added Mal 1:1 to make it agree with the (already existing) headings in Zech 9:1 and 12:1.85 Wöhrle thus see Haggai-Zechariah* as an existing unit to which Malachi was later attached. 82 Paul Redditt, “Redactional Connectors in Zechariah 9–14,” in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations – Redactional Processes – Historical Insights (ed. Rainer Albertz, James D. Nogalski and Jakob Wöhrle; BZAW 433; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012), 207–22. According to Redditt, the material in Zechariah 9–11, 12–14 consists of five individual textual units which were glued together by what Redditt calls “redactional bridges” (pp. 212–20). The redactor responsible for these bridges drew on the material in, among other places, Zechariah 8:22–23 and Mal 3:2b–4, thus suggesting that he was aware of most of the book of the Twelve (pp. 220–1). See also idem, “Zechariah 9–14: The Capstone,” 305–32. 83 Jakob Wöhrle, Der Abschluss des Zwölfprophetenbuches. Buchübergreifende Redaktionsprozesse in den späten Sammlungen (BZAW 389; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), 128–31, including n. 203. For the gradual composition of Zechariah 9–14, see the overview on p. 138. 84 Ibid., 170–1. 85 Ibid., 275. Wöhrle claims that select passages (e. g. Mal 1:1, 4–5, 9a; 3:22–24) were added at a later stage as part of redactions which covered the (then extant form of the) whole Book of the Twelve. The same would be true also of select parts of Zechariah 1–8 (2:15–16; 8:20–23) were added to Zechariah 1–8 at a time subsequent to the fusing of Zechariah 1–8 and Zechariah 9– 14 (ibid., 335).

Reading Zechariah’s Vision Report in the Book of the Twelve

69

Wöhrle further agrees, at least to a certain extent, with the views of Stade and Driver etc. (above) with regard to the originally independent status of Zechariah 9– 14 vis-à-vis Zechariah 1–8, yet with the difference that he treats Zechariah 9–14 as a single textual block which underwent redaction rather than a secondary fusion of two earlier distinct units of texts (Zechariah 9–11; Zechariah 12–14). This is simultaneously the main drawback of his theory insofar as Wöhrle fails to come up with a compelling explanation why Zechariah 9–14 was connected with Zechariah 1–8 in the first place. He views the headings in ‫ משא‬in Zech 9:1 and 12:1 as structural markers belonging to the core collection of Zechariah 9–14* which introduced the various oracles against the shepherds.86 This, however, leaves the question open why there was no overarching heading on a level above them which served as the heading of the whole (assumed independent) booklet of Zechariah 9–14.

4.3

The Book of Zechariah as a Gradually Grown yet Single Book

There is likewise little consensus among those scholars who view Zechariah 1–14 as the primary unit (authorial, redactional, and/or canonical). According to Wolters, no decisive arguments against Zecharian authorship of the whole book exist. The fact that the book contains diverse material is, in his view, not such an argument as a single human being can write on diverse topic throughout her life. With this lack of compelling reasons to divide the text, Wolters accepts “the testimony of the textual tradition, which handed down all fourteen chapters under the name of Zechariah.”87 In support of his claim, he highlights several unusual literary features that span across the book, for instance the repeated use of the rare third person plural feminine forms of the imperfect (Zech 1:17; 4:9; 5:9; 6:7; 8:9; 8:13; 11:9; 13:7; 14:2; 14:12).88 Also arguing for authorial unity, Curtis maintains that the book of Zechariah is held together by its single authorship, while the differences between Zechariah 1–8 and 9–14 stem from that author’s changed social location.89 In parallel, Curtis argues that the three anonymous mas’ot which now culminate the book of the Twelve were put in their present place due to “the remembered tradition of authorship.” The two first mas’ot were remembered as having been penned by Zechariah, while the third masa’ came to form the book of Malachi.90 Curtis redefines his views in a later publication where he postulates an original Haggai + Zechariah 1–8 corpus which at one point was broken into two books. He 86 87 88 89 90

Ibid., 124–8. Al Wolters, Zechariah (HCOT; Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 16–23 (22). Ibid., 23. Curtis, Up the Steep and Stony Road, 273–5. Ibid., 275–6.

70

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

likewise envisages an original Zechariah 9–14 + Malachi corpus which at (the same time) was divided into two parts, the former then subsequently being attached to the now single Zechariah 1–8 and the later turned into the standalone book Malachi.91 In my opinion, this scheme, while ingenious, appears on the whole rather speculative and therefore unlikely. Further, as Gonzalez points out, this theory presupposes that (1) Zechariah 9–14 had been separated from Zechariah, only so that at a later point (2) it was attached to it.92 At the same time, Curtis’s theory highlights the fruitfulness of reading the book of Zechariah – in all its parts – as part of the wider context of Haggai and Malachi. We are, in fact, in the final form of the text dealing with an interlocked textual corpus consisting of three parts with elaborate dating schemes (Haggai, Zechariah’s vision report, and Zech 1:1–6; 7–8) and three parts which are introduced by the term ‫( משא‬Zechariah 9–11; Zechariah 12–13; Malachi). Presumably also arguing for authorial unity, Wenzel detects cohesion between Zechariah 1–8 and 9–14, read through the lens on the introduction in Zech 1:1–6 and his postulated theology of “waiting.” Read this way, the prophecies in Zechariah 9–14 are not a “plan B” which is being carried out because of Israel’s failure to obey God. Rather, Zechariah 9–14 elaborates on what this delay – before God’s return – will bring to the people.93 More specifically, Wenzel argues that Zech 9:1–11:3 reconnects to the topic of leadership, past and present, in Zech 1:1– 6.94 Likewise, Zechariah 14 anticipates the people’s response along the lines of Zech 1:1–6.95 In a sense, according to Wenzel, Zechariah 14 “asserts that Zech 1:1– 6 as an introduction sounds throughout the book.”96 He finally also highlights shared topics. Zech 2:1–4 and 9:2–6 both mention the judgement on the nations,97 Zech 2:10–17 and Zech 9:1–7, 11–12 speak of God’s future coming and feature a call to return to the land,98 and the development in Zech 14:16–19 vis-à-vis the nations is foreshadowed already in Zech 2:10–17 and 8:20–23.99 Other scholars view the material more in terms of a redactional unity. Baldwin suggests that we need to treat the book of Zechariah as an artistic whole with an overall plan and unity of message, regardless of whether that unity is authorial or redactional in character.100 Along slightly different lines, Petterson regards the book of Zechariah as “the transmission in written form of the various prophecies and 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

Curtis, “Mas’ot Triptych,” 191–92. Gonzalez, “Zechariah 9–14 and the Continuation of Zechariah,” 13, n. 39. Wenzel, Reading Zechariah, 178–204 (201–204). Ibid., 214. Ibid., 251. Ibid., 258. Ibid., 224. Ibid. Ibid., 246. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 69–70.

Reading Zechariah’s Vision Report in the Book of the Twelve

71

actions of the prophet Zechariah.” Much of the book may have been written by his disciples and/or a scribe who had heard and recorded the material. Chapters 1–8 contain prophecies prior to the building of the temple, while chapters 9–14 contain prophecies from after this event.101 Yet again, Pierce consciously avoids the issues of authorship and dating and instead focuses on the literary and thematic elements that hold Haggai/Zechariah/Malachi together. Speaking about the book of Zechariah, Pierce maintains that although the two parts display significant stylistic and thematic differences, it is useful to see the oracles in Zechariah 9–14 as “an important sequel to the first half of the Zechariah material.”102 Yet another group of scholars approaches the book of Zechariah synchronically without regard for the relative dating of its different components. For Conrad, Zechariah is a literary persona who figures in the book bearing his name but should not necessarily be identified with its author. Conrad further reads Zechariah as an integral part of the book of the Twelve.103 He argues that the overlapping dating formulas in Haggai and Zechariah serve to emphasize continuity between these two texts. At the same time, Zechariah 9–14 is bound to Malachi by the change in speaker: Zechariah speaks as a “prophet” in Zechariah 1–8 and as a “messenger” in Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi.104 Along similar lines, Frolov suggests a reading structure where the book of Zechariah has two major characters: the prophet Zechariah (1:2–6; 1:8–6:15; 7:9–8:17) and the anonymous narrator (7:5–7; 8:19–14:21). The combined final work where the two words are placed in dialogue with one another lends authority to the innovative message in chapters 9–14.105 Frolov notes that the appearance of a narrator in Zech 1:1 and 1:7 causes the audience to hear two voices: that of the narrator and that of Zechariah. The narrator appears again in 7:1–3, effectively setting this passage apart from much of the surrounding material by its reference to Zechariah in the third person. It further follows, come verse 4 (‫)ויהי דבר ה' צבאות אלי לאמר‬, that the first person reference must refer to the narrator rather than to Zechariah. The same formula is repeated later in Zech 8:18 (‫)ויהי דבר ה' צבאות אלי לאמר‬. This is contrasted in Zech 7:8 with a specific mention of Zechariah as the recipient of the divine oracle (‫)ויהי דבר ה' אל זכריה לאמר‬. What we thus have is a dialogue in

101 Anthony R. Petterson, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (AOTC; Nottingham: IVP, 2015), 92–6. See also idem, Behold Your King: The Hope for the House of David in the Book of Zechariah (LHBOTS 513; London: T&T Clark, 2009), 2–3, where he claims that “there are good reasons for placing chs. 9–14 in a later period in the prophet’s ministry, after the completion of the temple.” 102 Ronald W. Pierce, “Literary Connections and a Haggai/Zechariah/Malachi Corpus,” JETS 27 (1984): 277–89 (282). 103 Edgar W. Conrad, Zechariah (Readings; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 16–22. 104 Ibid., 39–42, 44. 105 Frolov, “Is the Narrator also among the Prophets,” 17.

72

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

Zechariah 7–8 between Zechariah and the narrator.106 This pattern is further supported by the content of Zechariah 7–8. The correlation between the question, raised in 7:3 and given an initial answer in 7:5–7, is touched upon anew in 8:19. There is thus thematic support for reading Zech 7:1–7 and 8:18–19 together, distinct from the material associated with Zechariah in Zech 7:8–8:17.107 The starting point of these scholars is the extant text – not a bad place to – yet their claims are unconvincing insofar as they do not so much argue their point but assume it and as they do not offer corroborating evidence to support their case. 4.3.1 The Social Background of Zechariah 9–14 Few recent scholars attempt to determine the setting of Zechariah 9–14, in part due to the difficulty involved in dating the material.108 This difficulty stems from two factors: the absence of references to datable events within Zechariah 9–14 and the scholarly disagreement about the dating of its key intertexts. For instance, if it could be proven that a verse in Zechariah 9–14 depends on material in Ezekiel and if it could be determined that that particular verse is Hellenistic, then clearly the alluding verse in Zechariah 9–14 cannot be older.109 This process is complicated, however, due to the significant scholarly disagreement vis-à-vis the dating of the various textual strands in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. I maintain that most of the material in these books reached their present shape in the Persian period, with some significant exceptions (see below). An added difficulty is that of determining the direction of a given textual allusion. There are nevertheless a number of theories pertaining to what social situation may have triggered the composition of Zechariah 9–14. Paul Hanson, for instance, sees the text of Zechariah 9–14 as part of the anti-hierocracy visionaries’ polemic in the last part of the sixth century BCE,110 as does Raymond Person who maintains that Zechariah 9–14 is a Persian-period endeavour and a product of the Deuteronomistic scribal schools.111 In contrast, other scholars situate the 106 Ibid., 19–25. 107 Ibid., 26–7. 108 See further my discussion in “Will the Prophetic Texts from the Hellenistic Period Stand Up, Please!” in Judah Between East and West: The Transition from Persian to Greek Rule (ca. 400– 200 BCE) (ed. Lester L. Grabbe and Oded Lipschits; LSTS 75; London: T&T Clark, 2011), 255– 79 (272–6). 109 See, e. g., the critique in Gonzalez, “Zechariah 9–14 and the Continuation of Zechariah,” 18– 9, including n. 66. 110 Paul D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic. The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 281–401 (280–6). For my critique of this proposal, see Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, Priestly Rites and Prophetic Rage: Post-Exilic Prophetic Critique of the Priesthood (FAT II/19; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 9–13. 111 Person, Second Zechariah, pp. 139–44 (Zechariah 9–14 as the product of the Deuteronomistic School), 147–75 (the social setting of the Deuteronomistic School).

Reading Zechariah’s Vision Report in the Book of the Twelve

73

composition of Zechariah 9–14 in the Hellenistic period. Rex Mason, for example, dates it to the fourth or the third century BCE and regards it as part of sectarian re-interpretations of earlier prophetic texts.112 More recently, Gonzalez detects in Zechariah 9–14 a utopian/dystopian outlook best suited to the sociopolitical development in Yehud under Ptolemaic rule, with a terminus ad quem at the beginning of the second century BCE.113 Gonzalez’s interpretation offers an intelligible explanation why Zechariah 9– 14 was inserted after Zechariah 1–8. In his view, the “updating” of Zechariah 1–8 through the addition of Zechariah 9–14 was a response to changed historical circumstances: the pro-Persian ideology in the earlier text, combined with the historical fact that the end of the Persian period brought great instability to Jerusalem, generated the need for a theological explanation. The creation of Zechariah 9–14 thus sought to ensure the readers of Zechariah 1–8 that God had revealed that the Persian Empire would come to an end, yet this time it would be characterized by great political instability (Zechariah 9).114 Gonzalez argues that the criticism of the shepherds (Zech 10:1–3; 11:1–3, 4–14, 15–16; 13:7), although its languages shows more affinity to Jeremiah 23 and Ezekiel 34 and 37, aims to update and revise the positive view of the leaders in Zechariah 1–8, in order to make the book applicable to the new socio-economic situation of the Ptolemaic period.115 While Gonzalez’s theory is compelling, he ultimately fails to explain the present position of several of its features. In particular, if Zechariah 9–14 was purpose-written for its current place, why is there more textual affinity between Zechariah 9–14 and the material in Jeremiah and Ezekiel? Should it not be assumed that if the authors of Zechariah 9–14 had wanted to interact with the material in Zechariah 1–8, they would have reused its language in more obvious ways in order to emphasize the textual interaction?

4.4

Conclusion

At this point, we have reached a preliminary conclusion that Zechariah 9–14 has very little in common with Zechariah’s vision report. It does not interpret the vision report and it does not touch upon its key themes. There is more affinity between Zechariah’s vision report and the book of Malachi, yet again these links 112 Rex Mason, “Use of Earlier Biblical Material,” 206–8. Cf. Floyd, Minor Prophets, 313–6. 113 Gonzalez, “Zechariah 9–14 and the Continuation of Zechariah,” 16–21. In his view, the instability of the Hellenistic period makes it a more likely time to have produced the dystopian texts of Zechariah 9–14 than the relatively stable Persian period. 114 Ibid., 24–5. 115 Ibid., 25–32.

74

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

are feeble at best. We might therefore be justified in saying that it is not a fruitful endeavour to read Zechariah’s vision report within its larger context.

5.

Zechariah 9–14 and Ezekiel 38–39 – A Comparison

Does this leave us at a dead end? In order to respond to this question, I would like to offer a parallel, namely, the book of Ezekiel. The books of Ezekiel and Zechariah are reminiscent of one another in several ways. From a form-critical perspective, both books contain a mixture of vision report and oracles. From a thematic perspective, the restoration of YHWH’s cult in Yehud constitutes a key message of both books. In the present context, we shall compare the character and function of Ezekiel 38–39 with those of Zechariah 9–14. These two texts resemble one another in their scribal character, to the extent that they can both be likened to “mosaics” of earlier scriptures.116 Ezekiel 38–39 is squeezed in between the two vision reports in Ezekiel 37 and 40–48. Although there are links between these three textual units, they are not overt. On the contrary, the three units differ in literary form (vision report versus oracle), language, and theme. It is not an exaggeration to state that Ezekiel 38–39 interrupts the natural thematic flow between the restoration of the people in Ezekiel 37 and the restoration of the temple in Ezekiel 40–48. In fact, as William Tooman highlights, Ezekiel 38–39 is not important to the internal argument of the book of Ezekiel, as all the major themes of the book are brought to a resolution in chapters 34–37 and 40–48.117 As to the intertexts of Ezekiel 38–39, there is little interaction with Ezekiel’s vision reports (Ezekiel 1; 8–11; 37; 40–48). At the same time, there are significant numbers of shared locutions between Ezekiel 38–39 and other (non-visionary) parts of Ezekiel. As noted by Anja Klein, its two key textual interlocutors are Ezekiel’s oracles against the nations (Ezekiel 25–32) and the book of Jeremiah.118 Tooman concurs, noting that although Ezekiel 38–39 is unlikely to have been written by Ezekiel himself, a substantial number of its intertexts stem from the book of Ezekiel. In parallel, Tooman demonstrates that Ezekiel 38–39 interacts with a wide selection of texts, ranging from the various Pentateuchal strands to 116 For the scribal character of Ezekiel 38–39, see especially William A. Tooman, Gog of Magog: Reuse of Scripture and Compositional Technique in Ezekiel 38–39 (FAT II/52; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). 117 See the discussion in Tooman, Gog of Magog, 75–7, including n. 85. For a different view, see Anja Klein, Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch: redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Ez 34–39 (BZAW 391; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), 111–40, who delimits the passage to Ezek 38:1–39:22. 118 Ibid., 128–32, 132–9.

Reading Zechariah’s Vision Report in the Book of the Twelve

75

Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Joel, Amos, and Zephaniah. Tooman further considers the idea of treating the author of Ezekiel 38–39 as a “disciple of Ezekiel” or part of an “Ezekiel School” to be unhelpful, instead stating that “the author of [Ezekiel 38–39] was a highly literate, scribal artist who was well-studied in the rhetoric, idiolect, and ideology of the book of Ezekiel.”119 Ezekiel 38–39 offers several intriguing parallels to Zechariah 9–14: 1. Both texts are scribal in character. 2. Both texts are unlikely to have been composed by the same author as the rest of the book in which they are placed. 3. Both texts appear to have been written in the late Persian period / early Hellenistic period. 4. Neither text interacts with the vision report(s) in the book sharing its name in any obvious manner. 5. Both texts show a degree of textual interaction with the preceding oracular material in the book in which they are placed, alongside a wide range of other texts. 6. Both texts disturb the natural flow of the surrounding text: Zechariah 1–8 and Malachi / Ezekiel 37 and Ezekiel 40–48. There are also thematic similarities between the two texts: 1. Both texts deal with a future where Jerusalem is under attack. 2. Both texts contain a prophetic persona that can be associated with the prophetic “I” of the book in which they are situated. Zech 11:7–17 testifies to a prophetic persona who is performing sign acts. In Ezek 38:1–2, Ezekiel is referred to as “the son of man” and commanded to prophecy against Gog. These similarities raise the possibility that Zechariah 9–14 and Ezekiel 38–39 fill comparable functions in their respective book. I am not suggesting that we are looking at the same group of scribes. I am also not arguing that one of the books is modelled after the other. What I am emphasizing, however, is that more than one book in the Hebrew Bible contain a text that has few discernible link to the immediately surrounding material while it in parallel has strong links to other biblical material. Moreover, I am proposing that scribes in the late Persian / early Hellenistic period chose existing biblical texts to which to attach their new messages clothed in scribal elucidations; which particular book appears to have been of less importance. Last but not least, these two scribal extensions are attached to texts which date themselves by means of clear dating formulas to the sixth century BCE. I therefore suggest that there was a need to reinterpret key

119 Tooman, Gog of Magog, 102–16.

76

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

texts which were understood originally to have addressed the situation shortly after the fall of Babylon in 586 BCE, so that they would fit new scenarios.120

6.

The Reading Experience

Before we conclude, I would like to say something about the reader’s experience of reading Zechariah. Some scholars argue in favour of sequential readings of the Bible.121 It is, however, not clear that people in ancient Israel read prophetic biblical scrolls from beginning to end. The earliest examples of reading practices stem from the synagogue service and, with the notable exception of the short Five Megilloth, people did not approach the biblical texts in any sequential manner. This, of course, does not imply that one cannot read a book sequentially or that there are no benefits in doing so. On the contrary, reading a text in its wider literary context is both beneficial and illuminating. This brings us to the last issue of this paper, namely, what are the benefits of reading Zechariah 9–14 as part of the book of Zechariah and what are the drawbacks? I would like to say “nothing.” There are few inherent links between Zechariah 9–14 and the preceding Zechariah 1–8 and we may be doing both sets of texts an injustice if we try to force the issue and to look for links that are not really there. Instead, Zechariah 9–14, and by analogy also Ezekiel 38–39, appears to have been fitted into a book – the more obscure the better – and what is more obscure than a book filled with vision reports?

7.

Conclusion

In this article, I have investigated the relationship between Zechariah’s vision report within the book of Zechariah and, by extension, the function of Zechariah 9–14 in the same context, as well as in the wider corpus of Haggai-ZechariahMalachi. We have seen that there are (1) hardly any thematic and/or verbal links between Zechariah’s vision report and the ensuing Zechariah 9–14, (2) few links between the oracular material in Zechariah 1–8 and Zechariah 9–14, and (3) more (but still not many) links between the oracular material in Zechariah 1–8 and Malachi. With this in mind, I would like to make some tentative conclusions. 120 Daniel also comes to mind. As Gonzalez points out, this is another book with two distinct sections, contrasting Babylonian/Persian dominion with Hellenistic dominion. Gonzalez, “Zechariah 9–14 and the Continuation of Zechariah,” 23. Again, despite the significant differences in terms of themes and genre, the prophetic persona appears in both parts. 121 Andrew T. Abernethy, Eating in Isaiah: Approaching the Role of Food and Drink in Isaiah’s Structure and Message (BIS 131; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 15–20.

Reading Zechariah’s Vision Report in the Book of the Twelve

77

First, Zechariah 9–14 does not interpret Zechariah’s vision report in any form or shape. At most, it offers a very loosely anchored Fortschreibung of some of the themes that are found in the oracular material in Zechariah 1–8. In fact, had Zechariah 9–14 not been situated where it currently is, scholars would not have looked for and in all likelihood also not found any explicit links between the two texts. Secondly, looking at the same issue from a reader’s perspective, reading Zechariah’s vision report together with Zechariah 9–14 does not enhance one’s reading experience. Neither the former nor the latter text benefits in any evident way from this type of sequential reading. While it is again possible to detect links – simply because the format of Zechariah as a single book encourages one to do so – it is on the whole a rather artificial endeavour. As there is no uncontested support for sequential readings of prophetic texts in early Judaism, we would be in good company if we chose to read each part on its own. Thirdly, approaching the formation of the Haggai-Zechariah-Malachi corpus from a source /redaction-critical viewpoint, it is slightly more likely that Malachi was attached to the Haggai-Zechariah 1–8 corpus prior to the incorporation of Zechariah 9–14 than seeing a primary book of Zechariah which was later combined with the material in Malachi. The textual links between Zechariah 1–8 and Malachi are stronger than the links between Zechariah 1–8 and 9–14 on the one hand, and between Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi on the other. Fourthly, the current position of Zechariah 9–14 in between Zechariah 1–8 and Malachi is not salient to its understanding. I suggest that its authors can be characterized, to borrow Tooman’s words (as cited above), as highly literate, scribal artists who were well-studied in the rhetoric, idiolect, and ideology of Israel’s Scripture. Zechariah 1–8 constituted a good place for their scribal exploration, in part because of the multivalence and elasticity of the vision report genre. It could easily be claimed that Zechariah had envisaged the events described in Zechariah 9–14 and thus attribute without too much effort their origin to his visionary experiences.

Johannes Taschner / Heiko Wenzel

Narrative, Debate, and the Book of the Twelve

Research on the Book of the Twelve (= BT) has blossomed the last few decades. With his Literary Precursors and his Redactional Processes James D. Nogalski has been at the forefront of this resurgence from the very beginning. His contributions have stimulated many discussions and raised many important questions. Ehud Ben Zvi challenges the thesis of “A BT,” but his discussion and various essays demonstrate the significance of Nogalski’s observations and contributions. The very idea of a “Book of the Twelve” is frequently tied to complex redactional processes in the vein of Nogalski’s model or inspired by him. In the early stages of the resurgence Paul R. House contributed to the discussion with various essays and his The Unity of the Twelve. Surprisingly, his reading of the Twelve has rarely been part of the discussion. Methodological and theological characteristics of his reading may have contributed to this development. Within the framework of canonical criticism, House argues that “literary criticism provides the actual means of uncovering unity.”1 His discussion of the genre of the Twelve asserts the possibility of such a unity. The suggested structure of sin (HoseaMicah), punishment (Nahum-Zephaniah) and restoration (Haggai-Malachi) with its related plot2 establish the unity of the Twelve for House and develop a central idea: YHWH seeks to “forge Israel into a faithful nation.”3 The repetition and development of important ideas like the day of the Lord, remnant, sin or restoration support this reading.4 The crucial assumption “that the Twelve could be a unified, coherent whole”5 shapes his reading. In particular, House starts from the 1 The Unity of the Twelve (JSOTSup 97; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1990), 30. 2 House defines is “plot” as “a selected sequence of logically caused events that present a conflict and its resolution by utilizing certain established literary devices (introduction, complication, crisis denouement, etc.)” (ibid., 115). He rightly concedes that structure and plot are interrelated: “Structure reveals plot and plot determines structure” (ibid., 111). In a sense, structure seems to carry the weight of his argument because a “well-crafted structure logically unites these components” (ibid., 71). 3 Ibid., 117–8. 4 Cf. for example ibid., 33. 5 Ibid., 34.

80

Johannes Taschner / Heiko Wenzel

assumption that there is a BT the Twelve and, therefore, some sense of unity exists which requires analysis.6 As a result the stakes are not as high as for Ben Zvi or others who discuss the “unity” of the Minor Prophets.7 His book seeks to “explicate the text as it is in hopes of forging a fresh perception of the canonical order of the minor prophets.”8 In a sense, when it comes to the burden of proof he simply turns the tables. Therefore, his approach is more about exploring the degree or the nature of the unity of the Twelve rather than arguing for its existence.9 Even though his exploration has some serious weaknesses, House draws attention to many important aspects of the discussion. Some of them have been neglected along with House’s work. First, in the course of arguing the plausibility of his reading of the Twelve, House engages possible objections to his approach, for example that the unifying traits are too general or that it is the prophetic writings that exhibit the crucial ideas of sin, punishment and restoration.10 He draws attention to important aspects of the discussion when he identifies assumptions for some objections such as “literary works cannot serve an individual purpose while demonstrating artistic multiplicity” or “if a work is complex then it cannot fit into a discernible structure as a single explanatory unit.”11 He views such objections as inappropriate for literary works and therefore dismisses them (too easily) in his pursuit of reading the Twelve as unit. House also raises the important question “What unifies a work?”12 He answers by suggesting structure and plot for the Twelve, which can hardly carry the weight of his argument. However, his reflections and the study as a whole demonstrate the significance of these assumptions as well as related questions which deserve some discussion.13 Second, the discussion of genre and of content affirms “a unified portrait of prophecy that closely parallels the subject matter of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and 6 Ibid., 69. 7 “The constant common thematic consistency of the Twelve leads to the conclusion that the books have a unified literary content. Such continuity reflects a unity of construction too obvious to be denied” (ibid., 57). 8 Ibid., 67. 9 Along similar lines, but bypassing the turning of the tables, Richard J. Coggins maintains that House’s “arguments seem either to prove too much or not enough. Too much: in the sense that the characteristic features which might reasonably be expected of any ancient Israelite presentation of the relation between Yahweh and his people. Not enough: in the sense that at several points his classification is not sufficiently precise to establish the points he wants to make”; “The Minor Prophets – One Book or Twelve?” in Crossing the Boundaries. Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D. Goulder (ed. Stanley E. Porter, Paul Joyce, and David E. Orton; BIS 8; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 61. 10 Ibid., 68–9. 11 Ibid., 68. 12 Ibid., 70. 13 See Wenzel’s essay “One or Twelve? Hermeneutics, Expectations, and A Framework for Reading the Twelve” in this volume.

Narrative, Debate, and the Book of the Twelve

81

Ezekiel.”14 House’s argument is broad enough to include the three Major Prophets so that the Twelve are not clearly distinct from them. Jason T. LeCureux rightly states that “[s]uch a reading places the Twelve in the same category as other prophetic books.”15 House’s observations suggest unity but tend to be too general to bear the weight of his argument, and his categories for organizing diverse material are rather broad. LeCureux’s caution is well taken and identifies a significant weakness of House’s approach: “any reading style that seeks to level, ignore, or in some way damage the individuality of these twelve writings, should be treated with caution.”16 However, a possible distinctiveness of the Twelve is hardly necessary for their particular unity. The Major Prophets share themselves several aspects of genre and content, but they also have their distinctives. Third, House’s suggested structure and plot is not so easily detectable in the prophetic writings. He tries hard to demonstrate the value of this reading, but there is barely any development between Hosea and Zephaniah detectable that does not rely on the progression in time. The writings build on such a progression and, thereby, are inextricably tied to an extra-textual web that emerges with and from the Twelve. To put it differently, House’s plot may be less an aspect of the text but of something beyond the text, as his own statement indicates: “This plot is based primarily on the history of God’s dealing with Israel (…). Alongside the history of Israel runs an account of Yahweh’s relationship with the Gentiles.”17 This weakness becomes obvious when Haggai through Malachi need to fit in House’s comic plot and supposedly offer a resolution for the problem presented in other nine prophetic writings. However, House rightly draws attention to the function of the superscriptions. They affect the reading of the individual writing and, at the same time, the reading of the Twelve. Despite these weaknesses, House’s reading of the BT draws attention to noteworthy narrative aspects both of individual writings and the corpus as a whole.18 A third-person discourse opens the BT (Hosea 1–3) and plays also a major role in Jonah, Haggai and Zechariah. House’s reading also highlights important aspects of the Twelve’s order which displays more than simply a casual collection of random prophetic material. There are other attempts to describe the unity of the Twelve with important themes like the grace formula or the day of the Lord. For example, LeCureux seeks to demonstrate the unity of the Twelve with a study of the root ‫ שׁוב‬in conjunction with the positioning of Hosea-Joel and Haggai-Malachi. His meth14 15 16 17

Ibid., 56. The Thematic Unity of Book of the Twelve (HBM 41; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012), 15. Ibid. House, Unity, 160; Norman K. Gottwald calls this “an implied narrative” (“Tragedy and Comedy in the Latter Prophets,” Semeia 32 [1984]: 83). 18 House, Unity, 57–62.

82

Johannes Taschner / Heiko Wenzel

odological reflection on theme in distinction from other literary terms19 is very helpful and grounds his conclusion that “a recurring idea, communicated by word or phrase, which supports the main thrusts of the prophecy and gives theological shape and meaning to the work.”20 He identifies “Return to me and I will return to you”21 as the unifying theme of the Twelve.22 There is a concentration of occurrences in Hosea, Joel, Amos, Zechariah and Malachi that suggest a framing function. In particular, the imperative only occurs in the two opening and in the two closing writings and thus supports this suggestion. These observations are noteworthy but it is debatable whether they can carry the weight of LeCureux’s argument. In addition, there are other weaknesses of his approach. First, the main theme he identifies seems broad enough to have at least some relevance for every prophetic writing and every collection of prophetic writings. In the case of Obadiah and Habakkuk, however, the reading appears somewhat forced, more a case of reading these writings in light of a theme rather than of a theme emerging from the texts. In fact, LeCureux acknowledges for Amos through Haggai: “‫ שׁוב‬may not be at the centre of these individual writings, but it is nonetheless present, functioning within the confines of the message of return laid out in the framework writings, and supporting the message of the individual prophets.”23 Nonetheless, his reading illustrates that such a theme may serve to unify chronologically diverse writings because a theme may be developed in different ways, even if it may not work for all twelve writings in equal measure. This observation qualifies the significance of similarities or the lack thereof for discussing the BT. Similarities per se do not proof the thesis nor does the lack thereof falsify it. At the very least LeCureux’s approach demands that we consider other interpretation of the evidence. Second, in comparing the Twelve to the book of Isaiah he seeks to demonstrate how a particular theme “unites a variously composed and yet unified book.”24 The future of Jerusalem-Zion occurs in every major section and unifies the book even though the theme is developed in different ways. In this noteworthy part of his study LeCureux draws attention to the superscriptions of the twelve writings and their significance as they separate the writings from each other. Despite several parallels between Isaiah and the Twelve these literary markers are lacking in Isaiah and deserve further reflections. 19 20 21 22

LeCureux, Unity, 26–32. Ibid., 32. Ibid., 22. In elaborating on the theme he states: “As the people struggle to turn (‫ )שׁוב‬from covenant failure toward Yhwh in repentance and receive his blessing, Yhwh struggles to turn (‫ )שׁוב‬from judgment toward his people in grace” (ibid., 39). Cf. Craig Bowman, “Reading the Twelve as One: Hosea 1–3 as an Introduction to the Book of the Twelve (The Minor Prophets),” SCJ 9 (2006): 44. 23 Ibid., 170. 24 Ibid., 52.

Narrative, Debate, and the Book of the Twelve

83

The third weakness is probably most significant because it concerns the heart of LeCureux’s argument. His theme emphasizes the reciprocity between YHWH and his people. This emphasis meets two difficulties. First, this phrasing appears only in Zechariah and Malachi, i. e., after the exile, and notably not in other writings. Second, the emphasis requires a struggle to turn from judgment on YHWH’s part as if YHWH has to be convinced or must convince himself before turning from judgment. However, Hosea 1–3 illustrate at the beginning of the Twelve that this is not an open question. In addition, Hosea 11 emphasizes that YHWH turns to the people although they do not turn to him. Last but not least, Hosea use of ‫ נְָדָבה‬in 14:5 raises questions about LeCureux’s emphasis on reciprocity.25 In any case, his discussion of the writing of Hosea is not entirely satisfying. As a result, this emphasis must be qualified, to say the least.

Narrative and Debate Some aspects of these readings (House and LeCureux) are a matter of interpretation. Some may even be necessitated, to some extent, by the approach itself. They are not, however, only the result of a particular literary approach to the collection of the twelve prophetic writings. Rather, the following observations suggest that this collection itself establishes a narrative-like framework for a progressing debate. It is a debate that is framed by a chronological sequence. This framework exhibits what Gottwald calls “an implied narrative”, on which prophetic writings build as “a kind of occasion-oriented commentary.”26 It is a progressing debate among the writings themselves, a debate between these writings and other texts of the HB27 and, last but not least, a debate that engages the readers and seeks to draw them in.28 To speak about a plot or, at least, some

25 LeCureux assumes that Hos 14:5 responds to Hos 14:2–4 (ibid., 83, 104) and builds his argument on this assumption. He does not entertain other options or offer sufficient reasons for his interpretation. Thereby he neglects the exegetical and theological significance of ‫נְָדָבה‬. This negligence is particularly surprising because LeCureux acknowledges that YHWH initiates the return of the people and is always willing to accept their return (e. g., ibid., 109, 120). Thus the idea of reciprocity is misleading. YHWH’s (re-) turn to the people may also precede their return theologically and chronologically. 26 “Tragedy and Comedy,” 83. His reflections on this implied narrative “of a whole community in relationship with an implied deity” (ibid., 91) are noteworthy. To say the least, they indicate – if not demonstrate – that there is much more going on than meets the eye and scholars have to reckon with this fact. 27 For a dialogue between two texts from the Twelve and one from outside (Exodus 32–34) Thomas B. Dozeman’s essay is a good example, “Inner-Biblical Interpretation of Yahweh’s Gracious and Compassionate Character,” JBL 108 (1989): 207–23. 28 Cf. Wenzel’s reflections on the interrogative elements throughout the Book of the Twelve,

84

Johannes Taschner / Heiko Wenzel

degree of a plot may be misleading as it draws attention primarily to the BT as a story. The Twelve display a progression but less in the sense of a story’s plot, but rather, as we have seen, a progressing debate. The superscriptions of the prophetic writings inscribe the twelve writings into a literary web. This web emerges from the connection of the writings with each other and with other writings of the HB. In light of this web it is not appropriate to read the individual writings as independent literary units. They implicitly ask to be read in conjunction with and in light of this web. Since the superscriptions with references to a date are set in chronological order (which is the case in the Masoretic and in the LXX traditions), they establish a chronological framework for reading these twelve books.29 Last but not least, several chapters of narrative can be found in the BT, repeatedly at noteworthy places of the book, generating a striking dynamic between narratives and prophetic texts.

Narrative Texts in the Book of the Twelve The most surprising part of the Twelve is presumably the writing of Jonah. If it were not one of them, it would be difficult to argue that it should be. The genre of this book is no small matter of debate. Choosing a term for its genre is probably as much a product of reading the writing as it is a lens for reading it. Its surprising characteristic is its almost complete lack of prophetic pronouncements and its dominating narrative shape. Regardless of the seemingly never ending discussion about its (specific) genre, the writing is primarily a narrative and engages its readers by drawing them into a story with a prophet. This story leads up to YHWH’s dialogue with Jonah which supports this engaging dynamic and culminates in the closing question (Jonah 4:11). Thus YHWH’s dialogue with Jonah takes center stage while it is prepared and framed by a narrative.30 The interpretations of the writing of Jonah differ in a fascinating, perhaps even bewildering, manner. However, many of them have one idea in common. They read it as a comment on important prophetic topics, e. g., a comment on true and false prophecy, on the contingency of prophecies of doom, on divine grace and divine compassion or on the relationship between God’s people and the rest their noteworthy positioning and some conclusions from a reader’s perspective in the essay in this volume (pp. 108–10, 114–5). 29 Since eleven of twelve prophets are not mentioned in the Book of Kings and since Jonah is only a brief note, the Book of the Twelve may be considered a supplement to the Book of Kings. Cf. Herbert Marks, “The Twelve Prophets,” in The Literary Guide to the Bible (ed. Robert Alter and Frank Kermode; Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1987), 208. 30 This meta-perspective may suggest some parallels to the Book of Twelve as a whole but requires additional hermeneutical reflections that go beyond the limits of this essay.

Narrative, Debate, and the Book of the Twelve

85

of the world. Ben Zvi ties this observation to the discussion about the genre and coins the term “meta-prophecy” (i. e., a reflection on prophecy itself) for describing it.31 All of these perspectives suggest that this narrative contributes in a unique manner to the ongoing debate in the BT.32 The date formulae play a significant role in Haggai and in Zechariah 1–8. They mark the turn of events from Zephaniah to the post-exilic writings and introduce them. The reference to the Persian king also highlights the ongoing impact of the exile and thereby raises many questions about God, the people and the course of God’s story with his people. In addition, Haggai 1:12 is noteworthy and introduces an extraordinary narrative dynamic. This verse indicates an immediate and decisively positive response to the prophetic word, which is rarely the case elsewhere in the HB. Leaving aside Jonah 3,33 it is the first occasion34 in the sequence of the BT. Amongst other things, it draws attention to the project of rebuilding the temple. This serves as an important aspect for understanding the prophetic words in Haggai, Zechariah 1–8 and Malachi, perhaps even for Zechariah 9–14. Thus the narrative note may serve a crucial function for reading the ongoing debate in these writings. Zechariah 7:1 marks an intervening period of about two years from the perspective of Zechariah 1–6 (Zech 1:7; 7:1). The question raised in Zech 7:2–3 most likely assumes some progression with the temple project and / or builds on the perspectives presented with the night visions in Zechariah 1–6. The frequently observed similarities between Zechariah 1–2 and Zechariah 7–8 therefore reveal some progression and an ongoing debate. In addition, Watts (among others) has drawn attention to some connections between Hosea and Malachi, especially, the topic of divine love.35 The prophetic words at the beginning of the BT (Hosea 1–3) are embedded in the narrative about the prophet and his wife. The significance of this observation increases when the impact of these chapters is taken into account. These three chapters implicitly open the door for the rest of the writing36 and 31 Ehud Ben Zvi, The Signs of Jonah. Reading and Rereading in Ancient Yehud (JSOTSup 367; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003). 32 When the writing is taken as a comment, all of these interpretations depend in some sense on other prophetic texts. Thus a significant degree of its function and meaning derives from the debate with these texts. As a result the idea of the twelve prophetic books as independent literary units requires some reflection if not qualifications. 33 The positive response in Haggai 1 and, in particular, in Jonah 3 stands in notable contrast to Jonah’s initial reaction. Jonah’s hesitation or reluctance underlines the significance of Haggai. 34 Depending on the identification of the subject in Zech 1:6, there might be another note of a positive response. In addition, Zechariah 6:9–15 may be read as a response to the night visions in general and / or to Zech 6:1–8 or to Zechariah 2 in specific. 35 John D. W. Watts, “A Frame for the Book of the Twelve: Hosea 1–3 and Malachi,” in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve (ed. James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney; SBLSymS 15; Atlanta: SBL, 2000), 210–2. 36 Cf. Brad E. Kelle, “Hosea 1–3 in Twentieth-Century Scholarship,” CurBR 7 (2009): 180.

86

Johannes Taschner / Heiko Wenzel

writings37 and may serve “as a guide for reading the book of the Minor Prophets.”38 Hosea 14:10’s emphasis on distinguishing between the righteous and the transgressors may reappear in Mal 3:13–21 (MT), even though the word zadik and the controlling theme are the only shared elements. Thus the opening narrative is of some significance for the initial writing of this collection and for its final part. In fact, the last writing, Malachi, with its ongoing and developing debate between the prophet and the people39 exhibit a progressing dynamic. By raising fundamental issues this dialogue reflects on major topics in the BT, for example, the question of Judah’s election and the possible benefits in conjunction with or in contrast to people who are not elect. Malachi thus consciously evokes the beginning of the BT and reflects on some aspects of the writings in between.40 Some references in the prophetic writings to other narratives establish an additional noteworthy dynamic with important texts of the HB. In a sense, the superscriptions can be read along these lines as they tie the twelve writings to YHWH’s story with his people in general and probably to the Book of Kings in particular. In addition, there are some interesting examples for such a dynamic of which Hosea 1–3’s links to Exodus 32–34 deserve some reflections41 in tracing the storyline (fabula) in the Book of Exodus.

How Does Scripture Interpret Itself ? After its great liberation, Israel encounters YHWH in the desert in a direct way. In Egypt they got to know God through his liberating deeds, but now Israel experiences his holiness. Obviously this is not an entirely pleasant encounter. They can only survive it by keeping an appropriate distance. They ask Moses to me37 Laurie J. Braaten demonstrates that other themes introduced by Hosea run through the Twelve; “God Sows: Hosea’s Land Theme in the Book of the Twelve,” in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve (ed. Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart; BZAW 325; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 104–32. 38 Bowman, “Reading the Twelve as One,” 41–59. 39 Cf. Rainer Kessler, Maleachi (HTKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2011), 51–3. 40 This oscillating dynamic between prophetic words or pronouncements and dialogue framed by an overall chronological and / or narrative progress may also describe the dynamic of the MT order of the twelve writings. Joel, Obadiah/Jonah and Nahum/Habakkuk interrupt the chronological sequence of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah. The overlap between the date formulae in Haggai and Zechariah ties these two writings closely together and continues the chronological / narrative progression before the BT ends with debates and reflections in Malachi. 41 Georg Steins draws attention to the importance of narrative for interpreting the writing of Amos by describing the significance of Amos 7:10–17 for the writing (Gericht und Vergebung. Re-Visionen zum Amosbuch [SBS 221; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2010], 77–103) and by identifying subtexts of the writing including Exodus 32–34 (ibid., 127). His observations should alert the reader to comparable dynamics in the twelve writings and for the BT.

Narrative, Debate, and the Book of the Twelve

87

diate between God and themselves. But there is one important highlight that is often missed. After the first set of rules are given, Moses, Aaron, his sons and the 70 elders gather on the mountain. They eat and drink in the presence of the God of Israel. And they see God. A few ups and downs later, while Moses is on the Mountain, the Israelites feel lonely and create an image of God. This destroys the new relationship entirely and it requires seemingly endless negotiations to make peace again. In the end it is no longer possible to see God, but he reveals himself as the one who shows mercy on whom he shows mercy. This is the basis on which the relationship is founded. Right at the beginning of the writing of Hosea, the prophet is commanded to marry a prostitute and to have children with her. This marriage is a parable for the relationship between Israel and God. The names of the children seem to indicate that this relationship is completely spoiled: The plain of Jesreel, which recalls a national catastrophe; lo-ruhama – no mercy, lo-ammi – not my people, which “is an ironic undoing of YHWH’s compassion or love (rhwm, Exod 34:6) toward the ˙ covenant people.”42 However, even for this spoiled relationship there seems to be a new start possible. These two passages are found in two different parts of the HB which are related to each other in a very specific way. The links to the Torah at the beginning of the prophetic books are unmistakable and well known. Joshua is asked to act in accordance with the laws of the Torah (Jos 1:7). At the end of the prophetic writings, the last verses of Malachi ask the reader again to remember Moses’ teaching. Obviously the reading of the prophets should be linked to the Torah. But how should it be done? If the writings of the prophets are to be understood as an interpretation of the Torah, what kind of interpretation is this? Initially the canonical approach was understood as a kind of holistic reading in contrast to historical-critical approaches which have too often torn the biblical texts into pieces. This part of the essay deals with another aspect of the canonical approach. If the three parts of the canon are so clearly linked to each other, how does this impact our reading and interpretation of the biblical texts? What kind of intertextuality is presumed? It is nothing less than the old truth of scriptura sui ipsius interpres which is at stake here. In an attempt to answer these questions we examine two passages mentioned above and reflect on how they can be related to each other in an appropriate way.

42 Raymond C. Van Leeuwen, “Scribal Wisdom and Theodicy in the Book of the Twelve,” in In Search of Wisdom. Essays in Memory of John G. Gammie (ed. Leo G. Perdue, Bernard Brandon Scott, and William Johnston Wiseman; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993), 35.

88

Johannes Taschner / Heiko Wenzel

Establishing a New Relationship: The Encounter between God and Israel in Exodus 19–34 The rapport of the first encounter between Israel and God reveals a lot of tensions and gaps.43 Obviously this text is the product of a long theological debate. Since these gaps and tensions are still there, they invite us to continue this debate. In addition, despite these tensions there is a story that comes out of it, even a plot if you ask me. “You shall be my special possession, dearer to me than all other people” (Exod 19:5; NAB)

Israel had just experienced God liberating them from slavery in Egypt. Here now in the desert the encounter with God gains a new quality. Israel experiences God’s holiness. Each person has to prepare him- or herself in a cultic manner (Exod 19:10–15). When holiness comes into play, the place becomes important.44 A divine appointment with Moses already indicates this: “He answered, ‘I will be with you; and this shall be your proof that it is I who have sent you: when you bring my people out of Egypt, you will worship God on this very mountain’” (Exod 3:12). Now the time has come when this becomes reality – finally. Also, when holiness comes into play, distance and nearness is an issue.45 When the Israelites come to the Sinai, they come to a mountain that is not like any other mountain. They have to keep their distance. It is clearly stated who is allowed to come closer and who must remain at a distance. Obviously, there are different grades of holiness around the mountain. Also, when holiness comes into play, time and date matter. Exodus 19:1 (probably P) makes clear that the encounter takes place on a Sabbath.46 The implication is that the whole creation with its Sabbath points to this moment. Creation finds its destiny with this divine encounter with Israel. That was its purpose. This encounter raises some expectations. It is as if God was looking forward to that moment, since he says at the beginning of this encounter (Exod 19:4–6): Tell the Israelites: You have seen for yourselves how I treated the Egyptians and how I bore you up on eagle wings and brought you here to myself. Therefore, if you hear to my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my special possession, dearer to me than all other people, though all the earth is mine. You shall be to me a kingdom of priests, a holy nation. That is what you must tell the Israelites.

43 See the discussion and suggestions by Rainer Albertz, Exodus 19–40 (ZBK.AT 2.2; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2015), 27–38. 44 Cf. Christoph Dohmen, Exodus 19–40 (2nd ed.; HTKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2012), 51. 45 See also the reflections on “space” (ibid., 75). 46 Cf. ibid., 50–1.

Narrative, Debate, and the Book of the Twelve

89

Moses passes along these words only to the elders, but the whole nation answers that they will do what he is saying (Exod 19:7–8). Thus Israel is obviously willing to meet these expectations. In what follows we find a first attempt to “organize” the communication between God, Moses and the people: YHWH speaks to Moses, so that the people can hear it and they will trust Moses. This fragile first encounter with YHWH’s holiness is the background for the subsequent prohibition to make images. There is no image that can express the reality who YHWH is. Do the people of Israel hear the Ten Commandments? This is not absolutely clear. It is clear that the people tell Moses: “You speak to us, and we will listen; but let not God speak to us, or we shall die” (Exod 20:19). Moses’ task as a diplomat between God and Israel is established. There follows the stunning observation that Moses is drawing near the thick darkness where God is (Exod 20:21). Darkness and holiness; there are many examples in church history and even in literature were a link between these two is made. Catastrophes are often experienced together with holiness. After the promulgation of the Book of the Covenant the relationship between YHWH and Israel takes on a whole new dimension: “Moses then went up with Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy elders of Israel, and they beheld the God of Israel. Under his feet there appeared to be sapphire tilework, as clear as the sky itself” (Exod 24:9–10). What is stunning about this scene is that the threat of experiencing holiness is overcome. This experience of holiness may tie this passage to the idea of the people as a holy nation.47 They are not afraid any more in spite of being so close to God’s holiness. This encounter is unique when God is seen by so many people.48 It never happens again; the passage still dares to say “they saw the God of Israel.” This remained one of Israel’s ways of insisting that at one time in their past there was a nearly indescribable and completely unrepeatable encounter with a God whom from that time on defined who they were.49 Why does it not happen again? The episode of the golden calf is the first real crisis (in a literary sense) in this relationship between God and Israel. The relationship is about to fail. God does not want to be the God of Israel any more. It is only because of Moses’ massive intercession that this relationship is healed in some way. However, it is not like it was before. After this crisis it is not possible to see God any more or as J. Gerald Janzen puts it: “if ‘I bore you on eagle’s wings and brought you to myself ’ finds its climax in 24:9–11, then the negatives in Exod 33:20 are not intrinsic and universal, but circumstantial. A person, a community, that stands in the aftermath of such 47 Cf. ibid., 205. 48 The idea of “seeing God” does, however, reappear in Exodus 33; cf. Terence E. Fretheim, Exodus (Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox Press, 1991), 300. 49 Donald E. Gowan, Theology in Exodus. Biblical Theology in Form of a Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 178.

90

Johannes Taschner / Heiko Wenzel

covenant betrayal cannot see God’s face and live.”50 Moses wants to see God’s glory, but he can only see him from behind. What is new, though, is that now God reveals himself as the gracious one: “I will show mercy on whom I will show mercy” (Exod 33:19). It is possible to read this story as an aetiology of the fact that we cannot see God and human beings’ desire to make their own image of a God that is available to their wishes. The whole story makes clear that the relationship to God is not on the same level it was before; something is spoiled forever. But at the same time it is deepened in a way that evokes Exod 3:14.51 The grace of God is now an integral component of the relationship to Israel. What remains of what Moses, Aaron, and the 70 elders saw is the sky, which was seen under the feet of God. The sky is still to be seen today.

The Canonical Links of the Prophets towards the Torah As mentioned above, the second part of the HB is closely linked to the Torah by Josua 1 and Malachi 4. What do these links contribute to our reading of the Torah and the Prophets? Josua 1 is concerned with continuing the storyline of the Torah. The successor of Moses, Joshua, enters the land. The first generation follows the Torah, the Passover is celebrated and Israel is doing nearly everything that is expected of them in the Torah. But this is not the case any more for the next generation. At the beginning of the period of Judges it is said that this generation on longer knew anything of the great deeds of God. So the Torah is forgotten from now on. But the history of God with his people continues by means of charismatic leaders. However, if we take a closer look at this era we realize that this is an epoch of decline. The last judge is Samson. When reading his story in light of the rules of the Torah, it becomes obvious that he is breaking these rules repeatedly. He is not interested in what is good for Israel, but only concerned about his interests. Even to the point that the Israelites ask Samson to surrender to the Philistines so that they can live in peace. Samson is not protecting Israel; he is the cause for war! So he rules only twenty years while his predecessors ruled 40 years. Ending up in jail, the only thing he can do is seek revenge. But this is not the end of it after all. After Samson there is no judge any more. No rules are observed; everybody goes his own way (Judg 17:6; 21:25). At the end of this epoch a woman is cut off into twelve pieces which is a symbol for the lawless situation in Israel. The era of the Kings does not really change the situation substantially. They do not follow the Torah. The only difference is that the Torah is rediscovered in Joshua’s time; but obviously too late. The exile is not deterred. Again and again exile is interpreted as resulting from the 50 Exodus (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 247. 51 Cf. Albertz, Exodus, 299.

Narrative, Debate, and the Book of the Twelve

91

fact that Israel did not follow their God but other gods instead. And what is the reason? The Torah was forgotten only one generation after Joshua. What kind of links to the Torah do we have in the Former Prophets? It is a way of interpreting the Torah by telling the story what happens when the Torah is forgotten. The Torah is a kind of foundational history and the Former Prophets are an exemplary history. The Torah remains the foundation. Deuteronomy 30 describes how Israel will return to God by following the Torah again when they are in exile. In contrast, from the conquest until the exile the entire story of Israel focuses on one idea: what happens when the Torah is forgotten and its rules are not followed. In the Latter Prophets things are different. Most of the writings have a date which refers to the history that is told in the Former Prophets. So obviously they specify what is told in the first part of the prophetic writings. The writing of Hosea stands at the beginning of the BT. It is probably the writing with the most references to the themes of the Torah: Jacob (Hosea 12), Moses (Hos 12:13–14; the desert traditions Hos 9:10–17; 10:1-2, 11–13a; 11:1-7; 13:4-8; 2:16-17 [MT]; 12:10; the covenant in Hos 2:18–25 [MT]; 6:7-11a; 8:1-3; 10:3-4; 12:2; even the Decalogue in Hos 4:1–3; 8:4-6; 12:10; 13:1-4).52 Thus Hosea is a noteworthy example of innerbiblical interpretation. The book clearly refers to themes of the Torah and thereby repeatedly states that Israel has forgotten her God frequently through time. It contains a number of phrases that are identified with or evocative of Deuteronomic verses.53 These references vary themes of the Torah in a very specific way: for example, Hosea’s marriage. Hosea should marry a prostitute and have children with her. The names of these children express the relationship between God and Israel at that time. Crisis is at hand. Israel will no longer be the people of God; there will be no mercy. This build on the image of marriage with a prostitute which implicitly accuses Israel of worshiping Baal instead of YHWH. On the one hand, the wilderness is the realm of death in Hosea 2. Israel will be stripped naked and the land be made a wilderness and parched land. She will die of thirst (Hos 2:3). One of the main accusations is that Israel did not know from where it received her blessings. On the other hand the wilderness is at the same time the place of salvation (Hos 2:14–15):

52 See also Ehud Ben Zvi, Hosea (FOTL 21A/1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 74. 53 Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Hosea. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 24; Garden City: Doubleday, 1980), 131–2. Rolf Rendtorff and Hans Walter Wolff indicate that Hosea and Deuteronomy share several traditions; Rolf Rendtorff, Das Alte Testament. Eine Einführung (6th ed.; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 2001), 230; Hans Walter Wolff, “‘Wissen um Gott’ bei Hosea als Urform von Theologie,” in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (TB 22; München: Kaiser, 1964), 199; idem, Dodekapropheton 1. Hosea (BKAT XIV/1; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1961), xix–xx. See also Dwight R. Daniels’ discussion in Hosea and Salvation History (BZAW 191; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990).

92

Johannes Taschner / Heiko Wenzel

I will lay waste her vines and fig trees, of which she said, “These are the hire my lovers have given me”; I will turn them into rank growth and wild beasts shall devour them. I will punish her for the days of the Baals, for whom she burnt incense while she decked herself out with her rings and her jewels, and, in going after her lovers, forgot me, says the Lord.

This is the turning point of the parable. Thereafter all children’s names are reinterpreted. So obviously the parable refers to the encounter between Israel and God in the desert and deems it foundational. It marks this foundation as something that cannot be lost. At the same time the story of the encounter between God and Israel in the desert holds the ideas of crisis and of overcoming this crisis. By overcoming the crisis the relationship is deepened. The encounter between them seems crucial. Since they are by themselves, the desert is a good place.54 Perhaps the desert draws attention to the time of establishing the bond between God and the people.55 To be sure, the desert marks an interim period of “transitional character.”56 It is not an ideal time, but, characteristically,57 a time of punishment58 as well as a time of divine provision.59 It indicates an opportunity for a new beginning.60 It is difficult to determine whether the parable should be read in terms of continuation or repetition. The story of God’s relationship with Israel continued. At the same time the patterns of this relationship were repeated. By interpreting these patterns as repetition the very special quality of this indestructible relationship is clearly displayed. The Twelve open with such an interpretation and thereby offer a specific reading perspective for the following writings. In a sense there are no surprises when accounting for this interpretation, neither Israel’s disobedience nor YHWH’s judgment nor the continuation of the relationship on a different and deepened level. Or, as Watts suggests: “God’s nature has not changed; nor has God’s commitment to gather a people. Torah still applies, as does the assurance of continued prophetic guidance.”61

54 Wolff, Hosea, 50. 55 Marvin A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets. Volume Two (Berit Olam; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000), 33–4. 56 Wilhelm Rudolph, Hosea (KAT; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1966), 75–6. 57 Most of the time, the desert motif focuses on negative aspects (Shemaryahu Talmon, Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible. Collected Studies [Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013], 58) and about half of the passages are tied to the exodus (ibid., 57). 58 Ibid., 60. 59 Ibid., 62. 60 Read in light of the sequence Numbers-Deuteronomy it may emphasize the necessity of punishment and the opportunity for a fresh start for another generation. 61 Watts, “Frame,” 217.

Heiko Wenzel

One or Twelve? Hermeneutics, Expectations, and A Framework for Reading the Twelve

To critically interpret a text means to read it in order to discover, along with our reactions to it, something about its nature. To use a text means to start from in order to get something else, even accepting the risk of misinterpreting it from the semantic point of view.1

Umberto Eco’s distinction frames this essay. These twelve prophetic writings raise so many questions and stimulate discussion on various levels. My focus is on reading them. In a sense, this focus makes it easy, since it allows me to dispense with several questions. It also makes my task difficult: a Book of the Twelve (from now on simply, “the Twelve”) or twelve prophetic writings? Redaction(s) on the Twelve as a whole or for the purpose of creating it differ(s) significantly from interpreting the twelve writings as discrete literary units. There does not seem to be a lot of common ground between these two approaches on a hermeneutical level. Some phenomena observed in these writings are interpreted in a contradictory manner, for example, some consider the opening lines2 crucial evidence for arguing for twelve discrete literary units. Others make use of them for describing four writings as kernel from which the Twelve emerged.

Hermeneutics and Expectations I enter the ongoing discussion by listening to two important voices, James D. Nogalski and Ehud Ben Zvi, and to a third voice, Francis Landy, who comments on their perspectives. While listening I seek to identify important hermeneutical aspects, noteworthy expectations and significant questions. Nogalski’s two 1 Umberto Eco, Limits of Interpretation (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991), 57. 2 I prefer the term “opening lines” which includes “superscription” and “incipit” and – in some cases – additional verses. For the related distinction see John D. W. Watt, “Superscriptions and Incipits in the Book of the Twelve,” in Reading and Hearing from the Book of the Twelve (ed. James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney; SBLSymS 15; Atlanta: SBL, 2000), 111.

94

Heiko Wenzel

monographs have stimulated significant research over the last two decades. The phrases “Literary Precursors” and “Redactional Processes” capture well important aspects of his work on the Minor Prophets. The number of publications in response to his work demonstrates the importance of his contribution. Disagreement with his theses does not reduce, but rather highlights the value of his work because it provides “a new lens to look at the texts”3 and “an important impetus for new research”4 as Ben Zvi comments. In particular, Landy rightly emphasizes: “Its contribution to the field of biblical studies is precisely the number of questions it renders possible, and the opportunity it affords for methodological reflection.”5 In various publications Ben Zvi has expressed disagreement with Nogalski’s theses and some aspects of his methodology. The 96-page-book Two Sides of the Coin summarizes Nogalski’s and Ben Zvi’s arguments and many aspects of the discussion. The hermeneutical difference is significant and – at least to some degree – contradictory: “Is the Book of the Twelve an idea that already originated in the Persian Period (Nogalski) or did the idea emerge much later and without real impact for the understanding of the twelve Minor Prophets (Ben Zvi)?”6 Nogalski argues for the Twelve as an intentional redactional unit because of the chronological sequence (indicated by the superscriptions), the priority of the MT order and the interrelations between several writings which are based on common themes, catchwords and citations. The Twelve emerges from two pre-existing collections (Hosea, Amos, Micah and Zephaniah; Haggai, Zechariah) by adding other writings for various – sometimes not identifiable – reasons. Nogalski’s particular interest is to trace the formation of the Twelve and the growing sense of the collection as a book. One important assumption is that redactors left significant traces which make it possible not only to identify their activity but also their (theological) concerns. At some point, entire writings (like Obadiah) may have been composed for creating or establishing a collection. Due to his focus on the literary history of the Twelve and his assumptions concerning redactional processes, Nogalski draws particular attention to similarities in themes, motifs, words and phrases. These similarities help to trace the formation. In acknowledging that certain developments cannot be (fully) explained, he demonstrates caution and restraint. In addition, his treatment of the superscriptions (namely

3 Ehud Ben Zvi and James D. Nogalski, Two Sides of a Coin: Juxtaposing Views on Interpreting the Book of the Twelve /the Twelve Prophetic Books (With an Introduction by Thomas Römer; Analecta Gorgiana 201; Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2009), 51. 4 Ibid., 52. 5 Francis Landy, “Three Sides of a Coin: In Conversation with Ben Zvi and Nogalski, Two Sides of a Coin,” JHS 10 (2010), Article 11 (doi: 10.5508/jhs.2010.v10.a11), 5. 6 Thomas Römer, Two Sides, 4.

One or Twelve?

95

their binding force for pre-existing collections and subsequent additions of other writings) holds diversity and unity for the Twelve in tension. Ben Zvi challenges what he calls the Twelve Hypothesis (TH) from various angles. For example, he shifts the focus from the writings themselves to communities’ reading and rereading of them. Ancient readers were concerned with authoritative teaching (not writings) and its connection to people of the past. Therefore, “[t]here could be no Book of the Twelve, simply because there was no one called The Twelve.”7 In addition, he lists several detailed arguments: 1. There is no evidence that the Twelve were written on one scroll or that ancient readers approached them as a unity. 2. There are varying orders of the twelve writings. 3. The superscriptions are indisputable evidence that the twelve writings are to be read as discrete literary units. The superscriptions demarcate them as such (as do some of the endings): They serve as “[t]he signal to the reader that a unique discourse, attributed to a particular named prophet, is beginning”.8 4. The style of the prophetic writings varies significantly. 5. The TH does not comply with the genre of a prophetic writing. Thus the conclusion appears simple: “Whereas each of the individual books conforms quite markedly to the model of the prophetic book, there is nothing like the Twelve.”9 Most of Ben Zvi’s arguments build on an implied standard of what a prophetic writing looks like: a self-contained written text that was produced within ancient Israel, and characterized by a clear beginning and conclusion, by a substantial level of textual coherence and of textually inscribed distinctiveness vis-à-vis other books, and that, accordingly, leads an intended primary readers (and rereaders) to approach it in a manner that takes into account this distinctiveness.10

By applying this definition to our question, it would require for the TH that books such as Amos, Micah, Hosea, Obadaiah, and Jonah or any of the Twelve drew their meaning from the whole, namely the BT [i. e., the Book of the Twelve] and were (or are to be) understood as ‘parts’ of that ‘whole’ … the BT was read as a (more or less) selfcontained unit sequentially … the BT stood on par with the books of Isaiah, Ezekiel, or Jeremiah.11

7 8 9 10

Landy, “Three Sides,” 8. Ibid., 7. Ibid. Ehud Ben Zvi, “The Prophetic Book: A Key Form of Prophetic Literature,” in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century (ed. Ehud Ben Zvi and Marvin A. Sweeney; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 279–80. 11 Ben Zvi, Two Sides, 48.

96

Heiko Wenzel

Since they fail this standard, the hypothesis is rejected. Dissimilarities in form and style support this rejection. Certain differences between Nogalski and Ben Zvi are obvious. First, they describe the question in different ways. Nogalski focuses on the observed phenomena and draws conclusion concerning the process of production. Intertextual work in the Twelve must recognize that catchwords play a significant role in the literary logic of the Twelve as both an ordering principle and a logical principal in light of significant evidence that catchwords recur consistently across neighboring writings and that many of these catchwords have been deliberately (redactionally) implanted into existing texts to highlight these connections.12

When describing the TH, Ben Zvi emphasizes the ideas of “unity” and “wholeness” (which are lacking in his opinion). From some point either in the late monarchic or early postmonarchic period, a direct precursor of the Book of the Twelve was considered a single literary, theological/ ideological work. Moreover, this work as a whole not only underwent several redactions but significant portions of it were written from the outset within a perspective informed by the perceived literary unity of the (ongoing) Book of the Twelve. In other words, the educated Judahite or Yehudite cadres who wrote the prophetic books (and most of the rest of biblical literature) considered the Book of the Twelve and its direct forerunner/s a unified work and not a collection or anthology of separate books.13

These descriptions illustrate their respective foci in the discussion. Second, Landy describes Nogalski’s as a “redactional” and Ben Zvi’s as “reader-oriented” approach “with Ben Zvi’s central point, that ancient readers thought in terms of prophets rather than of books, and that books were only meaningful insofar as they preserved the voices and messages of the past.”14 I side with Landy’s description even though I am not entirely sure that Landy’s terminology is helpful, because Ben Zvi’s is interested in the readers and rereaders of the Persian period.15 As such, it is not a literary approach that is only concerned with the intentio operis or the intentio lectoris. Both, Nogalski and Ben Zvi, are

12 James D. Nogalski, “Intertextuality in the Twelve,” in Forming Prophetic Literature. Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts (ed. James D. Watts and Paul R. House; JSOTSup 235; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 112. 13 Ehud Ben Zvi, “Twelve Prophetic Books or ‘The Twelve’: A Few Preliminary Considerations,” in Forming Prophetic Literature. Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts (ed. James D. Watts and Paul R. House; JSOTSup 235; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 126. 14 Landy, “Three Sides,” 8–9. 15 In particular, he distinguishes his approach from a “literary perspective”. Rather, “[t]he question that interests me as an historian is whether the literati in ancient Yehud, among which these books emerged in (more or less) their present form did so” (Ben Zvi, Two Sides, 49, n.5).

One or Twelve?

97

interested in historical reconstructions16 that derive from and are based on the Hebrew text. Both are interested in reconstructing the exchange of and interactions with theological ideas. Both use the texts of the Hebrew Bible for this purpose, even though their assessments of the way and the means of this exchange of and interactions with theological ideas significantly differ. Nogalski focuses on the texts and the redactors working on them. His redactional approach limits itself to words, phrases and motifs. This makes him a careful reader of individual texts, and he draws attention to possible and noteworthy connections. However, his focus is accompanied by some limitations. Landy notes in this regard: Redaction criticism works on the principle that every level and voice in the text has to represent a single and specific point of view and have a specific vocabulary. That means that there is very little scope for poetic originality, for the interplay and juxtaposition of different ideological positions, and for metaphorical complexity.17

Nogalski may acknowledge the complex dynamics of texts and between texts; in fact, his reconstruction is certainly proof for that. However, his methodology necessarily reduces this complexity to clearly identifiable literary traces in the text that can be isolated, or at least clearly distinguished, from the literary context. Ben Zvi is concerned with reconstructing the “intellectual history of Yehud” by studying how texts have been received, understood, interpreted and reconstituted; in particular, by tracing the reading and rereading of texts as it is done in and by communities.18 His reader-orientation assumes the erasure of the memory of a historical author as well as preceding versions of the texts.19 Thus he focuses on the historical Yehud and interprets or exploits the text in order to trace aspects of the intellectual history of Yehud.20 He explicitly refrains from reaching “beyond texts … so as to bridge the gap between late monarchic and Persian period Israel/ Judah/Yehud” and from “knowledge about the actual prophets, their words, and the reception that they were granted in the late monarchic period.”21 Thereby,

16 “Being a historian of the intellectual discourse of ancient Israel, my contribution here will focus on historical concerns and reconstructions and the relevant areas within the TH that relate to his concerns” (Ben Zvi, Two Sides, 49). 17 Landy, “Three Sides,” 16–7. 18 Ben Zvi, “Twelve Prophetic Books,” 155; idem, “The Prophetic Book,” 276. 19 Ben Zvi, Two Sides, 58–9. 20 Cf. ibid., 52, 61. He explains: “a manifold, theological/ideological discourse was developed in these communities of educated readers and writers by means of a series of readings of particular books informing one another. If this is so, it follows that the discourse/s of these cadres of writers and readers can be reconstructed only through the plurality of points of view – one informing the other – expressed in their repertoire” (idem, “Twelve Prophetic Books,” 156). 21 Ben Zvi, Two Sides, 63–4, n. 36.

98

Heiko Wenzel

noteworthy observations and analyses of texts are combined with valuable reflections on their contexts. Thus there is an obvious difference between Nogalski and Ben Zvi; however, it is less a matter of twelve writings versus the Twelve. It is more a matter of scholarly reconstruction concerning the relationship of those responsible for the texts and their texts, or, to quote Landy, “At stake is our model of writing in Ancient Israel.”22 Were those responsible for the texts only redactors, or are they poets, as well? If they were (also) poets, some of the arguments presented in this debate must be revisited and some perspectives added or broadened. I illustrate this below with some reflections on the opening lines of the twelve writings. In addition, Ben Zvi’s required connection of a prophetic figure to a prophetic writing is misleading. The Book of Kings presents some prophetic narratives without naming the prophetic figure. Obviously, this connection is not hard and fast. Also, this requirement would not allow for prophetic writings in the form of a narrative or sharply separate prophetic writings from prophetic narrative. However, a book like Jonah and the narrative elements in the Twelve call for some caution in this regard. Last but not least, an observation concerning the twelve writings becomes a requirement, i. e., since every writing is tied to a prophetic figure, a prophetic figure is required for a body of texts to be considered a prophetic writing. This requirement is simply too narrow. I have yet to find an argument for the Twelve which assumes or argues that the Twelve are like all the other prophetic writings.23 Such a requirement cannot be assumed. The Twelve are simply sui generis.24 At first sight, the Twelve seem to be a unique case in the HB, and they are to a great degree. However, research on the Book/books of the Psalms has demonstrated that it is more than a random collection. There are connections between several psalms; sometimes two psalms are read as one (e. g., Psalm 9 and 10 or Psalm 42 and 43). Sometimes a group of psalms forms a collection (Psalm 120– 134). The first two (or perhaps the first three) serve as an introduction to the Book of the Psalms just as the last psalms bring the Book to a close (Psalm 146–150). The discussions on Psalm 1–3 and 146–150 illustrate that (more or less) discrete literary units may indicate the beginning and the conclusion of a collection of literary 22 Landy, “Three Sides,” 17. 23 Scholars draw attention to some noteworthy parallels between Isaiah and the Twelve, most often with regard to redactional processes in their formation. However, there is a significant difference between the opening lines of the Minor Prophets and Isaiah 40 and / or Isaiah 56: “By contrast, the Book of the Twelve ‘walks the reader through’ this same period with prophetic voices more clearly delineated” (James D. Nogalski, “Joel as ‘Literay Anchor’ for the Book of the Twelve,” in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve [ed. James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney; SBLSymS 15; Atlanta: SBL, 2000], 93). Regardless of the value of these parallels, they do not support Ben Zvi’s argument. 24 David L. Petersen, “A Book of the Twelve,” in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve (ed. James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney; SBLSymS 15; Atlanta: SBL, 2000), 4.

One or Twelve?

99

units. So they function as discrete literary units and for the collection of literary units. Certainly, the Twelve are not a prophetic writing in the usual sense of the term. From what I have seen, nobody argues that. However, what is the alternative for describing the particularity of these twelve writings? Some scholars use the term “anthology”. Often it seems to mean nothing more than a random collection of twelve writings. Martin Beck’s essay “Das Dodekapropheton als Anthologie” draws attention to the ambiguities inherent in this term. These include differences in time (the first documented anthology appears in the second century CE), in culture (the examples are Greek) and in genre (the anthologies gather epigrams) and their random character.25 Still, Beck develops a good case for preserving the tension between the Twelve and the twelve writings by employing the term “anthology”. An anthology gathers texts (i. e., previously discrete literary units) and gives them some order without an extensive or comprehensive redaction (i. e. with only minor redactional features;26 for the purpose of offering a more or less comprehensive view of a topic or genre.27 I am not bound to the term “anthology,” but consider this summary a good starting point for describing the tension between the Book and the writings. In light of this summary, Beck emphasizes the validity (and legitimacy) of interpreting the twelve writings as discrete literary units: Zwar bestimmt in einem solchen Gesamtkunstwerk der nun vorhandene literarische Kontext eines Einzelstücks dessen Verständnis durchaus mit, zumal wenn assoziative und thematische Brücken von einem Gedicht zum nächsten weiterführen, oder wenn Dichtungen zu einem Thema zusammengestellt werden, damit dieses möglichst umfassend und vielschichtig beleuchtet wird, oder wenn eine gezielte Komposition zur Bewertung des gesammelten Materials anleitet. Aber es ist doch offenkundig, dass es sich bei den in einer Anthologie gesammelten Epigrammen nach wie vor um Einzelstücke handelt, um in sich abgeschlossene und abgerundete Kleinkunstwerke, die für sich lesbar und interpretierbar sind.28

However Beck’s argument builds on an important assumption, i. e., each of the twelve writings was an independent literary unit before it became part of the anthology. This does not do justice to the intertextual dynamics implied by the opening lines (see below). So this assumption is open for debate – at least for some books. Landy’s perspective displays a noteworthy restraint: “Each book, then, is strongly marked as an individual entity; centripetal tendencies overwhelm centrifugal ones. The TH, to be successful, would have to provide sufficient counterweight to this dynamic.”29 Landy acknowledges centrifugal ten25 26 27 28 29

Martin Beck, “Das Dodekapropheton als Anthologie,” ZAW 118 (2006): 573. Ibid., 576. Ibid., 571. Ibid., 572. “Three Sides,” 14.

100

Heiko Wenzel

dencies whereas Beck’s argument carries significant implications for interpretation: additional levels of meaning for the twelve writings are accidental but not essential. The validity of this assumption may be challenged; the implication drawn from it, even more so. Granted, the Twelve do not match the concept of prophetic literature that we are used to. However, perhaps we need to expand this concept in light of the Twelve.30 Third, another significant difference is Ben Zvi’s reservations concerning such a grand theory: “[A]s readers approach it as one book, they are bound to ‘discover’ structures, macrostructures, general themes, and other markers of textual coherence.”31 He suggests that the theory is more a self-fulfilling prophecy than something to be discovered in the texts.32 The hypothesis results from “vast and careful labour” and “is also the result of a choice.”33 To put it differently, the diversity of the twelve writings cannot be described appropriately with such a hypothesis. In addition, he does not see its explanatory potential of the Twelve for the twelve writings. I agree with Ben Zvi’s reservations because the complexity of some of these theories. To put it simply, some valid observations, noteworthy reflections and interesting arguments cannot carry the weight of the grand edifice built upon them. Such hypotheses are possible, but not likely. If a grand theory requires an arbitrary reduction of diversity and complexity, it is surely less convincing. Fourth, another important aspect of dissent is the question of diversity and unity, which is somewhat related to the discussion about the idea of “a book”. Or, as Landy puts it, “What is a Whole?” Scholarly reconstructions of ancient writing – and thus of redactors or poets as well as the plausible size of literary units and structures – and the related expectation of coherence are crucial. Nogalski argues for significant aspects of similarity that draw the writings together. Catchwords and shared motifs primarily support this argument. It does not seem to be the case that he advocates a simple and undifferentiated “unity” of the Book of the Twelve. His reconstruction of the formation of the Twelve sees this unity slowly emerging from redactional processes and from earlier collection(s). Thereby Nogalski holds diversity and unity in tension.34 30 Petersen rightly notes that “it is important for biblical scholars to be clear about the nature of the claims when using the phrase ‘the Book of the Twelve’” (“A Book of the Twelve,” 3). 31 Ben Zvi, Two Sides, 64. 32 Odil Hannes Steck’s acknowledgement describes this danger from his perspective: “Die Kohärenz einer Redaktionsebene ist notwendig eine sachlich-konzeptionelle, aber nicht unbedingt eine sprachliche” (Die Prophetenbücher und ihr theologisches Zeugnis. Wege der Nachfrage und Fährten zur Antwort [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996], 113). 33 Landy, “Three Sides,” 12. 34 According to Nogalksi, early collections “were ‘published’ and edited together prior to their association with the remaining writings” (Two Sides, 14). So the formative process holds diversity and unity in tension. This also affects any meaning or intention that is identified.

One or Twelve?

101

Ben Zvi emphasizes diversity when it comes to the Minor Prophets. He misses “coherence” in the Twelve, but his expectations seem to raise the bar too high. In addition, they are somewhat misleading because his argument seems to work from the assumption that obvious aspects of diversity already disprove the TH. Such an assumption falters on Nogalski’s balance of diversity and unity and it ignores more complex or differentiated understandings of “unity.” In general, the often unmitigated tie between coherence and similarity carries significant weight on both sides of the table. Similarity proves some degree of coherence for Nogalski. Evidence of dissimilarity thwarts or negates Nogalski’s perspective in Ben Zvi’s view. However, contrast35 or a change of topics in light of an already established framework must be taken into account and requires that scholars should reckon with a greater degree of complexity when approaching literary units on various levels. This can be illustrated with the following discussion on the opening lines. According to Ben Zvi the fact that the superscriptions clearly demarcate literary units disproves Nogalski’s thesis, but this conclusion is not a necessary one. Clearly, the opening lines demarcate literary units, but that does not disprove per se the idea of the Twelve. Rather, it supports the idea of a complex unity.36 Discussions about a collection of Four (Hosea, Amos, Micah and Zephaniah) are based on the similarity of these openings and the chronological reference points that they indicate.

On the Opening Lines These opening lines frame different voices of the Book. To describe them as an element that unifies the corpus is misleading37 since unity is often inextricably tied to identity or a great degree of similarity. It is less a matter of aligning these writings; it is more a matter of framing and stimulating the debate between them. The opening lines provide a structure, not (necessarily) coherence. In light of Even though the association and editing display verifiable intentionality (ibid., 22), Nogalski emphasizes: “one must consider carefully the difficulty of delineating a consistent and coherent theological agenda on the part of the editors who are shaping these writings when so much of the material they incorporate draws from sources they themselves did not compose” (ibid., 32). 35 See Landy, “Three Sides,” 14–5; Beck also draws attention to the juxtaposition of Hosea 14 and Joel 1 (“Anthologie,” 578). 36 As Herbert Marks argues for Micah: “Even when deliberate patterns may be confidently traced, they frequently overlie one another, like the superimposed figures of paleolithic cave art – the successive tradents, authors, and editors having valued polyphony and suggestive density more than formal decorum.” (“The Twelve Prophets,” in The Literary Guide to the Bible (ed. Robert Alter and Frank Kermode; Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1987), 212. 37 Pace Nogalski, “Joel as ‘Literay Anchor’,” 91.

102

Heiko Wenzel

Cuffey’s helpful distinction,38 one may think in terms of structural coherence, even though it is probably something different. On the one hand, the opening lines cannot carry the weight of a unifying feature, because they exhibit significant overlap and they all differ.39 On the other hand, the Twelve do not need a separate superscription like Cuffey claims.40 The textual web of the opening lines (simply) provides a framing structure for an ongoing debate. A look at the opening lines reveals that they function on two levels within the textual web of the twelve writings and the Twelve: they demarcate the prophetic writings as discrete literary units and, at the same time, connect them (at least some of them) to each other. They cannot be limited to either one of the levels. The frequently noted similarities (and differences) between Hos 1:1, Amos 1:1, Mic 1:1, and Zeph 1:1 consist of the prophetic word-event formula and the reference to the Judean and Israelite kings.41 They establish a connection between these writings and create a literary web in which each discrete literary unit is but one part. The strength of these connections becomes obvious when the opening lines are compared to the various forms of other prophetic writings including the Major Prophets. Hosea, Micah and Zephaniah are very different from Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Despite some similarities between Amos and Isaiah, the reference to Jeroboam establishes a significant connection to Hosea, Amos and Micah. Thereby an extra-textual web emerges which seems to be related to narrative features in the Twelve.42 The chronological references indicate an overall (chronological) sequence for these writings and thereby provide some structure to their collection. It is inappropriate to ignore the textual and extra-textual web that is thereby established. Thus interpreters of the Minor Prophets must account for these textual and extra-textual webs43 as some have already done.44 38 Kenneth H. Cuffey, “Remnant, Redactor, and Biblical Theologian: A Comparative Study of Coherence in Micah and the Twelve,” in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve (ed. James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney; SBLSymS 15; Atlanta: SBL, 2000), 186–8. 39 Cf. David Noel Freedman, “Heading in the Books of the Eight-Century Prophets,” AUSS 25 (1987): 15. 40 pace Cuffey, “Remnant,” 201. 41 Similar phenomena can be found in Haggai and Zechariah with two particular differences. First, the sequence is reversed, i. e., the chronological reference precedes the word-event formula. Second, the chronological reference places the prophetic word in the reign of a Persian (rather than a Judean or Israelite) king. These writings are tied together, as it has been noted frequently, even though they are discrete literary units, e. g., by Carol L. and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 25B; Garden City: Doubleday, 1987), xliv–xlviii. At the same time they are distinguished from the other four prophetic writings although they reveal some development. 42 See the essay by Johannes Taschner und Heiko Wenzel in this volume. 43 Cf. “books like prophetic books do not simply mirror the external world but participate in its construction” (Edgar W. Conrad, Reading the Latter Prophets. Toward a New Canonical Criticism [JSOTSup 376; London: T&T Clark, 2003], 5). These constructions may entail “whatever the real world was at the time these books were composed” (ibid., 38) but also what

103

One or Twelve?

Comparing the MT tradition to the LXX tradition also supports the idea that the opening lines function on two levels.45 Despite their differences the traditions exhibit a significant overlap and limit the variety of options for ordering the books to minor variations.46 In particular, the differing sequence is accompanied by a difference in the opening line of Micah. The phrase ‫ ָה ֗י ָה ֲא ֶ ֣שׁר ְדַּבר־יְה ָ ֣וה׀ ֶאל־‬is usually rendered with the Greek phrase λόγος κυρίου ὃς ἐγενήθη πρὸς (Hos 1:1; Joel 1:1; Zeph 1:1). However, Micah 1:1 is different: ‫ְדַּבר־י ְה ָ ֣וה׀ ֲא ֶ ֣שׁר ָה ֗י ָה ֶאל־ִמיָכ֙ה ַה ֣מַּר ְשׁ ֔ ִתּי ִבּי ֵ ֥מי יוֹ ָ ֛תם ָא ָ ֥חז י ְִחזְִק ֖יּ ָה ַמְל ֵ ֣כי יְהוּ ָ ֑דה ֲא ֶשׁר־ָח ָ֥זה ַעל־שְׁמ֖רוֹן ִויֽרוּ ָשִָֽׁלם ׃‬ ֹ ֹ καὶ ἐγένετο λόγος κυρίου πρὸς Μιχαιαν τὸν τοῦ Μωρασθι ἐν ἡμέραις Ιωαθαμ καὶ Αχαζ καὶ Εζεκιου βασιλέων Ιουδα ὑπὲρ ὧν εἶδεν περὶ Σαμαρείας καὶ περὶ Ιερουσαλημ

The LXX tradition in Mic 1:1 (καὶ ἐγένετο λόγος κυρίου πρὸς) renders ‫ְדַבר־י ְה ָ ֛וה י ְ ִ֧הי‬ ‫ ֶאל־‬as it is frequently the case in Jeremiah or Ezekiel. The only other place where it opens a prophetic book is Jonah 1:1: ‫ַויֽ ְִה ֙י ְדַּבר־י ְה ֔וָה ֶאל־יוֹ ָ ֥נה ֶבן־ֲאִמ ַ֖תּי ֵלא ֽמ ֹר ׃‬ καὶ ἐγένετο λόγος κυρίου πρὸς Ιωναν τὸν τοῦ Αμαθι λέγων

the world should be; cf. the research on utopian aspects in the HB, e. g. Ehud Ben Zvi (ed.), Utopia and Dystopia in Prophetic Literature (PFES 92; Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2006). 44 E. g., Richard J. Coggins, “The Minor Prophets – One Book or Twelve,” in Crossing the Boundaries. Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D. Goulder (ed. Stanley E. Porter, Paul Joyce, and David E. Orton; BIS 8; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 62, or, Andrew E. Hill, Malachi. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 25D; New York: Doubleday, 1998), 364. 45 The differences “may relate to the theological concerns of the circles in which each version was transmitted” (Marvin A. Sweeney, “Sequence and Interpretation in the Book of the Twelve,” in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve [ed. James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney; SBLSymS 15; Atlanta: SBL, 2000], 64). They demonstrate that twelve writings together unfold a dynamic and create a textual web beyond their individual limits. This means that these traditions have conceived the writings as twelve writings and as a unique collection with an additional dynamic. At least, they worked with them accordingly. Jones’ comparison to canonical dynamics “from diversity and multiplicity to definiteness and uniformity” is quite apt (Barry A. Jones, “The Book of the Twelve as a Witness to Ancient Biblical Interpretation,” in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve [ed. James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney; SBLSymS 15; Atlanta: SBL, 2000], 69). 46 Cf. Heiko Wenzel, “Die unveränderte Abfolge Obadja-Jona im Zwölfprophetenbuch,” in Formen des Kanons. Studien zu Ausprägungen des biblischen Kanons von der Antike bis zum 19. Jahrhundert (ed. Thomas Hieke; SBS 228; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2013), 184–7.

104

Heiko Wenzel

This rendering results in an interesting similarity with regard to the opening lines of the first and the second set of three books in the LXX tradition with an identical line in Hos 1:1 and Zeph 1:1 framing these writings: Hos 1:1 λόγος κυρίου ὃς ἐγενήθη πρὸς Am 1:1 λόγοι Αμως οἳ ἐγένοντο Mic 1:1 καὶ ἐγένετο λόγος κυρίου πρὸς

(‫) ְדַּבר־י ְה ָ ֣וה׀ ֲא ֶ ֣שׁר ָה ֗י ָה ֶאל‬ (‫) ִדְּב ֵ ֣רי ָע֔מוֹס ֲא ֶשׁר‬ (‫) ְדַּבר־י ְה ָ ֣וה׀ ֲא ֶ ֣שׁר ָה ֗י ָה ֶאל‬

Joel 1:1 λόγος κυρίου ὃς ἐγενήθη πρὸς Obd 1 ὅρασις Αβδιου Jonah 1:1 καὶ ἐγένετο λόγος κυρίου πρὸς

(‫) ְדַּבר־י ְה ָ ֣וה׀ ֲא ֶ ֣שׁר ָה ֗י ָה ֶאל‬ (‫)ֲח֖זוֹן ִצ ַֽבְד ָ֑י ה‬ (‫)ַויֽ ְִה ֙י ְדַּבר־י ְה ֔וָה ֶאל‬

Nah 1:1 λῆμμα Νινευη βιβλίον ὁράσεως (‫)ַמ ָ֖שּׂא ִנ ֽינְ ֵ֑וה ֵ ֧סֶפר ֲח֛זוֹן‬ Hab 1:1 τὸ λῆμμα ὃ εἶδεν (‫)ַה ַמּ ָשּׂ֙א ֲא ֶ ֣שׁר ָח ֔זָה‬ (‫) ְדַּבר־י ְה ָ ֣וה׀ ֲא ֶ ֣שׁר ָה ֗י ָה ֶאל‬ Zeph 1:1 λόγος κυρίου ὃς ἐγενήθη πρὸς

Therefore, the LXX sequence does not simply place the writings with chronological references first. The opening lines also serve the Twelve on a structural level.47 There is thus a formal connection on the textual level and a connection on an extra-textual level, in this case on a chronological one. The opening lines “play a macro-structural role in the organization of the Book of the Twelve”48 and they “appear in a literarily constructed chronological order.”49 Both levels demarcate the following chapters as discrete literary units. At the same time these demarcations preclude a reading of these texts as independent literary units.50 Rather, they locate these literary units in a textual web (the Twelve or a growing collection that emerges into the Twelve), in an extra-textual web with its chronological references, and perhaps in an extra-textual web that tells a story of and is told by various prophets. Thus the opening lines support the argument for the writings as discrete literary units and, at the same time, they describe them as connected to other discrete literary units and thereby establish a different literary unit.51 Although I agree with Ben Zvi’s reservations concerning several aspects of Nogalski’s “Literary Precursors” and “Redactional Processes,” describing the Twelve as an anthology with no or very little effect on the reading of these discrete units in light of the book as a whole does not account sufficiently for Nogalski’s valid observations and noteworthy reflections. Aristotle’s “The whole is greater 47 The difference in sequence does not only correspond to the difference in opening lines. It is also true for one of the strongest catch phrases (Joel 4:16b and Amos 1:2b); cf. ibid., 195–9. 48 Ben Zvi in describing Nogalski’s view (Two Sides, 77). 49 Nogalski, “Intertextuality,” 119. 50 I suspect that the idea of “independent literary units” is somewhat related to the idea of prophets as independent personalities. Regardless, the literary evidence in the Hebrew Bible hardly supports the idea of independence. The discreteness or individuality of literary units comes along with their interdependence or connectedness. 51 Cf. Sweeney, “Sequence,” 55–6.

One or Twelve?

105

than the sum of its parts” applies to our question. The term “anthology” may simply suggest that there is a collection with some exemplary status for the prophetic phenomenon in the history of Israel and Judah. From what we can tell, the collection of texts in an anthology does not serve to create a new textual web in the same way that the opening lines in the Twelve do. The Twelve are something between an anthology and a unified book. Therefore, the questions of genre and appropriate terminology are certainly important. Conrad borrows the term “collage” from Terence Collins.52 Finding an answer is, however, perhaps not quite as important as it seems. The phrase “The Book of the Twelve” already holds two important aspects in tension: twelve discrete literary units come together and create a new literary unit. So I agree with Sweeney (to a great degree): The Book of the Twelve Prophets is a multifaceted literary composition that functions simultaneously in all Jewish and Christian versions of the Bible as a single prophetic book and as a collection of twelve individual prophetic books.53

The emergence of this new literary unit may build on literary connections (like opening lines, catchwords and / or motifs) and may strengthen or even create them at times. The decision regarding what comes first, i. e., these connections or the dynamic of an emerging new literary unit may be a difficult one in a given case, always keeping in mind that “Le phénomème intertextual ne crée pas automatiquement une unite rédactionelle.”54 It should, however, not prevent readers from recognizing the aforementioned tension between discrete literary units and the emergence of a new literary unit. It changes only the way how this tension is approached and described. This conclusion leads to another discussion, which is important and necessary. In the debate between Ben Zvi and Nogalski (and others), a tendency turns into an assumption: there are only two alternatives. Either the twelve prophetic books are discrete literary units, which came together in a collection later, or the 52 Edgar W. Conrad, “The End of Prophecy,” JSOT 73 (1997): 66; Terence Collins, The Mantle of Elijah: The Redaction Criticism of the Prophetical Books (BibSem 20; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 29. In light of this perspective several implications can be pondered, e. g., that the Twelve exhibit “a fundamental ‘theology of history’” and that the day of Yahweh “rhetoric and imagery provide a fundamental unifying theme” (Joseph A. Everson, “The Canonical Location of Habakkuk,” in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve [ed. Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart; BZAW 325; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003], 167; cf. James D. Nogalski, “The Day(s) of YHWH in the Book of the Twelve,” in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve [ed. Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart; BZAW 325; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003], 192–213). 53 Marvin A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets. Volume One (Berit Olam; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000), xv. 54 Innocent Himbaza, “Les themes théologiques de Malachie et le concept du livre des XII Prophetès,” in The Book of the Twelve – One Book or Many. Metz Conference Proceedings 5–7 November 2015 (ed. Elena di Pede and Donatella Scaiola; FAT II/91; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 96.

106

Heiko Wenzel

(growing) literary unit which is created or enforced by redactional devices becomes more relevant over times. If these alternatives are crucial to the debate, the focus is clearly on the emergence of this collection and its historical reconstruction, or, alternatively on the reconstruction of the intellectual discourse in Yehud. In that case, the research focuses primarily on the production of this literary unit and less on the intentio operis. Although approaching (some of) these questions with a focus on this process, i. e., on the dynamics of inheriting, reworking and / or combining texts in a redactional process, may lead to a strong emphasis on production, it also includes the dynamics of receiving texts.55 This observation challenges, or at least qualifies, an either-or solution: either an anthology or one book resulting from redactional processes; either the collection has no effect or only minor (and negligible) effects on the reception of the individual writings (discrete literary units) or the collection not only displays the (growing) awareness of something bigger than the discrete literary units, but it also effects its emergence and – thus as a logical consequence – its reception. In general, an either-or solution cannot account adequately for the various ways in and degrees to which the literary unit of the Twelve affects the interpretation of an individual writing. Rather, these must be discussed on an individual base as the variety is part of the particular dynamic which each book develops in conjunction its placement amongst the Twelve. Thus, I side with Ben Zvi to some degree. The opening lines emphasize the discreteness of the twelve writings. Therefore, the interpretative process starts with a given prophetic writing, keeps returning to it and culminates in it. The goal of the interpretative process is the reading of a prophetic writing in light of the dynamic within the Twelve, i. e., the process pursues the intentio operis along the lines of Umberto Eco’s ideas.56 Focusing on the Twelve is a separate and – in a sense – subsequent endeavour and may result from reading all twelve writings. It is tempting to reverse the trajectory and put the Twelve on the same level, i. e., focusing on it, because it is the final product of a process (canonical, at least in some fashion) that brings the twelve writings together and primarily describes the contribution of each writing to the Twelve as a whole. However, such a focus would require exactly what Ben Zvi finds lacking for the Twelve: an introduction that encompasses the entire corpus, some kind of literary thread running through it, and something that can be identified as proper conclusion. All of this is present 55 In a sense, therefore, Nogalski’s research cannot be reduced to the dynamics of producing texts because he seeks to trace the dynamics of both receiving and producing texts and the particular interplay of these dynamics. In another sense, by focusing on the redactors of the texts the research is almost exclusively concerned with identifying the ideas, motivation and goals of the redactors and thus tied to the production of texts. 56 Eco, Limits of Interpretation, 57; cf. Conrad, “Forming the Twelve,” 94–5; see also Christoph Dohmen, Exodus 1–18 (HTKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2015), 52–5.

One or Twelve?

107

in embryonic form but not to the degree that ascribes the Twelve a dominant role when reading the prophetic writings.

A Framework for Reading the Twelve “Reading a prophetic writing in the light of the dynamic within the Twelve” is something between Ben Zvi’s and Nogalski’s perspective or something completely different, depending on the question that is asked. It is not “a reading strategy … (that) deals with much later societies and theological discourses”57 because the opening lines are guidelines for reading the prophetic writings from their very beginning.58 These guidelines create and contribute to a textual web and an extra-textual web which are important for the process of interpretation, assuming the primary concern is interpreting, rather than making use of the text. It suggests that there is more to the interpretation of an individual writing than the writing itself. It also creates a framework for reading the Twelve. This framework emerges from a narrative perspective with regard to the opening lines and other narrative elements in the Twelve.59 I describe it as a progressing debate within the Twelve and of the Twelve with other texts in the HB,60 which entails a “concern for both openness and closure.”61 “A progressing debate” may focus on various

57 That is likely how Ben Zvi would describe it; cf. Ben Zvi, “Twelve Prophetic Books,” 130. 58 It can only be “a reading strategy from much later societies or discourses,” if the opening lines are from a much later time and entirely disconnected from or alien to the corpus of the prophetic writing. Whoever argues this already engages – in a significant sense – “in creating new texts” (Conrad, Reading the Latter Prophets, 25). Even if this were the case, the opening lines as a guideline for reading are still a historical perspective that must be and, in fact, is accounted for with my framework for reading the Twelve; cf. Christopher R. Seitz, “On Letting a Text ‘Act like a Man’. The Book of the Twelve: New Horizons for Canonical Reading, with Hermeneutical Reflections,” SBET 22 (2004): 161. See also Coggins’ reflections in “The Minor Prophets – One Book?”, 63. The evidence of the ancient world may even suggest that it is more likely that a connection to a prophet is to be expected early on; cf. Michael H. Floyd, “Introduction,” in The Book of the Twelve and the New Form Criticism (ed. Mark J. Boda, Michael H. Floyd, and Colin M. Toffelmire; ANEM 10; Atlanta: SBL, 2015), 8. 59 See the essay by Johannes Taschner and Heiko Wenzel in this volume. 60 Christophe L. Nihan’s description comes very close to mine: “La coherence des XII est plutôt celle d’un dialogue entre des écrits que préservent des perspectives distinctes, associées à des figures prophétiques distinctes” (“Remarques sur la question de l’‘unité’ des XII,” in The Book of the Twelve – One Book or Many. Metz Conference Proceedings 5–7 November 2015 (ed. Elena di Pede and Donatella Scaiola; FAT II/91; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 165. 61 Donald K. Berry, “Malachi’s Dual Design: The Close of the Canon and What Comes Afterward,” in Forming Prophetic Literature. Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts (ed. James D. Watts and Paul R. House; JSOTSup 235; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 301. Some individual writings may exhibit this dynamic already as – in a comparable way – Rolf Rendtorff argues for the theme “Day of YHWH” in Joel (“How to Read

108

Heiko Wenzel

themes62 from differing perspectives and relieves the individual writing from (necessarily) presenting original, unique or final words on a given topic. “The outcome is far from unified; on the contrary, in the Book of the Twelve we find a number of controversies, and even contradictions, that are characteristic of the Hebrew Bible in general.”63 Alter’s intriguing reflections on narrative and dialogue illustrate noteworthy dynamics.64 Even though the narrative elements in the Twelve are infrequent, given the framing function of the opening lines Alter’s description may also apply to the Minor Prophets: The biblical writers, in other words, are often less concerned with actions in themselves than with how individual character responds to actions or produces them; and direct speech is made the chief instrument for revealing the varied and at times nuanced relations of the personages to the actions in which they are implicated.65

This framework comments on and supplements other perspectives of the HB like the Book of Kings. Perhaps the focus is primarily on the Book of Kings in light of some unique connections, e. g., between Jonah 1:1 and 2 Kgs 14:25. The progressing debate also seeks to engage the reader. The narrative elements nurture the progression and raise interest in its development. In a sense, it is the breeding ground for drawing the reader into the progression. Noteworthy interrogative elements66 throughout the Twelve are like plants growing on this breeding ground; they blossom like impressive flowers when we take a look at their quantity and quality in the Twelve. Interrogative elements are more frequent in the Twelve than in the Major Prophets,67 and they are often found at noteworthy places of a prophetic writing of which the following are only some examples. The questions in Hos 6:4 and 11:8 draw particular attention to how God deals with the people in light of their (lack of) response. The prophetic writing closes with an invitation to ponder the significance of these things (Hos 14:10):68 Let him who is wise understand these things; let him who is prudent know them. Straight are the paths of the Lord, in them the just walk, but sinners stumble in them.

62 63 64 65 66 67 68

the Book of the Twelve as a Theological Unity,” in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve [ed. James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney; SBLSymS 15; Atlanta: SBL, 2000], 80). Cf. Rendtorff ’s comments on the positioning of Joel, Amos and Obadiah (ibid., 77) and his subsequent discussion (ibid., 78–85). Ibid., 86. Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 63–87. Ibid., 66. In the following interrogative elements are comprised of statements marked by interrogative particles or implicit questions like the end of Jonah (Jonah 4:10–11) where there is no interrogative particle. On average Ezekiel has approximately one such element in almost 23 verses. Isaiah’s average comes to more twelve verses, Jeremiah more than nine, and the Twelve less than eight verses. My teaching assistant David Born has been a great help in providing this data. Cf. Nogalski, “Joel as ‘Literay Anchor’,” 96.

One or Twelve?

109

This invitation weaves various threads of the writing together and comprises “a concluding challenge.”69 It may function as “a motto for the whole collection.”70 The question in Joel 1:2 emphasizes the uniqueness of the events that catch the reader’s attention from the very beginning. The questions in Joel 2:11 (“For great is the day of the Lord, and exceedingly terrible; who can bear it?”) and Joel 2:17 (“Why should they say among the peoples, ‘Where is their God?’”) build on this idea and engage the reader in reflection on the significance of the day of YHWH. Amos 5:18–20 challenges the people’s wrong expectations concerning the day of YHWH and takes up the debate on the day of YHWH. Amos 2:11 and 3:3–8 reflect on the role of the prophets in this regard. The series of questions in Amos 3:3–8 is interrupted by the important statement in Amos 3:7: Indeed, the Lord GOD does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants, the prophets.

The misguided sense of security is introduced in Obad 3 with a question and addressed in the rest of this prophetic writing. The Jonah narrative culminates in a debate between YHWH and Jonah in chapter four, which ends with verses that are usually taken as a question (Jonah 4:10–11). Micah 7:18 reflects on YHWH’s uniqueness and elaborates on the prophet’s name. When Nahum describes YHWH’s fulminant power and wrath, two questions draw attention to the implication for the readers. Nahum 3:19 closes with a question that focuses on Nineveh’s unrighteousness. All these examples illustrate the dynamic and weight of these interrogative elements for the respective paragraph, chapter and prophetic writing. Habakkuk and Zephaniah are peculiar when it comes to interrogative elements. Habakkuk 1–2 is dominated by them when the prophet engages YHWH in a debate. This debate comes to a halt with Habakkuk 3 without resolving the issue of deficient righteousness in Judah or in Babel. Regardless, YHWH’s judgment is unstoppable. In contrast to Habakkuk, there is no interrogative element in all of Zephaniah.71 In fact, Zephaniah is the only writing in which none is found. The debate continues with Haggai and the reference to the Persian king which highlights the change. After the marked absence of such elements in Zephaniah, they take a prominent place in the final three writings. Pierce has already noted

69 C.L. Seow, “Hosea 14:10 and the Foolish People Motif,” CBQ 44 (1982): 224. 70 Christopher R. Seitz, “What Lesson Will History Teach? The Book of the Twelve as History,” in “Behind” the Text. History and Biblical Interpretation (ed. Craig Bartholomew, C. Stephen Evans, Mary Healy, and Murray Rae; SHS 4; Carlisle: Paternoster; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 463. 71 A few translations render Zeph 2:15b as a question, e. g., “How has she become a waste, a lair for wild beasts?” (NAB). However, the focus is not on the reason (which is probably mentioned in Zeph. 2:15a) but the astonishing fact that she has become a waste.

110

Heiko Wenzel

their significance for what he calls the Haggai-Zechariah-Malachi corpus.72 The alternating sequence of prophetic writings in the MT with and without reference to a king also illustrates the framing feature of progression and of the enveloped dynamic of debate. These observations illustrates that the “dynamic within the Twelve” should be described as a “progressing debate”. Thus I suggest that interpreting the Twelve is most of all “reading a prophetic writing in the light of the progressing debate within the Twelve.” In a sense, it is a both-and solution; a pudding, so to speak, the proof of which is to be found in the eating.73 In several other senses, it is something different. With the phrase “reading a prophetic writing” I seek to describe the primary task of interpreting a given writing when approaching the Twelve. Thereby the discrete literary units receive their appropriate due.74 Some projects may trace the emerging text without accounting for similar processes in other writings. I consider these projects as necessary and noteworthy. In particular, such projects may be characterized by a detailed analysis of the text, a careful reading and reflection on literary, historical and / or theological dynamics. Thereby they keep scholarship alert when grand and overarching theories for several writings and / or topics are presented. In a sense, they serve as a constant reminder and call for the necessary rooting of these theories in the texts under discussion. However, reducing the interpretative process to their perspective means bypassing its literary and theological, and – at least in some cases – even its historical context.75 Reading a prophetic writing in light of the progressing debate within the Twelve clearly supports the interpretation of the twelve writings as discrete literary units76 as well as the necessity of evaluating and balancing the evidence for a textual web and extra-textual web (and its implications). The opening lines establish this necessity, and they render interpretations that bypass this necessity incomplete. In light of these opening lines the debate cannot and must not be limited it to the similarity in wording, theme or motifs. Or, to put it differently, the lack of similarity does not prove per se the lack of a debate. Reading a prophetic writing in light of the progressing debate within the Twelve accounts for “the dialogical orientation of the word”77 in general as well as for the interrogative elements, the framing function of the opening lines and the widely 72 Ronald W. Pierce, “Literary Connectors and a Haggai/Zechariah/Malachi Corpus,” JETS 27 (1984): 277–89; idem, “A Thematic Development of the Haggai/Zechariah/Malachi Corpus,” JETS 27 (1984): 401–11. 73 Cf. Floyd, “Introduction,” 2. 74 In suite of Robert Alter’s contention: “The Hebrew narrator does not openly meddle with the personages he presents” (Art of Biblical Narrative, 87). 75 Cf. Sweeney, Twelve Prophets. Vol. 1, xxvi; Seitz, “Lesson,” 458. 76 See Beck’s concern, “Anthologie,” 581. 77 See my reflections in Reading Zechariah with Zechariah 1:1–6 as the Introduction to the Entire Book (CBET 59; Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 5–43.

One or Twelve?

111

acknowledged cross-references within the Twelve. In a comparable way Katheryn Pfisterer Darr has noted for Isaiah, “sequential readers of Isaiah discover unfolding themes, motifs, etc., that are likely overlooked in the course of purely pericopal readings.”78 The Twelve are not simply a collection of writings that can be read as prophetic monologues. Rather, they are engaged from the very beginning of their existence in a debate with other writings. In that sense, none of the twelve writings claims to be the first or the last word.79 Reading a prophetic writing in light of the progressing debate within the Twelve also draws attention to the textual and extra-textual web that emerges from this debate without losing sight of the particularity of the individual writing. There is a kind of story told by the sequence of these twelve writings to which each one of writings contributes in its unique and significant way. A progressing dynamic – it always keeps moving forward80 – emerges which becomes a noteworthy part of the reading (and rereading) of individual writings and contribute to the “whole”:81 neither the individual writing nor the Twelve claim to present the final word on Yahweh, his people and the nations. Reading a prophetic writing in light of the progressing debate within the Twelve thus suggests an approach that finds its place between reading the twelve writings only as discrete literary units and reading them in a canonical context. It intentionally refrains from presenting a “grand theory” which seeks to explain many details. The particularity of the writings necessitates this reluctance. Rather, it seeks to trace the dynamic between the writings, both within the Twelve and other writings of the HB. In a sense, this approach limits itself to a collection which is part of the canon as a whole but works with a “canonical” logic82 and may draw some theological conclusions from this collection.83 More than anything else, the idea of a collection within a collection stresses the idea of incompleteness and openness when 78 Isaiah’s Vision and the Family of God (LCBI; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 11. 79 Cf. Mikhail M. Bakhtin’s noteworthy statement: “There is neither a first nor a last word and there are no limits to the dialogic context. . . . Nothing is absolutely dead: every meaning will have its homecoming festival” (“Toward a Methodology for the Human Sciences,” in Speech Genres and Other Late Essays [trans. Vern W. McGee; ed. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist; UTPSS 8; Austin: University of Texas Press, 1986], 170). 80 Seitz uses comparable language when describing the canonical process: the community “sees the original word pressing forward towards a horizon God alone means to illumine” (“On Letting a Text,” 168). See also Steck’s reflections on “Der prophetische Traditionsvorgang als Anregung” in Die Prophetenbücher und ihr theologisches Zeugnis, 183–6. 81 As such “progressing” captures this pressing-forward without (necessarily) entailing the idea of improvement or “progression”. 82 The relationship between these differing perspectives (reading the twelve writings as discrete literary, in light of the Twelve or in light of the canon of the HB / canonically) can be conceived as concentric circles. The main focus is on the prophetic writing and should receive center stage all throughout. 83 Cf. Seitz, “Lesson,” 464–5.

112

Heiko Wenzel

focusing on reading the twelve writings and the Twelve. So the notion of “debate” is not only about form; rather the form is (part of) the message.84 Therefore, reading a prophetic writing in light of the progressing debate within the Twelve illustrates that the particularity of a prophetic writing can largely be identified in light of its explicit or implicit debate with other writings. In other words, the particularity of a given writing necessitates debate with others. Such a reading accounts for shared phrases, motifs or perspectives and refrains as much as necessary from levelling the debate amongst them or by presenting the “unity” of the Twelve primarily as a matter of similarities.

Some Examples The following examples illustrate that reading a prophetic writing in light of the progressing debate within the Twelve is not a new idea. Rather, several scholars trace (part of) this dynamic and shed some light on noteworthy aspects. Jörg Jeremias has noted some interaction between Hosea and Amos concluding that neither one was to be read without the other: “They wanted to prevent their readers from isolating the message of one prophet.”85 Beate Ego illustrates how the sequence Jonah / Nahum affects the perspective on Nineveh.86 Gerlinde Baumann’s investigation concludes that the end of Micah and the beginning of Nahum present alternating perspectives on YHWH – a noteworthy chart illustrates the complementary dynamic of these perspectives and her discussion on the respective relations to Exod 34:6–7.87 Or, as Richard L. Schultz puts it: “a larger message is conveyed concerning the implications of God’s gracious character for the specific situation that each individual prophetic book 84 Therefore I consider Erhard S. Gerstenberger’s comments worth pondering: “the forms of discourse used in Mic 6–7 are plainly dialogical instead of revelatory, controversial and instructional instead of doctrinal, liturgical and ceremonial instead of literary”; “Twelve (and More) Anonyms,” in The Book of the Twelve and the New Form Criticism (ed. Mark J. Boda, Michael H. Floyd, and Colin M. Toffelmire; ANEM 10; Atlanta: SBL, 2015), 126. 85 “The Interrelationship between Amos and Hosea,” in Forming Prophetic Literature. Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts (ed. James D. Watts and Paul R. House; JSOTSup 235; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 186; cf. “Die Anfänge des Dodekapropheton: Hosea und Amos,” in Hosea und Amos (FAT 13; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 52–4. 86 Beate Ego, “The Repentance of Nineveh in the Story of Jonah and Nahum’s Prophecy of the City’s Destruction – A Coherent Reading of the Book of the Twelve as Reflected in the Aggada,” in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve (ed. Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart; BZAW 325; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 155–64. 87 Gottes Gewalt im Wandel. Traditionsgeschichtliche und intertextuelle Studien zu Nahum 1,2–8 (WMANT 108; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 2005), 95.

One or Twelve?

113

addresses.”88 Baumann’s intriguing essay on marriage metaphor and the evaluation of prophecy concludes with an emphasis on openness: “Die Unterschiedlichkeit der Ergebnisse bei den zwei Themen möchte ich als Aufforderung verstehen, sich bei der Untersuchung weiterer Themen für ganz andere Linien und Systematisierungen offen zu halten.”89 I do not mean to argue that these scholars would subscribe to my description of the interpretative process. Rather, these examples indicate the fruitfulness of my suggested framework for reading. It may also provide a framework for scholarly debate when interpreting the writings and individual passages thereof. Two examples may serve to illustrate that Ben Zvi’s focus on the individual book is wanting despite the importance of his emphasis. Nogalski’s reading of the end of Micah and the beginning of Nahum in light of the references to Exod 34:6–7 attests to YHWH’s compassion and inescapable judgment, to the accountability of Nineveh and to hope for Judah.90 In addition, Nogalski describes Mic 7:18–20 as “canon-conscious allusion” because of the framing reference to “days of old” (Mic 7:14, 20) as well as various allusions to the exodus and ancestral stories.91 In light of Judah’s sin and YHWH’s response, Micah 7:14–20 “presents itself as liturgical response from the prophet and the people, whose hope lies in YHWH’s character as a God of compassion and forgiveness.”92 If this were the end of the Minor Prophets, it would be on a very positive note. However, Nahum and Habakkuk deny or qualify this perspective.93 In contrast, Ben Zvi emphasizes the contribution of Mic 7:7–20 to the writing of Micah94 and the conclusion of Mic 7:18–20. As such it “set[s] the boundaries of the prophetic book.”95 It is surprising that he engages neither the relationship to Nahum nor to Exod 34:6–7 in his commentary. Despite the values of Ben Zvi’s reading it seems incomplete in this regard. 88 “The Ties that Bind: Intertextuality, the Identification of Verbal Parallels, and Reading Strategies in the Book of the Twelve,” in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve (ed. Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart; BZAW 325; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 40. Concerning the female personification Baumann makes a similar statement; “Die prophetische Ehemetaphorik und die Bewertung der Prophetie im Zwölfprophetenbuch,” in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve (ed. Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart; BZAW 325; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 223. This perspective certainly entails the danger of finding what one is looking for. Note Baumann’s phrasing (my emphasis): “Es ist spürbar, dass es bei der Endredaktion des XII auch darum gegangen ist, eine kohärente Geschichte JHWHs mit seinem Volk zu erzählen – zumindest kann das für die prophetische Ehemetaphorik gesagt werden” (ibid., 224). 89 Ibid., 231. 90 James D. Nogalski, The Book of the Twelve. Micah-Malachi (SHBC 18b; Macon: Smyth and Helwys, 2011), 606. 91 Ibid., 591. 92 Ibid., 593–4. 93 Cf. ibid., 594. 94 Ehud Ben Zvi, Micah (FOTL 21B; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 180. 95 Ibid., 183.

114

Heiko Wenzel

Another example is Hos 14:10. Nogalski notes its significance when describing it as a motto for Hosea and “an open-ended admonition to the reader”. It is tied to the wisdom tradition and demonstrates its distinctiveness when referring to YHWH in the third person in contrast to the verses before.96 Moreover, Van Leeuwen’s observations and conclusions must be pondered: “The redactor’s creation of Hos 14:10 is inexplicable apart from the use of Exodus 32–34 (especially 34:6–7) in Joel and Jonah. Nor can Hos 14:10 be understood apart from the doxology that concludes the first half of the Twelve (Mic 7:18–20), a text that again uses Exod 34:6.”97 Ben Zvi’s comments on Hosea 14 draw attention to many important aspects of the text. He emphasizes that Hos 14:2–9 (as well as 14:10) are “so strongly anchored in the language, images, and themes of the other readings in the book attempts to read these verses or a portion thereof as standing on its own and separate from the other readings in the book also run contrary to the way in which the book asks intended readers to approach it.”98 His conclusion that Hos 14:10 marks the end of the writing is surprising. Connections to the wisdom tradition and parallels to double conclusions in Isaiah, Joel and Malachi are mentioned. In light of his emphasis on the fact that “the highly literate in ancient Yehud would have not allowed the existence of multiple unconnected social groups developing their own separate ideological discourse,”99 it is striking that the impact of the former and the implications of the latter are not discussed.100 Again, there is much to be learnt from Ben Zvi, but the reading seems incomplete. Finally, some additional observations on the interrogative elements. Nogalski describes the function of Joel in the Twelve as two-fold: “to actualize Hosea’s message for a Judean context and to present a paradigm for the whole.”101 The first half of Joel has the prophet as speaker (Joel 1:2–2:17) which “can be read as a single speech.”102 These verses are marked by three important questions (Joel 1:2; 2:11, 17) while Joel 2:11 displays similarities to Mal 3:2.103

96 James D. Nogalski, The Book of the Twelve. Hosea-Jonah (SHBC 18a; Macon: Smyth and Helwys, 2011), 193. 97 Raymond C. Van Leeuwen, “Scribal Wisdom and Theodicy in the Book of the Twelve,” in In Search of Wisdom. Essays in Memory of John G. Gammie (ed. Leo G. Perdue, Bernard Brandon Scott, and William Johnston Wiseman; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993) 36. 98 Ehud Ben Zvi, Hosea (FOTL 21 A/1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 309. 99 Ibid., 316. 100 Ibid., 315–7. 101 Nogalski, Hosea-Jonah, 212. 102 Ibid., 215. 103 Cf. ibid., 230.

115

One or Twelve?

‫ ַויֽ ה ֗וָה נַָ֤תן קוֹל ֙וֹ ִלְפֵנ֣י ֵחי֔לוֹ ִ֣כּי ַ֤רב ְמא ֹ֙ד ַמֲח ֔נֵהוּ ִ֥כּי ָע֖צוּם ע ֹ ֣ ֵשׂה ְדָב֑רוֹ ִכּיֽ ־ָג֧דוֹל יוֹם־י ְה ָ ֛וה ְונוֹ ָ ֥רא ְמ ֖א ֹד וִּ֥מי י ְִכיֶל ֽנּוּ ׃‬Joel 2:11 NAB

The Lord raises his voice at the head of his army; For immense indeed is his camp, yes, mighty, and it does his bidding. For great is the day of the Lord, and exceedingly terrible; who can bear it? ‫ וִּ֤מי ְמַכְל ֵכּל֙ ֶאת־֣יוֹם בּוֹ֔אוֹ וִּ֥מי ָהע ֵֹ֖מד ְבֵּהָֽראוֹ֑תוֹ ִכּיֽ ־הוּ֙א ְכּ ֵ ֣אשׁ ְמָצ ֵ֔רף וְּכב ֹ ִ֖רית ְמַכ ְבִּֽסים ׃‬Mal 3:2

NAB

But who will endure the day of his coming? And who can stand when he appears? For he is like the refiner’s fire, or like the fuller’s lye. The combination of this verb and the noun ‫ יוֹם‬is unique to these verses. Both combine the motif of theophany and the day of YHWH.104 This makes for a good example of a progressing debate in the Twelve. The notable absence of interrogative elements in Zephaniah stands next to Habakkuk’s engaging debate with YHWH about the injustice in Judah as well as the unrighteousness of YHWH’s rod of wrath, the Chaldeans. With Habakkuk 3 the debate comes to an end – or dies without resolution – and it acknowledges that YHWH must make his work known “in the course of the years” (Hab 3:2). These writings, their sequence of debate and the absence of any debate shed noteworthy, illuminating and not simply accidental light on reading them as individual writings. The vehemence of the absence in Zephaniah can only be felt and understood in light of the various presences in the writings before and in light of the engaging debate in Habakkuk. Habakkuk’s prayer is the antipode of the debate in Habakkuk 1–2 and prepares the way for Zephaniah.105 In a sense, they illustrate Amos’ statement about YHWH’s preparatory function of the prophets (Amos 3:7). They also bring the progressing dynamic to a culmination that build up from Hosea through Joel, Amos and Micah: “Judah will be punished like Israel for its refusal to return to YHWH.”106

Some Implications The examples illustrate that the interpretations of individual passages are enriched and supplemented when read in light of the Twelve; perhaps, they are even changed or qualified. Sifting and weighing the evidence on a case-by-case basis 104 Cf. Rainer Kessler, Maleachi (HTKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2011), 234. 105 Ruth Scolarick comes to a comparable conclusion: “Die Zefanjaschrift nimmt sich in diesem Zusammenhang wie ein Schlußakkord” (Gottes Güte und Gottes Zorn. Die Gottesprädikationen in Exodus 34,6f und ihre intertextuellen Beziehungen zum Zwölfprophetenbuch [HBS 33; Freiburg: Herder, 2002], 198). 106 Nogalski, Hosea-Jonah, 42.

116

Heiko Wenzel

will determine how the dynamic is to be interpreted. The suggested framework for reading the Twelve requires this process and will certainly lead to different conclusions. There are different options for tracing the progressing debate. However, it is not an option to bypass this dynamic and read the twelve prophetic writings as independent literary units. The framework for reading the Twelve may also introduce another perspective for reflecting on these twelve writings not the least in light of the discussions about coherence and unity above. It may relieve readers of the task of defining important topics, aspects or motifs and invite them instead to describe different perspectives for or on them.107 The description does not look for one centre in order to circumscribe a circle with a given distance from the centre. A progressing allows for and even requires debate.108 Perhaps, it is better to compare it to an ellipse which needs two foci.109 Perhaps there are even more foci depending on the topic, aspect or motif (leading up to an ellipsoid or a sequence of them). The juxtaposition of Jonah and Nahum/Obadiah suggest that the relationship to the nations cannot be described with one perspective only. In a similar way, the divine love in Hosea and Malachi frames many aspects of divine wrath or judgment in the Twelve. So, perhaps, it is impossible to talk about one of these topics to the exclusion of the other. They always come together, circumscribing the ellipse of YHWH’s relationship to the people. The idea of a progressing debate also describes the dynamics of scholarly research on the Twelve, of which this collection of essays only offers a reflection of some aspects. Its variety and the privilege of interacting with colleagues make it worthwhile. It may also serve as a reminder that the value of a scholarly debate does not depend on peer agreement or approval. Rather, disagreement contributes significantly to the value of scholarly work.110 It often seems as if the greatest

107 Cf. Herbert C. Brichto’s comment on unity: “The unity of Scripture is not … a reflection of monotony of the desert. It is a unity that emerges somehow, dimly in some parts, brilliantly in others, out of the rhythms of birth and death, of the tension of pendulum swing, of the dynamics of conflict and reconciliation, of sinners groping for visions of salvation and the righteous falling into error” (Toward a Grammar of Biblical Poetics. Tales of the Prophets [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992], 61). 108 Cf. Thomas Krüger’s comments on the repetitions, variations and related dynamic in Proverbs 10 (“Komposition und Diskussion in Proverbia 10,” ZThK 92 [1995]: 417). 109 See also Thomas B. Dozeman who affirms that two interpretations often qualify and complement each other (“Inner-biblical Interpretation of Yahweh’s Gracious and Compassionate Character,” JBL 108 [1989]: 218). 110 I leave aside the “interesting” dynamic when disagreement becomes a (personal) habit or serves the promotion of one’s own work and perspective. This dynamic may emerge from time to time and may, in any case, accompany all valuable aspects of disagreement. Unfortunately, these kinds of disagreement do not primarily draw attention to the work under review, and they do not contribute to an appreciating and stimulating dialogue. Never-

One or Twelve?

117

value is adduced to scholars or to scholarly theses that convince others and meet little resistance or disagreement. In certain (scholarly) settings consensus is thought to be of great (or even greatest) importance. Whenever agreement emerges or people take our side, we have done “a good job.” And this is often true; at least sometimes, and, certainly, to some degree. However, reducing scholarly debates to such a perspective loses sight of the enormous potential of debate in general and disagreement during such a debate in particular. This is true for every aspect and every level of scholarly work. My research benefits from disagreement because it draws attention to the value and strength of my work as well as to its weaknesses, deficits and, perhaps most importantly, to possible misunderstanding(s). Assuming benevolent interaction with my work, readers (and hearers) usually receive my work in a way that significantly differs from my own reading and thinking. They offer an outsider perspective and make me aware of my blind spots. In a sense, I need this interaction for understanding myself. In addition, disagreements may help me to refine and strengthen my case.111 They also serve as a constant reminder that I will not have the final word on a given question. Disagreement may also stimulate and enrich my teaching. Students benefit from a classroom setting and an atmosphere that values disagreement. More cautious students are more easily drawn into the discussion and may enter the learning process faster. Perhaps this is the bottom line for all involved: disagreement opens, stimulates and strengthens the learning process. Sometimes I wonder whether learning processes can be successful without disagreement, debate and dissent. Disagreement forces me to take a second look, to weigh the evidence and the arguments while working hard at refining my argument and while seeking to understand and appreciate the argument of others. Disagreement contributes significantly to the value of scholarly work. It can be considered an acid test for scholarly work in general. Thus, controversial and stimulating disagreement or challenging questions and statements are not only good for scholarly debate but are also a most important aspect of research and of all the accompanying benefits of scholarly research. So, eventually, which is it: one or twelve? It is probably not an either-or.112 It is important to have both perspectives and the value of each rests to a significant degree on the existence of the other. As a reader it is a privilege to look at both sides of the coin and learn from them.

theless, even in cases when such a dynamic influences or even dominates a debate, a scholar’s work usually benefits from the substance of the disagreement. 111 Cf. Ben Zvi, Two Sides, 46, n. 1. 112 Cf. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets. Volume One, xv.

Hendrik J. Koorevaar

The Twelve and the Fifteen: About the Size, Order, and Relationship inside the Writing Prophets

1.

Introduction

This volume is about ‘The Book of the Twelve’. On the one hand, it is about the twelve books of the ‘Minor’ Prophets; or alternatively it is about how these twelve books also seem to make up one larger book. This article has two goals. The first is to research the foundation of the existence of the Twelve as one book. In 180 B.C. Ben Sirach mentions ‘the Twelve Prophets’ (49:10). Wenzel talks about “the factual compilation of the books in the Twelve Prophets Book.”1 There are various indications that those who finalized the canon also saw it as their duty to make a definite order for the books of the OT inside the main blocks. To achieve that goal, they made some additions to existing books with macrostructural intentions. In addition to that, they themselves also wrote a book that summarized and sealed the OT.2 That is why the main question is: Were the Twelve one book during the completion and closure of the OTand especial during the completion and closure of the prophets and OT? Or, are the Twelve a later demarcation within a bigger body, established later for whatever reason? In that case, both alternatives ‘Anthology’ and ‘Result of Complex Redactional Processes’ are not really adequate, because both are focused on a body that does not seem to be original, namely, the Twelve.

1 See Heiko Wenzel, “Die unveränderte Abfolge Obadja – Jona im Zwölfprophetenbuch.” In Formen des Kanons. Studien zu Ausprägungen des biblischen Kanons von der Antike bis zum 19. Jahrhundert (ed. Thomas Hiecke; SBS 228; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2013), 200. 2 For the discussion see Hendrik J. Koorevaar, “The Torah Model as the Original Macrostructure of the Hebrew Canon: a Critical Evaluation,” ZAW 122 (2010): 64–80; idem, “The Exile and Return Model: Proposal for the Original Macrostructure of the Hebrew Canon,” JETS 57 (2014): 501–12; idem, “Chronicles as the Intended Conclusion of the Old Testament Canon,” In The Shape of the Writings (ed. Julius Steinberg and Timothy J. Stone with the assistance of Rachel Marie Stone; Siphrut 16; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 207–35 (The Dating of Chronicles, pp. 215–8).

120

Hendrik J. Koorevaar

The second goal of this article is to compare the twelve Minor Prophets with the three Major Prophets on equal level with each other within the larger body of the fifteen Writing Prophets. Both methods, ‘Anthology’ and ‘Result of Complex Redactional Processes,’ will have to be upgraded to the level of this larger body of literature. Moreover, there is also an alternative to these methods: ‘a well reflected redactional design’. If this design was originally set up for the larger body of scripture, that is the Fifteen, then limiting research to the Twelve is risky. This inevitably will lead to partially distorted conclusions.

2.

The Size of the Prophet Canon

There are various issues regarding the boundaries and the size of the Prophet Canon. 1. In the Hebrew canon, the Prophets consist of the Former Prophets as well as the Latter Prophets. The Latter Prophets are sometimes called the Writing Prophets. For several reasons this Jewish tradition is not very likely to be original: a. The books Joshua to Kings continue the historical narrative established in Genesis to Deuteronomy. They are a continuation of the books of the Torah. Together they are often called Hennateuch (nine part division) in OT scholarship. b. The literary genre of the books Joshua to Kings is totally different from the books Isaiah3 to Malachi. The first group is historical and the second is prophetic. c. The books Joshua to Kings are all anonymous. The books Isaiah to Malachi all contain the name of the prophet or start with that prophet (Jonah). According to Steinberg, the difference in the demarcation between the first two parts of the Hebrew canon is caused by a literary canon structure and a canon structure based on descending value.4 The Torah has the first rank. The Nevi’im and the Ketuvim have together the second rank. He displays that graphically as follows:

3 For a discussion on whether Isaiah or Jeremiah should be the first prophet in the Writing Prophets, see ‘3.2. The Order of the Major Prophets’. 4 Julius Steinberg, Die Ketuvim – Ihr Aufbau und ihre Botschaft (BBB 152; Hamburg: Philo, 2006), 116–7, ‘abstufende Wertschätzung’ … ‘kanonische Abstufung’.

121

The Twelve and the Fifteen secondary literary demarcation

Genesis - Deuteronomy

main literary demarcation

Joshua - Kings

main canonical / liturgical demarcation

main literary demarcation

Writing Prophets

Ketuvim

secondary canonical / liturgical demarcation

Various attempts to defend the division of the canon in the three parts Torah, Nevi’im and Ketuvim with literary arguments could not convince him. From a literary point of view, the Writing Prophets had to have originally been an independent unit. 2. In LXX, Vulgate and in the protestant bible translations both Lamentations and Daniel are reckoned to the Prophets. However, in the Hebrew canon Lamentations and Daniel belong to the Writings. Lamentations lacks the character of a prophetic book, and Daniel is a wisdom book. Green distinguishes a donum propheticum (prophetic gift) and a munus propheticum (prophetic office).5 The (writing) prophets had both the gift and office of a prophet of YHWH for the benefit of the people of Israel. Daniel had a prophetic gift but did not hold the prophetic office. He was a wise man serving in both the Babylonian and Persian empire. The book of Daniel does not contain a narrative where he meets the people of Israel and ministers among them. Jesus calls Daniel a prophet (Matt 24:15). He is the wise man with a prophetic gift. 3. The Apocrypha. The extent of the Prophet Canon is bigger. The books Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah are included in the book of Jeremiah. The book of Daniel has some additions. The Hebrew canon does not contain Baruch, Jeremiah’s Epistle and the additions to the book of Daniel. 4. The Writing Prophets as one body. The canon of the Writing Prophets originally consisted of fifteen books in total.6 Conclusion: Christian tradition did correctly discern the Writing Prophets as a separate block. The Jewish tradition preserved the correct body of literature concerning the Writing Prophets.

5 William H. Green, General Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1898; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980), 85. 6 Hendrik J. Koorevaar, “3. Ein strukturell-kanonischer Ansatz für eine Theologie des Alten Testaments als Ganzes,” in Theologie des Alten Testaments: Die bleibende Botschaft der hebräischen Bibel (ed. Hendrik J. Koorevaar and Mart-Jan Paul; Gießen: Brunnen, 2016), 74–82; idem, “Exile and Return Model,” 501–12.

122

3.

Hendrik J. Koorevaar

The Structure of the Prophet Canon in Research

Concerning the structure of the Prophet Canon, various questions can be raised. I want to make a point about how two of the questions relate to each other. We have to make a distinction between the question about the Minor Prophets and about the phenomenon of the Book of the Twelve. The first, the Minor Prophets is a question having to do with quantity. This question is not necessarily the same as the one about the Book of the Twelve; because, if so, the phenomenon of the Twelve would have to do with quantity, but this is not necessary the case.

3.1

Distinction between Major Prophets and Minor Prophets

In practice, we always make a distinction between Minor Prophets and Major Prophets.7 This has nothing to do with quality, but simply with quantity and size. This is a mechanical factor. If we apply this to the Hebrew canon then there are three Major and twelve Minor Prophets. In OT research, scholars regularly look to the mechanical factor for how to classify the prophets.8 This factor should not only concern the distinction between Major and Minor Prophets but also the order inside both. The usual MT sequence of the three Major Prophets is Isaiah – Jeremiah – Ezekiel. If we fix an order with the number of verses from high to low, then the result is: Jeremiah 1364, Isaiah 1291, Ezekiel 1273 verses. The Twelve contain 1050 verses. The mechanical factor does not work here. Jeremiah is the largest prophet. The Talmud (B. Bat. 14b–15a) has a different order: Jeremiah – Ezekiel – Isaiah. The mechanical factor does not work here either, if we just look at the number of verses. If we look at the number of words instead of verses, then the result is a little different: Jeremiah has 33002, Ezekiel 29918, Isaiah 25608 words.9 Should the mechanical factor have played a role in the construction of the sequence, it points to the priority of the Talmud. As the LXX has the same order of the Major Prophets as MT (Jeremiah gets even bigger with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle of Jeremiah added) the mechanical sequence does not work there either.10 7 The term ‘Minor Prophets’ was first used by Augustine in De civitate dei 18,29. We should not assume that this term was never employed before. Augustine might have taken up an older tradition that employed the term. 8 Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 309. 9 Jeffrey Kranz, “Word Counts for Every Book of the Bible;” http://overviewbible.com/wordcounts-books-of-bible/. 10 Daniel has 357 verses in MT. If we add to that the number of verses of the song of the young men in LXX Dan 3:24–90 (67) and Susanna in LXX Dan 13:1–64 (64), and Bel of Babylon in

The Twelve and the Fifteen

123

In MT order, Hosea has 197, Joel 73, Amos 146, Obadiah 21, Jonah 48, Micah 105, Nahum 47, Habakkuk 56, Zephaniah 53, Haggai 38, Zechariah 211, and Malachi 55 verses. 1050 verses in total. The mechanical factor does not play a role in the order of the Twelve. Less or more verses alternate in the sequence. Conclusion: The mechanical factor from large to small is not a deciding factor in the order of the Writing Prophets if we look at the number of verses. We should question if those who closed the canon ever even distinguished between Minor and Major Prophets when they decided on the order of the Prophet Canon.

3.2

The Order of the Major Prophets

The order of the prophets in the MT manuscripts is Isaiah – Jeremiah – Ezekiel – the Twelve. This tradition has to be very old. It was probably already in use at the time of Joshua ben Sirach, at the beginning of the third century B.C. According to the B. Bat. 14b,11 the Rabbanan (early authoritative teachers) taught that the order was, instead, Jeremiah – Ezekiel – Isaiah – the Twelve. A discussion about this order follows: Isaiah was prior to Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Then why should not Isaiah be placed first?12 – Because the Book of Kings ends with a record of destruction and Jeremiah speaks throughout of destruction and Ezekiel commences with destruction and ends with consolation and Isaiah is full of consolation; therefore, we put destruction next to destruction and consolation next to consolation.

What does ‘we put’ mean? Does this point to a conscious (later) interference in the order of the books of the prophets? Or are the Talmud-Rabbis saying that they completely agree with the order of the former Rabbanan? It seems that the rabbis are trying to understand the order, so try to give an explanation, and with that explanation they try to identify themselves with the generation of Rabbanan that came before them. This supposed act of arranging the books is thus correct. Their thinking was: The act of the ancients is our act because we are standing in their line and so we did it.13 Dan 14:1–42 (42), we arrive at a total of 357 + 172 = 529 verses in LXX Daniel. The smallest of the Major Prophets in LXX is located at the end. 11 http://halakhah.com/rst/nezikin/33a%20-%20Baba%20Basra%20-%202a-35b.pdf. 12 From the German “Merke, Jesaja war ja früher als Jermeja und Jehezkel, so sollte er (= R. Johanan) doch Jesaja an die Spitze setzen!?”; Lazarus Goldschmidt, Der Babylonische Talmud. Achter Band: Baba Bathra / Synhedrin (1. Hälfte) (4th ed.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1996), 55. 13 There is also discussion about the origin of the order of the Writings, namely Ruth – Psalms – Job.

124

Hendrik J. Koorevaar

Which order is original: that of the MT and of Ben Sirach from the second century before Chr., or is it the one presented in the B. Bat. 14b–15a (450 A.D.)? If we keep to the principle that the oldest testimony is closest to the origin, and therefore has the original sequence, the choice is not hard. The MT has to have the right order. The real question is if this principle14 always has this weight and is correct in this case. If we look at the testimony about the sequence in the Talmud and try to understand it, other principles arise. These might just be more important. 1. It is the authoritative testimony about the sequence of the books of the OT in Judaism. There is no other sequence in old Judaism that has this official status. 2. The sequence in the Talmud is based on a literary argument (with theological characteristics). According to Beckwith three factors played a role in discerning the sequence of the OT, historically in that order: a. Literary, b. Historical, and c. Liturgical.15 That is why the Talmud order is of vital importance. The research of Steinberg also supports this position. According to Steinberg, it is possible to discern a certain evolution in the development in the order of the OT Canon that points to a single origin.16 On the other hand, even rabbi’s in the Talmud were surprised that the early Rabbanan (rabbi Johanan in particular) did not put Isaiah first, but Jeremiah. But why were they surprised? Isaiah was older after all. We have to make a clear distinction between the information (tradition) about the sequence and the later discussion in Judaism to try to understand that sequence. The information is clear: Jeremiah first, after Kings. But we can have doubts about the rabbi’s reasons how to judge that information. The suggestion that destruction is the element that binds the books together is not really convincing. This does not mean that there was not a real reason for this sequence in the past. Also other questions arise: 1. Why are the three Major Prophets placed at the beginning of the Writing Prophets? The first two, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, are connected with the Babylonian exile (586 B.C.), while Isaiah, together with the first nine Minor Prophets that follow, stem from a time before exile. 2. Why is Jeremiah placed at the beginning, while he is not the oldest of the three?

14 Within OT text criticism the principle of ‘the oldest is original’ does not work. The oldest text could be the original text but it is not necessarily so. A younger manuscript could be more precise if it came to us through a very reliable historical tradition. An older text could turn out to be from an unreliable tradition. 15 Roger T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 198–211 (209). 16 Steinberg, Ketuvim, 107–195.

The Twelve and the Fifteen

125

3. Are there indications in the OT itself that the “canon-closers” really considered Jeremiah as the beginning of the prophets? The answer to the last question might be the key to answering the first two. The book of Kings as well as the book of Jeremiah end with the destruction of Jerusalem. The end of the book of Kings (2 Kgs 25:27–30) is exactly the same as the end of the book of Jeremiah (Jer 52:31–34). The Judean king Jehoiachin is released from captivity in Babel. This establishes a concrete bridge, a literary identity bridge between the book of Kings and the book of Jeremiah. There is, however, a striking difference between their last verses. (2 Kgs 25:30; Jer 52:34). In Jeremiah is added: ‘Until the day of his death’. The book of Kings lacks this passage. Jehoiachin must have been alive when the redaction of the book of Kings took place, but when the redaction of Jeremiah took place, he must have already died. With this addition, Jeremiah continues the story of Kings in a literary and historical way. The question is: Did this identical ending come about by chance, or was it created intentionally? Now, the whole last chapter of Jeremiah that ends with the amnesty of Jehoiachin, was not written by Jeremiah. We can derive that from Jer 51:64b: ‘Thus far are the words of Jeremiah’. It is a final editorial addition. Why was chapter 52 added? A common answer is that the editors wanted to show that the prophecies of Jeremiah came to pass, proving that he was a real prophet of YHWH. This answer could be correct, but it creates a new problem: Why was there something added to Jeremiah but not to other prophets? Many later prophecies by different prophets came true at the time the canon was still being written. And yet, those books did not get editorial affirmation. Therefore, the addition to Jeremiah must have served a different purpose. The editorial addition is a unique phenomenon within the books of the prophets. In no other prophetic book can we detect an addition that is so consciously marked as such.17 The function of that addition transcends the book of Jeremiah and is used to establish a bridge between not only the book of Jeremiah and Kings but also between two major canonical blocks. The final editorial addition in Jeremiah 52 is compatible with the Talmud’s testimony that the Writing Prophets should start with Jeremiah. This is a clearly given, but with that we have still no answer why the canonical editors wanted to 17 Because of this the widely accepted idea of a Continuous Writing (Weiterschreibung) should be called into question. With Jer 51:64b it becomes clear that Jeremiah 52 has to be interpreted by the reader as an addition. With that same intervention, the editor makes clear that the whole preceding book Jeremiah 1–51 did indeed stem from Jeremiah the prophet himself. For further criticism on Continuous Writing see Manfred Dreytza, “Prophetische Prophetenauslegung?” in Christus – die Quelle unserer Erkenntnis: Festschrift zum 25jährigen Jubiläum der Studienarbeit Krelingen (ed. Manfred Dreytza; Walsrode: Geistliches Rüstzentrum Krelingen, 1998), 51–64.

126

Hendrik J. Koorevaar

start the Writing Prophets with the book of Jeremiah. Why did they consider Jeremiah to be so important? There are indications in the OT for the extraordinary value of Jeremiah. 1. In Dan 9:2 Daniel tries to gain insight ‫ ַבּ ְסָּפִרים‬in the books, namely the book of Jeremiah. He reads about the ruin of Jerusalem, that 70 years will pass (Jer 25:11–12; 29:10). With this insight in Jeremiah, Daniel starts praying to YHWH to seek mercy for Israel, which means: Forgiveness and restoration (Dan 9:3– 20). The book of Jeremiah must have been authoritative already then, for his prophecies proved to be true. Jerusalem is destroyed and Judah went into exile. This was a good reason to also take his prophecy about restoration seriously. Daniel now had possession of the books and the book of Jeremiah is mentioned specifically. Daniel possibly regarded Jeremiah a key prophet himself and might have put him at the beginning of his collection of (prophetic) books. 2. Ezra starts with the edict of Persian king Cyrus and the book of Chronicles ends with it (Ezra 1:1–4; 2 Chr 36:22–23). In it, he commands the Judean exiles to return to Jerusalem and restore the temple. According to Ezra 1:1–4, this is the fulfilment of Jeremiah’s prophecy (Jer 25:11–12; 29:10). The author of Chronicles has repeated this fact and points thereby to Jeremiah at the end of his book. That makes Jeremiah the last prophet that is mentioned in the OT. He is the deciding prophet concerning the return. Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles all assert that Jeremiah is the key prophet of both exile and return; which is reason enough for the canonical editors to put Jeremiah first in the Prophet Canon, for he had already functioned as a key prophet in the past. Why were also the two other Major Prophets put at the beginning of the Writing Prophets, after Jeremiah? The preceding book of Kings ends with the exile into Babylon. With the canonical bridge in Jeremiah 52, this subject is continued. All three Major Prophets have this theme. At the start, the whole message of the Writing Prophets has to be understood in light of this subject of exile. The book of Ezekiel is next in sequence to Jeremiah. What would be the reason for that? We can determine various connecting elements between Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The calling of Jeremiah is historically followed by that of Ezekiel (Jer 1:2; Ezek 1:2). Jeremiah and Ezekiel both personally experienced exile. King Jehoiachin is important also. Ezekiel was called in the fifth year of the exile of king Jehoiachin (Ezek 1:2). He was released in the thirty-seventh year of his imprisonment (Jer 52:31). The first chapter of Ezekiel is connected to the last chapter of Jeremiah. In this way, a connection exists from the end of the book of Kings (2 Kgs 25:27–30) through the end of Jeremiah (Jer 52:31–34) to the start of the book of Ezekiel (Ezek 1:2). They are connected to each other by Jehoiachin’s name.

The Twelve and the Fifteen

127

The Major Prophets end with Isaiah. With it, history is bent and we are set back in time for more than a century. Why is that? The following reasons could have played a part: The theme of exile is the most important motif in both Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and it is also fairly important in Isaiah. Jeremiah and Ezekiel write about the exile of Judah and Jerusalem to Babylon, and both prophets personally experienced this exile. The exile described in Isaiah is a bit different: 1. The exile in Isaiah concerns the northern state of Israel (7:8b; 36:19b) and the conquest of Judah by Assyria (36:1), without Jerusalem (1:8; 37:32–38); 2. Isaiah personally did not go into exile, because Jerusalem held firm; and 3. He did foresee the exile of Jerusalem’s nobles, but it did not occur during his lifetime (39:5–7). All three Major Prophets experienced something involving their mouth when they were called. God touched Jeremiah’s mouth (1:9), Ezekiel had to eat a scroll (3:1–3) and Isaiah’s mouth was touched with a glowing coal from the altar (6:5–6). It remains rather peculiar that Isaiah is put at the end of the three, while he should be in front from a historical perspective. Furthermore, all theological reasons (regarding the exile) for putting Jeremiah in front apply to Isaiah as well. The fact remains, however, that the reasons for putting Jeremiah in front remain decisive. The closing with Isaiah, with a reversal of the chronological timeline, is rather abrupt and is hard to understand at first glance. That is why we should ask ourselves if the concept of Major Prophets even plays a role in the sequence. If we look ahead, to the first of the Minor Prophets, Hosea, it seems that the story of Isaiah is continued or complemented by Hosea.

3.3

The Order of the Minor Prophets

When we look to the prophets, we see that the Septuagint diverges from the Hebrew canon in multiple ways. 1. The Major Prophets are put after the Minor Prophets. 2. The Minor Prophets are together but they do not form a distinct block. From a numerical point of view, they are on the same level as the Major Prophets. 3. The order of the last six Minor prophets is the same, but after the first prophet Hosea, the order differs: Amos, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah. Some scholars argue that the LXX’s order is original.18 Others argue the exact opposite. 4. The number of ‘Major’ Prophets is bigger. a. The apocryphal book of Baruch, the canonical book of Lamentations and the apocryphal Epistle of Jeremiah are placed next to Jeremiah. 18 For example, Marvin A. Sweeney, “The Place and Function of Joel in the Book of the Twelve,” in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve (ed. Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart; BZAW 325; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 133–54.

128

Hendrik J. Koorevaar

b. The book of Daniel. Within Daniel, there are an extra 67 verses inserted between 3:23 and 3:24, ‘The Song of Azariah’. In addition, the book of Daniel is connected to two other books: Susanna and ‘Bel and the Dragon’. Those extra books do not belong to the genre of Writing Prophets. We can hardly call them Major Prophets unless we would regard Baruch, Lamentations and The Epistle of Jeremiah as a part of Jeremiah, and ‘The Song of Azariah’, Susanna and ‘Bel and the Dragon’ as a part of Daniel. The additions of Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle of Jeremiah to the book of Jeremiah must have had historical motives because they are connected with the time of the prophet and with the prophet himself. This means that the historical factor is strengthened in this order. That makes the historical order of the Septuagint secondary.19 An important question is this. To what extent did the divergent placement of that larger block of Major Prophets influence the order of the preceding Twelve in the LXX? The order Isaiah – Jeremiah (+++) – Ezekiel – Daniel (+++) is chronological. Although this holds also true for the three Major Prophets in MT manuscripts, it does not for the (authorised) order in the Talmud: Jeremiah – Ezekiel – Isaiah. Daniel at the end of the Major Prophets in the LXX could shed some light as to why they are placed after the Minor Prophets, after Malachi. Daniel’s visions establish a connection to God’s coming kingdom in the end times. Daniel might have lived before Malachi, but his prophecies looked forward to a later time than Malachi’s announcement of the coming of Elijah. With that chronological order within the Major Prophets in LXX, we can look to the order of the Twelve in LXX and compare it to the order of the Twelve in MT. Are the Twelve put in chronological order in LXX but not in MT? It is not that simple, like Wenzel shows in this scheme of the first nine of the Twelve.20 MT: Hosea LXX: Hosea

Joel

Amos Amos

Obad Jonah

Micah Micah

Nah Hab

Zephaniah

Zephaniah Joel Obad Jonah Nah Hab

The four books in the first line contain chronological information about the time of the prophet in question, but this information is lacking in the italicized second line. (Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah together are sometimes called ‘the Book of the Four’.) The first four books, with the chronological information, establish the framework for the first nine books, according to Wenzel. In MT tradition, there is a mixture of chronological and thematic ordering principles. In LXX these are present 19 Beckwith, Old Testament Canon, 198–211 (209). 20 Wenzel, “Abfolge,” 201–5.

129

The Twelve and the Fifteen

also, even if that mixture is different. Therefore, according to Wenzel, one could not ascertain that LXX would contain a stronger chronological factor. A remarkable block formation did take place, however. The books that contain a chronological marker envelope the books that are ordered thematically. Within the headings of the first three, the following kings are listed: Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah + Jeroboam (in Hosea); Uzziah + Jeroboam (in Amos); Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah (in Micha). Wenzel writes: “In the Masoretic tradition, this temporal framework is now opened by inserts, which clearly orient themselves towards the content of the respective books.”21 But does not this idea presuppose that the chronological order is indeed older? And that the MT later changed the order for thematic reasons? One could, however, argue the exact opposite. The order in MT was changed chronologically in LXX, by putting together the books Hosea, Amos and Micah, who, according to the headings, were written during the reign of the same kings, but were not put together in MT. This is a chronological reinforcement. This caused the LXX to put the intermediate books Joel, Obadiah and Jonah after Micah, but before Nahum and Habakkuk. A group of books arose, without chronological information in the headings, between Micah and Zephaniah. According to Wenzel these books have as subject the eschatological judgement of the nations (Völkergericht). The announcement of it in Joel 4:12 and Zeph 3:8 forms a frame for the four books of Obadiah – Jonah – Nahum – Habakkuk.22 How strong is this idea of a chronological enfoldment of this undated group of books? Wenzel only talks about the first nine of the Twelve. Is this sufficient? Should not we look to the Twelve as a whole? That would look like this: MT: Hos LXX: Hos

Joel

Am Am

Obd Jonah

Mi Mi

Nah Hab Joel Obd Jonah Nah Hab

Zeph Hag Zach Zeph Hag Zach

Mal Mal

There are six dated and six undated prophets within the Twelve. Those undated prophets are ‘scattered’ between the dated ones, four times in MTand two times in LXX. Presented in a numerical way it would look like this: MT: 1–1 – 1–2 – 1–2 – 3–1 and in LXX: 3–5 – 3–1. Malachi does not have a heading with a date in MT, the same holds true for the extended version of the LXX. There is no eschatological judgment of the nations present in the book of Malachi, and it does not find itself in the 21 Ibid., 202. 22 Ibid., 204. Is this presentation not somewhat contradictory? First, it is about the five intermediate books Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum and Habakkuk between the enfolding books Amos and Zephaniah. But suddenly a passage from Joel (which belongs to the intermediate books) and one from Zephaniah (which belongs to the enfolding books) are joined together to form a theological enfoldment, with the consequence that (only) four books lie in between.

130

Hendrik J. Koorevaar

group of five. This could be interpreted as support for the idea that the five were put together on the basis of thematic criterion. Still, the total body of the Twelve calls the envelope idea into question. The envelope idea of the five by Micah and Zephaniah is right in itself. It is far more consistent though – if we accept the criterion of headings with dates – that Micah does not stand alone on the one side but that the three Hosea – Amos – Micah are together, and that Zephaniah does not stand alone on the other side but that the three Zephaniah – Haggai – Zechariah are together. Does the idea of the judgment of the nations, a special message within the five, still function as a demarcation criterion in respect to the six surrounding prophets if that is the case? Furthermore, having Malachi at the end of the Twelve is troublesome for the idea of enfoldment for prophets with headings that are undated. The idea of chronological enfoldment for the thematic group of five functions rather well within the group of the first nine books, but not for the Twelve as a whole. Did not those who determined the final order in the LXX have the whole of the Twelve in mind? Unless we assume that the first nine prophets from the time before the exile got their final LXX form within the time before or in the exile, and that the three prophets after the exile got added later to the already finished nine, then we have to accept that all of the five undated prophets stem from the time before the exile or at least that the editors of LXX thought so. Suppose that the LXX editors wanted to put together the group of five for thematic, eschatological reasons. The last prophetic book in LXX is the book of Daniel. The judgment of the nations in the end times plays a large role in Daniel’s visions. Daniel (and its additions) at the end of the prophets, with its theological content, could thus have been a stimulant to put those five prophets, without chronological information in the headings, together. In this way, a chronological goal was achieved (Hosea, Amos and Micah together) on the ground of the preference for a chronological approach, as well as an eschatological theological goal (Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, and Habakkuk together), on the grounds of the last and closing (prophetic) book of Daniel. In that case it should be said, that Daniel as a prophetic book in the prophets, and not as a book of wisdom, is a late phenomenon and not compatible with the phenomenon of the Writing Prophets. It could be the case that LXX only wanted to do a chronological intervention, making it unavoidable by putting the five books lacking chronological headings together. It is possible that extra theological motivation did not play a role. It would be very coincidental, that an order that was achieved by a chronological view would correspond with an order that is characterised by a theological phenomenon, or vice versa. It would be just as unlikely that the order of the books, put together because of a theological purpose, would correspond exactly with an order aimed to achieve a chronological goal. Because this coincidence is so unlikely, the question remains: Which of the two was the real and primary purpose of LXX? I think it is a chronological purpose.

The Twelve and the Fifteen

131

Just as in text criticism, we have to ask the question which original order can best explain all the others. Suppose that MT has the original order. If so, the later origin of the LXX order can be explained because of the (later) chronological priority. Suppose the LXX order is original. It does not seem easy to explain the later MT order by means of (later) theological principles. Namely Joel, Obadiah and Jonah being ripped from the group of five, from in between Micah and Zephaniah, and Joel being placed between Hosea and Amos, and Obadiah with Jonah being placed in between Amos and Micah. At the same time, if the MT order is original, we have to give reasons as to why the order is the way it is. The difference is that the original order should be explained in the light of the Twelve as a whole, not as a displacement of the three books in the already existing order. Lastly, the MT order of the Twelve could probably be understood best within the framework of all Writing Prophets. Wenzel points to an interesting phenomenon: Obadiah and Jonah are always together, in MT as well as LXX. How could that be explained? Wenzel does not think it is a coincidence. He gives reasons to support the hypothesis of a ‘Two prophetic book of dissimilar brothers (Obad – Jonah)’. Obadiah and Jonah were not added separately to the (developing) Twelve Prophets Book,23 they were added both together and simultaneously. With this, he shifts the focus of possible changes within the Twelve from a later time to an earlier phase, one where the Twelve were still being developed. That is why we should take a brief moment to consider the development of the Writing Prophets before their final state. We have to broaden that question by not limiting ourselves to the Twelve, because how could we be sure, that a distinction between Minor and Major Prophets, in the process of assembling the prophets, was already present? We could date various books of Minor Prophets (Hosea, Amos, Micah), on the basis of headings, as being contemporary to Isaiah. We can consider that time, the second half of the eighth century B.C., as an uprising of prophetic proclamation and development of prophetic books. If someone or an institution gathers prophetic books (for the first time), would it not make sense that he/it would put all available prophets together, even if Isaiah is considerably larger than the others? What happened to this growing collection of prophetic books and when did this process stop? We could look at the end of this process. According to 2 Macc 2:13– 14 Nehemiah had founded a (temple) library, wherein also ‘the scriptures of prophets’ lay. Those scriptures were scattered by the Jews around 167 B.C. to keep them out of the hands of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who would surely destroy them. Approximately three years later, they were gathered by Judas Maccabeus. This testimony covers the collection of books of both Nehemiah and of Judas Maccabeus. They are one and the same. If we date the closing of the collection by 23 Ibid., 206.

132

Hendrik J. Koorevaar

Nehemiah around 420 B.C. and the dispersal and recollection by Judas around 160 B.C., we can conclude that the collection remained the same (and unchanged) for 260 years. Perhaps Nehemiah’s collection was a continuation of the collection of (canonical) books in the first temple. What was the situation like before Nehemiah? At the end of his age, Daniel possessed a collection of (canonical) books, including the book of Jeremiah (Dan 9:1–2). There is a considerable chance that this was a collection of prophetic books, or it might have been a collection of all (canonical) books that were finished in his time. When we return to the beginning, the writings of the prophets stem from the time of the first prophet, possibly as far back as the ninth century B.C. As soon as someone gets his hands on copies of at least two books, he has to think about their order if he wants to keep them. A first order begins. If another book is added to ‘the shelf ’, the existing order can either be retained or changed. There are different options as for how to order books. I would like to list various options, whereof some of them might have never played a role. Others are named in the OT research. 1. A chronological order. 2. An arrangement by name (of the prophets). 3. An order based on a distinction between Judean or Israelite prophets. 4. An order determined by the size, from large towards small. 5. An order determined by (theological) themes, like the day of YHWH. 6. An order influenced by keyword links. It is possible that two or more ordering principles were used, and that during the development the ordering principles as well as the order were modified. When it became clear that the collection of prophetic books was complete and that the Prophet Canon would be closed, the canonical editors could establish a last and definitive order. To achieve this, they could even do interventions and leave their traces. The addition of chapter 52 at the end of the book of Jeremiah and Jeremiah’s position at the beginning of the Prophet Canon point in that direction. See ‘3.2. The Order of the Major Prophets’. That intervention could mean that the original order was changed but that must not be the case. If the already present collection was the one Daniel had (Dan 9:1–3), it is possible that Jeremiah was already at the beginning of his collection. When Daniel was old, at the end of his life, the last three Minor Prophets still had to be written and added to the whatever collection existed. The same is true for Daniel’s collection for which someone else would later be responsible. Are the only two possible reasons for the identical transmission in MT and LXX, either chance or common and simultaneous insertion into the (developing) Twelve-Prophet-Book? With the last choice, we are discussing a time and a process of which we have hardly any information. If my train of thought above about possible changes to the classification are correct, Wenzel’s proposition gets

The Twelve and the Fifteen

133

even riskier. However, there is another explanation, in which we discuss a time not before, but long after the final canonical collection. The people who are responsible for the order of the Twelve and for the order of the whole Prophet Canon in the LXX were guided by a chronological principle. That is why Joel was removed from after Hosea and Obadiah – Jonah from after Amos, and all three were put after Micah. There were no reasons to change the order of those three at the same time. In that change, the responsible people were even guided by a certain conservatism. The main chronological idea of MT and the order of the three (Joel, Obadiah, Jonah) remained intact. The same was true for the two prophets who would have followed (Nahum, Habakkuk) until the next (and later) dated prophet Zephaniah. The people responsible for the order were in fact very conservative. Possibly they saw themselves as chosen to restore the presumed original chronological order, without having any other goals. If that was the case their motto would have been: ‘What we are able to keep, we keep.’ The time difference between the explanations for the reasons about the constant order of Obadiah – Jonah in MT and LXX is rather big: 8th century before CE, common insertion during the development of the Twelve, the 4th century after CE, after the (definitive) change of the order of the Twelve by LXX, wherein the unit Obadiah-Jonah remained. I wish to close with the idea of chronological clustering within the Twelve in MT. Zenger writes: “The arrangement of the twelve books follows the chronological framework given by the headings of the individual books themselves and/or as explicitly or implicitly assumed in the book.”24 After that, he cites the heading of every prophet in the century in question: 8th century, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah; 7th century, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah; 6th century, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Zenger is not really satisfied. “This chronological order necessarily does not correspond with all of the books’ actual chronological classification or date of origin, as is assumed with today’s historical knowledge.”25 So, not only is a tension present, but there is a contradiction. Because the books Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, and Malachi do not contain dates in their headings, we must try to date those books using different measures. Those measures could be indications from the content and also the position of these books in the order of the Twelve. Zenger dates the book of Jonah back to the 4th century, while he acknowledges, that Jonah the son of Amittai has to refer to the prophet in 2 Kgs 14:25, who could, in turn, be linked to Jeroboam II (2 Kgs 14:23–29). There is no compelling argument against the idea that the book of Jonah was written in Jonah’s time, yes, even by Jonah himself. It is actually the first option within the frame of 24 Erich Zenger u. a., Christian Frevel (ed.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament (8th ed.; KStTh 1,1; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2011), 623. 25 Ibid., 624.

134

Hendrik J. Koorevaar

the Writing Prophets. The order of the Twelve points into a direction, that the editors of the canon were convinced, that the prophets were active starting from the 8th (HK: 9th) century until the 6th (HK: 5th) century B.C. and that the Prophet Canon (of the Twelve) was being closed after Malachi, the last prophet. We could question the date attributed to Malachi in the sixth century. He does succeed the two prophets at the end of the sixth century, but just because there is no heading with a date, does not mean Malachi could not be active as a prophet considerable time after those two, say the fifth century. As for the prophet Joel, this book does not have to be dated as late as the 4th century B.C., like Zenger does.26 There are even arguments he acted in the 8th-9th century.27 If that is the case the question remains why not he but Hosea is put at the beginning of the Twelve. To put Joel first seems the logical choice because the order of the Twelve seems to mainly be determined by a chronological principle. That question is hard or impossible to answer within the phenomenon of the Twelve as an independent or finished book.28 If we look to all Fifteen Writing Prophets however, we do have some arguments. See the end of ‘4.1. Opportunities with the Disappearance of the Boundaries between the Major and Minor Prophets’.

3.4

The Phenomenon of the Twelve as One Book

In Sirach (180 B.C.), in ‘Praising of Wisdom of the history of Israel’ (44:1–50:24) the (writing) prophets are mentioned in a certain order: Isaiah (48:22), Jeremiah (49:7), Ezekiel (49:8) and the Twelve (49:10). According to Zenger, this is the order of the prophets in the Hebrew Bible, wherein the Twelve as one book was already an established concept.29 Because the phenomenon of the Twelve is regarded as something canonical, OT scholarship applies literary-theological methods to this block as a whole. What follows serves as an example. Duane L. Christensen shows us:30

26 Ibid., 639. 27 For example, Carl Friedrich Keil, Die zwölf kleinen Propheten (BCAT; Leipzig: Dörffling and Franke, 1888), 120–7; Wilhelm Möller, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Zwickau: Johannes Herrmann, 1934), 132–4; Milosˇ Bicˇ, Das Buch Joel (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1960), 106–8; Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody Press, 1973), 292–5. 28 Zenger, Einleitung, 624–5. 29 Ibid., 622–3. 30 http://www.labuschagne.nl/articles/Thetwelveasamenorah.pdf, 2016 . Labuschagne presents in this one document the study of Duane L. Christensen as well as his own.

135

The Twelve and the Fifteen

The Book of the Twelve in a Menorah Pattern A Israel’s unfaithfulness and God’s judgment B Day of Yahweh – the enemy from the north C Israel and the nations – judgment and hope X Yahweh’s “vengeance”: destruction and salvation C’ Rebuilding the Temple in Jerusalem B’ Day of Yahweh and the restoration of Judah A’ Day of Yahweh – against Judah and the nations

Hosea-Malachi Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah-Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi

We can ask why a block of six books in the centre has the same counting weight as the six other books separately. Was this done to arrive at a menorah with seven arms, so that Twelve become seven? Labuschagne tried to interpret this centre block. 2nd Level Menorah: The “Vengeance” of Yahweh Obadiah–Malachi A Day of Yahweh – against Edom and Judah Obadiah B Salvation of Nineveh Jonah C Salvation of Israel Micah X Confession of faith (cf. Exod 34:6–7) Mic 7:18–20 C’ Destruction of Nineveh Nahum B’ Destruction of Judah Habakkuk A’ Day of Yahweh – against Judah and the nations Zephaniah

We can ask why the last three verses of Micah are an independent unit as well as part of the preceding unit, so that six becomes seven. Both graphs do not convince me, whether together or apart. This brings us to the question: Is the acceptance of the phenomenon of the Twelve in itself not the problem? Maybe regarding the Twelve a unit was something not intended. The Talmud (450 A.D.), B. Bat. 14b–15a, has the following order: Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Isaiah and uses the term the Twelve after that, without listing the twelve prophets by name. The Masoretes used the Aramaic title ‫ ְסַפר ְתֵּרי ֲע ַשׂר‬the book of the Twelve. The Twelve are considered as one work by the expression book in singular, and yet the number twelve is maintained. There is a tension or even a contradiction in the title and with it in this phenomenon. At the end of each Book of the Twelve there is a Masoretic note about ‫ְסכוּם‬ ‫ ַהפּסוִּקים ֶשׁל ֵסֶפר‬the number of verses of (the) book, but at the same time in each book the Masoretic centre is absent (‫ ֶחְציוֹ‬and its centre). The Masoretic centre, however, is mentioned in every book in the Hebrew Bible after the number of verses, save for the books of the Twelve. At the end of the Twelve, the total number of verses is mentioned for all of the Twelve, as well as the Masoretic centre of the total Twelve (Mic 3:12). The Masoretic treatment of the Twelve is inconsistent. Physically, it is

136

Hendrik J. Koorevaar

one book, intellectually there are twelve books.31 The book of the Twelve is a block of books, not one book. It is a smaller block within the bigger block of the Prophets. How correct is the Masoretic tradition in regard to this smaller block? Why was it created? Some speculations follow. 1. There was a practical need to bundle small books, because small books made it harder to keep track of the canon. A book like Obadiah is really small! That is why the Writing Prophets consisted of four books, and together with the Former Prophets a block of eight was formed. 2. There was a need to regard Israel with its twelve tribes as one nation. This number was perfect for unifying the Twelve to one book. At a later time, similar things took place a couple of times. As an example, the Megillot or Five Scrolls are five totally different books, but later they were put together for liturgical reasons. Maybe the size played a role; the five are small after all. The bundle of the Megillot was numerically not considered as one book, however, in contrast to the Twelve, who were. This, however, did not change the consequences. The creation of the Megillot in the Middle Ages caused the knowledge of the earlier established order to deteriorate and eventually the new order overruled the old one. The later practical order dominated the earlier original and was not common knowledge anymore within the majority of Judaism. The book of the Twelve is not a book that was originally designed around the time where the canon was closed. It is a later creation. This was not the intention of the original canonical editors of the Prophet Canon, consisting of fifteen books. When OT research considers this demarcation as genuine, it exposes itself to potential wrong conclusions when studying the Twelve because they utilize a perspective that is too narrow. As a result, the perspective on the Prophet Canon as a joint literary unit is lost. Some questions about the Twelve can only be answered when looking at them from a broader perspective, in particular Hosea which was appointed as the first book of the Twelve, while it originally did not have the function of a first book.

31 John Barton, “What Is a Book? Modern Exegesis and the Literary Conventions of Ancient Israel,” in: Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel: Papers Read at the Tenth Joint Meeting of the Society for Old Testament Study and het Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland en België Held at Oxford 1997 (ed. Johannes C. de Moor; OtSt 40; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 1–14; Kathryn Gutzwiller, “Comments on Rolf Rendtorff,” in Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas (ed. John F.A. Sawyer; JSOTSup 227; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 36–9 (37).

The Twelve and the Fifteen

137

4.

The Fifteen Prophets in Its Entirety

4.1

Opportunities Because of the Disappearance of the Separation between the Major and Minor Prophets

Because of the tradition of the Twelve, there is a large gap between the Twelve and the prophets that come before it. Furthermore, there is an additional barrier because Ezekiel was considered to be the last prophet of the Major Prophets, instead of the testimony of the Talmud that shows that Isaiah is the last. In the Talmud tractate B. Bat. 14b (450 A.D.),32 there is a debate going on about the position of Hosea. The authors do not sum up the names of the twelve prophets, but refer to some of them that are relevant to the discussion. Because Hosea was already a part of the Twelve, there was a debate about it being positioned as the first. The debate was influenced by the striking introduction in 1:2. ‘The beginning of the word of YHWH by Hosea’. It was concluded that because of the use of the word beginning, Hosea would have to be the first.33 Four prophets in the same period were mentioned, being Hosea, Isaiah, Amos and Micha. Isaiah was put in second place, even though in the Talmud he comes before the Twelve, and therefore before Hosea. This is in so far understandable because the prophecies of Hosea end before the downfall of Israel in 722 B.C., while the events and prophecies in Isaiah 36–39 happened around 701 B.C. It looks like the rabbis of the Talmud are thinking historically and are uncomfortable with the order. They seem to try and give theological reasons for that order. The arguments for the position are, in my opinion, far-fetched. The Talmud has no solid solution on the position of Hosea. However, the observation that four prophets were prophesying in the same period of time is right and a valuable observation. By viewing all of the fifteen prophets as the final decisive size, we can be freed from the harness of the Twelve that points to Hosea as the absolute beginning of research. Why did the finalizers of the canon put Hosea after Isaiah, why not Amos or Micah, prophets that, according to the heading, originated in the same period of time? I will provide arguments from the research about the theological importance of Hosea as a start of the Twelve and the chiastic connections with Malachi at the end of this article. These arguments have showed up after the Twelve had been accepted. But exactly at that point I have my doubts. Is there any importance left whether Hosea would connect to another prophet before him?

32 http://halakhah.com/rst/nezikin/33a%20-%20Baba%20Basra%20-%202a-35b.pdf. 33 Hans Möller translates 1:2 as: ‘The beginning, that YHWH spoke, happened to Hosea’ (Alttestamentliche Bibelkunde [Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1986], 276). This would imply that Hosea was the first of the prophets. It would also affect the chronological order of the prophets.

138

Hendrik J. Koorevaar

There must have been other factors at play. I will now give some considerations. Some are on the level of conjectures. 1. The headings must have played an important role. Starting from Isaiah, the question is which prophets best fit according to the heading. What factors could have been decisive? a. The first king in Isaiah is king Uzziah. We read about Uzziah in Hosea and Amos, but he is not mentioned in Micah. The first king in Micah is king Jotham. That is why we should focus on Hosea and Amos. b. The second king mentioned in Isaiah is Jotham. Jotham is mentioned in Hosea, but is not present in Amos. c. The third and fourth king mentioned in Isaiah are Ahaz and Hezekiah. They are mentioned in Hosea, but again are not present in Amos. They are however mentioned in Micah. Conclusion: Amos only covers the start of Isaiah; after mentioning the first king, there is no more mention of others. Micah only covers the end of Isaiah; the last three kings are mentioned, but the first is not. The headings of Hosea cover all four kings of Judah. Therefore, it is understandable that Hosea is most consistent with Isaiah and follows after Isaiah. 2. There is a similarity between the names of the prophets. Both in Isaiah(hu) ׁ ֵ֙ ‫ הוֹ‬salvation, the root verb is ‫ ישע‬to save. ׁ ַ ְ ‫ י‬YHWH saves and Hosea ‫שַ֙ע‬ ‫שְע ֫יָהוּ‬ There is a clear similarity in meaning and sound. In the history of Israel there is a remarkable wordplay in the name Hosea. The name of Joshua, son of Nun ׁ ֵ֙ ‫ הוֹ‬Hosea. However Moses changed that to ‫שַע‬ ׁ ֻֽ ‫ יְהוֹ‬Joshua, YHWH was also ‫שַ֙ע‬ saves. The names Joshua and Isaiah(hu) have the same meaning. The difference is that the name of YHWH is in front in Joshua’s name and in the end of Isaiah(hu). The changing of the name with the same root might very well have played a role in the connection between these two prophets in the finalizing process of the canon. 3. Isaiah and Hosea had to give their children extraordinary names. God uses those names in the message that their fathers have to bring to the people. Isaiah has a son with the name Shear-Jashub a remnant will return (Isa 7:3) and Maher-shalal-hash-baz the spoil speedeth, the prey hasteth (8:1–4). He and his children are signs unto Israel (8:18). There is no mention of the first son being named by God, but the text talks about God wanting Isaiah to take him to Ahaz to send a message. The name of the second son is God-given. The names of the children of Hosea are all three provided by God. Jezreel God sows Lo-Ruhamah no pity and Lo-Ammi not my people (Hos 1:3–12). The names of the children of both children are ambiguous: negative but with a possibility to turn positive.

The Twelve and the Fifteen

139

4. Similarities within Isaiah and Hosea, both in content and theologically. It is possible to find similarities and investigate the importance of the findings. I would be hesitant with arguments like those. Research has shown that it is possible to find theological and content connections in many prophets. The question is whether the findings in those areas would be of great importance. I would not say it is methodologically wrong, but the similarities would have to be really strong before we can accept results of this area of research. And the question remains what is the value of it when each book itself was originally autonomous. In this case, the question is why Hosea came after Isaiah instead of Amos or Micah. What is the effect of the connection between Isaiah and Hosea after the previous prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel? We need to understand the function of Isaiah to answer this question. Firstly, in the time of Isaiah the fall of Judah was not happening, but the fall and exile of the northern kingdom of Israel (7:7–9; 36:19 compare 2 Kgs 17:3–6). We are seeing an already experienced exile like in Ezekiel. Secondly, the major threat in Isaiah is Assur, but Isaiah prophesied that not Assur, but Babel, would be fatal to Judah (Isa 39:5–7). Thirdly, Isaiah saw the fall of Babel at a time where Babel was no threat; he introduced the Persian king Kores (Isaiah 13; 44:28–45:6) by whom Judah would be freed from the exile in Babel and be allowed to return to Jerusalem.34 Isaiah has imagined the exile in Babel and addresses his peers in Jerusalem. They already received the perspective on the exile in Babel, but now receive the perspective on the end of the exile (Isaiah 40–55). Therefore, Isaiah does not only live in Jerusalem around 700 B.C. but also prophetically in the later Babel of 540 B.C. He is there at the beginning in Babel (Isaiah 39) as well as at the end (Isaiah 40–55). In the canonical order, Isaiah turns the historical line and pulls it back a century and a half. Through the superscription there is a bridge from Isaiah to Hosea, where Judah is expanded with Israel. Isaiah pays no attention to the fall of Israel, but Hosea specifically focuses on Israel, and Israel and Judah are both discussed. The first four prophets function also in pairs: JeremiahEzekiel are the two prophets that have experienced the fall of Judah by Babel. Isaiah and Hosea are the two prophets that experienced the fall of Israel by Assur. This takes us to the total line of the Fifteen. In the next paragraph, I want to discuss the chronological aspects of this line. In the paragraphs following after that I will discuss the theological implications of the Fifteen in its entirety. A 34 Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles underline that Kores is the decisive liberation king (Ezra 1:1– 4; 2 Chr 36:22–23). The author of Chronicles closes with Kores as the last ruler of God in the canon. Kores is the fulfilment of Jeremiah. Jeremiah and Kores are in line with each other. Jeremiah gets the first say, and Isaiah, who introduced Kores, gets the final word.

140

Hendrik J. Koorevaar

characteristic trait of the relationship within the Prophet Canon is the theological event of exile. I will shortly introduce that here and elaborate that later. First the three major prophets of the exile are discussed: going to and are in exile. After that the nine prophets from before exile and finally the three prophets after exile. This will give us a new insight on the surprising turns that the chronological order of prophets take.

4.2

The Exile and Numerical Structure of the Fifteen

The Fifteen Prophets are made up out of the three ‘Major’ and the twelve ‘Minor’ prophets, where both the three and the twelve’s headings show that they are very similar. See ‘2. The Size of the Prophet Canon’ about the reasons why from a literary point of view the Writing Prophets originally must have formed an own block. All the books in the Old Testament contain indications that the authors purposely constructed their books in a literary artistic way. This could also have happened during the finalizing of the canon, when the prophetic books were put in their definite place. The start of Jeremiah with the redactional addition (51:64b; 52:1–34) points in that direction. The end of that addition in Jeremiah 52:31–34 is similar to the end of the book of Kings, 2 Kings 25:27–30. The closing part of Jeremiah has a unique feature: ‘till the day of his death’ (Jehoiachin). Because of that addition the book of Jeremiah does not only function as the start of the Prophet Canon but also as a continuation of the previous Henneateuch or Priest Canon (Genesis-Kings). The authors of the Old Testament used literary techniques to draw attention to a large variety of important features in their work. One of those is the technique of the centre. In the Fifteen, the book of Jonah is the centre. Through that technique, the Writing Prophets are structured as 7 + 1 + 7 = 15. Around the centre (Jonah) there are seven books. This phenomenon is also known within the numerical analysis of the Old Testament. Jonah is unique as a prophet because it is entirely a narrative. The story itself is unique as well. The position of Jonah in the middle of the Fifteen points to the fact that those who finalized the canon purposely put Jonah in the numerical middle and pointed to Jonah as the central prophet. It has been acknowledged that the final three prophets Haggai – Zachariah – Malachi come after the exile and the nine previous prophets Hosea until Zephaniah come before. We can see those three as into and in exile. For the first two this is obvious. Ezekiel was in Babel when Jerusalem was conquered. Jeremiah was sent to Egypt later. But what about Hezekiah? He lived before the Babylonian exile, but he did have a message to king Hezekiah about the coming exile (Isaiah 13; 40–55). Yet there is something else. In the time of Hezekiah and Isaiah all cities of Judah were occupied by Assur (1:7–9; 36:1) and the inhabitants were taken into captivity.

141

The Twelve and the Fifteen

The intention of Assur was to take the inhabitants of Jerusalem captive as well (36:16–17). Previously Assur conquered Samaria, the capital of Israel, which brought the northern state of Israel to an end. The residents were taken captive (2 Kgs 17:1–6). In the time of Isaiah and Hezekiah all of Israel and Judah was in exile, except Jerusalem. So, the fate of the sons of Hezekiah and of Jerusalem was set (Jes 39:5–8). With that we can view Isaiah as the prophet into and in exile, even without Isaiah technically being part of it. Isaiah addresses Jerusalem in chapter 40:1–11. The inhabitants knew about the exile from Isaiah 39:5–8. After the death of Hezekiah they would be exiled to Babel. Chapter 40 shows that the exile will come to an end. The message of the joyful messenger of Jerusalem especially brought this message to the cities of Judah (40:9b), whose inhabitants were in exile in Assur. Therefore, the future exiles of Jerusalem are connected with the current exiles of the cities of Judah. After that, Jacob/Israel is addressed (40:27). One can claim that Jacob/Israel is used as a parallel to Judah. In my opinion it is more likely that it is addressed to the entire nation of Israel. They have also gone into exile. That brings us to three groups of people in exile: Northern Israel (Assur), the people from the cities of Judah (Assur) and the people from Jerusalem (in the future by Babel). All exiles are addressed together. The message of comfort is for all, and the point of focus for all is Jerusalem.

4.3

Structure of the Fifteen in Schedule

If we use all elements previously provided, the following pattern emerges:

7

15

1

7

Jeremiah Ezekiel Isaiah Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zachariah Malachi

3

into and in exile

9

before exile

3

after exile

4 1 4

142

Hendrik J. Koorevaar

I want to look at these groups from the position of the world powers that played a role regarding exile or that formed a threat to the independence of Israel and Judah. The first three prophets (Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Isaiah) focus on exile by Babel and Assur. The independence of Judah (and Israel) as a sovereign state is lost because of the exile. Because of Jonah positioned in the centre, two groups of four prophets from before exile emerge. In the first group of four (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah) mainly minor powers around Israel form a threat.35 The second group of four (Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah) is under threat by the major powers Assur and Babel.36 Regarding the last three prophets (Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi) Juda has returned to its own land, under control of Persia. The prophets show a focus on the building of the temple (Haggai), the construction of Jerusalem (Zechariah) and on Israel as a holy people (Malachi). The last prophetic message ends with a threat: God will strike the land (and bring a new exile) (Mal 3:24). The Prophet Canon is enveloped between the previous exile and the threat of a new exile. Earlier messages have a remaining meaning for returned Judah. With Jonah in the centre, the threatening power (Nineveh/Assur) has become the power under threat. God threatens. Only a prophet of God from Israel can save her. Naturally there are many more messages found in the Fifteen than exile and return, though it seems like the finalizers of the canon want to use this message as a theological overarching view for the Fifteen in its entirety.

4.4

Jonah as the Centre of the Fifteen

The number fifteen has a central number, number eight. That would be the book of Jonah. Jonah is the literary centre of the Prophet Canon. The book in its entirety is different from the other books; it is a narrative. Theologically the book 35 In Joel the focus is on Tyre, Sidon and Philistia (Joel 3:4–6). Amos is about Aram/Damascus, Philistia, Edom, Ammon (Amos 1). Obadiah is about Edom. Hosea does not mention a minor power as a threat to Israel or Judah. Assur however is mentioned. The book Hosea can be seen as a weak point in the semantic arch of minor powers for the first four Minor Prophets. Yet we can say the following. Israel does at that time refuse to see Assur as a threat, but as a political power with whom it can cooperate. Israel tries to get help occasionally from Egypt or Assur (5:13; 7:11; 12:2). The exile is mentioned (9:17), and Egypt and Assur are mentioned as well (9:3). Assur is a power to which the Israelites pay taxes (8:8–10; 10:6). The king of Assur is introduced as the coming king of Israel (11:5b). Maybe the Israelites are quicker to view Aram/Damascus as a minor threatening power. This happened during the time of Jeroboam II (Hos 1:1b / 2 Kgs 14:15–29). 36 Micah presents Assur as the greatest danger (Mic 5:4–5). Nahum prophesies over the destruction of Nineveh, the capital of Assur (2:8; 3:7, 18). Habakkuk points to the threat of the Chaldees and their fall (Hab 1:6; 2:8). Zephaniah mentions minor powers like Philistia, Moab and Ammon (Zeph 2:4–11) as well as Kush (Ethiopia) and Assur and Nineveh (Zeph 2:12–15).

The Twelve and the Fifteen

143

of Jonah is also very different from the other fourteen. This shows that Jonah was purposefully put in the centre of the Prophet Canon. The order of the other prophets before the exile had to point to this central point. The book of Jonah contains the command to a representative of the priesthood of Israel to bring the message of God to Nineveh, a huge city during those times. Due to his unwillingness, the prophet was to be destroyed: ‫ ְתּ֖הוֹם י ְס ְֹבֵ֑בנִי‬depths surround me (Jonah 2:6ab).37 In the centre of all the prophets there is a book concerned with the basic task of Israel: to be a blessing to all the nations. The Israelite prophet is shown to be the problem. The struggle for salvation of the nations is therefore connected to the struggle of YHWH with the spiritual quality of His people, who are to fulfil his command. Nineveh was quicker to listen than Jonah. Also, other scholars have given Jonah a central place in a literary perspective, though from different points of departure. 1. At the end of an article about critical redactional analysis of Obadiah, Weimar writes a paragraph about the origins of the book of the Twelve Prophets.38 According to him before the exile in Babel there was a collection of prophetical writings with Hosea and Amos on one side, and Micah and Zephaniah on the other. The book of Jonah was written to create a literary connection of these four books. Thus a ‘Deuteronomistic’ collection emerged: Hosea + Amos – Jonah – Micah + Zephaniah. Is this compatible with my proposal? Not really. In this view, Jonah was written to take a central and connecting place in these five. But the position disappeared when the Twelve further developed. Ongoing redactions, certainly the final redaction, no longer had knowledge of that. The later developments have not been able to keep this starting point. A central prophet is also not possible with the number of twelve. The supposed goal and final product are no longer in unity. But if Jonah’s centrality was such an important value, would the responsible persons not watch over it during the further development? This is a reason to doubt that an original collection of five ever existed. 2. According to Lescow Jonah is in the middle of the first nine minor prophets.39 37 Jonah consists of three major parts: narrative-prayer-narrative. 1. 1:1–2:1. Calling of Jonah and his flight to Tarshis; 2. 2:2–10. The prayer of Jonah inside the fish; 3. 2:11–4:11. Calling of Jonah and his preaching in Nineveh. Jonah 2:6ab is the central point of the book of Jonah. See Hendrik J. Koorevaar, “He and His Prayer Are Central: The Macrostructure of the Book of Jonah and Its Position in the Fifteen Writing Prophets” (forthcoming). 38 Peter Weimar, “Obadja. Eine redaktionskritische Analyse,” BN 27 (1985): 35–99 (4.2. Die Buchwerdung des Zwölfprophetenbuches, 96–9). 39 See Theodor Lescow, Das Buch Maleachi. Texttheorie – Auslegung – Kanontheorie. Mit einem Exkurs über Jeremia 8,8–9 (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1993), 186–7: “Jedem der vier vorexilischen, im dtr Titel mit Zeitangaben versehene Prophetenbücher wird ein nachexilisches ohne Zeitangabe im Titel zugeordnet, in der ersten Gruppe linear, in der dritten Gruppe konzentrisch: die nachexilischen Bücher werden gerahmt durch die vorexilischen. Auf diese

144

Hendrik J. Koorevaar

1 Hosea Joel 2 Jonah Amos Obadiah

3 Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah

This is not identical, but definitely compatible with my proposal that Jonah is the centre of the Fifteen, because Jonah is also the centre of the nine prophets before the exile.

4.5

Other Structural Connections within the Fifteen

As we have seen earlier, Jonah is in the middle, with seven prophets to the left and seven to the right. With the three prophets in the beginning (into and in exile) and the three prophets at the end (after exile) the seven prophets before Jonah have the pattern 3 + 4 = 7 and the seven that come after 4 + 3 = 7. They are numerically mirrored. Are the finalizers of the canon trying to indicate that the contents are mirrored in some way as well? When we take a look at the first seven prophets before Jonah, Jeremiah would be the first and Obadiah the last. Now some verses in Jer 49:7–22 and Obad 1–21 about Edom are almost identical. More specifically Jer 49:14–16 and Obad 1bb–4. The other prophecies about Edom in these books are very different from each other. In Old Testament research, the question has been asked which prophet has used the words of the other and when Obadiah was written. The answers differ.40 Because Edom functions as an inclusion, it seems like we should deal with these prophecies all together, where similar verses are functioning as a priority. It is also of importance to see the internal context of Edom in Jeremiah or Obadiah. Jeremiah 49:7–22 is within a segment about prophecies against the nations, 46:51 started by 46:1 and ended by 51:64b. It is focused on Egypt (46:2–28), the Philistines (47:1–7), Moab (48:1–47), the Ammonites (49:1–6), Edom (49:7–22), Damascus (49:23–27), Kedar + (49:28–33), Elam (49:34–39), and Babel (50:1– 51:64a). There are nine, of which Edom is the fifth and thus in the middle. Because Obadiah is a prophecy about Edom in its entirety according to the heading there can be no question of an internal context as found in Jeremiah. If we consider 15–21 about all the nations as a separate unit within Obadiah, then even there the mount of Esau is mentioned. We can look at the previous book, Weise gelangt das Buch Zeph mit seinem dtr Teil an das Ende der Sammlung “vorexilischer” Prophetie. Die didaktische Erzählung des Buches Jona bildet die Mitte der Sammlung.” 40 Weimar, “Obadja,” 35, n. 2: “Im ganzen hat das Problem der Verwandtschaft von Ob und Jer 49,7–22 die Diskussion (HK: über entstehungsgeschichtliche Erklärungsversuche) eher gehindert als gefördert; eine Reihe grundlegender methodischer Fragen und Voraussetzungen einer vergleichenden Analyse blieben dabei ungeklärt.”

The Twelve and the Fifteen

145

Amos. In the beginning, it talks about the judgement on the neighbours of Israel and Judah as well as Israel itself: Damascus (Amos 1:2–5), Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Ekron, the rest of the Philistines (1:6–8), Tyre, with a mention of Edom (1:9–10), Edom (1:11–12), the Ammonites (1:13–15), Moab, with the crime to the king of Edom (2:1–3), Judah (2:4–6), Israel (2:7–16). Seven are discussed, where Edom is the centre, being the fourth. If we look at the order of Amos – Obadiah, we can see the prophecy of Obadiah about Edom as a further elaboration of Amos 1:9–10. Furthermore, in Malachi, the last of the seven prophets after Jonah, Edom is mentioned at the beginning (Mal 1:2–5). In Micah, the start of the seven prophets after Jonah, Edom is not mentioned. Edom is present in the prophets in Jer 49:7–22, Ezek 25:12–14; 35:1–15, Isa 34:1–17, 63:1–6, Amos 1:11–12, Obadiah 1–21, and Mal 1:2–5. He is mentioned in the first three prophets (into and in exile), in Amos and Obadiah (before exile), and in Malachi (after exile). Edom as the people of Esau and the mountain of Esau is an important theological subject. On one hand Edom is Israel’s neighbouring country (Esau, Jacob) and on the other hand it is their greatest enemy out of all the other enemies. Edom is a connotation for other hostile nations. (Isa 34:1–5; 63:1–6). This is also prevalent in the play upon words ‫ ֱאדוֹם‬Edom and ‫ָאָדם‬ Adam, man, mankind. In Jer 49:15 the ‫ גּוֹי ִם‬nations are parallel to ‫ ָאָדם‬man(kind). This happens in the light of the prophecy on Edom in Jer 49:14–16, the similar verses to Obad 2–4.

5.

Summary and Conclusions

The Book of the Twelve Prophets as unified block was not created during the time of the completion and closure of the Hebrew canon; rather it was a later selection of twelve books inside the already existing canon of the Writing Prophets consisting out of fifteen books. Each of the fifteen has the same (numerical) value, even if there are big size differences between them. The difference between Major and Minor Prophets based on a quantitative criterion is a hindrance rather than a contribution to understanding the Fifteen as a whole. The authoritative witness of the Talmud by Jeremiah – Ezekiel – Isaiah testifies to the order of the three Major Prophets during the time of the closure of the Prophet Canon. In the design of the Writing Prophets, Jeremiah received deliberately the function as head and beginning. The editorial addition of Jeremiah 52 highlights this function. Jeremiah 52:31– 34 as the closure of Jeremiah 52 is exactly the same as 2 Kgs 25:27–30 in the foregoing book of Kings, and with this book also of the foregoing block of Genesis – Kings (Enneateuch, Priest Canon). With its ending about the Judean

146

Hendrik J. Koorevaar

king Jehoiachin, there is a bridge between these two canon blocks, by which Jeremiah at the beginning of the Prophet Canon functions as a continuation of the foregoing Priest Canon. This continuation is underlined by a small difference in the last verse of both books (2 Kgs 25:30, Jer 52:34). In Jeremiah is inserted: ‘Until the day of his death’. These words are missing in Kings. By the later addition of chapter 52, the book of Jeremiah, at the head of the Writing Prophets, functions also as a key for the authentic value of all fourteen following prophets. By his editorial remark in Jer 51:64b, the editor wanted to distinguish clearly and sharply between his own Weiterschreibung (continuous writing) in chapter 52 and the foregoing words of Jeremiah: ‘Thus far the words of Jeremiah’. This strikes against the widely accepted idea of later Weiterschreibung of prophetic books by unknown persons in the spirit of the prophet. According to the hypothesis of Weiterschreibung, a continuing writer would deliberately cover his additions in order that they could not be detected by (later) readers. The introduction of Jer 51:64b to the addition of chapter 52 shows the contrary. When an addition is occurring, then it is clearly marked as such. In the Writing Prophets, there is only one Weiterschreibung (Jer 51:64b–52:34). The consequence is that the total Prophet Canon, including the Twelve, is an anthology and not the product of a complicated and interactive formation history. By accepting the Fifteen as unity, relations can now be seen, which could not possibly be observed within the Twelve, especially the relation between Isaiah and Hosea, who prophesised during the same Judean kings. MT could keep the order of the Twelve that was fixed in the time of the closure of the Prophet Canon. The deviations of order in Christian codices of LXX out of the 4th century CE are caused by a need for a more consequent chronology. Hosea, Amos, and Micah are jointly put before the next undated prophets of Nahum and Habakkuk. No thematic or theological reasons need to be found behind it. The structure and the order of the Fifteen are strongly determined by the theological phenomenon of (Babylonian) exile. The first three deal with going into or being in exile (Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah), the following nine before exile (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah), and the last three after exile (Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi). With Jeremiah and Ezekiel at the beginning, prophets out of a later time are put at the head of the Fifteen, before prophets out of an earlier time. Even when afterwards the main line is heavily chronologically determined, the chronological line is submitted to the theological line, in which going into and being in exile set the beginning tune and main tune of the whole Prophet Canon. With an anthology of fifteen autonomous writing prophets in a completed canonical order, thematic and literary similarities and connections become visible, which otherwise would not have been seen. The autonomy of each prophetic book is in this way partly abrogated. Full advantage is gained by an independent pericope

The Twelve and the Fifteen

147

out of one book in connection to one or more books in the greater complex of the Fifteen, by which growing insight and deepening take place. The Prophet Canon begins in Jer 1:1–3, 4–19 and ends in Mal 3:21–24 with the threatening of destruction/exile (Jer 1:3b, 15–16) or ban (Mal 3:24) for Jerusalem and the land of Judah/Israel. By the literary principle of beginning and ending, the people of Israel that returned to the land can experience the same thing as Israel in the land before exile. The book of Jonah as eighth of the Fifteen stands in the middle of the Prophet Canon and is at the same time also the middle of the nine prophets before exile. The book as total is a narrative and so unique inside the Writing Prophets. Jonah is unwillingly to bring the message of YHWH to Nineveh. He goes to a certain extent deliberately into exile, to Tarshish, as an alternative. By the literary principle of the centre, stress is put on a member of the priest nation Israel, who refuses to make known the way of YHWH to the nations, which is a main reason for the existence of Israel. As foreign mariners throw Jonah into the sea, his doom is clear for himself: ‫ ְ ְתּ֖הוֹם יְס ְֹבֵ֑בנִי‬The depth closed me round about (Jonah 2:6ab). This is the central colon in his prayer of 2:2–10, between the two narratives in 1:1– 2:1 and 2:11–4:11. YHWH saves three parties because of his merciful love: 1. Foreign mariners, servants of other gods. They were threatened with destruction by a storm. Their salvation is prepared by asking Jonah to pray to his God. Through Jonah’s judgment they make acquaintance with the authority of YHWH over the storm and over the sea. They fear Him and serve Him by bringing Him ‫ זֶַבח‬sacrifice and ‫ נֵֶדר‬vow (1:16). 2. The Israelite prophet Jonah on his way to his deliberate exile in Tarshish. Jonah is drowning. YHWH saves him by a big fish. His salvation is prepared by Jonah’s admittance of his guilt to the foreign mariners. Jonah will ‫ זֶַבח‬sacrifice and will pay what he ‫ נַָדר‬vowed to YHWH (2:10). The quality of his vow is tested in his conversation with YHWH after the salvation of Nineveh. Jonah is angry, YHWH has mercy. 3. The inhabitants of the foreign big city of Nineveh. The proclaimed destruction does not happen. Their salvation is prepared by fasting and calling to God. There are seven books before and after Jonah. They are structured as 3 + 4 ||1|| 4 + 3. Until now I cannot find indications in the content of the fourteen books that they have to be read chiastically as 3–4 ó 4–3. In the first block of seven books (Jeremiah – Obadiah) we can see the judgment of Edom in Obad 1–21 and Jer 49:7–22 (and with it of all nations) as the encompassing message. By threatening exile and ban at the beginning and the ending of the Fifteen, and by the drowning Jonah in the centre, the Prophet Canon gives a structural theological message to future generations of Israel. They will experience the same destruction when they leave the ways of YHWH. But they can reckon on the same

148

Hendrik J. Koorevaar

mercy as Jonah, who confessed to foreigners that he was disobedient to YHWH and had no right to live any more. Each generation of Israel becomes then a new chance, together with the nations on earth.

Andrew E. Hill

A Theology of Prayer in the Book of the Twelve

1.

The Minor Prophets and the Book of the Twelve

The essay is titled: “A Theology of Prayer in The Book of the Twelve.”1 The phrase, “Book of the Twelve,” is a Hebrew designation for the books or booklets commonly known as the Minor Prophets (cf. Sir 49:10).2 Jewish tradition, based upon the interpretive approach known as midrash halakah (i. e., story-telling exegesis), assumed the collection of Twelve Prophets was arranged to tell a particular “story” or trace a “plotline” about the nation of Israel. Several unifying stories may be extracted from the Twelve Prophets. One example is Marvin Sweeney’s understanding that the Twelve “present a sequence of books that emphasizes divine purpose in relation to the fate of Jerusalem.”3 A plotline traces the theological message of a select Old Testament book or collection of Old Testament books. Several theological themes or messages may be identified as plotlines unifying the Twelve Prophets. For example, from a negative perspective, the message of covenant failure leading to the exiles of the Hebrew kingdoms of Israel and Judah may be traced in the Twelve Prophets. On a positive trajectory,

1 The first iteration of this paper, “A Theology of Prayer in the Minor Prophets,” was presented at the Christian Scholars Conference held June 4–5, 2014 at Lipscomb University, Nashville, TN. A revised and abridged version was recently published under the title “Prayer in the Minor Prophets (The Book of the Twelve)” in Praying with Ancient Israel: Exploring the Theology of Prayer in the Old Testament, ed. Phillip G. Camp and Tremper Longman, (Abilene: Abilene Christian University Press, 2015), 69–86. This version of the CSC paper both expands the discussion of prayer in the Twelve and develops in greater detail a theology of prayer in the Scroll of the Twelve. 2 Paul L. Redditt adopts the term “booklets” for the works within the Twelve to emphasize their brevity (“Form Criticism in Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi: From Oral Sayings to Literature,” in The Book of the Twelve and the New Form Criticism [ed. Mark J. Boda, Michael H. Floyd, and Colin Toffelmire; ANEM 10; Atlanta: SBL, 2015], 266, n. 2). 3 Marvin A. Sweeney, TANAK: A Theological and Critical Introduction to the Jewish Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 343.

150

Andrew E. Hill

the themes of return to the land of Judah, the rebuilding of the Second Temple, and the renewal of temple worship hold the message of the Twelve together.4 This essay understands the Twelve Prophets as a “scroll” or “book” in the form of an anthology of twelve prophetic booklets loosely unified by the prophetic genre, perhaps with an implied narrative or narratives structure, and a central theme, or themes.5 Petersen identifies the prophetic concept of the Day of the Lord as the dominant theme of the Minor Prophets.6 Collins recognizes several principal themes in the Scroll of the Twelve, among them: covenant-election, turning and returning, God’s justice and God’s mercy, God’s kingship, and the Temple.7 Other themes recognized in the Twelve include theodicy, the land of the promise, and the nations in relationship to Israel. Additionally, the Twelve Prophets are framed by the prophetic call to repentance, in certain instances employing similar phraseology. Notably, the first two books (Hos 6:1; 7:10; 14:1– 2; Joel 2:12–14) and the last two books of the collection (Zech 1:3–4; Mal 3:7) admonish the Hebrews to return to God and restore faithful covenant relationship with him.8 This theme or emphasis may be instructive for a theology of 4 See Andrew E. Hill, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi (TOTC 28; Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2012), 35–6. 5 Numerous and elaborate theories have been tendered to explain the compositional history and / or unity of the Book of the Twelve. For instance, Paul R. House imposes (rather artificially) Frye’s “U-shaped” comic plot on the collection (The Unity of the Twelve [JSOTSup 97; Sheffield: Almond, 1990]). Others project a lengthy period of growth and redaction in the Book of the Twelve, with the purpose of the editing to read the Twelve as one book (so Redditt, “Form Criticism in Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi,” 266–7; cf. his “The Production and Reading of the Book of the Twelve” in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve [ed. James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney; SBLSymS 15; Atlanta: SBL, 2000]). The order and independent status of the books forming the collection of the Twelve is also much discussed (e. g., see the summary of the redactional discussions in James D. Nogalski, The Book of the Twelve: Hosea–Jonah [SMBC 18a; Macon: Smyth and Helwys, 2011], 5–8. Still others question the independent status of certain books of The Twelve. On the debate over whether or not the Twelve Prophets are to be read as single book see further: Ehud Ben Zvi and James D. Nogalski, Two Sides of a Coin: Juxtaposing Views on Interpreting the Book of the Twelve/the Twelve Prophetic Books (with an introduction by Thomas Römer; Analecta Gorgiana 201; Piscataway: Gorgias, 2009). 6 David L. Petersen, “A Book of the Twelve?” in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve (ed. James D. Nogalski and Marvin Sweeney; SBLSymS 15; Atlanta: SBL, 2000), 9–10. 7 Terence Collins, “The Scroll of the Twelve,” in The Mantle of Elijah: The Redaction Criticism of the Prophetical Books (BibSem 20: Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 65. See further Norman K. Gottwald, “Tragedy and Comedy in the Latter Prophets,” Semeia 32 (1985): 83–96; and Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart (eds.), Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve (BZAW 325; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003). 8 See Mark J. Boda, “Confession as Theological Expression: Ideological Origins of Penitential Prayer,” in Seeking the Favor of God. Volume 1: The Origins of Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism (ed. Mark J. Boda, Daniel K. Falk, and Rodney Alan Werline; EJL 21; Atlanta: SBL, 2006), 27–8; and idem, “Penitential Innovations in the Book of the Twelve,” in On Stone and Scroll. Essays in Honour of Graham Ivor Davies (ed. James K. Aitken, Katharine J. Dell, and Brian A. Mastin; BZAW 420; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 391–408. Interestingly, the term

A Theology of Prayer in the Book of the Twelve

151

prayer in the Twelve Prophets since according to Seitz, prayer has the capacity to reveal God’s double-edged life with Israel – his love and commitment and his jealousy prompting judgment.9 The theme of missio Dei may be another unifying feature of the Twelve Prophets. Recently, Jerry Hwang demonstrated the value of applying the theme of missio Dei as an integrative motif in the Book of the Twelve, unifying the major themes of the Twelve.10 For Hwang the missio Dei is “the consummation of God’s cosmic rule.”11 The OT prophets generally are involved in the “sending activity” of God and their message is essentially one that calls their audiences to return or to be reconciled to God. Granted this ministry of reconciliation is directed primarily to restoring the nation of Israel in covenant relationship with the Lord. Yet, the OT prophets also had a mission to the nations, albeit a more indirect ministry. In addition to oracles of judgment against the nations found in the Twelve (e. g., Hosea, Joel, Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah), there are also oracles of healing and restoration for the nations, and the worship of God by the nations (Amos 9:11–12; Mic 4:2–4; Zech 14:16–19). Finally, it is worth noting that three, perhaps four booklets of the Twelve, make reference to the ancient Israelite confession emerging from the Lord’s autobiographical declaration in Exod 34:6–7. Joseph R. Kelly designates this as the “YHWH creed,” a relatively stable formula of God’s essential nature and character.12 The passage is cited (with some variation) in Nah 1:3, Joel 2:13 and Jonah 4:2. It is possible that Joel 3:21 [MT 4:21] and Mic 7:18–20 allude to the “YHWH creed” as well. The YHWH creed has direct implications for prophetic ministry in the book of Jonah and for penitential prayer in the book of Joel since it reveals the essential character of YHWH. Beyond this, it may have subtle

9 10 11

12

“covenant” (Heb. be˘rît), occurs only at the beginning and ending of the Twelve, perhaps reinforcing the construction of the collection as having “book-ends” (cf. Hos 2:8; 6:7; 8:1; 10:4; 12:1; Amos 1:9; Zech 9:11; 11:10; Mal 2:4, 5, 8, 10, 14; 3:1). On the booklet of Joel, with its emphasis on the fertility and infertility of the land, the repentance of the people, and God’s judgment of the guilty within and outside Israel, as the “literary anchor” for the Twelve see James D. Nogalski, “Joel as the ‘Literary Anchor’ for the Book of the Twelve” in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve (ed. James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney; SBLSymS 15; Atlanta: SBL, 2000), 91–109. Christopher R. Seitz, “Prayer in the Old Testament,” in Into God’s Presence: Prayer in the New Testament (ed. Richard N. Longenecker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 8. Jerry Hwang, “‘My Name Will Be Great Among the Nations.’ The Missio Dei in the Book of the Twelve,” TynBul 65 (2014): 161–80. Ibid., 164. Hwang adapts Michael B. Kelly’s understanding of missional in “Biblical Theology and Missional Hermeneutics: A Match Made for Heaven…on Earth?” in Eyes to See, Ears to Hear. Essays in Memory of J. Alan Groves (ed. Peter Enns, Douglas J. Green, and Michael B. Kelly; Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2010), 68. “Joel, Jonah, and the YHWH Creed: Determining the Trajectory of the Literary Influence,” JBL 132 (2013): 805–26.

152

Andrew E. Hill

implications for prayer more broadly in the Twelve since this formula describing the Lord’s basic character informs Hebrew sensibilities related to repentance and return to God, and the divine response to intercessory prayers, and petitions offered to the Lord of the Sinai covenant.

2.

Method

2.1

Definition of Prayer

A working definition of prayer is essential to any study of biblical prayer. As Samuel E. Balentine points out, a definition of prayer provides some reasonable criteria by which one can isolate specific biblical texts for analysis and discussion.13 He understands prayer most simply as “explicit communication with God.”14 Patrick Miller describes prayer as “one of the primary modes of relating the divine and the human.”15 While he does not offer a formal definition of prayer, Miller does consider prayer a human-divine dialogue or “conversation with God.”16 In each case, the definition of biblical prayer assumes God is accessible by such means. The definition of biblical prayer as communication with God or human-divine dialogue suffices for this study. Unlike Balentine, I would add other forms of prayer on the basis of this definition like the vow, the curse, and oracle seeking (including lot casting).17 Meditation is another activity that has merit as a form of communication with God and hence a category of prayer as well. This is especially the case for meditation on the Torah (Ps 1:2, 8), on God’s unfailing love (Ps 48:9), and on God’s mighty deeds of creation and redemption (Pss 77:12; 111:2). Lastly, some consideration must also be given to waiting on God in silence as another form of prayer in the OT (e. g., Hab 2:1).

13 Prayer in the Hebrew Bible: The Drama of Divine-Human Dialogue (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 30. 14 Ibid., 30 (citing Edwin E. Staudt, “Prayer and the People in the Deuteronomist” [Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University, 1980], 58). 15 Patrick D. Miller, They Cried to the LORD: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 1. 16 Ibid., 3, 33. 17 Ibid., 33 and Howard Peskett, “Prayers in the Old Testament Outside the Psalms,” in Teach Us to Pray: Prayer in the Bible and the World (ed. D. A. Carson; Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1990), 29–32.

A Theology of Prayer in the Book of the Twelve

2.2

153

Delineation of Prayer Forms

Identifying biblical prayer texts poses a challenge. One may understand prayer more narrowly as “recorded prayers, texts that preserve the actual words of a prayer.”18 The other end of the spectrum is marked by what Lockyer calls “sidelights” to prayer, texts that support the act of prayer in some fashion (e. g., mood, tone, posture, setting, ethics, etc.).19 The middle ground between “recorded prayers” and “prayer sidelights” includes reports of prayers, and texts that indicate, suggest or imply that prayer has been offered or texts that reference God’s hearing (or refusal) to hear prayer. These reports typically are characterized by the use of certain terminology, “code words” signifying prayer activity of some sort, including: “ask” (Heb. ˇsa¯’al), “seek, inquire” (Heb. ba¯qasˇ; da¯rasˇ), “cry out” (Heb. qa¯ra’), “entreat” (Heb. ha¯lâ). This study will cast the net widely ˙ and include all four prayer forms: recorded prayers, reported prayers, implied reports of prayer, and prayer sidelights. In addition, this analysis will include other channels of divine – human communication as prayer texts where appropriate, namely: the taking of vows, seeking oracles (including lot casting), the curse, and meditation.

2.3

Categories of Prayer

The lists of OT prayer types from Balentine, Miller, and Peskett have been conflated to create a representative taxonomy of prayer forms in the Book of the Twelve.20 Naturally there will be some ambiguity in classifying particular prayers given the overlap in the categories of prayer forms. Such taxonomies also raise questions related to spontaneous prayers over against prescribed prayers. Greenberg’s argument for less rigid distinctions between the two, given “the mixture of spontaneity and prescription in all social behavior,” has merit.21 The relationship of the individual prayer to the praying community also becomes a point of discussion in the categorization of biblical prayers. Seitz’s observation that in Israel’s covenant relationship with the Lord “a dialectic exists between the prayer of Everyman and the prayer of the one man” may be helpful on this

18 So Balentine, Prayer in the Hebrew Bible, 31. 19 Herbert Lockyer, All the Prayers of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959), 156. 20 Balentine, Prayer in the Hebrew Bible; Miller, They Cried to the LORD; Peskett, “Prayers in the Old Testament Outside the Psalms,” 29–32. 21 Moshe Greenberg, Biblical Prose Prayer: As a Window to the Popular Religion of Ancient Israel (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), 44.

154

Andrew E. Hill

point.22 The constraints of this forum prohibit any detailed discussion of these and related questions generated by the taxonomy of prayer types. The prayers of the Twelve Prophets are identified below according to category. 2.3.1 Distribution of Prayers in the Twelve Prophets by Type Prayers of praise (hymn, doxology, trust, thanksgiving) Jonah 2:2–9, recorded psalmic prayer of thanksgiving Hab 3:1–19, recorded psalmic prayer of thanksgiving and trust Mal 1:11, implied prayers of praise with reference to incense offerings Mal 1:14, implied prayers of adoration and worship in the “name of the Lord” being reverenced among the nations (also prayers of invocation/benediction?) Mal 3:10, implied prayers of thanksgiving with the tithe offerings Prayers of confession and penitence (including lamentation and mourning) Hosea 5:15, implied prayers of penitence when the people seek God in their misery Hosea 10:12, implied prayers of repentance in the summons to “seek the Lord” Hosea 14:2–3, recorded prayer of confession Joel 1:13, call to raise a prayer of lamentation Joel 2:12–17, call to fasting and prayers of repentance Amos 5:4, 5, 6, implied prayers of repentance in the call to “seek the Lord” Jonah 3:8–9, report of prayer of repentance Zeph 2:3, implied prayers of repentance in the call to “seek the Lord” Zeph 3:2, implied prayers of repentance in the people’s failure to “draw near” to God Zech 7:4–5, report of fasting and prayers of mourning Mal 3:14, implied prayers of lamentation accompanying mourning rites Prayers for others (intercession) Amos 7:1–9, recorded prayers of intercession Prayers for help (petition) Hosea 2:17, implied prayers for help (and praise?) to the Baals (to be removed from Israel) Hosea 7:14, report of insincere prayer for help as the people “cry out” to their gods, not the Lord Joel 2:17, recorded prayer of deliverance (as the prophet instructs the priests in what to pray) Jonah 1:5, report of petition for deliverance Jonah 1:14, report of petition for pardon Micah 3:4, implied petition for help unanswered by God Micah 7:14–17, petition for God to shepherd his people Zeph 1:2–4, implied prayers of help to Baal condemned by the prophet (instead of “seeking and inquiring of the Lord”) 22 Seitz, “Prayer in the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible,” 17.

A Theology of Prayer in the Book of the Twelve

155

Zeph 3:9, implied prayers of help (and praise?) in a coming day when the people will “call on the name of the Lord” Zech 1:12, report of prayer of petition by an interpreting angel Zech 8:21, report of prayers of help by the nations one day when they “entreat” and “seek the Lord” Zech 13:9, report of prayers of help when Israel “calls upon the name of the Lord” in a future day Mal 1:9, implied prayers of help (and praise/worship) in the exhortation to “entreat God’s favor” (also prayers of invocation/benediction?) Prayers of lament (complaint) Jonah 4:2–3, recorded prayer of lament/complaint Hab 1:2–4, recorded prayer of lament/complaint (also prayer of intercession?) Hab 1:12–17, recorded prayer of lament/complaint (also prayer of intercession?) Prayers for divine justice Amos 2:6–8; 5:10–12; 8:4–6, sidelight to prayer in link between worship and social justice Amos 4:1–4, 6–13, sidelight to prayer in the declaration that God is just in regard to the issue of theodicy Micah 3:9–12; 6:6–8, sidelight to prayer in link between worship and social justice Zeph 1:11, implied prayers questioning divine justice Prayers of blessing and curse Mal 1:14; 2:2; 3:9, reports of prayer in the form of a curse Prayers of vow-making and oath-taking Jonah 1:16, implied prayers of vow-making Nahum 1:15, implied prayers of vow-making Zeph 1:5, implied prayers of oath-taking by the god Molek condemned by the prophet Prayers of oracle-seeking Hosea 4:12, implied prayers (to Baal?) for oracle-seeking (an indictment by the prophet) Prayers of invocation and benediction Mal 1:9, 14, included in implied prayers of worship/adoration?

2.3.2 Catalog of Prayer Texts in the Twelve Prophets by Book Hosea:

Joel

implied prayers related to false worship, 2:17; 4:12; implied prayer in a summons to repentance and call to worship, 5:15; 10:12; report of insincere prayer, 7:14; recorded prayer (as the prophet instructs the people in a “sinners prayer”), 14:2–3 call to raise a prayer of lament, 1:13; call to fasting and prayer, 2:12–17; recorded prayer of deliverance (as the prophet instructs the priests in what to pray, 2:17)

156

Andrew E. Hill

Amos:

implied prayer in the call to “seek the Lord,” 5:4, 5, 6; recorded prayers of intercession, 7:1–9; sidelight to prayer in the link between worship and social justice, 2:6–8; 5:10–12; 8:4–6; sidelight to prayer in the declaration that God is just in regard to the issue of theodicy, 4:1–4, 6–13 Obadiah: no prayers in the book Jonah: report of sailors’ prayer for deliverance from the storm, 1:5; report of the sailors’ prayer seeking pardon from blood guilt, 1:14; implied prayers in the sailors offering of sacrifices and making vows, 1:16; recorded prayer of Jonah’s thanksgiving, 2:2–9; report of Nineveh’s prayer of repentance 3:8–9; recorded prayer of Jonah’s lament, 4:2–3 Micah: implied prayer in the threat of God’s refusal to hear prayer, 3:4; sidelight to prayer in the link between worship and social justice, 3:9–12; 6:6–8; prophetic liturgy (7:7–20) including a prayer of petition, 7:14–17 Nahum: implied prayer in reference to fulfilling of vows, 1:15 Habakkuk: recorded prayer of lament, 1:2–4; second recorded prayer of lament, 1:12–17; recorded prayer, a psalmic hymn of thanksgiving, 3:1–19 Zephaniah: implied prayers to the false gods Baal and Molek, 1:4–6; implied prayer questioning divine justice, 1:12; implied prayers of repentance in the call to seek the Lord, 2:3; implied prayers of help in the rebuke for not trusting in the Lord or drawing near to God, 3:2; report of prayers (of praise and help?) in the vision of all people calling upon the name of the Lord, 3:9 Haggai: no prayers in the book of Haggai, yet the prophet Haggai, along with Zechariah, makes an immense contribution to the prayer life of post-exilic Israel in mobilizing the people to rebuild the Jerusalem temple Zechariah: report of prayer of petition by an interpreting angel, 1:12; report of prayers and fasting, 7:4–5; report of nations one day entreating the Lord, 8:21; report of Israel calling on the name of the Lord in a future day, 13:9 Malachi: implied prayer in the exhortation to entreat the favour of God, 1:9; implied prayer in the reference to incense offerings (1:11) and the name of the Lord being reverenced among the nations, 1:14; implied prayers of thanksgiving with the tithe offerings, 3:10; implied prayers of lament accompanying mourning rites, 3:14; report of prayer in the form of a curse, 1:14; 2:2; 3:9

3.

Toward a Theology of Prayer in the Twelve Prophets

An exegetical and theological summary of sample biblical prayer texts from select books of the Twelve Prophets is offered below. The analysis provides the grist for identifying and developing key tenets of a theology of prayer in the Minor Prophets that conclude this study. The use of alternative terms Twelve Prophets and Minor Prophets is intentional. The former may imply an emphasis on the Hebrew Bible and an OT theology of prayer. The latter may imply a biblical theology of prayer that includes reference to the NT as well, since in Christian

A Theology of Prayer in the Book of the Twelve

157

tradition this is the historical and theological destination of the OT. This review will focus primarily on an Old Testament theology prayer. Hosea In liturgical contexts, the verb “seek” (Heb. bqsˇ, 5:15; drsˇ, 10:12), may function as a summons to worship or a call to repentance (implying prayer as an element of that religious activity).23 According to Miller, “the language of ‘seeking God’ [Heb. bqsˇ], while it may on occasion refer to prayers of petition, has in mind the broader reality of a life lived in relationship with the Lord, involving the full devotion of prayer, obedience, and righteousness.”24 Hosea’s final message is a call to repentance (14:1–3), employing the imperative verb “return” (Heb. ˇswb), following standard prophetic convention (cf. 6:1; 7:10, 16). Like Joel (2:17), the prophet actually coaches the people in prayer by delineating what they should say to the Lord (14:2–3). The sample “sinner’s prayer” consists of seven lines, including: three positive statements, three negative ones, and a concluding word of assurance: Say to him: Forgive all our sins, and receive us graciously, that we may offer the fruit of our lips. Assyria cannot save us, we will not mount warhorses. We will never again say ‘Our gods’ to what our own hands have made. For in you the fatherless find compassion. (NIV)

The emphasis on God’s capacities to forgive (Heb. ns´’), and show compassion (Heb. rhm) echoes the self-proclaimed attributes of the merciful Lord of the ˙ Sinai revelation (Exod 34:6–7). Nogalski summarizes: “the image created by this prayer is that of a pious worshiper who offers a vow/sacrifice… [one of] a changed life, a confession to YHWH, and a petition for YHWH to remove the guilt of former actions.”25 Joel Joel records, presumably, a second charge by the prophet for the people of Zion to gather for a solemn assembly. The prophet’s admonition includes a call to repentance (2:12–14) and a summons to communal lamentation (2:15–17). All are ordered to fast and join in prayer led by weeping and contrite priests. The 23 Siegfried Wagner, “‫בקש‬, biqqe¯sh,” TDOT 2:237. 24 Miller, They Cried to the LORD, 35. 25 James D. Nogalski, The Book of the Twelve: Hosea-Jonah (SHBC 18a; Macon: Smyth and Helwys, 2011), 190.

158

Andrew E. Hill

prophet even instructs the priests in what to pray – a prayer of deliverance for the sake of God’s reputation, not Israel’s: Let them say, “Spare your people, O Lord, and do not make your heritage a mockery, a byword among the nations. Why should it be said among the peoples, ‘Where is their God?’” (2:17, NRSV)

Here the prophet instructs the priests both in how to pray and what to pray. We also learn that the Lord took pity on his people and responded to their prayers of lament with the promise of deliverance from the “northern army” and restoration of his covenant blessings for the land and its people – his heritage (2:18–27). Miller notes that Joel’s call to repentance and the hope of God’s relenting and staying his judgment “are rooted in the same understanding of God’s nature that so frustrated Jonah” (cf. Jonah 4:2).26 Amos The intercessory prayer of Amos is actually a series of two short prayers in response to three visions of judgment against the northern kingdom of Israel the prophet received from the Lord God (7:1–9). In his first prayer, the prophet petitions God to stay an impending locust plague (7:2). The Lord responds to the prayer of Amos and relents (Heb. rhm), in keeping with his essential character ˙ revealed in Exod 34:6–7, thus the locust plague is averted (7:3). The second prayer is in response to a threatened shower of fire to be sent by God to destroy the land of Jacob (7:4–5). The Lord heard Amos’s prayer and relented (7:6). The third vision, a plumb line against a wall, forecasts divine judgment against the high places of Israel and the dynasty of Jeroboam II (7:7–9). There is no recorded prayer of response by the prophet to this threat of divine judgment. Miller comments that “the message of unrelenting doom that so characterized his prophecy was rooted in the reality of a situation so bad that eventually Amos could only stand mute before further visions of divine judgment, no longer able to even pray in behalf of the people (Amos 7:7–9; 8:1–3).”27 As a sidelight to prayer, Amos calls his audience to “Seek the Lord and live” (Amos 5:4, 5, 6, 14). The theological use of the verb “seek” (Heb. drsˇ) implies repentance and prayer in prophetic calls to return to God and renew covenant relationship with him.28 Miller elaborates that the use of drsˇ in Am 5:4–6, 14–15 “is instructive, for there it seems as if the expectancy is that seeking the Lord involves coming to the sanctuary for worship or inquiry, but Amos makes clear

26 Miller, They Cried to the LORD, 278. 27 Ibid., 264. 28 Cf. Siegfried Wagner, “‫דרש‬, da¯rash,” TDOT 3:298–9.

A Theology of Prayer in the Book of the Twelve

159

that the true seeking of the Lord involves a mode of moral conduct that is absent among the people.”29 Jonah The brief book of Jonah makes several references to prayer, including: a report that sailors “cried out each to his own god” in the midst of a great storm at sea (1:5). Later these same sailors cry out to the Lord seeking divine pardon from blood guilt over the act of tossing Jonah into the raging sea (1:14). The opening episode of the story concludes with the sailors offering sacrifice and making vows, presumably in the form of prayers, to the Lord (1:16). Next, the prayer of Nineveh’s repentance in response to the Jonah’s proclamation of impending divine judgment is preserved (3:8–9). Finally, the book records two prayers of the prophet Jonah (2:2–9; 4:2–3). Miller observes that prayers of people crying out to God in trouble and suffering “is one the thematic threads of Scripture.”30 The example of the sailor’s prayer in 1:14 is unusual, in that the words of the prayer are cited. The sailors’ anguished plea follows the pattern of simple Hebrew prose prayer, consisting of an address, a petition (in this case two related petitions), and a motivation for the petition. It is noteworthy that in this prayer the sailors utter the name of the Hebrew God, YHWH, for the first time. Sasson comments that this verse is the heart of Jonah’s first chapter, “for it catches the moment in which illumination finally strikes the sailors…recognizing – as they did not in v 11 – that mercy must be obtained not from the sea, but from that very God.”31 Jonah’s psalmic prayer from the belly of the great fish is usually identified as a song of thanksgiving.32 The prayer poem is framed by prose narratives that set the context of the prayer (1:17 [MT 2:1]) and the outcome of the prayer (2:10 [MT 2:11]). Portions of the poem share phraseology with the Psalter (e. g., 2:2, cf. Pss 18:6; 118:5; 120:1; 2:3, cf. Ps 42:7; 2:4, cf. Ps 31:22).33 The prayer may be outlined as follows: Jonah’s distress, 2:2–3; Jonah’s descent into the watery deep, 2:4–6a; Jonah’s deliverance, 2:6b–7; Jonah’s thanksgiving, vows, and praise, 2:8–9. Stuart claims the prayer psalm captures part of the essence of the book’s theological message, “Yahweh is a merciful God.”34 Twice the prophet makes reference to the

29 30 31 32 33

Miller, They Cried to the LORD, 36. Ibid., 45. Jack M. Sasson, Jonah, (AB 24B; New York: Doubleday, 1990), 131. See Douglas Stuart, Hosea-Jonah (WBC 31; Waco: Word Books, 1987), 468. See the discussions of “Illustrative Passages” related to Jonah’s canticle in Sasson, Jonah, 159– 215. 34 Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 473; cf. George M. Landes, “The Kerygma of the Book of Jonah,” Int 21 (1967): 3–31.

160

Andrew E. Hill

Lord’s holy temple (2:4, 7), alluding to Solomon’s prayer of dedication for the temple and its pivotal role in Israel’s prayer life (cf. 1 Kings 8). In tragic and somewhat humorous fashion, Jonah’s prayer of thanksgiving in 2:2–9 evolves into a prayer of lament in 4:2–3. Sardonically for Jonah, this is due to the prayer of repentance decreed by the king of Nineveh for animals and people alike in response to the message of divine judgment announced by this Hebrew prophet. Brueggemann comments that “it is this hallmark of divine graciousness that galls Jonah…he rebukes YHWH for being who YHWH has always been in the life of Israel…[I]t is clear that Jonah’s gratitude voiced in 2:8 has little staying power, for gratitude would have welcomed divine graciousness toward others.”35 Habakkuk The opening section of the book of Habakkuk (1:2–2:4) is identified as a “pronouncement oracle” by Hawkins, “a type of oracle that seeks to understand how God’s will is being worked out in particular human affairs.”36 Balentine describes the unit as an extended dialogue between Habakkuk and God.37 Form critical analysis debates aside, the pericope consists of two prayers of lament (1:2–4; 12– 17), each followed by a divine response (1:5–11; 2:2–4). The prophet himself ascribes his lament as a prayer of a complaint (2:1). Miller elaborates, “Habakkuk’s prayers are almost nothing but complaint to God in challenging questions.”38 The prophet concludes his prayers with the bold declaration that he will take up his post like a watchman and wait for God’s response (2:1). Habakkuk’s hymnic psalm of thanksgiving is the most extensive prayer text in the Minor Prophets (Hab 3:1–19). The heading of the composition labels the poem “a prayer” (Heb. te˘pilleh) of Habakkuk the prophet (3:1). Jonah uses the same expression to describe his cry to God from inside the fish (Jonah 2:7 [MT 2:8]). The term is a general word for prayer (in this case a sung prayer), often associated with supplications in times of crisis.39 The prayer is a pastiche of psalmic forms, containing elements of a hymn, a lament, a song of thanksgiving, and a royal psalm.40 According to Smith, the prayer is best classified as a “lit-

35 Walter Brueggemann, Great Prayers of the Old Testament (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 66–7. 36 Ralph K. Hawkins, While I Was Praying. Finding Insights about God in Old Testament Prayers (Macon: Smyth and Helwys, 2006), 136. 37 Balentine, Prayer in the Hebrew Bible, 183. 38 Miller, They Cried to the LORD, 73, 382, n. 57. 39 Francis I. Andersen, Habakkuk (AB 25; New York: Doubleday, 2001), 268. 40 Michael H. Floyd creates the term Prophetic Psalmody Script to describe this unique hybrid genre. Such poetic hybrids are often prompted by crises, as prophets and poets grasp for adequate language and form to address a critical juncture in the life of Israel – in this case the

A Theology of Prayer in the Book of the Twelve

161

urgy,” perhaps used in temple worship during fall festivals as an intercessory prayer.41 Andersen acknowledges the mix of psalm types in Habakkuk 3, but settles on the designation of hymn for the prophet’s prayer.42 Given the hybrid nature of the composition, the identification of the poem either as liturgical lament or liturgical hymn works for our purposes.43 Especially since the hymn is broadly defined as a psalm featuring a call to praise or worship God, along with a description of his praiseworthy attributes and or works. Finally, it is beneficial to recognize the epic qualities of Habakkuk’s hymnic prayer, drawing on the classic and formative themes of the Hebrew exodus from Egypt and the settlement of the land of Canaan.44 The prayer proper consists of a theophany (3:3–7), a victory hymn lauding God’s triumph over nature and the nations (3:7–15), and the prophet’s confession of trust in response to the divine revelation he has received (3:16–19a).45 While the musical notations in the superscription and subscription of the prayer indicate its probable use in temple worship, it is important to recognize the intimate connection it has with “Habakkuk’s particular experience which has dominated the first two chapters of the book.”46 Bruckner finds the main themes of the prayer poem in the refrain of v. 2: standing in awe of the Lord, as depicted

41 42

43

44 45

46

dire threat of the Babylonian invasion of Judah (Minor Prophets: Part 2 [FOTL 22; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000], 157). Ralph L. Smith, Micah-Malachi (WBC 32; Waco: Word Books, 1984), 114–5. Andersen, Habakkuk, 268. For example, Jimmy J. M. Roberts acknowledges the term ˇsigyo¯nôt in the superscription to Habakkuk’s prayer (3:1) suggests the genre of “sung prayer or lament” (Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah [OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991], 130). He finds only faint resemblance in the content of Habakkuk 3 to the Akkadian ˇse¯gu (a type of lament prayer); rather, he notes striking resemblance to an individual prayer of thanksgiving (ibid., 149); cf. Donald E. Gowan who also identifies features of the lament or complaint and the song of thanksgiving in Habakkuk 3 (Habakkuk: The Triumph of Faith in Habakkuk [Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1976], 69–70, 80–2). David W. Baker connects the prayer of Habakkuk 3 to lament or petitions psalms (Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah [TOTC 23b; Downers Grove: IVP, 1988], 68). James W. Watts comments that Habakkuk 3 is “a sophisticated text which mixes inherited generic conventions to create novel effects” (“Psalmody in Prophecy: Habakkuk 3 in Context,” in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts [ed. Paul R. House and John D. W. Watts; JSOTSup 235; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996], 209). Specifically, the melding of traditional hymnody with the lament form in order to preserve the tension between human reality and divine possibility (ibid., 213–4). See Richard D. Patterson, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah (Chicago: Moody Press, 1991), 267. Gert T. M. Prinsloo notes that form-critical scholarship typically identifies four pericopes in Habakkuk 3: prayer (v. 2), theophany (vv. 3–7), hymn (vv. 8–15), and confession of trust (vv. 16–19). Prinsloo marks two (3:1–13 and 3:14–19) or three divisions (3:1–7, 8–13, 14–19) on the basis of unit delimiters (e. g., the inclusio; see his “Reading Habakkuk 3 in the Light of Ancient Unit Delimiters,” HTS 69 [2013], article #1975, 1, 4). http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ hts.v69i1.1975. Patterson, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, 226.

162

Andrew E. Hill

in the Teman and Mount Paran theophany (vv. 3–8); recalling his mighty deeds, as rehearsed in God’s subduing of initial creation and the nations in Israel’s journey from Sinai to Canaan (vv. 9–13a); and prayerful trusting for mercy in the midst of divine wrath (vv. 13b–15), recorded in the prophet’s testimony of faithful waiting upon God (vv. 16–19a).47 Robertson understands Habakkuk’s concluding prayer as a collage, “a collecting of many images to convey an impression both of past experience and of future expectation.”48 The prophet both avows his own hope in this future expectation by his resolve to “wait” for God’s answer(s) to his complaints (2:1) and his confession that the righteous one will live by their faithfulness (2:4). In a way, Habakkuk’s prayer provides a partial answer to his questions about divine justice in the world. Armerding summarizes, “Habakkuk 1–2 appears to emphasize the human agents in the outworking of this pattern; chapter 3 reveals its inward dynamics in the sovereign agency of God, who implements the covenant through whatever earthly means he chooses. Together they form a compelling and tightly meshed testimony to the ways of God in judgment and in grace.”49

4.

What Have We Learned?

4.1

The Nature and Practice of Prayer

Not surprisingly, our study of prayer in the Twelve supports other OT prayer texts with regard to matters of time, place, posture, and gesture. Prayer is made without regard to person and takes place at any time, as well as at set times; and in any place, as well as fixed places.50 What better example of prayer unconditioned by time, place, and persons than the book of Jonah? The narrative records the spontaneous prayers of foreign sailors and a Hebrew prophet, the former at sea in the midst of raging storm, and the latter entombed in a great fish! Yet from the

47 James Bruckner, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 251. 48 O. Palmer Robertson, The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 219. 49 Carl E. Armerding, “Habakkuk,” EBC 7:520; as cited in Kenneth L. Barker and D. Waylon Bailey, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah (NAC 20; Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1999), 352. 50 Cf. Michael E. W. Thompson, I Have Heard Your Prayer: The Old Testament and Prayer (Peterborough: Epworth Press, 1996), 215–7; see also Wendy L. Widder, “Prayer in Daniel,” (pp. 135–50), and Claude Mariottini, “Prayer in 1–2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah,” (pp. 151–66) in Praying with Ancient Israel (ed. Philipp G. Camp and Tremper Longman; Abilene: Abilene Christian University Press, 2015).

A Theology of Prayer in the Book of the Twelve

163

belly of the great fish Jonah makes reference to God’s holy temple, a site of fixed prayer for the Hebrews with implications for cultic prayers at specified times. There is little direct information in the Twelve regarding the postures, gestures, and actions of prayer. One can assume the typical postures, gestures, and actions of prayers associated with the various forms of prayer were consistent with what is known about such elsewhere in the OT (e. g., prostration, Deut 9:25; bowing, kneeling, Ps 95:6; standing, 2 Chr 20:9; up-lifted hands, Ps 63:4; praying three times daily facing Jerusalem for Hebrews in the diaspora [?], Ps 55:17; cf. Dan 6:10). This would include emotive and bodily motions appropriate to the occasion, whether mourning rites, festivals, solemn assemblies or personal or national crises or good fortune. The Twelve do make references to fasting, weeping, tearing of garments, and the donning of sackcloth with respect to prayers of repentance and mourning (e. g., Joel 2:12; Jonah 3:7–8). Greenberg notes that “extemporized prayer put no store by a prescribed wording, the basis of its acceptance by God – of God being touched by it – must be the sincerity of the professions made by the prayer.”51 He further suggests this refined spirituality was rooted “in the popular experience of extemporized prayer, the spontaneous, heartfelt response to God’s presence or action.”52 Such was the nature of true prayer for the Twelve prophets, a rending of the heart (Joel 2:12), walking humbly with God (Mic 6:8), living by faith (Hab 2:4), esteeming the name of the Lord – the great King (Mal 1:14; 3:16).

4.2

The Nature of Prayers

Miller comments that prayer is most commonly understood “as a plea to God for help.”53 Prayers are people in need. This says much about the human condition, our finitude and fallenness, and the world we live in, a “crooked” world according to Qoheleth (1:15). As prayers, people are teachable and prayer is a learned practice. Both Hosea (14:1–3) and Joel (2:17) instruct or “coach” the people (and the priests) in prayers of penitence, as they issue the call to repent and return to the Lord.54 51 52 53 54

Greenberg, Biblical Prose Prayer, 50. Ibid., Biblical Prose Prayer, 51. Miller, They Cried to the LORD, 55. It is possible that the Book of the Twelve may have developed into a catechism or primer of sorts for penitence and covenant renewal, explaining, in part, the later practice of recording the Twelve on a single scroll. The Levites were called to a ministry that included the education of the people of Israel in the Torah, with appropriate worship a key component of that curriculum (cf. Deut 33:10; Mal 2:7–8). The prophets Hosea (14:1–3) and Joel (2:17) instructed priests and people in prayer, perhaps formalized in some fashion over time. The ministry of Ezra the scribe as a teacher of the Law in the later Second Temple era is well known, with

164

Andrew E. Hill

Balentine observes that prayer may serve to depict character in the prayer, or even more subtly function as a means of caricature or parody.55 The most extended recorded prayer in the Twelve is the sung prayer hymn of Habakkuk (3:1– 19). Habakkuk is portrayed as a devoted follower of YHWH, a man of faith, voicing deep trust in God and filled with awe and praise for the fame of the Lord (Hab 2:4; 3:2, 16).56 Habakkuk models courage and staunch conviction about the unrelenting evil and injustice around him as he voices his protests to God for failing to punish rampant sin. The foil of the responses to the problem of evil by prophets like Jonah and Habakkuk is broadly representative of the Hebrew people during the history of the ministry of the Twelve, especially the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles. No doubt, there are lessons for us and the Christian church in these characterizations of Jonah and Habakkuk. Balentine’s summation of Habakkuk’s example is a gem, the combination of “waiting” and “running” as “what it means for the righteous to ‘live’.”57

4.3

The Nature, Character, and Purposes of God

Even as biblical prayers may offer depiction of the character of the prayer, so prayer may also serve “as a means of delineating divine character. Not only what one says to God but also what one says about God provides insight into God’s identity.”58 And this is the whole point of theology, “pressing on to know the Lord” (Hos 6:3). The theological distillations below are representative not comprehensive, offering scaffolding for further theological reflection and development.

55 56 57 58

numerous consequent implications for Jewish pedagogy, the eventual development of the “dual” Torah, and the role of the scribe in Hebrew education (Ezra 8:1–2, 7–8). Sirach emphasizes the message of comfort and hope offered by the Twelve Prophets (Sir 49:10), indicating the continued currency of the collection for Judaism. The Talmud (B. Bat. 14b, 15a) connects the “writing” of the Twelve Prophets with the Men of the Great Assembly. Leuchter understands this as transcribing the collection into “an enduring written form…as relating to the authoritative transmission of text” (Mark Leuchter, “The Book of the Twelve and ‘The Great Assembly’ in History and Tradition,” in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations ̶ Redactional Processes ̶ Historical Insights [ed. Rainer Albertz, James D. Nogalski, and Jakob Wöhrle; BZAW 433; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012], 345). He further suggests by weaving the Twelve titular prophets into a single scroll, the rabbis discovered new dimensions of meaning between the booklets of Twelve (Leuchter, “The Book of the Twelve,” 348). This too may have contributed to the shaping of the Scroll of the Twelve as a distinctive pedagogical resource in the later biblical period. Balentine, Prayer in the Hebrew Bible, 64. Hawkins, While I Was Praying, 136. Balentine, Prayer in the Hebrew Bible, 187. Ibid.

A Theology of Prayer in the Book of the Twelve

165

The repetition of (imperative) verbs like “seek,” “draw near” in the prayer texts of the Twelve remind us that God is approachable. He desires relationship and communication with his people. God welcomes honesty and transparency in prayer, including our honest doubt and protest as expressed in prayers of lament and complaint. The so-called “YHWH creed” (Exod 34:6–7) is the theological baseline for prayer in the Twelve Prophets (and the OT for that matter). The Lord, the God of the Sinai covenant, is indeed gracious and compassionate – listening and responding to prayer, even to the extent of “relenting” at times of threatened divine judgment (cf. Isa 38:5).59 Habakkuk’s sung prayer encapsulates a theology of prayer in the Twelve Prophets, with its emphasis on standing in awe of the Lord, recalling God’s mighty deeds in the subduing of initial creation and the nations in Israel’s journey from Sinai to Canaan, prayerful trusting in divine mercy in the midst of divine wrath, and faithful waiting upon God despite the present calamity (Hab 3:1–19). The theme of repentance is extremely important in the Twelve, it frames the collection which contains numerous calls to and prayers of repentance. We know from another prophet that the Lord, the exalted One, lives with those who are contrite and humble in spirit (Isa 57:15; 66:3). We mentioned the work of Hwang and the notion of missio Dei in terms of God’s dealings with the nations in the Hebrew Prophets. Brueggemann and Hawkins rightly call attention to “internationalism” in the Twelve, including both God’s compassion for the nations and his judgment of the nations. Brueggemann comments: “Jonah wants to keep YHWH safely in his own agenda of wilful parochialism; but YHWH breaks out of every such formulation.”60 Hawkins recognizes the tension in the booklets of Jonah and Habakkuk between God’s compassion for those outside of Israel and his sovereign rule of the nations as just judge.61 The Christian church still participates in the missio Dei within that tension. The Twelve Prophets end with a report that the Lord listened and heard the conversation of those who reverenced him (Mal 3:16). This is why the faithful people of God pray, because God does listen and respond to the prayers of his people. Who knows? The Lord our God may turn and relent and leave behind a blessing (Joel 2:13–14).

59 If the themes of repentance and covenant framing the Twelve are a type of envelope construction, then the mid-point or focus of the collection may be broadly understood as the books of Jonah and/or Micah, with emphasis on the “YHWH creed” in each case. 60 Brueggemann, Great Prayers of the Old Testament, 67. 61 Hawkins, While I Was Praying, 131–2, 144–6.

Bibliography

Abernethy, Andrew T. Eating in Isaiah: Approaching the Role of Food and Drink in Isaiah’s Structure and Message. BIS 131. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Ackroyd, Peter R. “An Interpretation of the Babylonian Exile: A Study of 2 Kings 20, Isaiah 36–39.” SJT 27 (1974): 328–52. Albertz, Rainer. “Exile as Purification. Reconstructing the ‘Book of the Four’.” In Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve, ed. Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart, BZAW 325, 232–51. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. –. Exodus 19–40. ZBK.AT 2.2. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2015. Albertz, Rainer, James D. Nogalski, and Jakob Wöhrle (eds). Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations ̶ Redactional Processes ̶ Historical Insights. BZAW 433. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981. Andersen, Francis I. Habakkuk. AB 25. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Andersen, Francis I. and David Noel Freedman. Hosea. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 24. Garden City: Doubleday, 1980. Archer, Gleason L. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Chicago: Moody Press, 1973. Armerding, Carl E. “Habakkuk.” EBC 7:493–534. Baker, David W. Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah. TOTC 23b. Downers Grove: IVP, 1988. Bakhtin, Mikhail M. “Toward a Methodology for the Human Sciences.” In Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, trans. Vern W. McGee, ed. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist, UTPSS 8, 159–72. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1986. Baldwin, Joyce G. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Introduction and Commentary. TOTC. Downers Grove: IVP, 1972. Balentine, Samuel E. Prayer in the Hebrew Bible: The Drama of Divine-Human Dialogue. OBT. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. Barker, Kenneth L. and D. Waylon Bailey. Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah. NAC 20. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1999. Barton, John. “What Is a Book? Modern Exegesis and the Literary Conventions of Ancient Israel.” In Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel: Papers Read at the Tenth Joint Meeting of the Society for Old Testament Study and het Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland en België Held at Oxford, 1997, ed. Johannes C. de Moor, OtSt 40, 1– 14. Leiden: Brill, 1998.

168

Bibliography

Baumann, Gerlinde. Gottes Gewalt im Wandel. Traditionsgeschichtliche und intertextuelle Studien zu Nahum 1,2–8. WMANT 108. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 2005. –. “Die prophetische Ehemetaphorik und die Bewertung der Prophetie im Zwölfprophetenbuch.” In Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve, ed. Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart, BZAW 325, 214–31. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Beck, Martin. “Das Dodekapropheton als Anthologie.” ZAW 118 (2006): 558–81. –. Der “Tag YHWHs” im Dodekapropheton: Studien im Spannungsfeld von Traditions- und Redaktionsgeschichte. BZAW 356. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005. Beckwith, Roger T. The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985. Ben Zvi, Ehud. A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Zephaniah. BZAW 198. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991. –. Hosea. FOTL 21A/1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. –. Micah. FOTL 21B. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. –. “The Prophetic Book: A Key Form of Prophetic Literature.” In The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century, ed. Ehud Ben Zvi and Marvin A. Sweeney, 276–97. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. –. The Signs of Jonah. Reading and Rereading in Ancient Yehud. JSOTSup 367. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003. –. “Twelve Prophetic Books or ‘The Twelve’: A Few Preliminary Considerations.” In Forming Prophetic Literature. Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts, ed. James D. Watts and Paul R. House, JSOTSup 235, 125–56. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. –. “The Yehudite Collection of Prophetic Books and Imperial Contexts: Some Observations.” In Divination, Politics and Ancient Near Eastern Texts, ed. Alan Lenzi and Jonathan Stökl, ANEM 7, 145–69. Atlanta: SBL, 2014. Ben Zvi, Ehud and James D. Nogalski. Two Sides of a Coin: Juxtaposing Views on Interpreting the Book of the Twelve/the Twelve Prophetic Books. With an Introduction by Thomas Römer. Analecta Gorgiana 201. Piscataway: Gorgias, 2009. Ben Zvi, Ehud (ed.). Utopia and Dystopia in Prophetic Literature. PFES 92. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2006. Ben Zvi, Ehud and Marvin A. Sweeney (eds.). The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty First Century. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Berry, Donald K. “Malachi’s Dual Design: The Close of the Canon and What Comes Afterwards.” In Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts, ed. James W. Watts and Paul R. House, JSOTSup 235, 269–302. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Beuken, William A.M. “Jesaja 33 als Spiegeltext im Jesajabuch.” ETL 67 (1991): 5–35. Bicˇ, Milosˇ. Das Buch Joel. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1960. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. A History of Prophecy in Israel: From the Settlement in the Land to the Hellenistic Period. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983. –. Prophecy and Canon: A Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origins. SJCA 3. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977. Boda, Mark J. “Confession as Theological Expression: Ideological Origins of Penitential Prayer.” In Seeking the Favor of God. Volume 1: The Origins of Penitential Prayer in

Bibliography

169

Second Temple Judaism, ed. Mark J. Boda, Daniel K. Falk, and Rodney Alan Werline, EJL 21, 21–50. Atlanta: SBL, 2006. –. “From Fasts to Feasts: The Literary Function of Zechariah 7–8.” CBQ 65 (2003): 390–407. –. “Penitential Innovations in the Book of the Twelve.” In On Stone and Scroll. Essays in Honour of Graham Ivor Davies, ed. James K. Aitken, Katharine J. Dell, and Brian A. Mastin, BZAW 420, 391–408. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Boda, Mark J. and Michael H. Floyd (eds.). Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14. JSOTSup 370. London: T&T Clark, 2003. Boda, Mark J., Michael H. Floyd, and Colin M. Toffelmire (eds.). The Book of the Twelve and the New Form Criticism. ANEM 10. Atlanta: SBL, 2015. Bosshard-Nepustil, Erich. Rezeptionen von Jesaia 1–39 im Zwölfprophetenbuch. Untersuchungen zur literarischen Verbindung von Prophetenbücher in babylonischer und persischer Zeit. OBO 154. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1997. Bosshard, Erich and Reinhard Gregor Kratz. “Maleachi im Zwölfprophetenbuch.” BN 52 (1990): 27–46. Bowman, Craig. “Reading the Twelve as One: Hosea 1–3 as an Introduction to the Book of the Twelve (The Minor Prophets).” SCJ 9 (2006): 41–59. Braaten, Laurie J. “God Sows: Hosea’s Land Theme in the Book of the Twelve.” In Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve, ed. Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart, BZAW 325, 104–32. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. –. “That God May Heal the Land: A Liturgical Context for the Book of the Twelve.” Paper presented at the meeting of the New England Region of SBL, 2001. –. “Violence Against Earth: Moving from Land Abuse to Good Neighbor in Habakkuk.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of SBL, 2015. Brichto, Herbert C. Toward a Grammar of Biblical Poetics. Tales of the Prophets. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. Bruckner, James. Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004. Brueggemann, Walter. Great Prayers of the Old Testament. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008. Childs, Brevard S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. –. Isaiah. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Christensen, Duane L. “The Book of Nahum: A History of Interpretation.” In Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts, ed. James W. Watts and Paul R. House, JSOTSup 235, 187–94. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Cleaver-Bartholomew, David. “An Alternative Approach to Hab 1,2–2,20.” SJOT 17 (2003): 206–25. Collins, Terence. The Mantle of Elijah: The Redaction Criticism of the Prophetical Books. BibSem 20. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Coggins, Richard J. “The Minor Prophets – One Book or Twelve?” In Crossing the Boundaries. Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D. Goulder, ed. Stanley E. Porter, Paul Joyce, and David E. Orton, BIS 8, 57–68. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Conrad, Edgar W. “The End of Prophecy.” JSOT 73 (1997): 65–79.

170

Bibliography

–. “Forming the Twelve and Forming Canon.” In Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve, ed. Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart, BZAW 325, 90–103. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. –. Reading the Latter Prophets. Toward a New Canonical Criticism. JSOTSup 376. London: T&T Clark, 2003. –. Zechariah. Readings. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Cornelius, Izak. “The Lion in the Art of the Ancient Near East: A Study of Selected Motifs.” JNSL 15 (1989): 53–85. Cuffey, Kenneth H. “Remnant, Redactor, and Biblical Theologian: A Comparative Study of Coherence in Micah and the Twelve.” In Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, ed. James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney, SBLSymS 15, 185–208. Atlanta: SBL, 2000. Curtis, Byron G. “The Mas’ot Triptych and the Date of Zechariah 9–14: Issues in the Latter Formation of the Book of the Twelve.” In Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations ̶ Redactional Processes ̶ Historical Insights, ed. Rainer Albertz, James D. Nogalski, and Jakob Wöhrle, BZAW 433, 191–206. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. –. Up the Steep and Stony Road: The Book of Zechariah in Social Location Trajectory Analysis. SBLABib 25. Atlanta: SBL, 2006. –. “The Zion-Daughter Oracles: Evidence on the Identity and Ideology of the Late Redactors of the Book of the Twelve.” In Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, ed. James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney, SBLSymS 15, 166–84. Atlanta: SBL, 2000. Daniel, Dwight R. Hosea and Salvation History. BZAW 191. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990. Davis, Ellen F. Scripture, Culture, and Agriculture: An Agrarian Reading of the Bible. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Di Pede, Elena and Donatella Scaiola (eds.). The Book of the Twelve – One Book or Many. Metz Conference Proceedings 5–7 November 2015. FAT II/91. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Dohmen, Christoph. Exodus 1–18. HTKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2015. –. Exodus 19–40. 2nd ed. HTKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2012. Dozeman, Thomas B. “Inner-Biblical Interpretation of Yahweh’s Gracious and Compassionate Character.” JBL 108 (1989): 207–23. Dreytza, Manfred. “Prophetische Prophetenauslegung?” In Christus – die Quelle unserer Erkenntnis: Festschrift zum 25jährigen Jubiläum der Studienarbeit Krelingen, ed. Manfred Dreytza, 51–64. Walsrode: Geistliches Rüstzentrum Krelingen, 1998. Driver, Samuel R. An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. 5th rev. ed. ITL. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1894. Eco, Umberto. Limits of Interpretation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991. Edelman, Diana V. and Ehud Ben Zvi (eds.). The Production of Prophecy: Constructing Prophecy and Prophets in Yehud. London: Equinox, 2009. Ego, Beate. “The Repentance of Nineveh in the Story of Jonah and Nahum’s Prophecy of the City’s Destruction – A Coherent Reading of the Book of the Twelve as Reflected in the Aggada.” In Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve, ed. Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart, BZAW 325, 155–64. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Everson, Joseph A. “The Canonical Location of Habakkuk.” In Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve, ed. Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart, BZAW 325, 165–74. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003.

Bibliography

171

Fabry, Heinz-Josef. “Die Nahum- und Habakuk-Rezeption in der LXX und in Qumran.” In “Wort JHWHs, das geschah…” (Hos 1,1): Studien zum Zwölfprophetenbuch, ed. Erich Zenger, HBS 35, 159–90. Freiburg: Herder, 2002. Floyd, Michael H. “Deutero-Zechariah and Types of Intertextuality.” In Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14, ed. Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd, JSOTSup 370, 225–44. London: T&T Clark, 2003. –. “Introduction.” In The Book of the Twelve and the New Form Criticism, ed. Mark J. Boda, Michael H. Floyd, and Colin M. Toffelmire, ANEM 10, 1–15. Atlanta: SBL, 2015. –. Minor Prophets: Part 2. FOTL 22. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. –. “Prophetic Complaints About the Fulfillment of Oracles in Habakkuk 1:12–17 and Jeremiah 15:10–18.” JBL 110 (1991): 397–418. –. “Zechariah and Changing Views of Second Temple Judaism in Recent Commentaries.” RelSRev 25 (1999): 257–63. Freedman, David Noel. “Heading in the Books of the Eight-Century Prophets.” AUSS 25 (1987): 9–26. Fretheim, Terence E. Exodus. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1991. Frolov, Serge. “Is the Narrator also among the Prophets? Reading Zechariah without Presuppositions.” BibInt 13 (2005): 13–40. Gärtner, Judith. Jesaja 66 und Sacharja 14 als Summe der Prophetie: Eine traditions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Abschluss des Jesaja- und des Zwölfprophetenbuches. WMANT 114. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2006. Gerstenberger, Erhard S. “Twelve (and More) Anonyms.” In The Book of the Twelve and the New Form Criticism, ed. Mark J. Boda, Michael H. Floyd, and Colin M. Toffelmire, ANEM 10, 119–36. Atlanta: SBL, 2015. Goldschmidt, Lazarus. Der Babylonische Talmud. Achter Band: Baba Bathra / Synhedrin (1. Hälfte). 4th ed. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1996. Gonzalez, Hervé. “Zechariah 9–14 and the Continuation of Zechariah During the Ptolemaic Period.” JHS 13 (2013). Article 9. http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_ 189.pdf. Gottwald, Norman K. “Tragedy and Comedy in the Latter Prophets.” Semeia 32 (1985): 83–96. Gowan, Donald E. Habakkuk: The Triumph of Faith in Habakkuk. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1976. –. Theology in Exodus. Biblical Theology in Form of a Commentary. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994. –. Theology of the Prophetic Books: The Death and Resurrection of Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998. Green, William H. General Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1898. Repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980. Greenberg, Moshe. Biblical Prose Prayer: As a Window to the Popular Religion of Ancient Israel. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983. Grisanti, Michael A. “‫י ָם‬.” NIDOTTE 2:461–6. Guillaume, Philippe. “The Unlikely Malachi-Jonah Sequence (4QXIIa).” JHS 7 (2007), art. 15, at http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_76.pdf Gunkel, Hermann. “Jesaja 33, ein prophetische Liturgie.” ZAW 42 (1924): 177–208.

172

Bibliography

Gutzwiller, Kathryn. “Comments on Rolf Rendtorff.” In Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas, ed. John F.A. Sawyer, JSOTSup 227, 36–9. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Habel, Norman C. The Land Is Mine: Six Biblical Land Ideologies. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995. Hanson, Paul D. The Dawn of Apocalyptic. The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975. Hare, D. R. A. “The Lives of the Prophets.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 2: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works, ed. James H. Charlesworth, 379–99. Garden City: Doubleday, 1985. Hawkins, Ralph K. While I Was Praying. Finding Insights about God in Old Testament Prayers. Macon: Smyth and Helwys, 2006. Hill, Andrew E. Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. TOTC 28. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2012. –. Malachi: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 25D. New York: Doubleday, 1998. –. “Prayer in the Minor Prophets (The Book of the Twelve).” In Praying with Ancient Israel: Exploring the Theology of Prayer in the Old Testament, ed. Phillip G. Camp and Tremper Longman, 69–86. Abilene: Abilene Christian University Press, 2015. Himbaza, Innocent. “Les themes théologiques de Malachie et le concept du livre des XII Prophetès.” In The Book of the Twelve – One Book or Many. Metz Conference Proceedings 5–7 November 2015, ed. Elena di Pede and Donatella Scaiola, FAT II/91, 82–96. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. House, Paul R. “Dramatic Coherence in Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah.” In Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts, ed. James W. Watts and Paul R. House, JSOTSup 235, 195–208. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. –. The Unity of the Twelve. JSOTSup 97. Sheffield: Almond, 1990. Hwang, Jerry. “‘My Name Will Be Great Among the Nations.’ The Missio Dei in the Book of the Twelve.” TynBul 65 (2014): 161–80. Im, Yohan and Pieter M. Venter. “The Function of Zechariah 7–8 within the Book of Zechariah.” HvTSt 69 (2013): 10 pages. http://dx.coi.org/10.4102/. Ishai-Rosenboim, Daniella. “Is ’‫( יוֹם־ה‬the Day of the Lord) a Term in Biblical Language?” Bib 87 (2006): 395–401. Janzen, J. Gerald. Exodus. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997. Jeremias, Jörg. “Die Anfänge des Dodekapropheton: Hosea und Amos.” In Hosea und Amos, FAT 13, 34–54. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. –. “The Interrelationship between Amos and Hosea.” In Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts, ed. James W. Watts and Paul R. House, JSOTSup 235, 171–86. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. –. Kultprophetie und Gerichtsverkündigung in der späten Königszeit Israels.WMANT 35. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970. Johnston, Gordon H. “Nahum’s Rhetorical Allusions to the Neo-Assyrian Lion Motif.” BSac 158 (2001): 287–307.

Bibliography

173

Jones, Barry A. “The Book of the Twelve as a Witness to Ancient Biblical Interpretation.” In Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, ed. James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney, SBLSymS 15, 65–74. Atlanta: SBL, 2000. –. The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: A Study in Text and Canon. SBLDS 149. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. –. “The Seventh-Century Prophets in Twenty-first Century Research.” CurBR 14 (2016): 129–75. Keil, Carl Friedrich. Die zwölf kleinen Propheten. BCAT. Leipzig: Dörffling and Franke, 1888. Kelle, Brad E. “Hosea 1–3 in Twentieth-Century Scholarship.” CurBR 7 (2009): 179–216. Kelly, Joseph. R. “Joel, Jonah, and the YHWH Creed: Determining the Trajectory of the Literary Influence.” JBL 132 (2013): 805–26. Kelly, Michael B. “Biblical Theology and Missional Hermeneutics: A Match Made for Heaven…on Earth?” In Eyes to See, Ears to Hear. Essays in Memory of J. Alan Groves, ed. Peter Enns, Douglas J. Green, and Michael B. Kelly, 61–76. Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2010. Kessler, Rainer. Maleachi. HTKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2011. –. “Nahum-Habakuk als Zweiprophetenschrift – Eine Skizze.” In “Wort JHWHs, das geschah…” (Hos 1,1): Studien zum Zwölfprophetenbuch, ed. Erich Zenger, HBS 35, 149–58. Freiburg: Herder, 2002. –. “The Unity of Malachi and Its Relation to the Book of the Twelve.” In Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations ̶ Redactional Processes ̶ Historical Insights, ed. Rainer Albertz, James D. Nogalski, and Jakob Wöhrle, BZAW 433, 223–36. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. Klein, Anja. Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch: redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Ez 34–39. BZAW 391. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Kline, Meredith G. “The Structure of the Book of Zechariah.” JETS 34 (1991): 179–93. Knibb, Michael A. “Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 2: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works, ed. James H. Charlesworth, 143–6. Garden City: Doubleday, 1985. Koorevaar, Hendrik J. “Chronicles as the Intended Conclusion of the Old Testament Canon.” In The Shape of the Writings, ed. Julius Steinberg and Timothy J. Stone with the assistance of Rachel Marie Stone, Siphrut 16, 207–35. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015. –. “The Exile and Return Model: Proposal for the Original Macrostructure of the Hebrew Canon.” JETS 57 (2014): 501–12. –. “He and His Prayer Are Central: The Macrostructure of the Book of Jonah and Its Position in the Fifteen Writing Prophets” (forthcoming). –. “3. Ein strukturell-kanonischer Ansatz für eine Theologie des Alten Testaments als Ganzes.” In Theologie des Alten Testaments: Die bleibende Botschaft der hebräischen Bibel, ed. Hendrik J. Koorevaar and Mart-Jan Paul, 74–82. Gießen: Brunnen, 2016. –. “The Torah Model as the Original Macrostructure of the Hebrew Canon: a Critical Evaluation.” ZAW 122 (2010): 64–80. Kranz, Jeffrey. “Word Counts for Every Book of the Bible,” 2014. http://overviewbible. com/word-counts-books-of-bible/.

174

Bibliography

Krüger, Thomas. “Komposition und Diskussion in Proverbia 10.” ZThK 92 (1995): 413– 33. Labuschagne, Casper J. “The Twelve in a Menorah Pattern,” 2016. http://www. labuschagne.nl/articles/Thetwelveasamenorah.pdf. Landes, George M. “The Kerygma of the Book of Jonah.” Int 21 (1967): 3–31. Larkin, Katrina J. A. Eschatology of Second Zechariah: A Study of the Formation of a Mantological Wisdom Anthology. CBET 6. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994. LeCureux, Jason T. The Thematic Unity of Book of the Twelve. HBM 41. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012. Lee, Suk Yee. Intertextual Analysis of Zechariah 9–10: The Earlier Restoration Expectations of Second Zechariah. LHBOTS 599. London: T&T Clark, 2015. Lescow, Theodor. Das Buch Maleachi. Texttheorie – Auslegung – Kanontheorie. Mit einem Exkurs über Jeremia 8,8–9. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1993. Leuchter, Mark. “The Book of the Twelve and ‘The Great Assembly’ in History and Tradition.” In Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations ̶ Redactional Processes ̶ Historical Insights, ed. Rainer Albertz, James D. Nogalski, and Jakob Wöhrle, BZAW 433, 337–52. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. Levin, Christoph. “Das ‘Vierprophetenbuch’ Ein exegetischer Nachruf.” ZAW 123 (2011): 221–35. Lockyer, Herbert. All the Prayers of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959. Lossl, Josef. “When is a Locust Just a Locust? Patristic Exegesis of Joel 1.4 in the Light of Ancient Literary Theory.” JTS 55 (2004): 575–99. Malchow, Bruce V. “The Messenger of the Covenant in Mal 3:1.” JBL 103 (1984): 252–5. Mariottini, Claude. “Prayer in 1–2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah,” in Praying with Ancient Israel, ed. Philipp G. Camp and Tremper Longman, 151–66. Abilene: Abilene Christian University Press, 2015. Marks, Herbert. “The Twelve Prophets.” In The Literary Guide to the Bible, ed. Robert Alter and Frank Kermode, 207–33. Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1987. Mason, Rex. “The Relation of Zech 9–14 to Proto-Zechariah.” ZAW 88 (1976): 227–39. –. “The Use of Earlier Biblical Material in Zechariah 9–14: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis.” In Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14, ed. Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd, JSOTSup 370, 3–208. London: T&T Clark, 2003. –. “Why is Second Zechariah so Full of Quotations?” In The Book of Zechariah and its Influence, ed. Christopher M. Tuckett, 21–8. Burlington: Ashgate, 2003. Meyers, Carol L. and Eric M. Haggai, Zechariah 1–8. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 25B. Garden City: Doubleday, 1987. –. Zechariah 9–14: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 25C. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Miller, Patrick D. They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994. Möller, Hans. Alttestamentliche Bibelkunde. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1986. Möller, Wilhelm. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Zwickau: Johannes Herrmann, 1934. Moore, Michael S. Review of Jakob Wöhrle, Die frühen Sammlungen des Zwölfprophetenbuches. Entstehung und Komposition. CBQ 69 (2007): 566–8. Moseman, R. David. “Reading the Two Zechariahs As One.” RevExp 97 (2000): 487–98.

Bibliography

175

Mowinckel, Sigmund. Psalmenstudien 2: Das Thronbesteigungsfest Jahwäs und der Ursprung der Eschatologie. Kristiana, 1922. Nihan, Christophe L. “Remarques sur la question de l’‘unité’ des XII.” In The Book of the Twelve – One Book or Many. Metz Conference Proceedings 5–7 November 2015, ed. Elena di Pede and Donatella Scaiola, FAT II/91, 145–65. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Nogalski, James D. The Book of the Twelve: Hosea–Jonah. SHBC 18a. Macon: Smyth and Helwys, 2011. –. The Book of the Twelve: Micah–Malachi. SHBC 18b. Macon: Smyth and Helwys, 2011. –. “The Day(s) of YHWH in the Book of the Twelve.” In Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve, ed. Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart, BZAW 325, 192–213. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. –. “Intertextuality and the Twelve.” In Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts, ed. James W. Watts and Paul R. House, JSOTSup 235, 102–24. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. –. “Joel as ‘Literary Anchor’ for the Book of the Twelve.” In Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, ed. James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney, SBLSymS 15, 91–109. Atlanta: SBL, 2000. –. Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 217. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993. –. Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 218. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993. Nogalski, James D. and Marvin A. Sweeney (eds.). Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. SBLSymS 15. Atlanta: SBL, 2000. Pajunen, Mika S. and Hanne von Weissenberg, “The Book of Malachi, Manuscript 4Q76 (4QXIIa), and the Formation of the ‘Book of the Twelve’.” JBL 134 (2015): 731–51. Patterson, Richard D. Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991. Person, Raymond F. Second Zechariah and the Deuteronomistic School. JSOTSup 167. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Peskett, Howard. “Prayers in the Old Testament Outside the Psalms.” In Teach Us to Pray: Prayer in the Bible and the World, ed. D. A. Carson, 19–34. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1990. Petersen, David L. “A Book of the Twelve?” In Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, ed. James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney, SBLSymS 15, 1–10. Atlanta: SBL, 2000. Petterson, Anthony R. Behold Your King: The Hope for the House of David in the Book of Zechariah. LHBOTS 513. London: T&T Clark, 2009. –. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. AOTC. Nottingham: IVP, 2015. Pfisterer Darr, Katheryn. Isaiah’s Vision and the Family of God. LCBI. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994. Pierce, Ronald W. “Literary Connectors and a Haggai/Zechariah/Malachi Corpus.” JETS 27 (1984): 277–89. –. “A Thematic Development of the Haggai/Zechariah/Malachi Corpus.” JETS 27 (1984): 401–11. Prinsloo, Gert T. M. “Reading Habakkuk 3 in the Light of Ancient Unit Delimiters.” HTS 69 (2013), article #1975, 1, 4. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts.v69i1.1975. –. “Reading Habakkuk as a Literary Unit: Exploring the Possibilities.” OTE 12 (1999): 515– 35.

176

Bibliography

Redditt, Paul L. “Form Criticism in Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi: From Oral Sayings to Literature.” In The Book of the Twelve and the New Form Criticism, ed. Mark J. Boda, Michael H. Floyd, and Colin Toffelmire, ANEM 10, 265–84. Atlanta: SBL, 2015. –. “The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: A Review of Research.” In Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve, ed. Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart, BZAW 325, 1–26. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. –. “The Production and Reading of the Book of the Twelve.” In Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, ed. James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney, SBLSymS 15, 11–33. Atlanta: SBL, 2000. –. “Redactional Connectors in Zechariah 9–14.” In Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations ̶ Redactional Processes ̶ Historical Insights, ed. Rainer Albertz, James D. Nogalski, and Jakob Wöhrle, BZAW 433, 207–22. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. –. “Zechariah 9–14: The Capstone of the Book of the Twelve.” In Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14, ed. Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd, JSOTSup 370, 305–32. London: T&T Clark, 2003. Redditt, Paul L. and Aaron Schart (eds.). Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 325. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Rendtorff, Rolf. Das Alte Testament. Eine Einführung. 6th ed. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 2001. –. “How to Read the Book of the Twelve as a Theological Unity.” In Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, ed. James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney, SBLSymS 15, 75– 87. Atlanta: SBL, 2000. –. “Der ‘Tag JHWHs’ im Zwölfprophetenbuch.” In “Wort JHWHs, das geschah…” (Hos 1,1): Studien zum Zwölfprophetenbuch, ed. Erich Zenger, HBS 35, 1–11. Freiburg: Herder, 2002. Renz, Thomas. “The Colour Red and the Lion King: Two Studies in Nahum.” in Sprache lieben – Gottes Wort verstehen: Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese. Festschrift für Heinrich von Siebenthal, ed. Walter Hilbrands, TVGBM 17, 163–77. Gießen: Brunnen, 2011. –. The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel. VTSup 76. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Roberts, Jimmy J. M. Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991. Robertson, O. Palmer. The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Rudolph, Wilhelm. Hosea. KAT. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1966. Saebø, Magne. Sacharja 9–14: Untersuchungen von Text und Form. WMANT 34. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969. Sasson, Jack M. Jonah. AB 24B. New York: Doubleday, 1990. Satran, David. Biblical Prophets in Byzantine Palestine: Reassessing the Lives of the Prophets. SVTP 11. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Schaefer, Konrad R. “Zechariah 14: A Study in Allusion.” CBQ 57 (1995): 66–91. Schart, Aaron. “Cult and Priests in Malachi 1:6–2:9.” In Priests and Cults in the Book of the Twelve, ed. Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, ANEM 14, 213–34. Atlanta: SBL, 2016. –. “Dodekapropheton.” In Septuaginta Deutsch. Vol. 2: Psalmen bis David, 2275–86. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011. –. Die Entstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuchs. BZAW 260. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998.

Bibliography

177

Schermann, Theodor. Prophetarum vitae fabulosae. Leipzig: Teubner, 1907. Schultz, Richard L. “The Ties that Bind: Intertextuality, the Identification of Verbal Parallels, and Reading Strategies in the Book of the Twelve.” In Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve, ed. Paul R. Redditt and Aaron Schart, BZAW 325, 27–45. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Schwesig, Paul-Gerhard. Die Rolle der Tag-JHWHs-Dichtungen im Dodekapropheton. BZAW 366. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. Scolarick, Ruth. Gottes Güte und Gottes Zorn. Die Gottesprädikationen in Exodus 34,6f und ihre intertextuellen Beziehungen zum Zwölfprophetenbuch. HBS 33. Freiburg: Herder, 2002. Seow, C.L. “Hosea 14:10 and the Foolish People Motif.” CBQ 44 (1982): 212–24. Seitz, Christopher R. “Fixity and Potential in Isaiah.” In The Multivalence of Biblical Texts and Theological Meanings, ed. Christine Helmer, 37–45. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2006. –. Isaiah 1–39. IBC. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993 (Japanese trans. 1996; 2nd ed., 2003). –. “Isaiah 40–66.” NIB 6: 307–552. –. Joel. ITC. New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016. –. “On Letting a Text ‘Act like a Man’. The Book of the Twelve: New Horizons for Canonical Reading, with Hermeneutical Reflections.” SBET 22 (2004): 151–72. –. “On the Question of Divisions Internal to the Book of Isaiah.” SBLSP 32 (1993): 260–6. –. “Prayer in the Old Testament.” In Into God’s Presence: Prayer in the New Testament, ed. Richard N. Longenecker, 3–22. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. –. Prophecy and Hermeneutics: Toward a New Introduction to the Prophets. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. –. “Psalm 2 in the Entry Hall of the Psalter.” In Church, Society, and the Christian Common Good: Essays in Conversation with Philip Turner, ed. Ephraim Radner. Eugene: Wipf and Stock, forthcoming. –. “Scriptural Author and Canonical Prophet: The Theological Implications of Literary Association in the Canon.” In Biblical Method and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John Barton, ed. Katharine J. Dell and Paul M. Joyce, 176–88. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. –. “What Lesson Will History Teach? The Book of the Twelve as History.” In “Behind” the Text. History and Biblical Interpretation, ed. Craig Bartholomew, C. Stephen Evans, Mary Healy, and Murray Rae, SHS 4, 443–67. Carlisle: Paternoster; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003. –. Word Without End. The Old Testament as Abiding Theological Witness. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2005. –. Zion’s Final Destiny: The Development of the Book of Isaiah. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1991. Seybold, Klaus. Profane Prophetie: Studien zum Buch Nahum. SBS 135. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989. Smith, Ralph L. Micah-Malachi. WBC 32. Waco: Word Books, 1984. Spellman, Ched E. Toward a Canon-Conscious Reading of the Bible: Exploring the History and Hermeneutics of the Canon. NTM 34. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2014.

178

Bibliography

Spronk, Klaas. “Jonah, Nahum, and the Book of the Twelve: A Response to Jacob Wöhrle.” JHS 9 (2009), art. 8, at http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_110.pdf. Stade, Bernhard. “Deuterozacharja: Eine kritische Studie. Teil 1” ZAW 1 (1881): 1–96. –. “Deuterozacharja: Eine kritische Studie. Teil 3.” ZAW 2 (1882): 275–309. Staudt, Edwin E. “Prayer and the People in the Deuteronomist.” Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University, 1980. Steck, Odil Hannes. Der Abschluss der Prophetie im Alten Testament: Ein Versuch zur Frage der Vorgeschichte des Kanons. BThSt 17. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991. –. Die Prophetenbücher und ihr theologisches Zeugnis: Wege der Nachfrage und Fährten zur Antwort. Tübingen: Mohr, 1996. Steinberg, Julius. Die Ketuvim – Ihr Aufbau und ihre Botschaft. BBB 152. Hamburg: Philo, 2006. Steins, Georg. Gericht und Vergebung. Re-Visionen zum Amosbuch. SBS 221. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2010. Strawn, Brent A. What is Stronger Than a Lion? Leonine Image and Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. OBO 212. Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005. Stuart, Douglas. Hosea-Jonah. WBC 31. Waco: Word Books, 1987. Sweeney, Marvin A. “The Place and Function of Joel in the Book of the Twelve.” In Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve, ed. Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart, BZAW 325, 133–54. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. –. “Sequence and Interpretation in the Book of the Twelve.” In Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, ed. James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney, SBLSymS 15, 49–64. Atlanta: SBL, 2000. –. TANAK: A Theological and Critical Introduction to the Jewish Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012. –. The Twelve Prophets. Volume One. Berit Olam. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000. –. The Twelve Prophets. Volume Two. Berit Olam. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000. –. Zephaniah: A Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Tai, Nicholas H.F. Prophetie als Schriftauslegung in Sacharja 9–14: Traditions- und kompositionsgeschichtliche Studien. CThM 17. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1996. Talmon, Shemaryahu. Literary Motifs and Patterns in the Hebrew Bible. Collected Studies. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013. Thompson, Michael E. W. I Have Heard Your Prayer: The Old Testament and Prayer. Peterborough: Epworth Press, 1996. Tiemeyer, Lena-Sofia. Priestly Rites and Prophetic Rage: Post-Exilic Prophetic Critique of the Priesthood. FAT II/19. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. –. “Will the Prophetic Texts from the Hellenistic Period Stand Up, Please!” In Judah Between East and West: The Transition from Persian to Greek Rule (ca. 400–200 BCE), ed. Lester L. Grabbe and Oded Lipschits, LSTS 75, 255–79. London: T&T Clark, 2011. –. Zechariah and His Visions: An Exegetical Study of Zechariah’s Vision Report. LHBOTS 605. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. –. Zechariah’s Vision Report and its Earliest Interpreters: A Redaction-Critical Study of Zechariah 1–8. LHBOTS 626. London: Bloomsbury, 2016.

Bibliography

179

Tigchelaar, Eibert. “Some Observations on the Relationship between Zechariah 9–11 and Jeremiah.” In Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14, ed. Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd, JSOTSup 370, 260–70. London: T&T Clark, 2003. Tooman, William A. Gog of Magog: Reuse of Scripture and Compositional Technique in Ezekiel 38–39. FAT II/52. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Utzschneider, Helmut. “Flourishing Bones: The Minor Prophets in the New Testament.” In Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures, ed. Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden, SBLSCS 53, 273–92. Atlanta: SBL, 2006. Van Leeuwen, Raymond C. “Scribal Wisdom and Theodicy in the Book of the Twelve.” In In Search of Wisdom: Essays in Memory of John G. Gammie, ed. Leo G. Perdue, Bernard Brandon Scott, and William Johnston Wiseman, 31–49. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993. Vlaardingerbroek, Johannes. Zephaniah. HCOT. Leuven: Peeters, 1999. Wagner, Siegfried. “‫בקש‬, biqqe¯sh.” TDOT 2:229–41. –. “‫דרש‬, da¯rash.” TDOT 3:293–307. Wakeling, Simon. “The Minor Prophets as a Unity Developing Theodicy.” EccR 2 (2010): 124–53. Reproduced at http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/articles_ecclesia-reformanda. php. Watson, Francis. Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Watts, James W. “Psalmody in Prophecy: Habakkuk 3 in Context.” In Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts, ed. Paul R. House and John D. W. Watts, JSOTSup 235, 209–23. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Watts, James W. and Paul R. House (eds.). Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts. JSOTSup 235. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Watts, John D. W. “A Frame for the Book of the Twelve: Hosea 1–3 and Malachi.” In Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, ed. James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney, SBLSymS 15, 209–17. Atlanta: SBL, 2000. –. “Superscriptions and Incipits in the Book of the Twelve.” In Reading and Hearing from the Book of the Twelve, ed. James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney, SBLSymS 15, 110– 24. Atlanta: SBL, 2000. Weimar, Peter. “Obadja. Eine redaktionskritische Analyse.” BN 27 (1985): 35–99. Wenzel, Heiko. Reading Zechariah with Zechariah 1:1–6 as the Introduction to the Entire Book. CBET 59. Leuven: Peeters, 2011. –. “Die unveränderte Abfolge Obadja-Jona im Zwölfprophetenbuch.” In Formen des Kanons. Studien zu Ausprägungen des biblischen Kanons von der Antike bis zum 19. Jahrhundert, ed. Thomas Hieke, SBS 228, 184–208. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2013. Weyde, Karl William. Prophecy and Teaching: Prophetic Authority, Form Problems, and the Use of Traditions in the Book of Malachi. BZAW 288. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000. Widder, Wendy L. “Prayer in Daniel,” in Praying with Ancient Israel, ed. Philipp G. Camp and Tremper Longman, 135–50. Abilene: Abilene Christian University Press, 2015. Wöhrle, Jakob. Der Abschluss des Zwölfprophetenbuches. Buchübergreifende Redaktionsprozesse in den späten Sammlungen. BZAW 389. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008.

180

Bibliography

–. “The Formation and Intention of the Haggai-Zechariah Corpus.” JHS 6, article 10. http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_60.pdf. –. Die frühen Sammlungen des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Entstehung und Komposition. BZAW 360. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. –. “‘No Future for the Proud Exultant Ones’: The Exilic Book of the Four Prophets (Hos., Am., Mic., Zeph.) as a Concept Opposed to the Deuteronomistic History.” VT 58 (2008): 608–27. Wolfe, Roland E. “The Editing of the Book of the Twelve.” ZAW 53 (1935): 90–129. Wolff, Hans Walter. Dodekapropheton 1. Hosea. BKAT XIV/1. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1961. –. “‘Wissen um Gott’ bei Hosea als Urform von Theologie.” In Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament, TB 22, 182–205. München: Kaiser, 1964. Wolters, Al. Zechariah. HCOT. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. Wright, Christopher J. H. God’s People in God’s Land: Family, Land, and Property in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Wright, N.T. The New Testament and the People of God. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1992. Zenger, Erich u. a., Christian Frevel (ed.). Einleitung in das Alte Testament. 8th ed. KStTh 1,1. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2011. Zenger, Erich (ed.). “Wort JHWHs, das geschah…” (Hos 1,1): Studien zum Zwölfprophetenbuch. HBS 35. Freiburg: Herder, 2002.

Index

Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Exodus 3:12 88 3:14 90 19–34 88 19:1 88 19:4–6 88 19:7–8 89 19:10–15 88 19:18 20 20:19 89 20:21 89 24:9–11 89 24:9–10 89 32–34 83 n.27, 86, 86 n.41, 114 33 89 n.48 33:19 90 33:20 89 34:6–7 112–4, 135, 151, 157f, 165 34:6 40, 87 Leviticus 26:4 33 n.77 26:20 33 n.77 Deuteronomy 8:8 33 n.77 9:25 163 11:17 33 n.77 27:15 18 n.17 30 91 32:22 33 n.77 33:10 163 n.54

Joshua 1:7 87 Judges 3:8–10 20 n.27 5:5 20 6:4 33 n.77 17:3–4 18 n.17 17:6 90 18:14 18 n.17 18:17–18 18 n.17 21:25 90 1 Kings 8 160 2 Kings 5:26 33 n.77 14:15–29 142 n.35 14:23–29 133 14:25 108, 133 17:1–6 141 17:3–6 139 18–19 45 19:3 21 n.32 25:27–30 125f, 140, 145 25:30 125, 146 2 Chronicles 20:9 163 24:20–22 14 n.4 36:22–23 126, 139 n.34

182 Ezra 1:1–4 8:1–2 8:7–8

Index

126, 139 n.34 164 n.54 164 n.54

Psalms 1–3 98 1:2 152 1:8 152 2:3 159 2:4 159 9–10 98 18:6 159 20:2 21 n.32 31:22 159 42–43 98 42:7 159 46:4 20 n.28 48:9 152 50:15 21 n.32 55:17 163 63:4 163 67:7 33 n.77 68:9 20 69:25 20 n.29 77:12 152 78:46 33 n.77 78:49 20 n.29 85:13 33 n.77 95:6 163 111:2 152 114:4 20 118:5 159 119:21 59 n.40 120–134 98 120:1 159 146–150 98 Proverbs 24:10 21 n.32 25:19 21 n.32 Qoheleth 1:15 163

Isaiah 1:1 14 n.4, 27 n.53 1:7–9 140 1:8 127 1:15 18 n.20 2:1 27 n.54 2:12 29 n.58 2:13 20 n.27 4:4 18 n.20 5:8 18 n.19 5:11 18 n.19 5:18 18 n.19 5:20–22 18 n.19 5:25 20 n.30 6:1 46 6:5–6 127 7:3 138 7:7–9 139 7:8 127 8:1–4 138 8:18 138 9:3 20 n.27 9:6–7 55 10:5 20 n.29 10:25 20 n.29 10:26 20 n.27 11:1–5 55 11:15 19 n.26 13–23 46 13 139f 13:1 50 13:6 29 n.58 13:9 29 n.58 13:13 29 n.58 15:1 50 17:1 50 19:5 19 n.26 26:21 18 n.20 30:27 20 n.29 32–39 48 32:1–8 55 32:12–13 32 n.75 33 46–8 33:1 18 n.19 33:9 20 n.27 33:10 46

183

Index

33:17 46 33:20–21 46 33:21 46 34–39 45 34–35 45 34:1–17 145 34:1–5 145 36–39 45, 137 36–37 45f 36:1 127, 140 36:16–17 141 36:19 127, 139 37:3 21 n.32 37:32–38 127 38 45 38:5 165 39 45, 139 39:5–8 141 39:5–7 127, 139 40–66 45 40–55 43, 45, 139f 40–48 46–8 40 46, 98 n.23, 141 40:1–11 141 40:9 141 40:27 141 42:17 18 n.17 44:24–45:6 139 48:5 47 48:6–8 47 48:7 47 50:2 19 n.26 52:13 46 54:2 46 55:3 47 56 98 n.23 57:15 165 60:6 20 n.27 63:1–6 145 66:3 165 66:16–24 67 Jeremiah 1–51 125 n.17 1:1–3 147 1:1 27 n.53

1:2 126 1:3 147 1:4–9 147 1:9 127 1:15–16 147 2:34 18 n.20 4:24 20 n.28 5:6 18 n.18 5:15–17 34 n.82 5:17 32 n.75, 33 6:23 19 n.23 7:6 18 n.20 16:19 21 n.32 19:4 18 n.20 22:13 18 n.19 22:20 20 n.27 23 28, 73 25:11–12 126 26:15 18 n.20 26:20 13 29:10 126 46:1 144 46:2–28 144 47:1–7 144 48 144 49:1–6 144 49:7–22 144, 144 n.40, 145, 147 49:12 59 n.40 49:14–16 144f 49:15 145 49:23–27 144 49:28–33 144 49:34–39 144 50:1–51:64 144 50:19 20 n.27 50:42 19 n.23 51:64–52:34 146 51:64 125, 125 n.17, 140, 144, 146 52 125, 125 n.17, 126, 132, 140, 145f 52:31–34 125f, 140, 145 52:31 126 52:34 125, 146 Lamentations 2:6 20 n.29 4:21 59 n.40

184 Ezekiel 1 74 1:2 126 1:3 27 n.54 1:12 29 n.58 2:1 29 n.58 2:21 29 n.58 2:22 29 n.58 3:1–3 127 5:26–28 19 n.23 7:13 27 n.54 7:23 18 n.20 7:26 27 n.54 8–11 74 9:9 18 n.20 12:22–23 27 n.54 12:24 27 n.54 12:27 27 n.54 13 28 13:5 29 n.58 13:16 27 n.54 14:14 27 n.54 22:2–3 18 n.20 23:6 19 n.23 23:12 19 n.23 23:16 27 n.54 23:23 19 n.23 24:6 18 n.19f 24:9 18 n.19f 25–32 74 25:12–14 145 25:14 59 n.40 30:3 29 n.58 34–37 74 34 73 34:27 33 n.77 35 145 37 73–75 38–39 74, 74 n.117, 75f 38:1–2 75 40–48 74f Daniel 3:23 127 3:24 127 6:10 163

Index

9:1–3 132 9:1–2 132 9:2 126 9:3–20 126 Hosea 1–3 28, 81, 83, 85f 1:1 102–4, 142 n.35 1:2 137, 137 n.33 1:3–12 138 1:7 31 n.65 2 91 2:3 91 2:8 151 n.8 2:11–14 32 n.75 2:14–15 91 2:14 33 n.77 2:16–17 91 2:17 32 n.75, 154f 2:18–25 91 2:23–25 32 n.75 3:4–5 55 4:12 155 5:10 20 n.31 5:12 12 5:13 31 n.68, 142 n.35 5:14 12 5:15 154f, 157 6:1 150, 157 6:3 164 6:4 108 6:7–11 91 6:7 151 n.8 7:10 150, 157 7:11 142 n.35 7:14 154f 7:16 157 8:1–3 91 8:1 151 n.8 8:5 20 n.30 8:8–10 142 n.35 8:10 31 n.68 9:3 142 n.35 9:5 29 n.59 9:10–17 91 9:10 33 n.77

185

Index

9:17 142 n.35 10:1–2 91 10:1 33 n.77 10:3–4 91 10:4 151 n.8 10:6 31 n.68, 142 n.35 10:11–13 91 10:12 154f, 157 10:14 31 n.67 11 83 11:1–7 91 11:5 142 n.35 11:8 108 12 91 12:1 151 n.8 12:2 91, 142 n.35 12:10 91 12:11 27 12:13–14 91 13:1–4 91 13:4–8 91 13:11 20 n.31 14 101 n.35 14:1–3 157, 163, 163 n.54 14:1–2 150 14:2–10 41 n.8 14:2–9 114 14:2–4 83 n.25 14:2–3 154f, 157 14:5 83, 83 n.25 14:7 24 n.43 14:8 33 n.77 14:9 40 14:10 86, 108, 114 Joel 1–2 33 n.77 1 101 n.35 1:1 103f 1:2–2:17 114 1:2 28 n.54, 109, 114 1:6–7 33 n.77 1:7 33 n.77 1:12 33 n.77 1:13 154f 1:15 29 n.58

2:1 29 n.58 2:4 31 n.65 2:11 29 n.58, 109, 114f 2:12–17 154f 2:12–16 40f 2:12–14 150, 157 2:12 163 2:13–14 165 2:13 151 2:15–27 41 n.8 2:15–17 157 2:17 109, 114, 154f, 157f, 163, 163 n.54 2:18–27 158 2:22 33 n.77 3:1 28 n.54 3:4–6 142 n.35 3:4 29 n.58 4:12 129 4:14 29 n.58 4:16 104 n.47 4:21 151 Amos 1 142 n.35 1:1 14 n.4, 27 n.53f, 102, 104 1:2 104 n.47 1:2–5 145 1:6–8 145 1:9–10 145 1:9 151 n.8 1:11–12 145 1:13–15 145 1:15 31 n.66, 31 n.68 2:1–3 145 2:1 31 n.68 2:4–6 145 2:6–8 155f 2:7–16 145 2:11 109 3:1 28 n.54 3:3–8 109 3:7 109, 115 3:13 28 n.54 4:1–4 155f 4:1 28 n.54 4:6–13 155f

186 4:9 33 n.77 4:10 31 n.66 5:1 28 n.54 5:4–6 154, 156, 158 5:9 31 n.67 5:10–12 155f 5:14–15 158 5:18–20 29, 109 5:18 29 n.58 5:20 29 n.58 7:1–9 154, 156, 158 7:10–17 86 n.41 7:16 27 8:1–3 158 8:4–6 155f 8:4 28 n.54 8:11–12 27 9:4 31 n.66 9:11–12 151 9:13 20 n.28 Obadiah 1–4 144 1 104 2–4 145 3 109 12 21 14 21 15–21 144 15 29 n.58 Jonah 1:1–2:1 143 n.37, 147 1:1 27, 103f, 108 1:5 154, 156, 159 1:14 154, 156, 159 1:16 147, 155f, 159 2:1 159 2:2–10 143 n.37, 147 2:2–9 154, 156, 159f 2:2–3 159 2:2 159 2:4–6 159 2:4 160 2:6–7 159 2:6 143, 143 n.37, 147

Index

2:7 160 2:8–9 159 2:8 160 2:10 147 2:11–4:11 143 n.37, 147 2:11 159 3 85, 85 n.33 3:6–7 31 n.68 3:7–8 163 3:8–9 154, 156, 159 4:2 151, 158 4:2–3 155f, 159f 4:10–11 108 n.66, 109 4:11 84 Micah 1:1 102–4 1:2 28 n.54 3:4 154, 156 3:9–12 155f 3:10 18 n.20 3:12 45f, 48, 135 4:2–4 151 4:4 33 n.77 5:2–4 55 5:4–5 142 n.36 5:10 31 n.67 5:14 20 n.31 6–7 112 n.84 6:5 31 n.68 6:6–8 155f 6:8 163 7:7–20 113, 156 7:14–17 154, 156 7:14 113 7:18–20 113f, 135, 151 7:18 109 7:20 113 Nahum 1 17–21 1:1 22, 22 n.34, 27 n.53, 104 1:2–8 20 1:2 21 1:3 151 1:4 19f

187

Index

1:5 20 1:6 20 1:7 21, 24 n.43 1:14 18 1:15 21, 155f 2–3 17–9, 21 2:8 142 n.36 2:12–14 18 2:12 18 n.18 3 22 n.36, 31f 3:1 18, 18 n.19 3:3 31, 31 n.65 3:7 142 n.36 3:8–10 19 3:10 31 3:11 19 3:12 31, 33 n.77 3:14 31 3:18 31, 142 n.36 3:19 21, 109 Habakkuk 1–2 17–9, 32, 109, 115, 162 1:1–2:5 18, 30 1:1–2:4 160 1 21, 22 n.36, 31f 1:1 22, 104 1:2–17 34 n.81 1:2–4 34 n.81, 155f, 160 1:5–11 34 n.81f, 160 1:6 17 n.12, 142 n.36 1:8 18, 18 n.18, 31, 31 n.65 1:9 31, 31 n.66 1:10 31 1:12–17 155f, 160 1:12 12 1:14 163 1:16 32 2–3 29 2 18, 18 n.19, 29, 32 2:1 152, 160, 162 2:2–4 160 2:4 162–4 2:5–20 32 2:5 32 2:8 32, 142 n.36

2:9 19 2:12 18 2:15 18 n.17, 20 n.31, 32 2:16 19, 32 2:18 18 2:20 23f, 24 n.40 3 18–21, 32, 109, 115, 154, 156, 160, 161 n.42f.45, 162, 164f 3:1–13 161 n.45 3:1–7 161 n.45 3:1 22, 22 n.34, 160, 161 n.42 3:2 115, 161, 161 n.45, 164 3:3–8 162 3:3–7 161, 161 n.45 3:3 24 n.43 3:6 20 3:7–15 161 3:7 20, 142 n.36 3:8–15 161 n.45 3:8–13 161 n.45 3:8 19f 3:9–13 162 3:9 19f 3:10 20 3:12 20 3:13–15 162 3:14–19 161 n.45 3:15 19 3:16–19 161, 161 n.45, 162 3:16 21, 24 n.43, 32 n.72, 163f 3:17–18 32 3:17 33, 33 n.77 3:18 142 n.36 Zephaniah 1:1 17, 23, 102–4 1:2–4 154 1:4–6 156 1:5 155 1:7 23f, 29 n.58 1:11 155 1:12 156 1:14 21, 29 n.58 1:15 20 n.31, 24 n.43, 32 n.72 1:18 20 n.31 2:2–3 29 n.58

188 2:3 154, 156 2:4–11 142 n.36 2:12–15 142 n.36 2:15 109 n.71 3:1–8 26 n.49 3:2 154, 156 3:3 18 n.18 3:8 20 n.29, 26 n.49 3:9 155f 3:10–13 26 n.49 3:11–13 26 n.49 3:19–20 24 n.43 Haggai 1 85 n.33 1:1 31 n.68, 63 1:3 63 1:9 57 1:10 33 n.77 1:12 85 1:13 63 2:1 63 2:3 57 2:11 63 2:15–19 32 n.75 2:19 33 n.77 Zechariah 1–8 49–77, 85 1–6 63, 85 1–2 85 1:1–6 50, 61, 63f, 70 1:1 71 1:2–6 71 1:3–4 63, 150 1:3 58, 58 n.35, 59, 61 1:4 56, 58, 58 n.37, 61 1:6 58, 61, 85 n.34 1:7–6:15 50, 56 1:7 71, 85 1:8–6:15 71 1:12 59, 155f 1:12–17 61 1:16 58, 62 1:17 69 2 85 n.34

Index

2:1–4 70 2:2 57, 59f, 63 2:4 59f 2:5 12 2:10–17 61, 70 2:13 58f 2:14 55, 58, 60, 62 2:15–16 68 n.85 2:15 59 2:17 24 3 59, 61, 63 3:2 61 3:7 58, 60 3:8 58, 61, 129 3:9 58, 61 3:10 33 n.77 4 68 4:9 59, 69 4:10–11 62 5:3 63 5:9 69 6:1–8 85 n.34 6:7 69 6:9–15 50, 51 n.5, 61, 68, 85 n.34 6:9–14 62 6:10 31 n.66 6:13 24 n.43 6:15 59 7–14 50 7–8 50f, 61, 66, 70, 72, 85 7:1–7 66, 72 7:1–3 71 7:1 31 n.68, 85 7:2–3 85 7:2 59 7:3 72 7:4–5 154, 156 7:4 71 7:5–7 71, 73 7:7 56 7:8–14:21 66 7:8–8:17 72 7:8 71 7:9–8:17 71 7:10 60 7:11 58, 61

189

Index

7:12 56 7:14 55, 60 8:1 62 8:2 20 n.31 8:3 63 8:9 59, 69 8:12 33 n.77 8:13 63, 69 8:17 59 8:18 71 8:18–19 72 8:19 72 8:19–14:21 71 8:20–23 66, 68 n.85, 70 8:21 59, 155f 8:22–23 68 n.82 9–14 49–77, 85 9–13 65, 68 9–11 50f, 67, 69f 9:1–11:3 70 9 55 9:1–8 55 9:1–7 70 9:1 50f, 54, 62, 68f 9:2–6 70 9:5 31 n.68 9:8 55 9:9–13 67 9:9 55, 58, 60, 62 9:11–12 70 9:11 151 n.8 10:1–3 73 10:3 20 n.30, 24 n.43 11:1–3 73 11:1–2 20 n.27 11:4–14 73 11:5 58 11:6 58 11:7–17 75 11:9 69 11:10 151 n.8 11:15–16 73 11:16 58 12–14 50f, 67, 69 12–13 70 12:1–13:6 67

12:1 50f, 68f 12:7 57 12:8 63 12:13 63 13:3–4 28 n.54 13:7 69, 73 13:9 57, 57 n.33, 58, 61f, 64, 155f 14 67, 70 14:1 58, 60, 62, 64 14:2 31 n.66, 60, 69 14:5 58, 60 14:12 69 14:14 58 14:16–19 70, 151 14:21 58 Malachi 1 68 1:1 51, 53, 62f, 68, 68 n.85 1:2–2:9 65 1:2–5 64, 145 1:4–5 68 n.85 1:4 59 1:9 59, 68 n.85, 155f 1:10–11 59 1:10 57 1:11 154, 156 1:13 57 1:14 154–6 2:2 63, 155f 2:3 59–61 2:4–9 63 2:4 59, 151 n.8 2:5 151 n.8 2:6 63 2:7–8 163 n.54 2:7 59, 61 2:10 151 n.8 2:11 57, 60 2:12 57 2:14 151 n.8 3:1 62f, 151 n.8 3:2–4 68 n.82 3:2–3 57, 57 n.33, 62, 64 3:2 60, 62, 114f 3:5 60

190 3:6–12 65 3:7 58, 58 n.35, 61, 63, 150 3:9 155f 3:10 58, 61, 154, 156 3:11 33 n.77 3:12 60 3:13–21 86 3:14 58, 60, 154, 156 3:16 58, 61, 165 3:17 58 3:19 58, 61f, 64 3:21–24 147 3:22–24 29, 68 n.85 3:22 58, 61 3:23 29 n.58, 30, 58, 61 3:24 58, 142, 147 New Testament Matthew 24:15 121 Jewish and Christian Literature Additions to Daniel 3:24–90 122 n.10 13:1–63 122 n.10 14:1–42 123 n.10

Index

2 Maccabees 2:13–14 131 Sirach 44:1–50:24 134 48:22 134 49:7 134 49:8 134 49:10 119, 134, 149, 164 n.54 Qumran 1QpHab 22 n.37 4QXIIa 13 n.1, 28 n.55 4Q169 22 n.37 4 Ezra 1:38–40 1:39–40

13 n.1 24

Ascension of Isaiah 3:13–4:22 13 n.1, 14 n.3 4:22 15, 25 n.45 Baba Batra 14b–15b 38 n.2, 122, 124, 135, 164 n.54 14b 123, 137